Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 6

< 5 February	7 February >
Discussions scheduled to run until at least 11 February 2009.

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 Speedy Keep obvious WP:CORP. ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eBay

We all know what it is so an informative article not necessary. Plus several various issues with the article that I'm not willing to get into. --AfDproXX (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a joke, right? Bad faith nomination. If the article has issues, improve it. Brianyoumans (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and this user already has his level 4 warning for vandalism. Now he's got an ARV. Have fun! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and he's gone after blanking the ARV page twice. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy LOL - nice try! Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Obviously this article should be kept. But the fact that the nomination could have possibly gotten this far highlights a serious problem with the deletion process. If here were not people monitoring AFD then this article could have been deleted without proper justification. Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And no-one who's said keep has said WHY it should be kept, citing relevant wiki-policy! ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - WTF??? --128.113.195.248 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sammie Sparks

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet any guidelines. A news search turned up nothing related to her. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Flarkins (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deb (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were your reasons for voting 'Delete'? Flarkins (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maksist

Rejected speedy under G3 (Vandalism), we aren't a dictionary Patton^t/c 23:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not an encyclopedia article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, part of a pattern of vandalism by this user, and his sockuser:flojipoj Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)(sorry, forgot to sign earlier, signed now, time corrected to time of actual edit)[reply]

Further Comment, 1 article may not be vandalism, but a pattern of at least 5 ( Bloof, Flojipoj, Maksist, Klonijo, Raloy ) sure looks like vandalism to me, which was why these article were all tagged as vandalism by me. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and block user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloof

Not widely used neologism, rejected speedy deletion under G3, it isn't vandalism Patton^t/c 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not an encyclopedia article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:SNOW - might not be vandalism, but it's certainly nonsense. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, part of a pattern of vandalism by this user, and his sock user:flojipoj Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment, 1 article may not be vandalism, but a pattern of at least 5 ( Bloof, Flojipoj, Maksist, Klonijo, Raloy ) sure looks like vandalism to me, which was why these article were all tagged as vandalism by me. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. The user has already been blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry, so I'd like to motion that we delete both of these articles currently clogging the AfD discussions. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there may be a 3rd member of this set, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plamf appears to fit the pattern. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic Church of God

This article does not meet notablility requirements for organizations. Sources have been added but they are not about the article's organization. Ltwin (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement with the nominator. A Google search turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete six months in operation, plus minimal mentions in what look like statistical listings and a newsletter, aren't enough. ThuranX (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the notability standards for churches? Spinach Monster (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Gordo

Can't verify existence of charting album or song for this artist in independent reliable sources. Prod (and maint tags) removed by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charting songs, albums and artists tend to generate reliable sources by being...errr... being in the charts. No reliable sources found, although I did come across a line reading "You can check me out on Youtube and on Wikipedia." on a non reliable source. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per flowerpotman. Hadrianheugh (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google search and Label's website don't show this band. Bladeofgrass (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And the above ain't all. I checked the Canadian billboard chart site - no match. I think the entire set of entries may be bogus. I'm sure someone was amused... Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment D'ya know, I had totally forgotten that "I'm in love with my new car" was a Queen song. I can (just) remember A Night at the Opera due to an elder sibling's Queen phase and I haven't heard that song in donkey's years, althugh a quick visit to youtube has fixed that deficiency.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This artical shouldnt be deleted. he is a real singer. i have bought his album. i bought it in HMV in the mall. the artical is true. radio gordo is signed to intercope records. dont delete this page. He is a good singer. most of the album sales are going to help shut down the chinese fur farms. He is doing a concert this march. all the money from the concert is going to the WSPA. So DO NOT delet the Radio Gordo artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshm18 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said the singer or album don't exist, only that they don't meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC, which you might want to read. As to being signed by Interscope, their official list of artists doesn't mention him, and no sources have been found which show he's been signed. And being signed to Interscope would not be enough by itself to meet WP:MUSIC.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to M*A*S*H_(TV_series)#Recurring_characters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zelmo Zale

Minor character in a tv series which appears in less than the 8% of the episodes. Article contains no real world information, no references, no evidence that has any notability outside the show (and maybe not even inside the show). Very few google hits make it an non valuable search item. Even if a character's list was created probably this character would not be necessary to be included. Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character appeared in 7 seasons of a major TV series. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It made one or two short appearances every year, according to IMDB (is it reliable?). Still you give nothing to prove that this character is notable somehow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seemingly minor character with sparse appearances. Nothing found on the first few pages of Google to indicate this character has received significant (more than passing mention) coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with about six other articles of similarly minor characters that for some reason aren't being nominated into List of recurring characters in M*A*S*H, forking from M*A*S*H_(TV_series)#Recurring_characters. But the Blue-Haired Lawyer is more notable than this guy. THF (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321. well referenced. Ikip (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two references that prove that the character exists. Now we know that the character was not made up. We still don't know if it's worth an article. This kind of references is like references to newspapers writing the players of a football team in any division. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank God you are here to decide whether this and other editors contributions are worthy of being on wikipedia. These two references and the imbd page met notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per THF. I agree with Magioladitis that a trivial mention in a trivia book and a single mention in a book about the series doesn't cut it. Dimitrii (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a minor/recurring characters article. Insufficiently notable on his own. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of minor characters. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Ty 23:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Zavattieri

Non-notable artist. August prod contested and no improvement to article. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. This is basically an artist's statement with no third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cancelled_Command_&_Conquer_games#Tiberium. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberium (video game)

Cancelled Video game, all content is included in Cancelled Command & Conquer games, which is a more appropriate place for this subject. QueenCake (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge and redirect. There's nothing to merge, so just redirect it in my opinion. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, redundant. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cancelled Command & Conquer games. I do not know why this was spun out from that article in the first place. MuZemike 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Somewhat notable cancelled game. As I remember, there was a lot of hype about this game when it was announced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I just looked at Cancelled Command & Conquer games, and does anyone think that perhaps that page should be at AFD instead of this? I ask because the only sources in that article are for Tiberium. MuZemike 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a Google test[1] for one of the other games and only got 30 hits. Further, all the content (not just Tiberium's) exists in other articles already. That said, the article has encyclopedic value assuming sources exist that are invisible to Google. SharkD (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any reason why the article needs to be deleted. The sources look good. There are no NPOV issues. Etc. SharkD (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by default. One way or another this content does belong on WP, whether it's here, the other article mentioned or somewhere else entirely, but the way to organize that information is a discussion which should be held between editors trying to get the right information in the right place, not during an AFD. Someone another 19:50, 5 February 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 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as duplicate content. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Band of Brothers. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Grant (soldier)

WP:BIO/WP:ONEEVENT. Real-life soldier briefly discussed in Band of Brothers, but no notability outside of that book/film, and the three-sentence article adds nothing other than a list of page numbers where he can be found. Article tagged since 9/2007 without material improvement. There are 28 other articles in the misnamed Category:Band_of_Brothers_characters that should probably be merged at best. THF (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - a handful of references in a book and TV show aren't enough to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info (if possible) and redirect to Band O' Brothers - not enough notability for a stand-alone article, but it could be a search term every so often. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eschalon: Book I

Sources here amount to a couple of reviews, of which only one is in a reliable source, and neither actually establishes notability though they may be sufficient for inclusion in a directory (which we are not, of course). Most of the lengthy article is sourced from the game's forums, comments by BasilistWrangler, meticulously cited with namechecks by BasiliskWrangler (talk · contribs), who appears to be the developer: [2]. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the usable Mac World article already there, there's a review on Total PC Gaming (Imagine Publishing), according to GameSpot it was reviewed in three major gaming magazines: PC Zone / PC Format / Pelit. A short piece on Play This Thing by Greg Costikyan and a decent sized review on Gamezebo. There's scads of reliable sources which collectively cover it well. Someone another 02:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Metacritic lists four reviews. Moby games lists three additional reviews. SharkD (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & tag for cleanup. Per Someone another and SharkD, enough RS exist. Nom interpretation of WP:N confuses "importance" with support of WP:V MLauba (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup — sources above show that notability is easily established. MuZemike 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gore: Ultimate Soldier

An extensive article with not one relliable independent source cited, the publisher is redlinked, most of it is a game guide (WP:NOT). Guy (Help!) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 36 reviews on Game Rankings, 22 reviews on Metacritic. Even accounting for overlap, that's more than enough to create a solid reception section. Articles provided by GameSpot and IGN show enough evidence to create a development section. The subject easily meets notability requirements. Just because the article is currently underdeveloped is not a reason to bring it to AfD, consider its potential, not its current state. I'd hardly consider the article "extensive", its barely off stub levels, and the one reference it does have in the article is a reliable source. -- Sabre (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sabre. SharkD (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & tag for wikification. Per above. WP:V and WP:RS are sufficiently verified.MLauba (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup — notability easily established. However, cleanup is definitely needed to improve the tone and remove the cruft/gameguide material. Deletion not necessary here. MuZemike 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — questionable WP:RS indeed, but there's a possibility it could be improved Aurush kazemini^talk 06:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petteri Pennanen

Was appropriately prodded as "Player has never played in a fully-pro league - Finland's Veikkausliiga is only semi-pro - and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE": prod deleted as "laughable" by an editor presumably unaware of the agreed notability criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Deferring to the nom's expertise as to the level of play. If the subject indeed never played in a fully-professional league (or for a national team on a world stage - which is not asserted), then he fails WP:ATH. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- does representing his country in an under-17 or under-19 game satisfy WP:ATHLETE? If so, he passes. [3] [4]. There are also a fair few Google hits for this guy in Finnish newspapers so he might pass WP:N with or without WP:ATHLETE- but I don't understand a word of Finnish so I can't say for sure. Reyk _YO! 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:Athlete is too narrow a criteria to be applied to Finnish Premier League of Football. Yes the league is labeled semi-pro, but it still is the top flight of the nation's biggest sport by the number of participants and it's winners qualify to ECL and 2nd to UEFA Cup qualifying rounds. We would need to delete every Veikkausliiga-player if this definition of notability would be enforced. IMO that would be counter-productive. As goes for this person, he is one of the best prospects in his age group, but nothing unique. Thus the decision has to be made depending on whether one thinks Veikkausliiga players or seasoned junior national team footballers in general are notable. His achievements since transfer to FC Twente haven't yet provided any other reasons for notability. I don't think that he would pass WP:N. --Ras (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's right, of course: every other Veikkausliiga player who has no experience in a fully pro competition, no full international appearance and no other claim to notability should be deleted. So should I add Henri Aalto, Iiro Aalto, Mika Ääritalo, Heikki Aho, Joni Aho, Tuomas Aho, Aleksei Kangaskolkka, Keith Armstrong, Jani Bäckman, Bertrand Okafor, Dan-Ola Eckerman, Kalle Eerola, Jonas Emet, Xhevdet Gela, Mats Gustafsson, Petri Haapimaa, Hannu Haarala, Kasper Hämäläinen, Jani Hartikainen, Mikko Hauhia, Vesa Heikinheimo, Tapio Heikkilä, Jonni Heikkinen, Roope Heilala, Niko Heiskanen, Mika Helin, Mehmet Hetemaj, Jonne Hjelm, Jarkko Hurme, Peke Huuhtanen, Antti Hynynen, Niko Ikävalko, Wilhelm Ingves, Mikko Innanen, Izuchukwu Aniche, Anssi Jaakkola, Ville Jalasto, Petri Jalava, Toni Järvinen, Miika Jokiperä, Juha Pirinen, Kim Kaijalainen, Juuso Kangaskorpi, Teemu Kankkunen, Tuomas Kansikas, Pasi Karppinen, Kelechukwu Nnajiofor, Aapo Kiljunen, Jani Koivisto, Aleksandr Kokko, Toni Kolehmainen, Miika Koppinen, Eero Korte, Tero Koskela, Vesa Kosonen, Jussi Kujala, Jussi Kuoppala, Panu Kuusela, Lasse Lagerblom, Matti Lähitie, Mika Lahtinen, Lauri Dalla Valle, Ville Lehtinen, Jukka Lehtovaara, Jaakko Lepola, Lasse Lind, Arto Lindberg, Petri Lindberg, Patrik Lomski, Jani Luukkonen, Tomi Maanoja, Jussi Mäkelä, Mikko Manninen, Marco Matrone, Sakari Mattila, Juho Meriläinen, Petter Meyer, Henrik Moisander, Eetu Muinonen, Henri Myntti, Jaakko Nyberg, Mika Ojala, Antti Ojanperä, Jarkko Okkonen, Axel Orrström, Nicholas Otaru, Anders Överström, Mikko Paatelainen, Jarno Parikka, Kalle Parviainen, Antti Pehkonen, Eero Peltonen, Tuomas Peltonen, Joel Perovuo, Jonas Portin, Saku Puhakainen, Jami Puustinen, Sami Rähmönen, Jukka Raitala, Sami Ristilä, Erno Rosenberg, Tomi Saarelma, Jari Sara, Joonas Sarelius, Juska Savolainen, Jussi-Pekka Savolainen, Vili Savolainen, Rasmus Schüller, Shukri Tatli, Pekka Sihvola, Mikko Siivikko, Mikko Simula, Miki Sipiläinen, Juha Soukiala, Miika Takkula, Jani Tanska, Kimmo Tauriainen, Teemu Turunen, Tuomo Turunen, Lasse Väisänen, Jussi Vasara, Vesa Vasara, Ilpo Verno, Tommi Viik, Petri Viljanen, Mikko Vilmunen, Hermanni Vuorinen, Ville Wallén, Alexander Weckström, John Weckström, Kristoffer Weckström, Tommy Wirtanen, and Erfan Zeneli? Kevin McE (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, some of those played in fully-pro leagues (Tero Koskela for sure). Just because they are in the Veikkausliiga now, doesn't mean they have always been. Jogurney (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not blithely add every player from that league. I looked at all the articles, and looked to see whether those who have been attached to teams in fully pro leagues had actually played for those sides: these are the ones where there is no claim on their articles that they have done anything that would reach the standards of WP:Ath or of WP:N. Tero Koskela has played in Norway and in Finland, and neither of those nations are listed as fully pro leagues. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koskela played in the fully-pro Tippeligaen and Jarkko Hurme played in the fully-pro Serie C1. I suspect there are others that pass WP:ATHLETE as well. Jogurney (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops: I somehow missed the Tippeligaen at WP:FPL, and that would rescue a few of these, and point taken about Serie C1. I was not formally proposing them, but making the point that there are many dozens of articles in Category:Finnish footballers that do not meet the inclusion criteria for the project. Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries. I've noticed that plenty of Finnish footballer article fail WP:ATHLETE as well. I was worried that you were formally adding these to this AfD. My mistake. Jogurney (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a non-frivolous case could be made for all of those (assuming my sample of a dozen is representative) at AfD even if one considers WP:NOTLAW which seems to be being implied above. I see a problem in that these articles, for the most part, are weak on content, poorly referenced, and just don't add much value to the project. Another aspect to consider is the notability of these individuals within the context of the English Wikipedia. While I understand that English references are not a requirement for inclusion, it is quite sensible. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I never stated that WP:ATHLETE is law. The articles listed above that pass WP:ATHLETE should be improved. However, their status as a stub is not grounds for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Has only played in a semi-pro league, and youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence he has played in a fully-pro league. As it stands, the sources are not sufficient to pass WP:N either. Jogurney (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~some of these players are~~ clearly notable. ~~Need to deal with one at a time.~~ Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Nfitz seems not to have noticed my clarification of 18:27 on 7/2/09 that I am not formally adding all of those names to this AfD. Perhaps he/she could clarify his/her vote in the case of Petteri Pennanen. Apologies if I have confused the issue. Kevin McE (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search shows he easily meets WP:N which isn't surprising given that he plays in the top flight of Finnish football (even if not fully professional), and given that Football is popular there. Articles in many publications such as [5], [6], [7], and [8]. So I'll Keep the keep. Nfitz (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the definite source on whether an european football league is pro or not? Seems that the Finnish Premier League, Veikkausliiga is one of the 23 full members of the European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL). If that makes it pro, Pennanen meets the requirements of WP:Athlete. --Ras (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website you have provided Ras does not list the Veikkausliiga as a professional league - it merely lists the top leagues in Europe. And how do I know this? Well, only the Premiership is listed in England, even though the Championship, League 1 and League 2 are all fully-pro...Giant Snowman 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Football League (consists of Championship, League 1 & League 2) seems to be EPFL's Associate Member. Can those EPFL members (Veikkausliiga one of 14 founding members) be judged as pro - that was my question? Or is there a better source? I'm guessing that this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues has been used to determine whether a league is pro or not, but it provides mostly unsourced data and does not include Veikkausliiga in either category. We should be looking for a better source, which would define the scope of inclusion/exclusion for Euro Football Leagues altogether. EPFL's members + known pro leagues with other reliable sources could be one. At least it would be be better than current, non-sourced list. --Ras (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your source is that it contains two leagues which are well known not to be fully professional (League of Ireland and Welsh Premier League), which means it cannot be used as a source for proving professionality of leagues. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and accept it. After this vote, we should question whether we can source this list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues to be used as a yardstick. If we can't, we need another way of determining which leagues should be included and which not. EPFL could be a simple criterion for Euro leagues. But that would mean a sidestep from Wp:Ath's pro requirement. IMO less ambiguous criterion (e.g. EFPL instead of trying to prove a league pro or not), but a wider scope of inclusion would be better than a fuzzy criterion. Simple criterion would mean less Afd's and deleted articles. That would also be most beneficial for new editors, who are unaware of wp's interpretations of notable leagues. They need access to a whitelist of wiki-notable leagues from Wp:Ath. --Ras (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ras findings. Govvy (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Veikkausliiga article states "Most of the clubs in Veikkausliiga are professional, although some of the smaller clubs are semi-professional", and I haven't found any evidence to dispute this yet. Until he makes an appearance in a fully professional league (for example, whilst on loan to FC Twente), he fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this (hardly a reliable source, I know, but it's the best I've found so far), the Veikkausliiga won't be fully professional until 2020! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the player meets WP:ATHLETE is not relevent, as I've noted that he meets the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't seem that the sources that you provide offer significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Seems like the coverage is trivial. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seemed more than trivial to me, as he is the subject of the articles. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of the sources is a very brief player profile. The other is a two paragraph piece from the club website, which would be classed as a primary source rather than a third-party source, and which only mentions him briefly along with a couple of other players. Neither are sufficient to make this player notable, as he needs to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial third party sources. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It was a quick search, and it wasn't difficult to find these, and other articles that mentioned him. Besides, I'm very reluctant to remove a page for a starting player in a mostly-professional League of a major European nation - I think we are starting to split hairs, when we start removing articles like this. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily kept, WP:snowball. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity unionism

This article has been around for a couple of years, and has been tagged as needing better references for most of that time. Two references are cited, one of which is to a news story which mentions the term once in connection with the Starbucks dispute, the other does not mention it at all. Google shows few hits. This appears to be a neologism which has failed to gain significant currency despite its promulgation via Wikipedia. The creator is evidently a political activist of some kind, his user name is "Smash The State", and a lot of his edits show signs of that agenda. It is possible that a suitable merge target may exist, but it's not entirely obvious to me where it should go. The small footprint on Google, mainly polemic, self-published material and passing mentions, does not encourage me to believe that this is a fixable article but I have been wrong before. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable given all the Google news hits [9] , Google books hits [10] and Google scholar hits [11]. Way to go Guy, block someone then nominate an article they created for deletion. There are words to describe people like you Guy only they violate Wikipedia policies. RMHED. 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely example of WP:ABF. Now read the rationale I gave above, and see if you can discern whether I actually thought that, you know, there might be an actual problem with the article rather than being an evil right-wing anti-union zealot on a rampage. Thisk you can improve it, reference it and make it less like a single-issue rant? Fantastic! Do it. Do it well and I will withdraw the nomination. Saying "but there are sources" on AfD without actually evaluating the sources, seeing if they genuinely support the content and attest to its significance (I did, and I was not convinced, many of them are self-published), and incorporating them into the article, is pointless and actively harms the project, because it means that under-referenced content stays without being repaired. You say it can be fixed, fine, I believe you; the fact is, it needs to be fixed, or got rid of until someone comes along with a version that complies with policy. There are few things more frstrating than crap content being kept in a crap state because someone says it might be posisble to make it less crap, don't you think? Guy (Help!) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rich mines of references that RMHED found. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto what they said. --Nik (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nomination of this article is extremely dubious, as per RMHED's comments and the nominator's history with the article's creator. I would recommend withdrawing this nomination and reverting the block on the article's creator. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DELETE - The article pushes an agenda, rather than seeking to provide information. New references could be included in an entirely new article, but the current one includes little that should be preserved.FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm concerned about the timing of this AfD, as being vindictive. RHMED has put the lie to the dearth of sources. ThuranX (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RMHED's research, and add that I believe that this is a vindictive AfD by Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you are entirely wrong in that belief. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be the first such attempt by you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:GHITS. I'm seeing nothing in the article, and if RMHED were serious about something other than creating drama, he might want to actually do some work outside of using Google. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Strong). The article can be expanded in future. Vindictive AfD. DropShadow (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the arguments presented above, libertarian/syndicalist politics are underrepresented on Wikipedia and this is a useful addition. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strongest of keeps- nom seems to have a strange intention, and some of the delete votes say the current article pushes a POV. That is not a valid argument for deletion, where we are considering whether the subject of the article is notable.[12] [13][14] If articles are in a poor state but notable, they can always be improved/rewritten. Sticky Parkin 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:GHITS, which people always use to try and justify anything, I use only google news, books, and scholar, which bring up more WP:RS as it highlights mentions in scholarly publications, and entire books on the subject published by presses which have their own article, such as Charles H Kerr Company Publishers. The discussions in books in particular give the idea serious consideration which we can include. I'm going out soon or I would improve the refs if it needs them, might later.Sticky Parkin 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaandu

Waffling discussion of an Hindi insult. I have heard this word used in English sentences. It is already listed in this list in Wiktionary but it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Sgroupace (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a dictionary. It's a dictionary definition, plus some aimless rambling pretending to be OR, which isn't allowed anyway. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A long-winded definition of a Hindi word, with no references. Belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOTDICDEF. Already in wiktionaryDdawkins73 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOT.ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keepkeep.
So the wiktionary and wikipedia are two mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets?

Wiktionary does not entail a meaning of more than a few words, being a kind of dictionary, whereas wikipedia has been built for detailed and exhaustive article on various topics built much on the line of an encyclopaedia. If one were to compare the Oxford dictionary(taken as a model here) and the encyclopaedia Britannica, one would find many words in common. Thus those who support deletion on this account are nothing more than the subject of this article and they can go find a definitive meaning of the word where they would and happily store it in their ‘grand’. Movie.copy (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiktionary does not entail a meaning of more than a few words, being a kind of dictionary, whereas wikipedia has been built for detailed and exhaustive article on various topics built much on the line of an encyclopaedia."

That's just one possible (and, ultimately, superficial) difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. The article in question, besides being nearly incomprehensible in large portions, offers nothing that would suggest notability, verifiability, or significance. That's what counts. J L G 4 1 0 4 14:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia doesn't duplicate concepts. Insult Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Watch

Not verifiable. Not notable. Quite possibly a hoax. If not a hoax, then something that exists in one guy's head. To top it all off:

"Date of foundation: 3 February 2009"
Article creation time: 02:51, 4 February 2009

--Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one link for this article, and it goes to a site which is not verifiable. In addition, the article appears to be a hoax, as a Google search for Keep Watch Micronation does not reveal anything even close to related to this micronation. Something created in one day that is not notable should not be on Wikipedia. Dude 2006 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per Dude 2006. Edward321 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is obviously some guy having a laugh. Shame it's not speediable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference is the "founder’s" own website. This is a hoax, joke, or someone’s publicity stunt. Also delete the three graphics associated with this article. •••Life of Riley (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment = The imaginary land claim[15], MSPaint map[16], and MSPaint flag[17] are all as goofy as hell, too. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Reliable sources. To new. Something made up in school one day. . . Dimitrii (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Rogol

This article is strictly a resume created by a user who also uses it his user page (User:Jarrod Rogol) Americasroof (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – even if he is notable, the article would need a full re-write to be acceptable. TheAE talk/sign 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not the place to post your resume J L G 4 1 0 4 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is there no indication, there doesn't really even appear to be any sort of claim to notability – the article is basically just a description of the guy's high-school football days and a chronological list of his employers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Harvard

A person of questionable notability. Although I realise that 4chan is popular, I don't really think being popular on their forum automatically equals notability. It would be different if she was all over the Internet or something, but her fame is limited to those that follow her on this forum. That leaves the second point: being a contestant on America's Next Top Model.... Again, as just a contestant right now, notability is an issue. Things may change if she wins the cycle, but as of right now, I feel that it's a bit premature to have an article on her. As WP:NTEMP states, "[A]rticles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." (There's also the issue of sources, because The CW/ANTM have not released any last names on contestants yet, and the subject herself has taken down her personal website and MySpace; the subject has also received little third-party coverage (outside of Top Model blogs and fansites). So there really aren't any reliable sources for her out there right now, making verification almost impossible.) SKS2K6 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe Allison Harvard should have a wikipedia page. As seen previously, the winner and runner up of America's Next top model have a wikipedia page and while it isn't a large page at the moment, her popularity from the show, which has just finished airing, will allow her a more prominent image in the media. I have added information to her wikipedia page, with references and citations. I believe she is now a notable person due to her runner up position in america's next top model as well as her previous work that includes her internet images and her artwork. LuvLei (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous seasons of The Amazing Race hadn't released last names by CBS website (except TAR8) just like ANTM doesn't release last names of contestants. ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, but they do eventually release it to media outlets; how else can media outlets write articles and conduct interviews? SKS2K6 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe we need to re-evaluate whether she deserves to be up for deletion again as she has since become a runner up in ANTM - her wikipedia page was nominated for deletion on the 6th february; it needs to be re-evaluated whether it now deserves deletion or not now. LuvLei (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison did illustrate a book recently, so her artwork goes beyond blogs. I have added this to the Wikipedia page, along with a citation. Also, Harvard's status as a Top Model contestant is now on the official America's Next Top Model Cast Page. Aggiew (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) --This should count as a Keep[reply]

Delete Illustrating a children's book isn't notable. Nothing notable from a google search. Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Illustrating a children's book can be notable. Illustrating a self-published one (instantpublisher.com) isn't. The Amazon link in the article for the book doesn't work for me. Being a contestant on one of these Next Whatever programmes isn't notable. Winning it might confer a limited notability, but it doesn't compare with hard achievement. Some day Allison may be notable. Not yet, sorry. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can be, yes :) - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect while I would like to keep the article, i have to agree that, she has not yet filled the criteria for notability. But, there are people who search for her, and she will probably be notable in thee near future. so instead of deleting the page redirect it to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12, and preserve the archive. -Misty Willows (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Misty. For those who are in non-notability in these ANTM contestants, see the bunch of redirects of ANTM contestants. ApprenticeFan (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she wins the competition, simply make the page again. I'm sure if people search for her they can search 'ANTM' or 'ANTM12' like some people do. It'll also offer a list of pages with her name on, ANTM12 being one of them. Kegzz (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12. Plastikspork (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alison has over 100,000 freinds on her myspace page trhat alone is notable, and has had shows in art galleries. Ive been searching for her on Wikipedia long before she ever had anything to do with America's Next Top Model. -146.74.231.178 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12] Harvard is not notable enough to warrant a wiki entry without top model--so far. However, if she gains mainstream popularity because of Top Model, she will be a rare example of someone who was popular years before mainstream media interest, more so on Myspace than 4chan.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redwater Health Centre

Non-Notable Hospital ttonyb1 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hospital is notable enough to be here it is under the board of Capital Health in Edmonton.Kyle1278 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a sloppy and incomplete nomination for a page which was created one hour ago. It follows a sloppy and inaccurate CSD tag of the article as "spam" (Arguably the article could have been tagged as an A7). If this is what our New Page Patrol does on a regular basis then I'm pretty disappointed. Note: I declined the speedy after the page creator commented on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Here are some sourses.
http://www.capitalhealth.ca/default.htm
http://www.capitalhealth.ca/HospitalsandHealthFacilities/Hospitals/RedwaterHealthCentre/default.htm
http://www.capitalhealth.ca/NR/rdonlyres/eqdiprgn62w3xvkxix3wyd2jxm52c3r73nizr7nrdvmfmsqiaxblniije7r4afoehs46v4tghnzcuw2jmo43gtcf42c/CapitalHealth-Redwater.pdf
http://www.capitalhealth.ca/ProgramsAndServices/locationdetails?service_id=5919
http://employment.alberta.ca/documents/RRM/RRM-NE_redwater_lmn_oct07.pdf

All which make it notable enough to stay on wikipedia Kyle1278 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Those are likely not independent from the subject. You would be looking for news reports, books, magazine articles, or government publications etc. Not corporate websites. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK third party recourses bolded one is not form the same corporate and it is an article about the Rural Hospitals and Capital Health is not a corporation it is run by the Government of Alberta.

Kyle1278 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination was a bit quick off the mark. There is no urgency on an article of this nature. But I am not sure that the health center is particularly notable. There is independent evidence that it exists, but not that there is anything particularly remarkable about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What i am trying to do is make it notable by creating a full Capital Heath Section and included in that section would be this Hospitals this is another reason it should stay. And this is an government organization not a corporate business.

Comment. The Capital Health article is fine - a large organization which I am sure has quite a lot of independent discussion. But this is a small facility that does not seem to be of any particular interest. Apart from listing the services it offers, will there ever be anything much to say? A few lines on it in the Capital Health article would be more appropriate. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added a great deal onto the article since i first made it earlier today and now i think it meets the standard's to stay here on Wikipedia it took awhile to dig up info but i did.

Keep. The new material added by Kyle1278 establishes significance to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.town.redwater.ab.ca/admin/contentx/default.cfm?PageId=8469&hdrmenu=0

Kyle1278 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it may not _currently_ display WP:N, I feel it _Will_ satisfy it... thus complying with WP:N's ..."it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." Hopitals and Acute Care facilities generally do by their very nature. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:Notability, and if more of the sources that Kyle has found are added, then WP:Reliable sources as well. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added larger section about the services the hospital offers with refrenses it really adds to the article. Kyle1278 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alberta Health Services. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Merge Capital Health is still its own board it might be under the superboard but it still ha sit's own articles.Kyle1278 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Szaniszlo

Non-notable - the subject seems to only be a vibraphonist only known is certain countries (Hungary). Unsourced - contains links only to Youtube and MySpace, Google does find some pages, but virtually all are syndications of videos on aforementioned sites. Also seems to have be autobiographical in part. If kept, it would be cut back further than a stub, I guess, but I still think it should go. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another resume. No traces of notability yet. Maybe someday. Nothing wrong with the vibes, but WP is not the place to post your resume. ATTENTION NOMINATOR: please follow the directions and get the proper tags in place. J L G 4 1 0 4 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry about that. Tags now in place, I think. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now. Didn't mean to come across snotty, if I did ("please follow directions"!). J L G 4 1 0 4 12:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vanity article [18]. Not notable WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Delete. probably hoax that fails WP:V and all applicable guidelines. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescuers (2013 film)

Contested prod.Unreferenced article on film due to be released four years from now. Crystal Ballery at best, but the lack of any evidence found to support the existence of this project, especially one with such a high profile cast mooted, is disturbing. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crystal, and doesn't appear to be notable (at present), fully unsourced. TheAE talk/sign 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely hoax. A project with such a high profile cast should turn up a few sources, but I can't find any. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it feels like snow in here... J L G 4 1 0 4 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Tloo far out to not break the CRYSTAL. ThuranX (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but bless author Okapi7 for trying, but its still crystal. Didn't a version of this article get deleted several months ago? I seem to recall..... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unbelieveable article. --Love Krittaya (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's getting cold in here. Plus there's f*** all about in on the interweb, according to Google. DitzyNizzy (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchurian Independence Movement

Tagged for speedy deletion; does not fit criteria. The chief objection is that it is original research. Chick Bowen 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is OR. The article itself admits that "little is known" about the topic. Ray (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bah. OR. The premise of the article is that we don't even know whether such a movement exists? That's beyond the realm of OR into some strange land of inverse speculation... Bah! J L G 4 1 0 4 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Whether or not an actual independence movement exists is unsure."... Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of the article wrote the entire article as an hypothesis, and based information on "internet messages passed around." The creator is also unsure if it exist or not. The only cited source is a message board [19]. The creator did not offered any valid source on whether this is an actual active movement.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was certainly such a movement in the early 20th century [20][21], that seems to be covered well by Manchukuo and its sub-articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It is quite possible that an article could be written at this title (or rather at its proper capitalization, Manchurian independence movements), that would describe the history of such movements during the early history of the Republic of China and the Japanese occupation. But I don't think the content from the current article would be useful for such an article, so deletion wouldn't effect it. A redirect would be possible but not ideal given that currently the information is, as you say, covered in multiple articles. Chick Bowen 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment". Well, obviously, since its my article, I'd like to state that I don't exactly see why not knowing whether it exists or not in the physical world (outside of internet threads and websites) is actually criteria for deleting it. I don't see the HARM in keeping it around. Plus, it can always be improved, such and such. And, seriously, "internet messages passed around" is not ever what it was or what was stated in the article; there were a number of pages, and threads, one of which I linked, specifically on teh topic. I could hardly call it OR when (a) such a movement has existed in the past and (b) I am linking the thread specifically on teh topic of "INDEPENDENCE FOR MANCHURIA". Furthermore, while whatever was going on on the web may very well be a scam of sorts, couldn't it still be considered a movement of some sort, because it does advocate a cause. Therefore, it DOES exist, whether or not the real life organization it claims exists or not, the INTERNET movement does, and that counts for something, right? And once again, it can always be improved, and I seriously don't see the HARM in having it there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalens (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air UK Leisure

Seemingly non-notable airline Oo7565 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query - what's the protocol for airlines? Are they notable by default? Or must they be "covered" by media sources as with other things (people, companies, etc.). For instance, we do have a list of airlines, not all of which would be "notable" I presume. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seemingly notable airline. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs references but clearly notable. Rcawsey (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airlines are generally notable and usually have significant coverage to meet WP:CORP as the links posted by Phil Bridger suggest. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikariam

Article was speedily deleted under Speedy deletion criterion A7, but was restored for the purpose of a full deletion discussion per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1. I have no opinion on the matter. Aervanath (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable browser game. --Peephole (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not notable? It meets the inclusion criteria by having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.--Patton^t/c 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.

Article in major arabic business newspaper (Link in English) about Gameforge and Ikariam.
Planet-geek.com review; a relianble website which has authority in the subject area
mpogd.com review, a website which reviews and gives details about online games, and is a reliable source
IGN review; IGN is a reliable source in this subject area.

I would like to add that 53,000 registered accounts makes it rather notable, although it isn't taken into account by WP:N.--Patton^t/c

Comment: The amount of users a game has is completely irrelevant. About the sources: the news article is a press release from Gameforge which barely mentions the game, Planet Geek is a blog and MPOGD is a directory. The IGN source seems ok. But ultimately we need multiple reliable sources, providing significant coverage. One won't cut it.--Peephole (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ikariam (http://www.ae.ikariam.com/)

"Industrious workers, soldiers and researchers build on their own little empire between white beaches and rocky hills...(A whole paragraph but I dont' think I can paste it all here)"

This is about Gameforge's business model?--Patton^t/c 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the outcome, the history of this article needs to be addressed - there's deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/User:Patton123/Ikariam that really need to be merged into the history of the article presently at Ikariam - I'll leave that for the administrator to deal with when closing this discussion however. Nick (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was one of the last of a string of administrators who speedy-deleted an earlier version of this article. Having examined all the references attached to the article in its current incarnation, I agree with Peephole's assessment above; there do not seem to me to be multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage. As near as I can tell, all the material I checked was written by anonymous or pseudonymous contributors, which is always a bad sign to me with respect to reliability. This game may become more notable at some future point and it might be worth re-examining coverage then. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It needs to be rewritten with sources, but I see no reason why it should be deleted as it is clearly quite notable. I was one of the contributors to the article that was written last year, which was as I remember complete with sources, unfortunately the original article was deleted when Ikariam got it's own wiki. I don't know if there is a deletion debate anywhere but I know that I at least wasn't aware of it. La Kiwi 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs)

Keep - IGN has two, not one, substantial articles on the game. There's also a GameZebo review, a preview at GameZone, a news item at Gamers Hell, a preview at N4G, a three-part article at WorldsInMotion, an article at GameSetWatch and a large number of reviews at sites with maybe more questionable or undetermined reliability[22][23][24][25][26][27] SharkD (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources satisfying WP:V and WP:RS allowing for a WP:NPOV article have turned up. MLauba (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage, scope and/or reliability of the initially presented sources is underwhelming at best, but the RPG Vault/IGN piece is usable. Take most of the best sources presented by SharkD and we have a very different picture. Gamezebo is an excellent source, and the piece in question is not insubstantial, ditto GameZone. Worlds in Motion, part of the Gamasutra stable, is offering three [28] [29] [30] items which add up to some substantial coverage and unlike a lot of sources waved around on AFD they actually critique. They're in-depth, multiple and reliable; it seems journos are finally (and it's taken some time) woken up to the importance of MMOGs which aren't World of Warcraft. Someone another 15:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest abandoning anything suspect (like the MPOGD review) and sticking with ^ them), poor sources weaken articles in the same way reliable ones strengthen them. Someone another 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per the above. Notability is easily established through reliable secondary sources from multiple places. MuZemike 21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly meeting the GNG per sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someone. --Joshua Issac (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Coding Displacement Therapy

Non-notable therapy. Article is just spam for the people who provide it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedias 'General Notability Guidance' states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Pursuant with these Guidelines, there have been continual news reports and media coverage including the decision by UKTV Style & BBC Prime to repeatedly air the second series of a television show (A Life Coach Less Ordinary) continually depicting the successful use of this therapy technique throughout every episode of both series. In addition, the many varied & time-spanned national news reports shown on the site constitutes evidence of sufficient and independently verifiable notability. If the editor feels that it would be prudent to provide additional links and citations then the author will seek these out & include them in the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)

Delete - entirely non-notable subject as evidenced by a quick Gsearch. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - notwithstanding the few hits returned by a Gsearch it’s notoriety remains high within the media and field of therapy, otherwise it wouldn’t have been heavily featured in the cited press reports from high authority newspapers and wouldn’t have been given both serieses of a television show which are being repeated over several channels internationally. A Gsearch of the television series (cited within the article) would provide additional returns indicating the notoriety of this specific therapy technique. The author has not cited all media links (as shown in the official website belonging to The Speakmans) but with a plethora of media national media citations including several high profile celebrities (some of whom exist on Wikipedia) surely this in itself is evidence of public interest in this therapy technique? However, should the editor require additional citations to be included within the article, the author will be happily to seek them out and oblige.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete. Does nothing but advertise a product, poorly disguised in WP:COATRACK article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - the author has already removed several pieces of text and links from the article which might have been construed as advertising. The Wikipedia Guidelines for Speedy Deletion based on 'Blatant Advertising' (criterion 11) state, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." The author expressly refutes that the article in any way advertises a product based on the fact that all publicity links have been removed & that VCDT therapy training is only provided to professionally qualified therapists with experience in their respective fields. Nowhere on the site does advertising occur nor are there prices nor links to pay for & receive training in this therapy technique. The article is a documentary application of fact relating to a recognised and trademarked therapy technique. The author of the article has in no way opined a point of view or bias within the article. The authenticity, practicalities and usefulness of this therapy technique is cited repeatedly throughout the media. Those media sources are highly respected, notable, independent and with a such a broad spread of media coverage can not therefore be seen to be biased. The editor feels the article falls foul of WP:COATRACK. There is no clarification as to what the article is purporting to advertise. The author respectfully requests that the editor be more specific rather than merely stating it is poorly disguised advertsing then the relevant text can be removed by the author and the article can improved to address the reasons for proposed deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)
  - The only phrase that has been removed is "The Speakmans currently provide face-to-face licensed training to the level of Certified Practitioner in Visual Coding Displacement Therapy (VCDT)." The article still claims the treatment is "highly effective" without saying who or what claims it is highly effect (violating neutral point of view), promotes the "experiences and skills" of Nik & Eva Speakman (subjective), quotes the theory as if it is fact (common sales pitch language), and exclusively selects newspaper quotes that promote the technique (big no-no). It's not simply having a product as the subject of the article that is the problem, it's that this article does nothing but promote the product. I'll reconsider if this article is fundamentally re-written in a neutral way, but there's still the notability issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somebody has worked a bit to get media coverage into the article, to give the impression that it passes the notability test on that dimension. But I would expect a therapeutic theory to have more traces that the ones they cite (which are akin to testimonials in an advertisement, not independent coverage, and not properly cited at that), and I found none. There's also nothing in the psychology literature. Anyone can patent a "therapy" and call themselves a "therapist" in the U.S., and I'm betting in the U.K., too, which leads to problems here as well. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all the above. The media refs are just TV listings, and UKTV Style is a minor satellite channel. Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - there is one media reference that relates to TV listings which evidences the existence and repeated airing of both serieses of the television show where the therapy technique is used extensively throughout. I would disagree that UKTV Style is a 'minor satellite channel' considering that it has a Wikipedia entry of its own (showing notability) and it's included with free digital service provision in the UK. BBC Prime is another television station also airing the tv series internationally. It can't be said that the BBC is on the periphery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)
Comment Interesting that none of the 'keeps' above are signed. It's in the History, anyway. I'll be looking further into this - too tired for now. Doesn't look too overtly spammy to me. Does make me think on the one hand of an undergrad party game, and also wonder how a non-computer user would react on having 'Delete!' yelled at him/her. Signing my post by typing four tildes Peridon (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All four "Keep" votes were made by user Ukltd, who has made no contributions outside of this article. I have struck the three duplicate votes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless it can be substantially improved. At present, it is essentially advertising, but that doesn't mean that a balanced article couldn't be written. Anaxial (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious advertising for fringe treatment; violates WP:SPAM & WP:SOAPBOX. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising for a non-notable 'treatment.' Drmies (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Wow can I buy this somewhere - please! If I leave my credit card info and banking ID will you be willing to fix my brain, pretty please. OK, this really doesn't seem to be even noteworthy as a hoax and SPA riddled Afd bit aren't helpful. -- Banjeboi 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've altered 'patented' to 'registered as a trademark'. The link supplied is to this registration, which is NOT patenting. Trade mark registration is a matter of the government office checking for conflicts with other trade marks and with legal requirements. Patenting involves a totally different process. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having done some digging, I'm not convinced about the value of this article. Of the six 'star' testimonials on the home site, three have Wikipedia articles of their own. Two are (or have been) in Coronation Street, a soap opera. (One is 'best known for his two years in' Corrie.) The third is a member of a pop group. I'm intrigued by their base of operations being in a little town outside Rochdale in North West England. Not an area frequented by many 'real' stars. In terms of notability, there are ghits, quite a few of which seem to be advertising training sessions for new practioners of this art. Seemingly, one can be certificated in it in as little as two days. (In the UK, it takes four days for a First Aid at Work certificate for comparison.) None I have seen seem to be unbiased outside comment on Visual Coding Displacement Therapy. On the whole, I'd consider this article to be a promotional one, lacking in reliable backing. On the other hand, it is not a hoax, although I had wondered when starting to investigate. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not basing my decision on the validity of these techniques, as some editors above do. As a wikipedia editor, it is not my place to decide the validity of techniques. (Who am I to say what is newsworthy when other, real, news organizations have already reported on this method?) Even though I personally think the concept is complete garbage, there is enough credible sources that I feel this article should be kept. Ikip (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? I don't see these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything I would consider truly reliable. The newspaper articles I looked at were rather of the 'rollerskating dog' level of writing rather than serious consideration. If you've gone deeper, please share your results with us. Peridon (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, BBC Prime is a satellite subscription channel for Europe and The Middle East. It is a minor channel, and is not available in the UK. It is being shut down.

As far as sources go, all I've seen are two TV listings for two shows on two little satellite channels, neither of them mentioning the therapy in question. So I don't see any sources for this. Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources, stubbify the article in the hope that in it;s next life it will be something less spammy. Artw (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found which give an unbiased scientific evaluation of the therapy. . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable quackery. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pure Pwnage episodes

First of all, let it be understood that I am not questioning the notability or impact of this series. Second, this page cites absolutely no sources, is filled to the brim with fancruft, and is overall non-encyclopedic. The lead reads like a promotion, quoted here for illustration: "All the episodes are available for download in DivX-encoded AVI format and now also in Mac/iPod and PSP MP4 format from the Pure Pwnage website, HTTP mirrors, via BitTorrent, or via Xfire." The "Easter Eggs" and "Continuity errors" sections are entirely original research.

I do not question that the series itself deserves an article, but notability is not necessarily qualified by association. In this project we must limit ourselves to reliable sources (secondary and tertiary wherever possible), and the type of content summarized here is unlikely to ever show up on such sources. Frankly, this page is simply an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and is better suited for fansites, forums, or Wikia. ←Spidern → 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of reliable third-party sources. The series meets our sourcing standards in WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N, but the episodes don't. Not singularly, and not in aggregate. Randomran (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the series is notable either. I agree with the nominator about this article and why it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Violates WP:V and WP:OR and would need a fundamental rewrite to meet the policies/guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. There does seem to be a little bit of info out there. [31] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a small list on main, cut the OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge. The later episodes have way to much detail in their plot summaries which should go. The non-episode-list related content should also probably go. But the episode list should be present in the main article. JulesH (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable breakout article. Needs serious help however (as does parent article). No serious objection to a merge. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of article should be encouraged. The question of whether to split an article is an editing question, and it's clearer if a list of episodes is generally split out, if there is more than just a very few of them. there is no requirement that a list of episodes have 3rd party sources for straightforward descriptive content. If it needs editing, that is no reason for deletion. The question of how much detail should be in the description of an individual episode is not for AfD. DGG (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely what type of writing should be encouraged? I can perhaps understand (but not enitrely agree with) the argument that the episode summaries are descriptive content. But the "Easter eggs" and "Continuity errors" sections are subjective interpretations, otherwise known as original research. Even in the actual episode descriptions, I think that many cases border on original research (in addition to some in-universe problems). Here are some random excerpts (all of which are unsourced):
  - In a narrow hallway with numerous identical doors, possibly a reference to The Matrix, the two government agents unlock a weapon—the Menacer—to give to Doug, claiming that he has the power to prevent the war Teh_Masterer is preparing the Gamer Army for.
  - Also revealed was the credits for Pure Pwnage, the first time the cast was credited for being in the show. A surprise to many because many thought Pure Pwnage was real and not scripted.
  - At the end, the Pure Pwnage friends innocently hold a barbecue, and all seems well.
  - A parody of Kill Bill ensues and the episode reaches its climax with an epic micro battle.
  - Users had the opportunity to pay US$2.99 to see the episode 2 days early via streaming video. (June 19, 2006 at 5 p.m. EDT)
  - As the two reach safety and look back, a micro battle ensues.
  - However, Jeremy was hit by a micro blast from The Big Bad and is carried out by Dave.
  - Jeremy goes ballistic and calls her a slut. This infuriates Anastasia; Terence asks the two to calm down and talk about the conflict tomorrow.
  - The list contains the following: 1. MEET MIYAM0T0, 2. MAKE LIEK $50000, 3. BY C&C FRUM EA N GIV 2 BLIZZ, 4. VASECT0MY, 5. LRN 2 B > TEH_MASTERER @ GAMES, 6. M0VE 2 K0RIA, 7. LIV IN TUBE. Kyle wonders how Jeremy is going to do this especially at Jeremy getting a vasectomy.
  - The movie concludes by displaying the Pure Pwnage logo while a voice over states, "If you really want to pwn noobs, watch Pure Pwnage, coming soon." This featurette can no longer be found on the Pure Pwnage website. It can be downloaded here (FTP Link).
- ←Spidern → 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. WP:PRESERVE states: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (options)", No attempt to preserve this article before the AfD was attempted. WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Spidern and nominator are complaining about the content of this article, which can be improved outside of this AfD, instead of cleaning up the article themselves. Ikip (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's with regard to editing articles themselves, no? If the charge is "no sources exist", then all the nom would have to have done is search for sources.bridies (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the information which you seek to preserve is unencyclopedic to begin with. The bulk of the article is subjective interpretation, and there is thus no real value in preserving it. Remember that we are building an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate hub of information. If it can not be independently verified by an authoritative source, then nothing of value is lost. ←Spidern → 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and possibly merge to Pure Pwnage. That there is original research in the article is not a reason to delete it, unless everything in it is unverifiable original research. At least some of the information is descriptive content which is verifiable to the primary sources; of course any of the analytical content needs sources or should be removed. If it turns out there is no reliable sources for any of the not-purely-descriptive content, then trimming out that content and merging to the main show article might be appropriate. But outright deletion without any real attempts to clean up the article, where at least some of the content is certainly verifiable, is not the way to do it. DHowell (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ectodermal Macleod Dexatronia

Pretty sure this is a hoax. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely a hoax. Parslad (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No relevant ghits on the name or the doctor. PENTAX medical company develops imaging products, not medicines. Appears to be a hoax or a well kept secret. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly a fictitious disease. Note that the contributor is a single-purpose account who has contributed nothing to Wikipedia besides this article. That alone does not disqualify any article, but it may be a contributing factor when the genuineness of the subject matter is in question. •••Life of Riley (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing anywhere in my medical texts that comes close to describing this condition - not in Harrison's Medicine, not in Cecil's Medicine, nothing on UptoDate. This smacks of a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.102.170 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, health-related hoax should qualify as blatant ("only known symptom of the disease is pain while sleeping"). NVO (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Description of the disease makes absolutely no sense medically. Obviously complete bollocks. Anaxial (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software pagination

Sounds like a how-to. Wikipedia is not a guide. Weird article, anyway. Elm-39 - T/C 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Also seems to be plagiarized from comments made here. ←Spidern → 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been completely rewritten in an encyclopedic manner, which addresses the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and copyvio concerns. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, is a bit of a "how to" article, and only really discusses software pagination for web pages (others uses are pagination of printed material like newspapers, magazines, directories etc.) And it needs references. But it seems to have only been created today, so perhaps the author will upgrade it. On the print side, there are a fair number of firms involved, and presumably in the Internet world it will become an increasingly important topic. pagination software has plenty of results. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page top link to document layout pagination (my field!) which explains the lack of mention in the article. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is clearly notable. I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, and all that it needs now is some expansion and sources. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A considerable improvement, and a more accurate title. The sources are sufficient to back up the content. Notability of this more narrow topic is clear from Web Page Pagination Aymatth2 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an important concept in the world of CSS and single-source publishing J L G 4 1 0 4 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pagination. (Not enough material overall or difference in the concepts to justify three separate articles)Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not merge, because this is just the start of an article focussed on the Internet problem, probably of interest to many web site designers. I would expect it to grow. The print pagination problem is distinctly different, since it has to juggle text or listings with related pictures and ads on fixed-dimension pages, creating links like "continued from page 47". The Internet topic is mostly about performance, and the print problem about layout. I don't see one article discussing these two different subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge~~ Not a how-to to me. It's told me about a different meaning of pagination. It's info that I don't think should be deleted. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aymatth2 that it's a quite different ballgame, so I've gone for a keep. Peridon (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough material here to mention it on the main pagination page and have a link here with more information. This could eventually include mobile and touchscreen implementations. FlyingToaster 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but what a difference a day makes--I was doubting LinguistAtLarge's credentials when s/he talked about a complete rewrite (I was doubting some very basic skills), to find that the article has been re-butchered. Problem is, a useful source has been added and I don't know this stuff well enough (or, I don't have enough incentive to learn it), so the new 'improvements' can't simply be turned back easily--at least, I can't do that. Also, there seems to be a pretty serious copyright violation going on in that last paragraph, and I am just going to go and remove that. Linguist, please look at this again! Red pen in hand, if only to correct my corrections. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the reference added by User:Nitinaggarwalin, because it's not a reliable source and it's his newly submitted article that he wants to promote. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Merge. There's arguably just about enough information here for one article, but Pagination is one line long and the web pagination page isn't very long either. It's not easy to say a lot about pagination. 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs)

I definitely oppose merging. The two topics really are different, even though they share the same word "pagination". One refers to fitting and arranging items on a fixed-size page for printing, and the other refers to a software process about splitting records for display on multiple web pages. Additionally, there is plenty of material for full articles on both, in my opinion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LinguistAtLarge. Don't merge. I may take a shot at the print pagination article sometime. Far from a trivial problem, huge volumes (think of all the different newspapers and magazines) and some big firms involved. Really quite different from breaking up content for display web pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagon Crown Champion

Article is purely original research. No sources are cited and if any are actually out there, I would be astounded. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If there were sources, I'm sure they'd be online. None are, so this looks good for deletion. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like original research. Two google searches [32] and [33] don't turn up any reliable sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure OR, is part of the guff that some try to add to Grand Slam champion or Triple Crown champion. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conjecture and original research. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ←Spidern → 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such accomplishment exists and has ever been mentioned. A Google search of "Hexagon Crown Champion" (meaning those three words together in that order) only brought up 1 result, and that was its Wikipedia article. TJ Spyke 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't exist. I can't think of a speedy deletion criterion that applies, but there must be one. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not existing, which hurts its chances of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If WWE does not recognize a Hexagon Crown Champion, then this article does not merit inclusion on the Wiki. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure OR. This doesn't exist. Nikki♥311 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure nonsense and WP:OR.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle Pig (book)

Non-notable book, fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria. Jll (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's still a book. I'm a sucker for books, especially children's books. If the author of the article could find a reliable third party source to establish notability that would be great. But if not... §FreeRangeFrog 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that your keep is conditional upon a reliable third party source being found to establish notability? Jll (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can find no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Published in 2004, so libraries would have had a chance to buy it., But with 20 listings only in worldCat, it isn't even remotely notable.DGG (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this book has only been available for about a week. There is also a book called The Whistle Pig, written by Duck Miller and published in 2004. Jll (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per frog. Ikip (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snucka

Non-notable neologism WP:NEO. The best possible source for establishing notability would be the Urban Dictionary [34]. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. WP:BOLLOCKS will do as a reason. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see my nomination overwrote yours one minute after you nominated this. Maybe WP:TW needs some additional checks to detect when two people are creating an AfD at the same time. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki andy (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the citation for the Urban Dictionary, which clearly establishes the link between this word and the Umphrey's McGee songs in question. A simple Google search confirms the connection as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixroach (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source with which we can establish notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say in your first comment that Urban Dictionary would be the "best possible source" for establishing notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixroach (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I was being sarcastic in that the Urban Dictionary would be the best possible source for establishing notability, but since the Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source (per WP:RS), then no notablity (Wikipedia notability WP:N) can be established for Snucka. I apologize for not being clear on that. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity in meta-analysis

This article has only one external source, T. Gee, and questionable notability. It has been prodded by two editors, but both prods were recently removed. The article's creator Tgee1963 has been notified of the AFD. Plastikspork (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with meta-analysis. Plastikspork (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: (1) Is there some codified Wikipedia rule that says articles should have more than one external source? I think such a rule would be unwise; I can't see why it's grounds for deletion. (2) On what grounds do you regard this as being of questionable notability? You've merely made an assertion, here on this page. I find nothing in the article's discussion page on that point. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answers: (1) Yes. It's WP:N. Note that it says articles should have more than one external source, but not that articles need to have more than one reliable source. (2) I understand that but the question is who has the burden of proof: the person who says it isn't notable, or the person who says it is? Again there's Wikipedia policy on that, which is WP:BURDEN. That policy says unreferenced material should be cut, so the burden of proof is on the person who says it is notable to provide verifiable references from reliable sources to prove their case.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The general notability guideline says only that "(m)ultiple sources are generally preferred." Also, I think that this should move to Gravity (meta-analysis) as a standard disambiguation title. I have no opinion on the merit of the article itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with gravitation. I don't think there's enough here to warrant a separate article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is apparently about some sort of weighting technique in statistical analysis. It has nothing to do with physics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with meta-analysis... oops. I still don't think there's enough here to warrant a separate article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I read the dif's correctly, the PROD's were removed by an established editor for whom I have a lot of respect. He also is rewriting this to make sense out of it. If it read as it does now, I'd have understood better what the article was about and not PRODed. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep. I originally added a Prod2 after having been unable to find any Gsholar hits, I think I used Gravity and "social science" as search terms. Repeating the search with "Gravity in Meta-Analysis" returns more hits. Closer examination reveals that there exists a so-called "gravity equation" in trade theory, see here p2 absolutely unrelated to meta-studies, but the trade theory papers incidentally also carry out meta-analysis. I concluded that I cannot find evidence of general accepted use of this concept. Another paper could be a hit here, I dont have full text access. One paper has been published on the topic, which is inherently noteworthy. I would like to see at least two papers to support that other than the author use this concept. Just because I could not find anything in the about 15 minutes I spent on this, is of course no proof that it does not exist. Unless more sources appear I would say delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ per the expert ministrations of Melcombe. This is no longer the same article as the one I tagged for PROD. (It is no longer an OR-esque essay.) More sources would be preferable. And it should be moved to Gravity (meta-analysis), not merged. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete persuaded by delete arguments. Dloh cierekim 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I note that a Google Scholar search now yields 1 journal-published article and 1 online paper referencing the original article, with none of the authors including the original author, which I think is quite good for only a few years. But the suggested move would be good. Melcombe (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, references please. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Lukacik, Marek, Thomas, Ronald L., Aranda, Jacob V. A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Oral Zinc in the Treatment of Acute and Persistent Diarrhea Pediatrics 2008 121: 326-336 possibly at [35] and [36] Melcombe (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. The "Hospitals without Doctors" (here only refers to to Gee's paper, I cannot see that the paper seeks to apply or even discuss some sort of "outlier pruning" of studies. I'm really not sure that the paper is peer-reviewed, could be self-published (?). My library does not have online access to the other article (PEDIATRICS Vol. 121 No. 2 February 2008, pp. 326-336 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0921), I'm with a tech institution. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that paper (which might be something in preparation?) only includes Gee in the "Bibliography" without mentioning it. Strange that you can't see the Pediatrics article online as I can, and I'm not with anything medical or similar. I think I am allowed to quote a short part where Gee is mentioned ... "Another more recent approach proposed jackknife resampling to measure a concept termed “gravity.” In any meta-analysis, <snip> Gee proposed that jackknife resampling could be used to examine study influence and detect outlier studies. " ... and this is followed by a short summary, much as in the article here. Also, the paper does report some calculated values of "gravity", so it does seem to be actually being used. Melcombe (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote Power.corrupts (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, the single reference appears to have a very weak citation count. The number of citations is a standard method of measuring notability. The weight to place on each measure is, coincidentally, a subject in meta-analysis. I would think that an article on statistics would aspire to have more than one source. Plastikspork (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "gravity" in this context is a neologism proposed by Gee. From our guideline "To support ... an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". From my searching, I found only Gee's article as a source. This is only a single reference proposed by a single person. The reference was written in 2005. There does not appear to have been any widespread uptake of this term amongst the "statistics community". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the author might be talking about something else that may be obviously notable, but I don't know what. I have the feeling I've seen this in the context of some other topic. I would give it a weak keep. §FreeRangeFrog 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gee lists his article and one using the technique. From admittedly limited research, I cannot find any other article that uses the technique. Various articles mention the technique in order to motivate some meta-analysis technique of their own. This does not seem to be a mainstream technique. I also think mention of the technique could easily be integrated into the article on meta-analysis. Mark Durst (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mark Durst. Salih (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Axl and Mark Durst. Neologism. Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit inclined to say Keep on the grounds that this concept addresses a question that needs to get asked. Does anyone know of other articles on concepts that address this question? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may need asking, but we can't ask it. The thing to establish is whether this concept is notable. The article's lack of sources suggest otherwise. Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable subject; original research; only two possible primary sources exist. When secondary sources become available, it can be re-created. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect to Wiktionary. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butt-load

Non-notable term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. G W… 14:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax/vandalism, tagging for speedy deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current content is pure WP:BOLLOCKS but this is a possible search term so we should have something here; probably a link to wiktionary. In fact, I think I'll do that now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: I cut unreferenced content per WP:BURDEN and replaced the article with a link to Wiktionary at this point in the debate.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary as per S Marshall. I've updated the redirect to reflect this. Cycle~ (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll make a note of that template for future reference.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a soft redirect to wiktionary. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Inquiry

The article provides no relevant context as to what it is about and is full of attacks against. Danny Williams (politician). It therefore fails the NPOV policy. It shouldn't stay anyway, as politicians often argue and disagree. The accusations are not notable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though not in its current state. The inquiry itself appears to be amply covered in third party sources, so I'm going to see now whether I can improve the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: having made the edits I described, I now think the article demonstrates its notability and should be kept. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's, please don't delete, i am not trying to attack Danny. i just saw that there is no article about the whole inquiry so i created it from whatever i found in the media history. Please help me make it into a good article.Thanks again for your help. Ntb613 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just did a substantial rewrite with refs. Any better? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you so much. What a diffrience. I hope now no one will want to delete the article. Thanks!!!Ntb613 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it no longer bears any resemblence to the article I nominated and has none of the problem to a degree it can be fixed, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. - 18:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable regional controversy that will become notable with a page on Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reworked article with valid sources is much better. §FreeRangeFrog 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's subject has in-depth coverage in independent sources. Sufficient for GNG. Ray (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article covers a major event in the contemporary history of Newfoundland and Labrador which has drawn the attention of most of its residents.--HJKeats (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has developed to show notability. shirulashem (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The City of gods

Fails notability guidlines for published work (hasn't been reviewd by anyone) see here . The author of the book isn't notable either. DFS454 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even by Nigerian sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sole search result doesn't mention "the city of gods". Nevertheless, there are no Multiple Independant reviews.--DFS454 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless proper independent sources are added. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search turns up nothing with this title and author. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft redirecting after close MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hometowned

This entry is a dictionary definition with no chance of expansion into an article. It's not NPOV either because it assumes lawyers are judged on their person rather than their arguments in a court case. Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary. I agree it'll never be more than a dicdef, and I'll redirect now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per S Marshall. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect ditto. I started this, but there's not much to go on anywhere in the internet. the term is about JUDGES being NPOV. The term itself is about a lawyer being discriminated. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the word is commonly used enough to require a soft-redirect. If we did that for every word, Wikipedia would become a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common practice even with rare words, that's why we have this template. So long as the actual definition isn't here, it meets WP:NOTDICDEF. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page on soft redirects is too vague. It doesn't explain when to use and not to use it. I can understand why someone would want to make a soft redirect from Wikipedia-space to meta, but personally I don't see how soft-redirects can be properly applied without violating WP:WINAD. Besides, if you take a random non-existing page like Grolic you can see there's already template there that allows searching on all projects under the sun with Wiktionary top of the list. Basically, the search facility and empty page display have both improved to the point, I no longer feel the {{wi}} templates are neccesary. = Mgm|^(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same rules that apply to redirects apply to soft redirects; when deciding whether or not to keep them you'd use the redirect criteria. It seems useful to me, and I don't really see how a soft redirect hurts anything. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no entry in wiktionary about this, so the soft redirect links to nothing. Either this need to be transferred to wiktionary, left as it is or deleted and forgotten about. I personally prefer the the fist two over total deletion.

Ok, I just created the wiktionary entry. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Fennell

WP:BIO no secondary independant sources about the subject. The illness model the subject sells is only reviewed by the subject and collaborators in an professional activist organization, not independant. The article was made like an ad for subjects' company. RetroS1mone talk 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Uncertain Her book is published by Wiley, a respectable publisher (though only some of their books are actually at a research level, & I doubt this one is.) She contributed a chapter to a major OUP subject encyclopedia. Indicates possible notability in her subject. Book reviews needed. DGG (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be more material added since I wrote this. DGG (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —RetroS1mone talk 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —RetroS1mone talk 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —RetroS1mone talk 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time right now to look into this in detail, so I refrain from !voting for the moment. However, I must say that the article looks like a piece of puffery and like the typical piece that tries to make a non-noitable person seem notable: a talk given here or there, a chapter written here or there, all that is nothing special, even if it is in some Encyclopedia. When one edits an encyclopedia, sometimes you don't find anybody for certain subjects and will be happy to include a junior person, because they might be willing to do so (in Life Sciences, publishing a book chapter scores only barely higher than publishing a meeting abstract when your CV is being evaluated by promotion/tenure committees, study sections, and such). Whatever happens to this article, a lot of cleanup is needed. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For her speaking events see the talk page, there are about 80 there, but finding independent sources rather than her website will take time. Ward20 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources or not, I don't care much for speaking engagement. Talking and writing is what we scientists do. Unless the speaking engagements concern keynote or plenary addresses at major meetings, they don't contribute anything to notability. As an example, our weekly seminar this week was by a grad student interviewing for a postdoc position to be taken after his thesis defense. --Crusio (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Since you have expertise in this field, what important criteria would you look for in an encyclopedic article about this topic? Ward20 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if there are non-trivial sources discussing her and her work, she would satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. Otherwise, I would look for citations to her publications in other scientific publications (using GoogleScholar of Web of Science), as that would show significant influence on her peers and her field or anything else that might fullfil one of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Eric Yurken has done that below and there doesn't seem to be much, so in all, I am leaning towards Delete, too. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, most from the scholarly citations of Fennell are in articles by her, by her collaborator and partner with her business, or in a journal she edits that is not indexed by medline, so not independant. RetroS1mone talk 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep is notable, cited across significant books in her field in google books. should have been marked for improvement.---Buridan (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Citation impact seems to be low. One can find references/links to her “Fennell Four Phase Model”, one of the main claims of notability in the article, through a Google search, but many of those references/links seem to trace back to the Wikipedia article. Her book published by Wiley in 2003, mentioned by DGG, is in 275 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G1 by Yandman. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gta vice city cheat codes

Cheat codes do not belong on an Encyclopedia. DFS454 (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A3 by MacGyverMagic. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gta san andreas cheat codes

Cheat codes do not belong on an Encyclopedia. DFS454 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The arguments for delete concentrated on the notability issues within the article, but the keep arguments largely consisted of variants of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I do not recognise as a valid argument in this context. Other arguments in favour of retention actually indicated the absence of reliable, third party sources by admitting that the software is "not well known". The keep arguments were therefore not persuasive when balanced against the arguments for deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seditio

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

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

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

No claim of notability and lacks third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about non-consumer content management system and content management framework software that makes no claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Software firm spam, nothing more. I don't know why the previous nominations box included an act of sedition there... weird? §FreeRangeFrog 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe page is not software firm spam. As well as the product is open to anyone to use. A deletion was attempted before, and after some changes the page was modified and allowed back. For you to consider deletion of this page, under the terms as above, 90% of the other CMS/CMF listings must be removed. Seditio is a long standing product, that has been around for many years. Before it it was another product known as Land Down Under, which was a very popular System used by many. This page is formed similar if not better than many of the other CMS articles out there, if you do not think so go take a look. Most have no references at all. You can not blame us by recent actions of some people who are a problem in the community because they are thirteen year olds, trying to get their links everywhere. I should also mention that this product is popular enough the owner allowed a fork to be created from it. Kilandor (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — Kilandor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- When you talk about "us" ("You can not blame us..."), I can assume that you are involved in the company behind Seditio? In that case, please read our guideline regarding conflicts of interest. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA popular CMS that many people are using. This is not spam at all, and the article makes no claims of superiority. The article is very well written, and merely states the facts of a piece of software that is actually in existence and fairly popular. Don't delete a legitimate page simply because you've never heard of it. This article gives many examples of popular websites that use the CMS, and links to legitimate outside sources. I was not a writer of this article, merely a user of the CMS. Jslowik 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 98.100.169.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KeepWhy deleting one content manager page and not the others???? This article should be kept. Words of a telecom engineer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.27.114 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability and lacks third party reliable sources. Pevernagie (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echhhooo that is exactly what the nominator said. Ikip (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing else to say but agree with the nominator. Pevernagie (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I have no idea what this article is about, it is well referenced, and I trust 98.100.169.148, 84.97.27.114, and Kilandor comments. Ikip (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your trust in 84.97.27.114 is misplaced, (s)he tried to remove the edits by those who propose to delete the article. Pevernagie (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any verifiability or notability of this system. All the sources listed in the article are either primary or are not reliable at all. MuZemike 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not become clear, from the article and from my own search, that the software is notable. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable source for you to try would be www.neocrome.net, newsmessage at the main page. The project is legitimate CMS, has many developers and fans both at seditio.com and at neocrome.net. The reason it looks new at the first sight, is because the project was developed behind "closed doors" in past 6 month. Anyway, deletion of the project without understanding it makes me wonder 87.70.91.111 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 87.70.91.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Neither being legitimate nor having many developers and fans make something notable. What it needs is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third-party sources; the rescue squad seems to be engaged in a disruptive campaign of wikipuffery to fill the article with irrelevant footnotes, while unsourced unencyclopedic sentences like "Seditio was created by Olivier C." remain. Really a CSD:G4, given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seditio. Might be notable in the future, but it isn't yet. If, somehow, this article survives AFD, it needs to be stubbed to get rid of the spam and peacockery. THF (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your source for who created it Neocrome About Us. Kilandor (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a self-published source, it is not a reliable source. Anyone can build a website and make some claims on it. That doesn't make the product notable. What you need is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site is 7 years old, and i'm tired of this its pointless. The logic pointless, Its like a Social Club, or high school, where only the popular kids get in or are liked. According to your logic even though Joomla may tell who founded and started the project, Well I can't belive that, because somone else didn't tell me that. And now your going to come back and say well Joomla is a well known CMS. Well you can't pick and choose your logic on a as needed basis, it either applies all the time, or not. I refuse to further attempt to save this page, or continue in any such descussion. This page has been targeted for deletion twice now, while many more pages in the CMS Category ar fare worse designed, some have even been flagged for years, for the same reasons as you are attempting, and in the past why this page was deleted. Clearly what applies to one, doesn't apply to others. And yes go ahead and cite me the article just because 1 page is that way doesn't mean yours is. Thats fine, if this page goes through for deletion, I will be nominating all the other pages that fall into the same categories as this, and that are flagged as such already.

Delete. No evidence of notability. "Sources" currently on the article are associated with the product or unreliable. Google turned up nothing better. The assertions of notability of a few IP editors, who are likely meatpuppets, are not compelling. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's dozens of CMSs around; nothing seems to differentiate this from the pack. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to FrameMaker . MBisanz ^talk 13:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Element Definition Document

Article about a single aspect of FrameMaker, only used in certain FrameMaker documents. Very limited potential for expansion; anything relevant should be folded into FrameMaker. Clay Collier (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Then be bold and merge it or tag it for merging. There's no need to invoke a deletion discussion to get a merge done. (At the very least it makes for a useful redirect) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge - Small amount of information that is, nonetheless, relevant to the FrameMaker page, so there's no good reason to delete it. Anaxial (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW, unanimous keep decision by commenters, nomination withdrawn. Mgm|^(talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggie

~~Contested prod on a poorly referenced article on a non-notable item. Borders on spam.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not notable? USA Today did a story about them: [37].SPNic (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in USA Today and Time Magazine are hardly poor references. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-sourced and written from a NPOV. I've been watching it for the last month, and I think that it has become a good example of what a stub should look like. Theymos (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I added the USAToday source myself, and the other reference certainly indicates notability. That, plus the mentions by the likes of Jay Leno & Ellen Degeneres indicate clear notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Existing references assert notability and there has been significant media coverage [38]. --Aka042 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Keep Significantly covered, well-known product in the US. Townlake (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The Snuggie is notable, I've seen commercials for it on TV.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Notability is very easily confirmed. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just the thing when it's snowing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I guess it's snowballed, dutifully withdrawn. Now will some of you people please go make this article suck a little less since you think it's so notable?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plamf

This dubious neoglism is allready on Wiktionary. There is no reason for it to be here, per WP:NAD DFS454 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not for one where the first hit of the word is Urban Dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - preferably speedy as hoax/vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or link to Wiktionary -- this article's up for deletion on Wiktionary too, so the outcome of this debate should hinge on the outcome on Wiktionary.

If deleted on Wiktionary -> Delete

If kept on Wiktionary -> Replace content with link to wiktionary definition.

--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE It has now been deleted from Wiktionary [39]--DFS454 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as part of the same pattern of vandalism as Maksist, and Bloof, both of which were posted by users now blocked for vandalism ,and sockpuppetry. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Wong

AfDs for this article:

Article previously deleted, possibly a G4 Speedy but I am not able to gauge whether this content is sufficiently similar to the previous version. Notability is not established in verifiable, reliable sources, the page was brought to RfC which brought it to my attention. While print sources are claimed, I am not able to establish the veracity of those claims. I requested further sources and clarified my stance on the talk page but none were delivered and no rebuttal took place. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some previous versions and it doesn't seem G4 applies. _ Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fan page or autobiographical piece at best. Looking at the references, nothing there establishes notability at all. The Ellen DeGeneres ref is especially rich. This is a guy with bit parts in unremarkable movies, fails WP:ENTERTAINER completely. §FreeRangeFrog 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This article pre-dates the creation date of a few account holders who have vandalized it under racist agendas which violates the terms of use in Wikipedia. Kai Wong is not only a actor but also a producer and the credits are documented in IMDB and the New York Times. Notability established. Keep and remove from deletion list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.167.246 (talk • contribs)

What credits are documented in IMDb? "Uncredited" means NO credits. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be improved to previous version before random edits and fan edits and trivia which rendered it unverifiable and juvenile (possibly female fans). However, notability as actor and producer in both the United States is established, and especially to the late producer Ismail Merchant, contribution to Asian American arts and the art house cinema. Improve links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanWeir (talk • contribs)

Care to post a link establishing "notability as producer"? There is not a single reference in IMDb. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- G4 deletion in error. Previous editors were newbies who did not read or understand Wikipedia's definition of "notability". As a result, sex and porn references such as "pearl necklace" have increased due to vandals' mischief, and other notable articles like this one vandalized. Article is "worthy of notice" in the person's role in Asian American and contemporary American cinema.

Subjective concepts depending on the race, nationality, religion and personal quirks or prejudices of the editor is irrelevant, otherwise topics like "Islam" or "Zen Buddhism" could be erroneously deleted. Although influential, the concept of "popularity" and "celebrity" is more tenuous and is secondary.

Some may prefer Brad Pitt; others may root for Władysław Szpilman. Both factions will deem the biographies "obscure". Wikipedia is not an internet venue for personal prejudices or internet warfare on concepts of "popularity", please keep opinions to yourself. This article has been around for five years, since 2004. Notability well established. Speedy keep. See Wikipedia:Notability.

The current article was created in April 2007. Five years? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanWeir (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Notability established. Stop vandalism and edit warfare by white supremacist groups on this page. Collaborate to source more material or to edit article such as birthdate, etc. Also please mark for editors on the Japanese and Chinese sections of wikipedia. Thanks. DuncanWeir (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The print references don't seem to exist, the IMDb references are mostly "uncredited" anyway - would it be unworthy of me to think that the data might have been contributed to IMDb by User:DuncanWeir or User:86.168.167.246? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mayors Cup

a single and unique friendly that was called "Cup", not notable. Ureinwohner (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while single games can be notable, there is no indication why this particular one is. Giant Snowman 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: meaningless friendly Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability test, WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is clear that this has no notability within Wikipedia. DeMoN2009 14:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was snowball keep. Ikip (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [non-admin closure.][reply]

Nairsan (film)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Although the subject of the film and one of the actors could establish notability, there are no valid sources for the information. §FreeRangeFrog 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Weak keep I think the author has established that his assertions in the article are valid. There's still the issue of WP:CRYSTAL being a bit soft around the edges in regards to films, but given the notability of the cast I think that can be ignored. And to the author - next time, please provide sources before your article goes into AfD and avoid the problem :) §FreeRangeFrog 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable source for it: The Hindu [http:In.movies.yahoo.com/news-detail/32924/Mohanlal-completes-thirty-years-in-filmdom-going-strong.html Shooting began]--Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you not add that to the article, then? I recommended delete because I didn't see any sources in there. §FreeRangeFrog 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware, that the article needs the sources at this point. I will include them asap. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page. Please take a look. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is an important international movie for both Japan and India and per thehindu source. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, as pointed out, fails NFF. Source listed above does not confirm shooting has begun. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been indefinetly banned, so we can now close this AfD. Ikip (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cursory search. Its gonna be another Jackie Chan film for goodness sake. However, it needs to be moved to Nair San so it will be easier to search and source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed further, since the official website is just called "Nairsan" http://www.nairsan.com/. Thanks for your input. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seen any evidence that this has started shooting - it's been six months since most of those links, too. Am I overlooking something? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in your argument. Why should the shooting only last six months? Any reference for this timeframe? --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Nair San for now. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It is confirmed that the shooting of the film has begun per[40]. C21K ^talk 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superb find! "Although his character in the film required the use of several theatrical dialogues, Mohanlal says it took no extra effort on his part to deliver them." Past tense. Good job!! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - as per better sources being found. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'dg

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/B'dg

Thoroughly non-notable bit character from Green Lantern comics who apparently hasn't even been mentioned by name in the stories. No sources, completely in-universe, and a quick internet search only turned up a smattering of message boards, fan sites, and fan blogs. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this extremely minor character, it is highly unlikely that this article can improve on the in-universe plot summary and fan speculation that it is now. Reyk _YO! 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom and Reyk summarize all relevant points concerning notability and in-universe detail. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Green Lantern. Ikip (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having little to no real-world notability, as evidenced by the lack of citations to reliable sources. Since the entire content is uncited, there is nothing to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as blatant, obvious misinformation. Davewild (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-Ultranationalist Civil War

This appears to be a hoax. No such war is currently taking place and a Google search [41] doesn't indicate that the term is being used to describe something other than an armed conflict. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a complete fantasy. WillOakland (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Дєлётє - An obvious hoax (hence my pseudo-Cyrillic directive, tovarisch). AlexTiefling (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Uncyclopedia. DonaldDuck (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Send this hoax back to the gulag. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX; article is WP:BALLS if we're lucky, or, God help us, WP:CRYSTAL.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This is funny!! This is taken from a game called "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntb613 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax/vandalism- I think someone's been playing a little too much Call of Duty 4 (FWIW- I typed this out before the previous comment was listed). Umbralcorax (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the "somewhere in Russia" thing sounded a bit movie like. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Freeman (character)

Fails WP:FICTION, in that the article offers no real-world context, its only sources are the programme's official website, and much of the analysis appears to be Original Research dramatic (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Keep. The article contains two references and two external links it can draw from. OR can be edited out without intervention of AFD. If there are concerns about the idea of having a separate article, it can be merged into a list. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Meets WP:N (two independent sources describing the character and her involvement in the plot of the show are linked in the article) so WP:FICT is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two references are in to plot summaries. They are not enough to establish notability. Unless you believe that a reference to a football team squad makes all the players notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I misinterpreted the linked articles as independent sources; they are not. TV2, the broadcaster of the show, is operated by TVNZ, the owner of the site in question. JulesH (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources available for this character: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] etc. JulesH (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good links here: [47]. This is a reason to keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per JulesH excellent research. Ikip (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Throng is pretty marginal as a reliable source. The parts of it which are not user-contributed appear to be unedited reprints of media releases by the producers of programmes. I agree that some of the sources found are good, but in that case the article needs a full rewrite to focus on what those articles say rather than regurgitating plot. dramatic (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just went through and copyedited and wikified a bit. I would be concerned if the show had a short page with little content, but it's reasonably lengthy and the the prose in this article flows. The references in the article already aren't bad and verify the content in the article. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:42, 11 February 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) 05:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Interstate 8 in California. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Posta Road Bridge

Not a notable bridge. Rschen7754 (T C) 08:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Just 3 Google search results, two giving pictures near the bridge, and the third apparently about a different, planned bridge. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These bridges are located at 32°43′37″N 116°25′37″W / 32.727°N 116.427°W / 32.727; -116.427. Not sure about notability. •••Life of Riley (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia cannot have an article about every single bridge along a highway, unless it is a notable bridge, such as a large bridge over a major river. Dough4872 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if someone had the energy to add a section on bridges to Interstate 8 in California, the content could be included there.Aymatth2 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Interstate 8 in California. There are only three Google hits, all passing mentions, but I can see this being a useful redirect. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aux Sable Records

Article does not demonstrate if Aux Sable Records makes the WP:CORP notability bar. ASR appears to be an independent label that "inherits" its notability from one act, Victorian Halls. Other ASR acts are nominally covered by at best (Emma Tringali, a ASR artist, has an article here that is up for AfD). There is appears no notability for this company on its own. B.Wind (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability per nom and article was obviously created to support the Emma Tringali one, which is also up for AfD and also fails WP:MUSIC anyway. Maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. No reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to keep this article alive: I created this page. Although there are no online articles speaking directly about the label, there are legitimate articles regarding artists on the label, and instead of making 'stubs' about each band, this was created, for the time being, to keep everything in one location. Since the label has been expanding recently they've been told by their contact at the Chicago Tribune that they will be running a feature on Aux Sable Records in the next month or two to showcase the expansion and the new acts on the label. I am upset to see that FreeRangeFrog would say that the Aux Sable Records page was "Obviously created to support the Emma Tringali one" when it is obvious by looking at the history of each page that the Aux Sable Records page was created several months before the Emma Tringali page. Emma Tringali is indeed an artist who recently signed to the label, but their Wikipedia page is 100% independent of Aux Sable Records' (see contributors to each). If this page must be taken down until Aux Sable Records gets more press coverage, I can understand. Wikipedia can't have page after page of nonsense to stay reputable, and from an outsiders view, I suppose Aux Sable Records may not have much third party evidence of true existence. I just want it to be known that I put a lot of time and effort into creating this page for Wikipedia and to include as many sources as I could. It isn't trying to advertise itself, and it is not profane or insulting to anyone. It is simply trying to give a place for people to go to research what Aux Sable Records is without fully relying on the information on auxsablerecords.com. If it is decided that this Wikipedia page be taken down, I would like to be able to easily revert it to it's present condition once it has more press directly mentioning the label itself. I honestly hope that this page may remain online, but understand if it absolutely cannot.(PepsiIsbad) 04:38, 9, February 2009 (UTC)

Comment My apologies for the hasty comment, I saw both articles on the same set of for-deletion-articles and I assumed they were created in tandem, which is quite common, believe it or not. Having said that, no one doubts you put a lot of effort into creating the page, the problem, as you correctly state, is that your record company does not meet the guidelines for notability. Many people follow the 'userify' route when this happens - meaning that you place the article text under your own user page and work on it until such time as it can pass muster notability-wise, at which point you simply re-create it on the main 'namespace' where normal articles go. I can empathize with your intention to have a separate location where people can obtain information about the company, however that's also a problem as Wikipedia is not a web host or repository for companies' information. If and when you are able to establish notability, no one will object to including the article in the encyclopedia, believe me. For example once you are mentioned in national media, one of your artists charts, etc. Until then though, my opinion that both articles be deleted stands, and you will find most other editors will have the same stance, because they are based on clear guidelines, not personal feelings. Good luck! §FreeRangeFrog 03:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tringali

Seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC notability bar. There appears to be one review of her performance, but the rest of the online coverage of her appears to be not reliable sources. Citations in the article include two myspace.com pages and a press release announcing her signing to a Chicago independent record label in December 2008... not enough for WP:MUSIC, either. B.Wind (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no WP:RELIABLE sources and her record company's article is also up for AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mostly myspace and blogs. No reliable sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit

I don't see how this website meets WP:N, and no one argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly well-known site, gets a reasonable number of Google news hits. Should be no problem establishing notability through reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of google hits does not establish notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These Google hits do. WillOakland (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on news coverage. WillOakland (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known web site, easily meets WP:N. JulesH (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly well-referenced article on a well known site. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Canley (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets Notability guidelines by having several non-trivial articles published about it in reliable publications. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Per noted above.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 11:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American supercentenarians

Prodded, but I thought this needed a discussion as it appeared to be not uncontroversial as required by WP:PROD. This seems to me to be a list that violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information - and WP:NPOV as the "definition" for inclusion, particularly on the "race" side, be subjective and arbitrary at best - how many of a person's great-grandparents must be African American to "qualify" for the list - eight? six? two? one? What does it mean to be "African American" in the first place? Despite an assertion in government publications to the contrary, it's up to a person's interpretation, thus making it a POV issue. B.Wind (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandparents are irrelevant. We should be looking at sources that confirm the entries which seem to be present. Still I'm not sure I'm seeing a feasible link between race and age. Unless it can be established that African Americans are scientifically more or less likely to reach such an age, there's no reason to split it off. (My gut feeling would be to merge any entries not yet in List of the verified oldest people, but I'm leaving my vote until more people commented.) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

My research here:

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07182008-143721/unrestricted/young_robert_d_200808_masters.pdf

Showed that at age 110, African-Americans had a life expectancy advantage of about six months over their Caucasian-American counterparts. It was not possible to determine a maximum lifespan difference (unlike gender, where women live 7 years longer). The "qualification" to be African-American is mostly self-determined, or as recorded in documents such as the census, Social Security, etc.

I might ask the question, however: what would happen if someone created an article on "List of Caucasian-American supercentenarians"?Ryoung122 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course grandparents matter. If it weren't for grandparents, there would be no parents. Now, in the original research that you cited, what was your definition of African American? Had Barack Obama married a Caucasian woman instead of Michelle, would his children be African American according to your definition? Did you know that the State of Louisiana actually changed its official definition of "African American" in the past thirty years (it was that if a person had one black great-great-great-grandparent, he/she must show "black" as a race on his/her driver's license)? Another key question is how did the data account for those who claimed multiethnic ancestry, or people (like yours truly) who claimed their race to be "human" on their census form - and others). B.Wind (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same. Apparently race and life expectancy are not linked in any cause-and-effect manner. Unless something like that can be proven, the list is a trivial intersection like List of red-haired sportspeople. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need in having 100s of these supercentenarian articles for every race, religion, handedness, etc. one could devise; and how African American does one have to be? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder and per my comments on the article talk page. They have pretty much been summed up here: there are POV problems in determining who is "African American" and, even if there weren't, I don't see any evidence that "African American" and "lived to be at least 110" are not a trivial intersection. Cheers, CP 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT We should make sure that all entries here are covered in the regular list, otherwise deletion would lead to loss of perfectly valid information that was just mistitled/miscategorized. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one page per country is enough. Secondly something like race is not clear cut whereas birth and death places are. I don't fully agree with the comment above. Not all American supercentenarians are listed on List of supercentenarians from the Unites States, so I don't think it makes sense to include everyone who appears on this page there as it would cause an under-representation of non-black supercentenarians SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, with additional sourcing added to the article to confirm notability. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fit for Life

Promotional article, non-notable subject which fails notability criteria. Actually, this was speedy-deleted as blatant advertising, but the speedy deletion was contested and I think it's more appropriate for discussion here.

No decent coverage in independent, reliable sources. Literally the only usable source is Quackwatch, which is not exactly the makings of a solid encyclopedia article. I discussed the lack of sources a year ago, and got a lot of attitude but no help in actually finding any (see Talk:Fit for Life). At this point, given the lack of independent, quality sources, this fails notability guidelines and should be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - One of the most notable diets of U.S. origin. We don't say we're advertising the Stratocaster, or Guitar Hero, or the Macrobiotic diet, or the Grapefruit diet, by having an article about these. We endeavor to have the best possible encyclopedia, one which is not censored. Anyone with expertise in nutrition--whether they believe this diet to be good or bad--cannot possibly state that this diet, which achieved huge press and public interest, represents a "non-notable" subject. Please direct your energies to improving our encyclopedia, not depleting it. Badagnani (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly, I feel I do direct significant effort to improving the encyclopedia. Rather than shake your head at my ignorance, how about employing your expertise to find actual, usable reliable sources - which should be easy given the prominence you assert for this diet. MastCell ^Talk 06:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poorly sourced and, at times, poorly written, but as a NYT bestseller and a popular diet, comparable to Atkins diet, it is notable. For those that are interested, some good, reliable sources may be found here and here. -kotra (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the problem here may be that since it was only popular for a brief period in the mid 80s to early 90s, its notability is not directly apparent to us nowadays. But Atkins, too, had a short window of popularity (shorter, even?), but its notability is assured because it was popular (and discredited) more recently, at a time when Wikipedia existed. -kotra (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical, if nothing else. Certainly passes WP:ORG and article is not written as an advert. §FreeRangeFrog 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it's not a brilliant article, but the sources that are provided are sufficient to show some degree of notability. It would be good to have independent verification of the '12 million copies' and 'NYT Bestsellers List' claims, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in Gale's Encyclopedia of diets pp. 383–386. I'll see that the article does not make unwarranted statements. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've significantly edited the article. All statements have sources now, and criticism is included. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ozanne

Prodded (and seconded); then tagged for speedy deletion before being rejected. The initial prod cited WP:N (actually, falling short of WP:PROF); my seconding of the prod included: "There are literally millions of lecturers/faculty in the colleges and universities of the world. There is nothing here that sets him apart from the vast majority who would not even be considered for entry into Wikipedia." B.Wind (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I originally prodded, but since someone has added a published book which seems to be a leading book in its field, so I think it just barely merits a keep. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain His 10 papers in Scopus have citations of 22, 12, 3 (etc). His one book,by a specialized publisher in in 91 WorldCat libraries (this is probably for a specialized UK book a considerable underestimate of actual numbers). I don;t know the standards in the subject, but I have my doubts this is sufficient DGG (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the research done by DGG. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete DGG's data could go either way, so based on lack of full professor rank, I'm going to apply the rougher "not yet more notable than the average professor" test. Ray (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For someone who did his PhD 20 years ago, his scientific production and citation counts are very low. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSPSex.Net

Article recreated and speedily deleted several times. I want a clarification on the speediness of this, as well as a query for a possible salting of this article.

Basically, the article is a not-notable porn site. It's in the top 100,000 Websites (according to Alexa), not high enough to truly be notable. It has gotten mentioned in a Sony Press release once, but that is it. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes but it also signed a deal with a major canadian cellular network! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergsteinlife (talk • contribs)

Delete and salt I've seen it three times already, I think. Possibly also spam block the account. §FreeRangeFrog 05:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to encourage the user towards more constructive editing[48]. See also PSPSex.net. Bovlb (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt both PSPSex.net and PSPSex.Net per nom. And whatever else this user tries to create in the future to get around the salts. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a generous amount of salt—I've had enough spam in my belly as-is. I would also consider action against the user. MuZemike 08:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per WP:SNOW.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--Peephole (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They where supposed to provide videos for telus but people got mad and telus scrapped the mobile porn. I guess westnet went with them instead. Thats notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.156.88 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Admitted hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec shadow snake

Delete, as probable hoax; see discussion on talkpg. Aztec "shadow snake" or a mythical creature fitting its description and attributes is not found in any of the usual and comprehensive sources on Aztec mythology, or for that matter on more contemporary Mexican folkore. In particular, there appears to be no mention at all of this mythical creature in either of the two books that are given as citations. I own and am quite familiar with one of those books (Miller & Taube 1993), and the other is searchable via googlebooks. None of the several mentions of "snake" or "serpent" in these books covers anything remotely like this tale. When challenged to provide the specifics of the sources used, the article's creator responded with a supposed "exact quote" paraphrasing the article content, but did not say where the quote comes from, despite a clear request. The exact quote also changed the alleged Nahuatl word for this creature, originally appearing in the article as Tiquiztocotl but then changed (after I'd pointed out this is not a feasible Nahuatl construction and doesn't contain Nahuatl elements for snake or shadow) in the exact quote to ecahuillicoatl. Two things here: firstly, if that was an exact quote from some authentic source that is being used, then why the difference between the two Nahuatl names? Secondly, as pointed out on the talkpg while ecahuillicoatl does incorporate Nahauatl words for "shadow" and "snake", it is an incorrectly formed noun-noun compound (in such constructions the absolutive suffix -li should be dropped). It's almost as if someone looked up some Nahuatl dictionary for the words for "shadow" and "snake" and then jammed them together without regard to Nahuatl's word formation rules. In summary, verifiable sources confirming the information have not been provided, the sources that were provided do not contain the information, searches for the information in other reliable sources have thus far drawn a blank. Either it's a hoax, or it's a description of some genuine mythological entity that's so garbled and the sources are mismatched, or it's so obscure and little-documented a tale that one wonders if it's notable. The sequence of events and circumstances leads me to suspect the first of these. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 06:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. My copy of Miller & Taube has nothing of the sort. Madman (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Well researched! AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I admit it was a hoax. But how was this caught so quickly, when a hoax about a similar topic that was much more blatant (for example, no sources, the supposed Nahuatl name didn't even sound Nahuatl, etc.) took a full six months? --Pi3141592 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rehab

AfDs for this article:

One legit source, others are YouTube, no notability established, and many other problems. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 04:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hello There. Madman (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, I could find anything more than the MTV article either. To the closing Admin: if this is a delete, there is The Rehab (Young Buck album) article and an associated redirect too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Media Project

Not a single reliable source establishes notability, delete as per WP:NOTE and WP:CORP Peephole (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuck Munson. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:59, 6 February 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) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as it fails almost every criterion of WP:N Mkdw ^talk 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an entirely reasonable split-off of Infoshop.org, Practical Anarchy and Chuck Munson. The topic here is notable; it is simply an issue of presentation as to whether this material ought to be presented as a stand alone article or in one of the others. If the situation was reversed and the components of the project (i.e. Munson, PA and Infoshop) were less notable than the project itself, they could be merged to the project article, but it makes no sense to merge the broader topic (AMP) to one of the narrower ones. The encyclopaedia would not benefit from the removal of the article, as it provides needed context to the reader that would be obscured elsewhere. Skomorokh 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Skomorokh makes a convincing argument based on what is best for the encyclopedia rather on the minutiae of guidelines. This organisation publishes more than one notable publication, so should definitely be covered in Wikipedia, and it wouldn't be appropriate for the information to be merged to one or other of the articles on the publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical expressionism

An impressive assortment of tags. Fails WP:N. Seems a bit spammy as well. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jamali (artist) Why do we have an article about an "art movement" that consists of one artist, about whom there is no WP article? If anyone is willing to write an article about the artist, I would support redirecting this page there. As it is, delete. Lithoderm 03:11, 2 February 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) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete - No citations, no sources, no links, orphaned article and nothing about it even on the internet. Mkdw ^talk 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One wall paddleball

This game seems to be the same as the sport described in Paddleball_(Sport) Fangfufu (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article essentially already exists. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paddleball_(Sport). ѕwirlвoy ₪ 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,Keep. The Paddleball (Sport) article has content discussing a different game.Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis (talk • contribs)
Cleanup. Actually, this sport seems to be quite notable, but the article is in pretty bad shape. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonathan321 and Anhydrobiosis. Ikip (talk) 21:50, 2 February 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) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this sport is notable, and not the same as the sport at Paddleball (Sport), which is a variant of field hockey. Actually, it looks like Paddleball (Sport) is non-notable, and could be the subject of an AfD itself. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - sport has wide popularity, is separate from its indoor cousin racquetball, and has nothing to do with paddleball (Sport), which is a different game entirely. B.Wind (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BassLab

BassLab was deleted on de:Wikipedia, the delition_rewiew failed, there is no endorsement, the user is only advertising [49] --84.166.54.94 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company with notable products. See reviews [50], One-Piece Molded Hollow 5-String With Active Electronics, Bass Player, March 2003 (not available online), [51]. JulesH (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JulesH and WP:NOTDE.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s definitely not true, that I would only do advertisement. I made a lot of edits in the discussions/articles about BassLab because I wanted to finish my work! Intensive work is Imo better then cursory work on a lot of different fields, without finishing. Again: I’m neither a member of BassLab nor related with one of them or something like this. If you understand the German language, please read the German discussions about the deletion: You should recognize that their decision was spurious. Like the user, who tries to delete this article, they judge without having enough knowledge about the company, their opinion are biased.

Here is a short sum which should show, that the company fulfils the criteria for an encyclopaedic article:

Instruments made of synthetic resin were often described as temporary fashion of the 1970s and 80s. The manufacturing process has been animadverted a lot. There’s no development which is comparable with the work of BassLab
BassLab uses an own mixed material, which was created to achieve certain acoustic properties (unique). Just therefore, the instruments have a better reputation. Due to this development, the sound of the instruments is adaptable (unique).
BassLab doesn’t use the typical “spoiler principle”
The material is not poured into a mold and not forced out (unique process). The results are high ergonomic flexibility and “freedom of design“

Besides, the instruments are characterized by a long sustain, fast sound production, high stability, very light weight and impassiveness to humidity and temperature changes. -> notable products!

Here are independent sources, which affirm the mentioned points (my information and accordingly the article base upon them):

Leigh, B. Bass Player Magazine (03/2003) - BassLab STD Review. United Entertainment Media (USA).
Walte, C. Bass Musician Magazine (8/01/2007) - Basslab Soul IV and Hevos 800D Bass Head. V.I.E., LLC
Selection of international magazines: "BassPlayer" (USA), "Australian Guitar", "Bass Magazine" (Japan), "MM" (Sweden), "Bass-mag" (France), "Bass Inside Magazine" (Canada)
E-Gitarren - Alles über Konstruktion und Historie (Electric guitar – Everything about construction and histroy), Paul Day, Heinz Rebellius, Andre Waldenmaier ISBN 3910098207 , 2001, 368 pages;
Gitarre & Bass – Das Musiker-Fachmagazin, issue 08/2007, 05/2008, 03/2007, 02/2004, 07/2004, 03/2002, 05/2001. MM-Musik-Media-Verlag, Ulm, (Germany)

Every single report includes a positive feedback: BassLab is innovative, unique and their products are characterized by brilliant quality. Here are some quotes:

“... Heiko Hoepfinger and his label BassLab are the avangardists of this business and their concept is above all doubts ... feather light bass-constructions with an adoring potential for tone. This bass is perfectly well done. Ergonomically, this STD-V is a masterpiece, tonally amazing..... Perfect! " (Gitarre & Bass - issue 03/2002)

"The unique basslab constriction proves that modern materials don’t necessarily need to sound sterile. This bass astoundingly combines sustain and rich overtones with a rounded mild balance and character, that would be an honour for a wooden bass, but easily excels them by richness in detail." (Gitarre & Bass - issue 02/2004)

"Precise, brilliant, loud and clear... The tuneable composite offers a unique combination of sensitive tone with a high transparency and musicality in one instrument. " (Gitarre & Bass - issue 08/2007)

"Unbelievably light and even sounds ... The opulent tonal experience is more than convincing, almost too rich in regard of sensitivity, resonance, sustain and tonal spectrum and – that’s special - a characterful, warm-sounding resonance and balance. An inspiring instrument!" (Gitarre & Bass - issue 05/2001)

One-Piece Molded Hollow 5-String With Active Electronics, Bass Player, March 2003

Review: BassLab STD-V - Bass Inside Magazine 08/2002

Please stop this unnecessary discussion and keep this article (WP:Corp fulfilled!). --J.H.89 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sure but couldn't you have included all this in the actual article instead of clogging up the AfD? Drmies (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Iremet

does not meet WP:BIO—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.124.186 (talk) 13:02, February 1, 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criterion for writers. ¨¨ victor falk 07:06, 2 February 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) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Mkdw ^talk 03:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tashkent earthquake hoax

Not sufficiently notable for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this was anything more than a rumour, rather than a hoax. These kinds of rumours are far too common to warrant inclusion, especially if no notable events are triggered by the rumours. RedScraper (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Though the article in it's current state is not very informative, it can be expanded. Abdullais4u (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tajiks should be nominated for the award of “The main believers in rumors”, because they believe in rumors more than any other nation. ... about another quake rumour just two weeks ago. ¨¨ victor falk 07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, called it rumor instead of a hoax, but the sources provided by Victor are an indication that this rumor is notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that the article is about a rumour in 2006, while the links I provided are about another rumour two weeks ago... ¨¨ victor falk 07:45, 4 February 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) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Nonsense. Mkdw ^talk 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, according to my CSD essay, the official criteria, and WP:PN means "incomprehendable." You could still read the text. I took the tag down; hope you don't mind. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This could almost be a hoax by itself... K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A rumor is not a hoax—they are not the same thing. These people were frightened because of rumors, not a hoax. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Tashkent earthquake rumors or Tashkent earthquake panic. •••Life of Riley (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:NAC. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rayment

Non-notable basketball player and suspected WP:BIO as the creator of the article wrote elaborately about the person's high school life (details likely only to be known by the person himself) when the page was first created: [52]Mkdw ^talk 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mkdw ^talk 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - I'm really confused as to what's going on with this article. It started out as an article of suspect notability about a basketball player named J.R. Patrick, but then the article starter blanked the article, and moved it to its current name, but without changing any content. Zuh? --Mosmof (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete, where it's Brian Rayment or J.R. Patrick. Non-notable former Div 1 basketball players who hasn't played for a major league (NBA or Euroleague) or in the Olympics/World Championships. --Mosmof (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a speedy deletion tag after the page creator and (as far as I can tell) the only substantial contributor requested deletion. Mosmof (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich (album)

AfDs for this article:

unsourced future album Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this completely. How can this be "unsourced"? The album is CONFIRMED on http://www.psychostick.com. Seriously. No need for deletion. Besides, a new article will be made after May 5th anyway (probably). J-Head (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: psychostick.com is not independently verifiable from the subject, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. Still doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. Even if it was released, it would still be a delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums for lacking significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew N. Robertson

PROD contested. Actor has not had significant roles in multiple notable films. He does not have a signifcantly large following, nor has he had unique controbutions to entertainment. Thus he fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The page has no sources and a google search for notability provided nothing notable. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, star of a major television mini-series. AnyPerson (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO & WP:ENTERTAINER. Mkdw ^talk 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gormenghast and The Cement Garden were both notable, and Robertson had significant roles in each; therefore he satisfies the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Baileypalblue. (He even had top billing in The Cement Garden) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Aaliyah

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

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

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

No reliable sources for any such album. In fact, only 4 Google hits for this phrase at all. This article has been through speedy deletion and prod tags, so now it's time for an AfD. AnyPerson (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced future album. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this project exists. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete More evidence will become available as more information becomes available and an album cover even exists that's evidence right there but rest assure that more information will come available soon so please don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaliyahforever (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Here's a quote from Aaliyah's Official Myspace:We are proud to announce that a new Aaliyah album "Officially Aaliyah" is in production." So please don't delete!!!!please!!

Indent double vote from same user. DiverseMentality 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's write about it once it exists. If ever. ~~SIS~~ 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage from third-party reliable sources, fails WP:NM. DiverseMentality 17:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't DeleteThe Haughton family stated they would hold a press conference in March 2009 on Aaliyah's official myspace page and website,so you guys have no reason to delete this page and need to leave it alone and find something else to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaliyahforever (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't DeleteI also saw that Aaliyah's myspace which is ran by her record label,Blackground Records,that a new cd(mixtape)would be released in 2009,so you guys should not delete it because it has been confirmed by Aaliyah's record label.So bug off and leave the page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.108.191 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If/when this album is notable, there will be coverage somewhere beyond a single MySpace page. Recreate if and only if it's covered more widely. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album was just announced like 5 days ago,so give it some more time to get publicity ok !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.108.191 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- I would, conversely, say that one should wait until publicity and information is available before creating an article. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not established by fan speculation and Myspace announcements. When this album is sufficiently covered in reliable sources so as to satisfy WP:MUSIC then it can be recreated. Currently the article appears to be unsourced, unverifiable and primarily composed of rumor. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An album cover already exists how is that a rumor....the album is real so leave the page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.108.191 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per almost all above. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Pure crystalballery. Posts from myspace are not considered reliable secondary sources. MuZemike 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) Copyvio of http://www.buddhivihara.org/niyama.htm. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Fivefold Niyama (Cosmic Order)

Pure incomprehensible unencyclopedic OR, also a copyvio of this web page. Probably speedyable but I'm not 100% sure the speedy would be accepted and don't want to fool around. Looie496 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. I think it might be a prayer or a sermon, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a notable one. Edward321 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. Not sure why you're hesitating to tag it, as it's quite a clear case. And whether the sermon (which is apparently what this is) is notable or not, we shouldn't have the text of it on wikipedia anyway. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I Grow Up (2008 film)

No evidence of notability. I am unable to find any sources about this film, other than the official site; it doesn't even have an IMDB page, which is a pretty glaring sign (as IMDB have lower inclusion standards than we do). None of the people mentioned in the article have their own articles. This doesn't meet any of the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films) (or Wikipedia:Notability, for that matter). Terraxos (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, student project, apparently. AnyPerson (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AnyPerson. It is a student project; It says so in the article and here on the OFFICIAL WEBSITE. (!) K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP PLEASE. I was at the premiere of this film on December 12th 2008. 190 people attended in Balfron High school Scotland. Th evening was supported by Strathendrick Film Society, and there was a laser light show put on through funding provided by the Co-operative community awards / Third Age Group Strathendrick. This evening was an ideal situation to get the generations working together, and as 'film' has been the only event that I have been involved in that is sucessful in this area, it deserved to be supported. Following this film, Strathendrick Film Society have been awarded further funding by teh Co-op community dividend, to make a film, by the same director.. Michael Ferns , now aged 17 years. This film will be a docu /drama about the Reverend Robert Kirk. www.film-society.org user bubblyblether 10th February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BUBBLYBLETHER (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) This is my first entry through wikipedia, please forgive me if I have made any no nos! This film has excepionally good music, created by the directors father. It is not in IMDB. It has not been officially rated . It may be shown for free by any film society who wish to include it in their programme. It is a hard hitting piece of drama that gets to grips with the pressures faced by young people. Michael Ferns is not afraid to shock or depict distressing scenes relating to today's youth. bubblyblether 10th february 2009.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

56th Special Warfare Squadron

Potentially fails WP:N, but enough to decline a speedy deletion nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible~~ keep. If this article is about the ROKN SEALS overall, then it should probably be kept. I would think that the ROKN SEALs would merit an article in Wikipedia. It is not clear from the title or the content of the article if the 56th Special Warfare Squadron comprises all of the SEALs, or if it is one unit of the SEALs. If the 56th and the SEALs are one and the same, then the article should probably be moved to Republic of Korea Navy SEALs. •••Life of Riley (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my stance to Keep, per references found by RayAYang below. This unit is apparently the ROK Navy Special Forces (i.e., SEALS). The ROKN is a significant organization, and I think their special forces are worthy of an article. We certainly could use more information if it can be found. •••Life of Riley (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unsourced, better safe than sorry. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Only two Google hits for English language sites, neither has more than a mention. AnyPerson (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Delete - Little or no encyclopedic content. If you wish to elaborate on Korea's special forces under a military article, that would be more viable than just a listing of some special force units that lack notability other than they're in the military and are used by them according to their training. Mkdw ^talk 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They do exist, and occasionally get coverage. These are apparently the ROKN Seals [53]. However, the South Korean variant appears to keep a much lower profile than their American counterparts, and I'm not sure that sources will materialize to bring this article above a stub. Ray (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link makes no mention of "56th Special Warfare Squadron". AnyPerson (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/No Stance: Although I do not disagree that a Korean special forces unit that corresponds with the article's description exists, I'm troubled that this article is mostly unverified at this point in time. I've done some searching in the Jane's Information Group database at my local university, and I can find no results for "56th Special Warfare Squadron" or "ROKN Seals", and no meaningful results for any other combination of the 56th Squadron or the term 'seals' with search terms for the Korean Navy.
- SEAL is specifically a U.S. Navy term and is probably not used by other navies to designate their special forces units. Special warfare and special forces are more generic terms but probably hard to pin down through an internet search, because of the non-specific nature of the words. •••Life of Riley (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. I tried "seal" because that was the term used in the article and in the websites found so far. I'm think (but I'm not sure if) I tried "special forces", but "special warfare" also came up with no meaningful results for the 56th or a more general special forces organisation in Korea. -- saberwyn 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cursory gsearch should be able to establish notability, and that's certainly not the case. If it's a super-secret unit with few third-party mentions then even that would be notable, but sadly that's not the case either. This might very well be a WP:HOAX. My copy of The Encyclopedia of the World's Special Forces (ISBN 0-7607-3939-0) states in the South Korea section of Special Forces at Sea that they do have two NAVSPECWAR-like outfits: "Marine Corps SEALs" with three divisions (1st, 2nd and 3rd) with three batallions each (capability closer to Marine Force Recon; and three teams of Navy SEALs modeled around the US Navy units. Nowhere is the "56th Special Warfare Squadron" mentioned. The book was published in 2003. Hoax, I say. §FreeRangeFrog 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amparo Vega

Not notable, living person; at best worth a merge with an article about CutNStuff, the website that seems to be this individual's main source of notability. Sigmundur (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:BIO. Also, even though there is a fair amount of content on the page, it's not very encyclopedic. --Sigmundur (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, non-notable, spam. This shouldn't have required a relisting. AnyPerson (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Mkdw ^talk 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Derksen

Non-notable photographer. Google searches turn up social networking hits; Google News references a German (apparently not the same person, but it might be), and Google Books only has 6 hits, all foreign and not necessarily the same person. There are COI and autobiography tags on the article - which we should note are not reasons to delete it; if in fact Mr. Derksen is notable, it would be OK for him to provide citations (not primary source information) to show us how. My attempts to locate any such notability have, however, come up empty. Frank | talk 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced spam Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Seems to me to borderline on an advertisement as well, especially considering the username of the creator of the article. --Aka042 (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laglo

WP:NEO, no notability, local police officer term. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No suggestion of notability, appears to be nothing more than an add for the website Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data Feed Optimization

Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a name given to a particular type of Search Engine Optimization, it should probably be merged there. JulesH (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually no content and no sources. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content, do not redirect or merge as the phrase appears to be a neologism. Ray (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This is the future in Internet marketing, a few sources can be found.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greeley Estates. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of This

This article has been tagged since November 2008 for notability. As far as I can see, there is none. ArcAngel (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The band is notable (although that article needs work), some coverage found and added to the article.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although there are a few sources around on Google, I'm not entirely convinced they are independently sufficient and notable WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RecentChangesCamp

The article lacks multiple, reliable, independent sources to indicate notability, nor was I able to find these. If this is just a few people playing around on computers together for a weekend every year, and no one's covered it, we certainly shouldn't be. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage. This is non-notable, self-promotional and self-aggrandizing. Outside of being a Wikipedia related event, it has no notability. Less than 200 people attended. Even the talk page is used as promotional, see Talk:RecentChangesCamp#Be Prepared. I mean no harm or offense to those involved in the Camp. I actually think the Camp is awesome and a great idea. I just don't think it is notable enough for an article, and we can't play favorites. Kingturtle (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTE: lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Also agree with above rationales provided by Biruitorul (talk · contribs) and Kingturtle (talk · contribs). Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An exclusive feature article from a major regional newspaper most definitely meets the definition of significant coverage that is independent of the subject. If the article needs tone work, then let's work on it. But needing clean up is never a reason for deletion. RCC is not actually much related to Wikipedia, for the record. Only last year did Wikimedia Foundation people attend. As for <200 people, there is no notability guideline or policy that says a certain number of people must attend an event. If you're looking for fame to define notability, then RecentChangesCamp meets it by being one of only a couple international wiki conferences, one that has been attended by a lot of notable wiki companies and people (including Ward Cunningham). In other words, RCC is a unique, important event that has been given significant coverage by a very reliable source. That's notable. Steven Walling (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to where it has received coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. One piece in a regional paper doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, last time I checked, exclusive coverage in a very reliable source did meet WP:NOTE. Only in the case of small or insignificant mentions in an RS must you have a bevy of reliable sources. Steven Walling (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even that significant of an article. Basically just a few quotes of attendees. Have any other reliable secondary sources independent of the subject of the article ever even mentioned "RecentChangesCamp" in any capacity at all? Cirt (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of mentions in general if you do a blog or net search, but notable ones include a post from Creative Commons (an independent, international non-profit), and a post by Ross Mayfield. While notability isn't inherited, I think it's important to note that Ward Cunningham attended RCC along with WikiSym (and of course Wikimania). If this conference is big enough for the wiki founder to attend, international free culture non-profits to promote independently, and the CEO of the first enterprise wiki company to blog about, then it is clearly notable in addition to the mainstream press coverage from The Oregonian. Steven Walling (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Biruitorul (talk · contribs), below - blog mentions are not acceptable for determining notability as per WP:NOTE - so that really does not answer my question. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to blogs and the newspaper article, the recently published How Wikipedia Works mentions the conference. There's your multiple sources, across several mediums. Steven Walling (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steven Walling. I think notability has (barely) been established. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Folks, this is a notable conference about Wikis & online communities. It merited this mention by a WMF staff member. it has gotten funding in the past from Wiki-based businesses like Atlassian, SocialText, AboutUs -- oh, & this guy by the name of Ward Cunningham is a big supporter of RCC. If these testimonials don't convince enough Wikipedians & the consensus is to delete this article... well folks, we all are going to look really foolish. I wonder just how many times we can make stupid decisions before the general consensus in the Real World is that Wikipedia is not at all reliable. --llywrch (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blog mentions are, of course, unreliable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Biruitorul (talk · contribs) here - just because someone really likes this event, or blogged about it, does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did I say anything about "blogging"? Or is this a meaning of the word "funding" that I am unaware of? When a company donates money &/or resources to a regular conference on a topic (I assume here, for argument's sake, that Wikis & online communities are notable), then IMHO that establishes notability. -- llywrch (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - From WP:NOTE: lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Please disprove that. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are being a wikilawyer. Notability is not limited to only the wording of policy. Either you are unaware of WP:IAR, or are acting in bad faith. llywrch (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- one of only three regular conferences about wikis to exist (the other two are Wikimania and WikiSym); has run for several years now, a notable technology barcamp. This is not a Wikimedia event, and is unconnected with Wikipedia and the WMF. And a note on process -- why in the world was the redirect at Recent Changes Camp preemptively deleted? Please undelete until this debate is over. Thank you, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please back that up with multiple reliable sources? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biruitorul, I am a reliable source on this particular topic, having been intensively involved with the wiki conference scene from the beginning :P but yes, I'll look for sources. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I confirm phoebe's assertion, that RecentChangesCamp is one of only three regular conferences about wikis, and also that it is a notable technology barcamp. My relevant background: I have been part of the public wiki community since 2001 (see KaminskiWiki on archive.org); I was CTO of Socialtext, a leading wiki vendor, from 2003-2008; and I have discussed RecentChangesCamp and the other wiki conferences with other leaders of the wiki community, such as Ward Cunningham, Sunir Shah, Dirk Riehle, and Eugene Eric Kim. I have been an organizer of several BarCamps, including the first one, and have discussed BarCamp with several founders of the BarCamp model, including Chris Messina and Tara Hunt. -- Peter Kaminski (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's all nice info, but you saying it on Wikipedia in a post is WP:OR... Cirt (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think Pete's point is that it's a notable event within the wiki community, according to experts in the field (of which he is one, something I can confirm). It's not an event that has sought out celebrity or press, however, so sources are thinner on the ground than they are for some events (but about the same as for many academic or community conferences). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are confusing "notable" with WP:NOTE... Cirt (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is going to legitimize this article is finding other worthwhile sources. There is currently but one, The Oregonian article - which unfortunately we cannot access off the Internet. Was it on the front page? Was it a just a paragraph in the backpages? Kingturtle (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Oregonian article was the main article on the front page of the Business section. It included a large photo. The article was continued on an inside page of that section. You can examine photos of the newspaper I took: front page of business section and continuation to page C2. -- Peter Kaminski (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have any other reliable secondary sources independent of the subject of the article discussed RecentChangesCamp? Cirt (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cirt, you are coming very close to being tendentious & disruptive. I am finding it hard to assume you are contributing here in good faith. -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies, that is not at all my intention. Simply to point out that no matter how many people assert that something is notable because they say it is, doesn't get around the fact that the subject of the article has not been the subject of coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the article's subject. And so far, no one commenting in this discussion has proved otherwise. I highly doubt the Wikipedia community would agree to have articles about every single topic that has ever been discussed in a single solitary article of a regional paper - without also having been discussed in multiple other secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        see the La Presse article -- good-sized article in a major metro paper -- as an additional source. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also interesting is the fact that an article appeared on this event in 2006 (and, let us note, the business section is deep inside a paper, quite a few articles have continuations, and it may just be that early February 2006 was an otherwise quiet period in Portland - reporters do have to keep writing about something in order to remain on the payroll), but nothing on the two 2007 events or the 2008 event. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for more recent coverage, please note that How Wikipedia Works mentions RCC. I've added it as a reference to the contents of the conference. Steven Walling (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with sj's post on the talk page that the article should be kept but was poor quality -- so I went ahead and cleaned it up, removing lots of extraneous info and fixing the formatting. I also found another article (in French) that was published about the Montreal RecentChangesCamp in La Presse. (update: I found an English translation of the article) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- was notable already, and the second source satisfies the letter of WP:NOTE as well as the spirit. --John_Abbe (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Meets notability requirements. --Lizzard (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It might not be a huge event, but that doesn't mean it is non notable. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think it's notable enough. My question comes with the advent of the computer age. As print newspapers become more and more obsolete and the electronic media takes over, what will constitute "reputable"? If a lone editor gets a following, viz, Simple Dollar, or a group like Salon, won't blogs become the new newsprint? At what point WOULD a blog now be the new notoriety? At what number of site hits? At what number of employees? Kristinwt (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin, the reason most blogs aren't considered reliable as sources is not that they don't denote popularity (they most certainly do), but that they mostly don't have a defined editorial structure like a news org or a publishing house does. Steven Walling (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho (Popper)

Non-notable, was prod'd and was removed, no reliable sources, it is something made up one day A new name 2008 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... Where shall I start? WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUPINONEDAY, WP:NOTMANUAL, and, of course, STUPIDSHIT... Drmies (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. JJL (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. Is there an echo in here? --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Do I see a little WP:SNOW in the air? B.Wind (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojani

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I don't see how this article can be salvaged. It's been sitting around for three years as little more (as far as I can tell) than collection of trivia about a non-notable family. I researched the term "bhojani" and "bhojani clan" and came up with little more than what is already here. J L G 4 1 0 4 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to verify the information. Google books does show quite a lot of people with the name, but they are not mentioned in this article. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past, Present & Future(album)

Hammer time Descíclope (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable, third-party, sources, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Hammer doesn't apply mind you, since there is an album title. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It applies since no source confirmed the name. Descíclope (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if the consensus is to keep this will need renaming. "Past, Present, & Future" is a very frequent title for albums (I have ones of that title by both Rob Zombie and Al Stewart in my collection, and yes, that makes it a fairly eclectic collection :) Grutness...wha? 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (perhaps they should record together :)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellacopters - Live

Hammer time Descíclope (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mostly myspace and blogs. Insufficient independent 3rd party notability WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable, third-party, sources, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Hammer doesn't apply mind you, since there is an album title. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Hellacopters - Untitled live album". Descíclope (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the above reasons... Drmies (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

420-year cycle

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability; google web, news, and book searches aren't coming up with reliable, independent sources showing notability of this concept. Prod contested by article's author without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten to the nomination! I was just about to hit "save". ☺ Here's my nomination rationale, copied and pasted from another tab:
This is unverifiable. I am unable to find any source at all that documents a 420-year cycle supposedly ending/beginning in 1946. The article cites no sources at all, of course, and the prose justifies its existence as "automatically" following from the existence of another cycle. That article, septenary cycle, was also created by the same editor who created this article, and I cannot find sources confirming that subject's existence, either. The only documented septenary cycle that I can find is a septenary cycle of days, not years. We know it under its more common name: the seven-day week (c.f. week-day names#Roman Gods). "Automatically following" from another unverifiable article does not make this article any the more verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. High-quality references have been added to the article on the septenary cycle. Systemizer (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they have not been. You've added links to an unsourced article on the German Wikipedia about a 100-year (not 7-year) calendar (which, being Wikipedia itself, isn't a source at all, let alone a "high quality" one), links to another wiki discussing that same calendar, and a mis-mash of information from unrelated subjects, such as Shmita. By just collecting together small facets of clearly unrelated topics, you're only making the process of original synthesis yet more apparent.
  One irony here is that whilst you are making your own synthesis of unrelated topics into a non-topic that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own invention, we are lacking a decent article on a real topic: Mauritius Knauer. Your efforts could be far more productively directed. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The calendar is not "100-year." It is "eternal" ("perpetuum"): "Calendarium oeconomicum practicum perpetuum." And the seven-year cycle is given in a table on this page [54]. This page is simply an electronic version of the XVII century book, so it is not "Wikipedia itself."--Systemizer (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your claims are belied by your own edits. The "sources" that you claimed to have linked to most definitely are about a 100-year calendar. The "source" that you added in this edit not only is most definitely the German Wikipedia, as can be seen from the domain name in the URL, but is about "Der Hundertjährige Kalende", which is German for "The Hundred Year Calendar". The "source" that you added in this edit is about a 100-year calendar. It says so on its main page, at least nine times. (And, in what I can only surmise is an attempt on the part of its author to drive the point home with a sledgehammer so that even the terminally thick will get it, it repeats it a further three times in the page title.) Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The original name of the book is "Calendarium oeconomicum practicum perpetuum." Perpetuum. Perpetuum. Perpetuum. Got it? Read the book itself. The main table of years is CYCLIC, i.e., PERPETUALLY RECURRENT. "Hundertjähriger Kalender, unrichtige Bezeichnung für das »Calendarium oeconomicum practicum perpetuum« des Abtes Mauritius Knauer." [55] Systemizer (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find anything about via Google, either. -Zeus- 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
Delete as unverifiable. Edward321 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable! Madman (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without context it is gibberish. WillOakland (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an original synthesis of material from European and Chinese astrology. Probably something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- European and Chinese astrological signatures are not mutually exclusive. The Chinese 12-year cycle is just a modified 12-sign cycle (Snake ~ Scorpion; Horse ~ Sagittarius; Goat ~ Capricorn). There is no need to "synthesise" them—they have always belonged to the same paradigm. Is drawing an analogy between the Goat and Capricorn an "original synthesis?" :) Systemizer (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find your anthropology questionable. But the short answer is, yes, drawing that analogy is original research, especially in a cross-cultural context like this. (It's not so controversial to suggest that Capricorn was linked with goats by the Greeks, but you're advancing a specific thesis about the origins of eastern astrology.) If you can't find a reliable published source to support your claims (including but not limited to the existence of the 420-year cycle and the origins of the Chinese zodiac), then they're not verifiable. This isn't difficult. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existence of the 420 signature combinations automatically follows from the existence of the 7 European and the 60 Chinese signatures. 7 × 60 = 420. It is plain arithmetic and does not need any verification. Systemizer (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Plain arithmetic tells us that 7x60=420. It doesn't tell us that this novel synthesis of Chinese and western astrology has any existence outside the page now under consideration. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have both a 12-year natal signature and a 7-year natal signature. And hopefully, you exist outside the page now under consideration. Does it need a verification? Systemizer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether I have those things is not objectively verifiable. It's your opinion as a believer in certain forms of astrology that I do, but others may well disagree. You need sources for your claims; making deductions, even ones you think are obvious, is original research. Please stop missing the point. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Calendars are notional. For example, you are born in a certain year of the Gregorian calendar, whether you believe in it or not. In the Chinese calendar, the year of your birth will have another signature, regardless of your beliefs (for example, instead of "the year of 1976" it will be signified as "a year of the Fiery Dragon"). Does it still need a hard proof? LOL Systemizer (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't 'need a hard proof', but this article will need reliable sources if it's to survive. Please stop making this personal, and address the problems with the article. Thank you. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Somebody's bored at work. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator has failed to mention the alignment of the Great Pyramid. Seriously, I found 9 ghits including the article and this discussion. The only ones non-blog /non-forum seemed to refer to a 'postulated' 420 year cycle to do with sun spots. There are many cycles associated with sun spots. They are irrelevant to astrology. The argument above that calendars are notional is valid. Unfortunately, the assignment of animals and other things in astrology is also notional. There is no Lion in the sky. There is an apparent group of stars that someone decided looked like a lion - the stars are in fact unrelated to each other. They are at different distances from the Earth, and have no connection together other than someone's fancy. On the whole, I regard the article as OR or hoax. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Level Environmental Science

No third-party sources refer to this, including those cited, which don't mention the course Oo7565 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect a brief mention to Science education#United Kingdom. TerriersFan (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I'm not sure what the appropriate target would be -- Science education#United Kingdom seems too broad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This course is the subject of books (e.g. [56] [57]), web pages aimed at teachers ([58]) and web pages aimed at prospective students ([59]). JulesH (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is false - there are lots of third-party sources which refer to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought that it's pretty obvious that any A level subject will have reliable sources describing the syllabus. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Composting#Industrial composting. Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial composting

Rant Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Composting#Industrial composting (agreed). Cazort (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete&Redirect to Composting#Industrial composting, as this article fails to meet WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS, and undoubtfully, many other policies which I haven't thought of. Get rid of this and then redirect as a plausible search term. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as soapboxing. WillOakland (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dvir

Fails notability. His one book in English is self-published. JaGa^talk 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google News archive search finds three articles about the subject in The Jerusalem Post. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's enough for WP:CREATIVE, though. --JaGa^talk 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FunPika 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukewarm Keep. A Lexis-Nexis Academic search over the last 10 years turns up the following four articles which mention the gentleman:

An Alien Touch / The Jerusalem Post, April 30, 1999, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 15, 3675 words, Michael S. Arnold
Spaced out / The Jerusalem Post, July 6, 2001, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 4, 1050 words, Ahron Shapiro
THE WEIRD AND THE WONDERFUL: odds and ends from around the world / The Nation (Thailand), April 6, 2003, Sunday, 742 words, The Nation.
Alien substances; New favourites / Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), June 15, 2002 Saturday, COMPUTERS; Icon; Pg. 13, 568 words, Maria Nguyen

The article needs improvement (citations), but I think the inimitable Mr. Dvir is (my opinion only) notable enough. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't mention at least 3 Hebrew books this guy published. Does anyone know anything about Gal Publishers [60]? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Delville

Delete Non-notable, some serious COI as the article is written by its subject. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not a valid reason for deletion. Please explain why you consider them to be non-notable. _ Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wrong Object. no notability outside band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator should be asked for clarification: "Radio programmes about his musical works have been aired by RTBF, VPRO, the BBC and many independent radio channels" would mean he meets notability criteria if those radio shows are at least 30 minutes long and the awards like "Prix Léon Guérin" indicate he's also notable as a writer (even when no one bothered to write articles on any of the listed awards. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When he talks about his musical works he is talking (mostly?) about the works of a band he is in, not solo work. The reviews and radio play makes the band notable, not him. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as an academic writer, since some of his books had awards, including Choice Outstanding Books. We accept that award as an indication of notability for a book. and there are other books. (I presume it's Delville, Michel. The American Prose Poem Poetic Form and the Boundaries of Genre. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998, since it is in over 1000 WorldCat libraries, which makes it a standard work.) As for the music, that depends on the reviews. DGG (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are for his band, so not noable for the music. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, The American prose poem, currently in more than 1,200 libraries worldwide in either electronic and printed format according to my subscription-based version of WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wrong Object. Queenie ^Talk 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this would only be appropriate if he had no other significant work. Generally a writer or musician has the potential to produce more than one work, and it seems he has, & in more than one field. DGG (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as award winning writer and meeting WP:PROF. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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