Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 15: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 15 October 2008

< October 14	October 16 >

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 Keep. The issues raised by the nomination were adequately rebutted by the subsequent discussion and improvements to the article. Merge discussions may continue on the appropriate talk pages. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRK

Is there a standard for the notability of op codes in various processors? This borders on how-to, is not encyclopedic, and is not of any notability. It's unreferenced, too. Mikeblas (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The standard I'm aware of is WP:NOT a manual. WillOakland (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this instruction was considered notable because of the bug mentioned in the last paragraph. But I don't see much evidence of coverage for this bug. Processor errata are common this days, so we can hold them to WP:GNG. VG ☎ 07:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MOS Technology 6502 which looks like it has most of the stuff about brk, including the bug, but not all. btw, 13400 ghits for "brk 6502" and 6560 ghits for "brk 6502 bug". cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The section you intend to target with the merge in the 6502 article probably should be removed, as well. It's completely unreferenced negative material about a product, and POV as well ("dubious"). -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - i didnt read it that way, to me it just looks like its describing a bug in the chip and how its been exploited, seems fine to me. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that deletion is the answer. However, merger isn't the answer, either. The BRK instruction exists in the MOS Technology 6502, the WDC 65C02, and the WDC 65816/65802, and is largely identical in each. Merging to three articles is unfeasible, and placing a complete discussion of BRK in MOS Technology 6502 would too great a level of detail compared to the rest of the article. As demonstrated by the expansion that I already did, there is verifiable information to be had on this subject. There's more yet, that isn't in the article. (For examples: The differences in the BRK vector on the WDC 65816. The reason that BRK acts like a 2-byte instruction even though the opcode is only 1 byte.) I think that the real problem here is the whole "Dubious features" section of MOS Technology 6502. The BRK instruction isn't a "dubious feature". It's a normal software interrupt. There's actually a fair amount of verifiable information to be had on the interrupt handling of the 6502 and its successors. ISBN 0750618396 devotes two pages to software and hardware interrupts. I think that probably a summary section in MOS Technology 6502 on interrupt handling, with a breakout sub-article at Interrupts in 65xx processors will eventually be the answer, with this article being renamed to that title. In the meantime, we can keep this article and await the expansion and refactoring that is there to be had, from any editor who is willing to do the work. Uncle G (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, none of the above addresses the WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, and verifiability ≠ notability. I don't see notability here outside the errata issue. All 6502 instructions are mentioned in the technical manuals given as reference. Should Wikipedia have an article for every instruction of every CPU? I think not. VG ☎ 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an intriguing question - if not, why not? Incidentally I'll toss in a keep as the argument above has convinced me that nondeletion will give the better eventual result. --Kiz o r 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that we can document the interrupt handling of the 65xx family of processors without going into instructional text or tutorial territory. There are a fair number of books on the subject of these processors, that discuss their software and hardware interrupt handling, that can be used as sources. One can say that these processors have various interrupt sources and what they are, and describe how the processors respond to these various interrupts, how software and hardware interrupts are distinguishable, and the various foibles of the processors, without going into the "Let's now add this to our example program and see how it works!" territory of an instructional text or a tutorial. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current article leads with section:

“

In 6502 assembly language programming, BRK is an opcode that causes a software interrupt or trap. The generalized actions of BRK are as follows:

The B bit in the processor status register is set to indicate that a BRK instruction is being processed.
The program counter is incremented by two and then pushed on to the stack, most significant byte first.
The status register is pushed on to the stack.
Maskable interrupts (IRQ) are disabled by setting the I bit in the status register.
The program counter is loaded with the address stored in memory address 0xFFFE (LSB) and 0xFFFF (MSB—the 6502 is little endian), and execution is continued at that point.

”

which is eminently textbook stuff (technical documentation in this case). VG ☎ 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Please go and familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is actually addressing. There is nothing either instructional or tutorial about that text. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per incisive comments by Uncle G. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, while I agree we are not a technical manual or a how to manual I believe this goes a few steps beyond that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topics that Uncle G suggest covering end up meaning an article about interrupt handling should be written, not an article specific to the 6502 family BRK instruction. It's remarkable that there's articles for each variation of the 6502 processor; I will tag tag them for merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article can be developed into such an article, using normal editing tools. An administrator hitting a delete button will form no part of the process. Indeed, apart from the renaming, even editors without accounts have all of the tools to develop this article in that direction. Some of the content already exists in this one already. Deleting it sets the process back. It does not advance it. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtheatre

Local kids theater company in Canada. A google search provides links to a ton of organizations called Youtheatre, and none of them appear to be this particular one. Not notable. Also WP:COI; prod removed without comment or fix. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI advertising of a nonnotable theater. Themfromspace (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, really blatant WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Written like an advert, and non-notable to boot. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Okay, kids, break it up -- the show is over (literally!). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A good discussion that, in the end, had no !votes to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Centre

Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mall is a mall is a mall... Would anyone care to dig through these sources [1][2][3] to establish some special notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I frequent these malls, and I can imagine that Pentagon Row, the other mall that I flagged at the same time as this one, might have garnered an award, as one of the newer livable smart-growth outdoor malls with consolidated residential space; I'll take a look. But this one? It's a nondescript building with a homely interior with a CostCo, a Marshall's, a Linens and Things, a Best Buy, a Borders, a Chevy's, and (surprise!) a Starbucks. No way there's anything remarkable about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying you flagged Pentagon Row for deletion and will now investigate whether it's notable?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Part of the dynamic of these discussions is that someone might make a point that someone else hadn't already considered. It hadn't occurred to me before to think of it in terms of having won an award. Originally I'd been thinking in terms of, "Gee, it has a Noodle & Company, a Baja Fresh, a Hallmark store, and a Harris Teeter. How does this distinguish it from 50,000 other shopping malls in this country alone?" In fact, the realization that there might be something I don't know about how shopping malls are judged de facto for notability purposes (not de jure—there is no operative notability policy specifically for shopping malls on Wikipedia at the moment), as well as leaving open the possibility that someone might make some points in favor of keeping the article, is why I didn't just request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the article is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", so WP:CSD#A7 wouldn't apply anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A shopping mall isn't an organzation (a company or a segment thereof)?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's pretty clearly a building or structure.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But despite that Delete this place doesn't meet the notability standard there either. The Pentagon Centre in Chatham,--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) UK might though...[reply]
        It isn't clear to me. Anyway, note that while the (proposed!) buildings article doesn't mention malls, it mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria" That's only true for chains and we're talking about shopping malls, not chains of shopping malls. In cases not related to chains it goes back to the same criteria as for other structures.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny, OK, I missed "chain". But then, a chain of hotels or restaurants isn't a building, structure, or landmark, so it's awfully strange that they bothered mentioning them at all. But it doesn't matter: if offered it as the consequence an *even if* the buildings criteria apply. I still don't think of a shopping mall as primarily a building. In fact, in the case of Skyline Mall (discussed in another AfD) it isn't *even* a building, and the same goes for the Crystal City Underground—obviously, since each is just part of a building. Finally, I note again that regardless of whether Wikipedia has yet to complete a policy on malls, what seems obvious to me is that if you can go by the local press, then every single shopping mall on the planet is notable. The whole point of notability criteria is to distinguish those things that are truly worth taking note of from the rest. Any definition of notability for some particular class of things that results in all members of the class being notable is a worthless definition.—Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relisted on the grounds that while there's back and forth, there doesn't appear to be consensus. I think a few extra days could bring consensus, so not closing as a no-con. TravellingCari 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree entirely with the nominator on this one. The subject of this unsourced stub doesn't need an article. Delete Master&Expert (Talk) 04:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See comments above. (I don't think anyone's taking the contrary position.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Yue

Non notable martial artist, page seems to be a promotion of the martial artist. Abstrakt (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reason. Abstrakt (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks to me like this person would be notable if there were a secondary reference for the competitive achievements mentioned in the article. Bradford44 (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep concur with above comment ~~but presently no verified evidence of WP:N~~ and given the circumstances the source below is acceptable to me.. JJL (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be no web lists of chinese wushu champions. Is Kung Fu Magazine an acceptable secondary source? jmcw (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the references from Kungfu Magazine to the article. jmcw (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive balance

A couple of Google hits use this phrase in connection with the concept of "an eye for an eye" but if this were the standard name of an established legal principle I'd expect to see it used in references and analyses all over the place, so I suspect it isn't an established term. Besides that, the article is unreferenced; one of the external links refers only to punitive damages, an entirely different thing; and the other external link has the words "punitive balance" in a context entirely unrelated to the sense conveyed by the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I place a prod tag for the same reasons - 78 ghits, none of which seemed related, and neither two links were relevant. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The commonly accepted name is mirror punishment. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth a redirect, the term doesn't seem to be at all notable, and we have an article on the concept under its normal name. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott "Tracker" Cameron

Article about a Non-notable character, filled with nothing but Plot summary. No references, all OR. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Not enough is written about these characters to support references for a meaningful article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the combination article, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. I see no reason given for not redirecting. I agree that they are not at this point worth separate articles. I see no attempts to discuss a redirect or a merge , either. DGG (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Note Wiki

Article written by author publicizing his own neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly a promotional page. No indication that the concept is notable besides the originator's paper. VG ☎ 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — neologism. MuZemike (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Only 3 google hits, 1 is this article, the other 2 are related to this program [Tomboy (software)]. No hits on Google news, Scholar, Books, Groups, or the blog search. The 1 yahoo hit is a false positive. The fact that the originator of the concept seems to be the creator of the article eans there isn't any evidence that anyone besides him thinks this is notable. It seems to be a new concept, so may become notable at some point, but it isn't now. Silverfish (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthevampire (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate, please? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - basically what everyone else said. its spam. the writer of the wiki was the person writing the page.--Billthevampire (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Krikorian Airways

This could be a WP:HOAX, but will WP:AGF that it isn't, however, there are no sources to give it WP:N, and there is also a conflict of interest in that the person who started the article is mentioned as owning this 'airline'. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure if it's a hoax or not, but I certainly couldn't find any reliable citations to verify it. Delete regardless of whether or not it violates WP:HOAX - if it's real it's not notable, plus the conflict of interest.Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:CORP. No notability at all on the net in searches. Apparently no official codes issued. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a WP:HOAX to me. An airline would surely have a website. I see no coverage of the "purchase" of Atlantis European Airways. MvjsTalking 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Austrian Airlines lists press releases on their website. No mention of any such codeshare ('cordershare') as claimed in article. MadScot (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarEmulator

per WP:CRYSTAL. Non-notable software add-on to a non-notable MMPORG. Also, the add-on has not yet been completed or released and I could not verify the project exists after several searches. Newsaholic (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a blatant advertisment to me. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would have voted to save but the release date description changed my mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also contains some processed ham. MuZemike (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TomStar81. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CJAX

The article is in no way notable. I did a Google search for "CJAX" and the only things that came up that relate to the framework were the official website and this Wikipedia article. There has been no talk about the software by reliable sources, and there seems to be little evidence suggesting that this will change soon. — ^Fatal Error 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. There should, however, be an article on the radio station, or a redirect if the radio station is currently branded under another callsign. 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no encyclopaedia value. Wikipedia is not the place for large example code snippets on a non-notable product. MvjsTalking 10:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. Looks like CJAX link would be more appropriate in some list of AJAX engines. --GreyCat (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daikatana (sword)

This article is about the use of the term "daikatana", not about any particular kind of sword, fictional or otherwise. Besides being entirely original research, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and though Wiktionary is, I think it would probably get deleted from there too if it was transwikied. Hence just delete. Ptcamn (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete At first glance, I was considering voting "keep" because I thought it could well be a notable fictional sword or popular culture item of some sort (this FPS for one), and that the article just needed to be edited significantly to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Now that I really thoroughly studied it, it's just a definition for Japanese big sword and a few trivial facts to go along with, with no apparent room for improvement. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so therefore I'm leaning delete. One thing I should note, while the article lacks sources, I doubt any of it is actually original research, just a bunch of likely facts that the editors who wrote forgot to provide references for. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The term is used in several unrelated but popular video games (as indicated in the article). What are you claiming is the original research here? The fact that it's pseudo-Japanese? It's use in video games to mean big sword? Both of these statements seem rather uncontroversial. Also, this article isn't just a dictdef since it goes beyond the meaning of the word. VG ☎ 02:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of sources that describes the fictional sword. Google books and google scholar hits are mostly concerned about the game. There is a passing mention in this novel though. Google hits describe the FPS game, wiki mirrors, or "daikatana" that are obtained from a game and how good they are in-game. I cannot find serious reviews. At best, this could be a Weak Redirect to Daikatana since it seems to be an important plot device.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daitō (long sword), to which the Daikatana hatnote should also point. It's a valid thing to point out that this term isn't used appropriately in American game usage, and also to give some information about what a "Daikatana" really is in Japanese. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a merge discussion on the talk page referring to Daito (long sword), Odachi, Nodachi, and Uchigatana. It's a sword that appears in several videogames and is apparently also a D&D item. It looks like an okay article in Category:Japanese swords. It doesn't look like a dicdef to me. --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as Daikatana (disambiguation) and point to the three sword types, and the game. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It in practice serves to give someone who has come across the term the information that is probably wanted. Its intermediate betweena disam p.and an article, but I do not see what is wrong with that. DGG (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm okay with a dab page but definitely this will not survive as an article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase a famous line: "We can rebuild it, we have the technology." JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 -- Y not? 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tully Rinckey PLLC

Fails WP:COMPANY, lacks notability. Founder may be notable but that notability doesn't transfer to his company. Original creator appears to have COI issues as well.Rtphokie (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Keep in mind this will change, but it does seem to meet WP:V and if these awards are real I can see it compete in WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Wells (musician)

Many issues with the biggest one being a Conflict of Intrest. Full details can be read by reading the talk page: Talk:E. J. Wells (musician)#COI Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because this is a clear conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I see no proof of notability either here. Soundvisions, you have put in quality time. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponry of Blade

Unencylopedic. The character is notable, but his weaponry is not. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and over the WP:OR line, also probably conflicting with WP:NOT. If possible transwiki it to the Marvel Database Project but they might not even want it - it seems more the kind of thing suitable for a fan site. (Emperor (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: That's not to say Wikipedia shouldn't have lists like this, so much as I mean Wikipedia shouldn't have articles dedicated to lists of items that are overly trivial and could be better listed as part of another article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We should probably consider merging the more notable parts of the list into the characters page. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Delete Scratch that, there already is a section that covers the weapons. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article looks pretty well fleshed out. It looks like a decent sub-article of Blade (comics)#Equipment. And it looks too long to merge into Blade (comics). There are comics, three films, and a TV show to write it from. When speaking of vampires, the methods used by vampire hunters to kill them are worth noting. --Pixelface (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is: how do we know he uses a MAC-10 or USP Match in Blade 2? There is no source for it which would imply someone has watched the film and thinks that this is what those objects are. I am just plucking those out but you could substitute every weapon for the examples because without sources it is original research. Obviously there are other problems (as Master Expert points out it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY) but that is the glaring one for me - unless there is some massively clunky exposition naming every weapon or there is a book called "Weapons of Blade" this is all based on someone's opinion (it may be correct in most cases but without reliable sources it is just guesswork). (Emperor (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete unnecessary level of in-universe detail for an encyclopedia. There's already a section in Blade (comics) with a good overview, as there should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over the top in-universe detail. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there's potential for improvement, otherwise merge relevant material into Blade and redirect. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 by TerriersFan and sandboxed. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kopachuck Middle School

Middle school with no assertion of notability. A redirect to Peninsula School District was reverted by the creator. Either delete or protect the redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Peninsula School District#Middle schools. This was first prodded, then redirected then AfDed whilst a new editor was expanding the page. I think that this is bad practice - new editors should be guided and allowed a chance to establish notability, first. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I admit I acted in haste, the creator made a suggestion on my talk page which seems sensible to me: he is to expand the Peninsula School District article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem that we have now is that he is busy adding a whole bunch of unencyclopaedic detail that will have to come out :-( Sigh! TerriersFan (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all of it, from what I've seen. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's just taken it out ... . TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Westerman

Non-notable game designer; no references to third-party reliable sources given. Links given in References section all describe projects and websites that he is involved in, rather than the subject himself. Judging from Google and Google News, which are all passing mentions of the subject in unreliable sources if not unrelated altogether, references that discuss the subject in detail are not likely to be forthcoming. Resoundingly fails to satisfy notability criteria for biographies. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~provisionally~~. I'd like to see the awards specifically be sourced, but the rest of it needs better sourcing as well. If reliably sourced, this article will pass muster in my book. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are for websites he setup or run and therefore shouldn't be used to prove the subject's notability. Just because YouTube or Google are notable websites does not automatically make the people who designed them notable. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I find that reasoning specious. Further, my index of suspicion climbs when an AfD nominator argues with "keep" !voters. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found sources for some of the awards to back up the claims.Charlie allnut (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've struck the "provisionally" from my keep on the basis of the additional sources found. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — seems to pass WP:BIO given that there exist two reliable secondary sources about this person. MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? All the ones given in the "References" section are not about Westerman himself, they're primarily about the award-winning websites he's been involved with. Only brief mention of the man himself is given in all of them. Nothing substantial enough for a separate biography. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a resume puff piece. The only verifiable info is that he worked for those companies, and that those companies got some awards. Notability is not inherited to that extent, and the awards are of the pay-me-to-give-you-one variety (see Webby_Awards#Criticism). VG ☎ 06:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm kinda iffy on this one, but I think a WP:BLP article needs more than just an IMDB entry and what I presume to be him talking at an industry convention as sources directly related to the man. Many of the given sources don't even mention Westerman, and this source puts him in a not-unique position. Nifboy (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas with The Judds and Alabama

Yes, it's by two notable acts, and yes, it charted on Top Country Albums. But I'm finding absolutely no sources for it anywhere. 27 Google hits, no Google News hits, absolutely nothing on Allmusic, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who wrote the article and I think Delete will work until someone can find some sources. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's always nice when an AfD regular happens to be a subject matter expert. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bowditch

~~Non-notable~~ professor of mathematics of unknown notability. Article says 'known for his contributions to geometry and topology but no examples of notable contributions are provided. As written, does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria in WP:PROF. (Google pulls up his bio and little else.) Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I think sometimes people don't realise what 'professor' means in the UK. It means he was/is a head of department at a university, at least in his previous post. He has plenty of mentions in scholarly papers [4] and some credits in books [5]. He has proven some sort of theorem or something. Maths isn't 'trendy' so might not get in the papers etc but is still an encyclopedic subject, if anything even more so. Sticky Parkin 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit a bit of ambivalence here myself. In general, we don't include (or don't seem to include) professors unless they have some particular theory or finding attributed to them that is notable. Counting the number of papers is not a great help since the lay editor cannot judge the quality of the journals in which they are published. There are many an academic with a long list of publications in second and third level journals who would appear notable by the standard of publication count. The same applies to credits in books. Since we, as lay editors, are not in a position to judge the quality of the work, we tend to rely on either an independent description of the notability of the work or, with some luck, professional awards that are notable. In this case, we don't seem to have either. Anyway, I'm curious to see what the rest of the wikiworld thinks and would particularly like to see what standards we should apply in the case of university professors. (Note: Here, in the US, a department chair, as in head of department, means little.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information only: In the UK, the title of professor does not imply the person is (or ever was) head of a university department. As discussed at Professor#Most other English-speaking countries, there's some inconsistency in academic titles even within the UK at present. There are over 30 professors in the Warwick math dept—see their staff list. It is one of the top maths depts in the UK though (certainly top 5 i'd say). Qwfp (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: In most UK universities, the single rank or title of Professor equates to full, or possibly named, professor in the US. It happens that one or two, including Warwick, have gone to the "three-tier" model. At some universities it is or was true that only a professor would be a head of department, usually regarded as a rather more senior position than it is in the US. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above user. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the way it is now. Professors I have no problem with, as long as they've done something--but that 'something' needs some cold hard evidence, and this article does not provide any. He is 'known' for things: known by whom? Not by anyone that I can establish, and the author's burden is to prove that he is in fact known. And RegentsPark, we are not actually given any of the work, so we couldn't possibly judge it. Was this written by one of his students? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as it stands now. Does not establish notability. Being a UK professor is not enough to establish notability per WP:PROF. --Salix (talk): 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article has improved just about enough. --Salix (talk): 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not only fails to establish notability, but fails to mention anything of interest. Why was this article created in the first place? -- Dominus (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the guy who solved the Angel problem? Geez, why doesn't it say so? -- Dominus (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brian Bowditch is actually a very well-known figure in geometric group theory and hyperbolic geometry. He has papers in Inventiones and JAMS, but he has other papers that are cited more, like the one in Duke with over 100 citations on Google Scholar. Warwick is a fairly strong math department, and his professorship is an indication of his status. But his work stands for itself. Recently, he proved the angel problem, which while from the viewpoint of his entire corpus of work is not that significant, it is a pretty famous problem and notable achievement in its own right. --C S (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find evidence he satisfies any of the criteria of WP:TEACH. The only one he might meet at present would seem to be criterion 1, namely "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". This is certainly not demonstrated in the article at present and the {{notability}} template has been in place since June, which seems enough notice to do something about it. MathSciNet reports that "Brian H. Bowditch is cited 484 times by 270 authors" (subscription req'd), topped by 53 for the 1995 paper in Duke Mathematical Journal to which C S refers above (see Wikipedia:TEACH#Notes and Examples for reasons to prefer this count to Google Scholar's). Based on MathSciNet's citation counts, his h-index is 13 (13 papers cited at least 13 times each) and his g-index is 20 (top 20 papers have been cited an average of 20 times each), which seems respectable for a maths professor aged 46 or 47 rather than outstanding. His proof of the angel problem is covered in that article, and while it's certainly worth including there, and I don't think that proof alone makes him notable (the angel problem is hardly the Riemann hypothesis after all). Qwfp (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the citation record, which is relatively high for mathematics, certainly more than the average. The importance of a scholar is judged by that. That is the key way in which other scholars in the field show the notability, and we just mention it. I find it incomprehensible that after finding this record, the person who found it said it didn't matter. Full professor at a major university is normally notable- -even if not head of dept. That too shows the opinion of colleagues about the notability, and it is they who judge. One does not have to do work like solving the Riemann problem to be notable. Notability does not require fame, or we;'d be a very small encyclopedia. But I hope someone who knows enough to do it properly will quickly upgrade the article. DGG (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am on a wikibreak and travelling at the moment and will not have time to work on the article for a few days (I did not know that the article was created until I saw this AfD). I am a geometric group theorist myself (look at the WP articles I had written listed on my userpage) and I know Bowditch's work personally quite well. He is in fact a notable mathematician both in geometric group theory and in geometric topology. The articles Geometric group theory and Bass-Serre theory already mention, by name, some of his important contributions: the JSJ-decomposition theory for word-hyperbolic groups, his work on boundaries of hyperbolic groups, and his work on relative hyperbolicity. In geometric topology he is also a prominent name, particularly for his work on the curve complex, the study of the Teichmuller space and applications to 3-manifolds, Kleinian groups and mapping class groups. The high citability results, in GoogleScholar[6], and MathSciNet, demonstrate this convincingly. Let me also mention that a substantial number of his papers have been published in the toughest and most prestigious math journals, such as Inventiones Mathematicae, Acta Mathematica, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Crelle's Journal, Duke Mathematical Journal, and others. The article certainly needs improvement and expansion, and when I get back from the break I will do that, but it does deserve a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Bowditch had given an invited address at the 2004 European Congress of Mathematicians [7], also a significant sign of distinction. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another note: Bowditch has been awarded[8] the Whitehead Prize in 1997 by the London Mathematical Society (technically, a "Junior Whitehead Prize", which means for someone at most 15 years after PhD, but nevertheless a notable award). Here is a quote for a detailed award citation that was published in the Bulletin of LMS[9]:"His deepest work is on the asymptotic properties of word-hyperbolic groups. This work simultaneously generalises and simplifies recent work of several authors, and it already has many applications. In one application, he develops a new theory of groups acting on dendrites. Building on previous contributions of G. Levitt, G. A. Swarup and others, this led him to a solution of the `cut-point conjecture'. This recent work also yields a characterisation of word-hyperbolic groups as convergence groups. Bowditch has solved several major problems in geometric group theory using methods that are elegant and as elementary as they can be." Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the award and the other less extraordinary, but still non-trivial, notability claims are sufficient to meet WP:PROF, which is a pretty stringent standard (compared with, say, WP:ATHLETE). VG ☎ 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The invited ECM address makes it easy. Richard Pinch (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Changed from nom.) Seems notable enough now, with the independent prize and the solution to a specific problem. Clearly, the deletion process works! --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Keep--the article has improved, though it still needs editorial work, and if the guy is as great as Nsk argues, then those references need to be part of the article, not just of the AfD discussion. Good work, RegentsPark. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn In retrospect, I probably should have just wiped out this nomination instead of fixing it, but I was trying to WP:AGF on the nominator's part. The organization in question is clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Word Fellowship

Nominating for deletion due to the following points:

The very inception of the article appears to be based on some sort of personal grudge by the creator of the article, who in the first AFD discussion admitted himself that the subject was not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
An accurate article cannot be written on the Living Word Fellowship without conducting original research. The creator wrote in the AFD discussion: “It is nearly impossible to ascertain the beliefs of this church without attending regularly.” The subject’s official website says that the founder “had authored more than 11,000 recorded sermons and hundreds of written messages.” After exhaustive research, I can find no third-party source that has performed enough research to produce a reliable source on this subject.
“Another Gospel”, cannot be considered reliable when even reviewers on Amazon are noting glaring errors (please see debbieannconway’s review at: http://www.amazon.com/Another-Gospel-Ruth-Tucker/dp/0310404401). The book also cannot be considered neutral enough to be the foundation of an entire article as it is clear in its attempt to critique religions according to orthodox Christian beliefs and comes to conclusions based on a pre-existing agenda. Discussion was created by User:LikesPoodles who overwrote the first deletion discussion by mistake, moved here by me. I have no opinion on the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There are plenty of nontrivial third-party sources describing this organization, including (but not limited to) the book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, the People magazine article about Tony Cox's report of his experiences, and Tony Cox's documentary film. The fact that these sources are not a sufficient basis for writing the complete and definitive story of this organization does not change the fact that the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWAK

Usenet term which began in a red linked news group. No sources, no chance of being sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in Usenet. Usenet terms are not as likely to appear in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is Usenet a reliable source? I don't think so. How is that any better than a term used on someone's web forum? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 02:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere, such as Infrequently Asked Questions. JJL (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this term, and unreliable sources show various meanings that differ from the one described in the article (e.g. [10]). It's a neologism with no evidence of mainstream usage, and no verifiability. Somno (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artimus Pyledriver

NN band, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeathStation 9000

Unreferenced and non notable usenet joke term. Ref 1 is not about the DS9K, Ref 2 is just a joke site MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gets just 75 Google hits, which is awfully weak for something originating online. Nothing that looks even remotely like a reliable source, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Mvjs Talking 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets 648 hits is you use google to search usenet, which is where it originated, and is still in frequent current use [11]. Mission Fleg (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mission Fleg. Usenet is, by its nature, less searchable and referenceable than many other sources and this is definitely worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hmmm, a programmer joke from USENET.... Is this term older than August 1998? I see 1,280 hits on Google (Groups). 774 of those are the quote "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose" in a sig[12]. Perhaps the "DeathStation 9000" is well-known among readers of comp.lang.c, but most editors seem to subscribe to the idea that USENET is not a reliable source. Some say Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Is it for terms made up on USENET a decade ago? --Pixelface (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From Usenet#Usenet_terms, I only found FWAK which comes anywhere near in terms of unreferenced usenet jokiness. Not even enough material to justify a List of Usenet humour MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be summed up in two sentences, and thus not worth an article. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything that can be sourced only to Usenet is not notable, I'm sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete- basic google hits make no odds. Anyone can write anything on usenet and on the internets. No reliable sources exist at all, no mentions in newspapers,[13] books [14] or in academic papers, of course.:)[15] Sticky Parkin 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the otters speak wisely. This concept is mildly amusing but, in the end, just something made up one day. Reyk _YO! 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting, i didnt realise usenet was viewed so poorly. before there was a wikipedia or even a www thoughtful people such as yourselves :) used to hang out there. indeed wikipedia is absolutely dripping with usenet/unix/c/hacker culture. but anyway i digress, i only wish to address the idea that DS9K is only a joke term, sure theres some humour there but it addresses a real issue, which is that newbie c programmers are often completely thrown by the idea that there is something undefined within the language (the infamous 'i = i++;' statement [16]) it just doesnt fit their (newbie) worldview, they're used to the idea that they have complete control of the operating system and the language. so to get across the idea that sometimes they dont, they really really dont, takes a little exaggeration. finally, as to 'Anyone can write anything on usenet', sure, anyone can write anything here too, it gets corrected tho, and its the same with groups such as comp.lang.c. cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We aready have an article on Undefined behavior, so this argument is only realy a case for retaining the term as a protected (i.e. not expandable into an article) redirect to act as a search term. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe wikipedia does have elements of usenet because people can technically write anything, however, that's why we don't use wikis or wikipedia itself as a reliable source to reference articles. Sticky Parkin 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DS9K gets 2320 hits on google [17] Too Old (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the hits on google are from bloggers or false positives. Usenet is not a reliable source, so I don't see DS9K meeting notability. Malinaccier (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The New Jedi Order. If people want to make a more specific redirect, feel free to do so. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kre'fey

Unreferenced plot summary for a series of marginally notable in-universe, wholly non-notable out-of-universe, characters. --EEMIV (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate Star Wars page. JJL (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Jedi Order novel series article, can't see where the notability of these stands either in or out-of-universe. treelo _radda 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Samar (PG-41)

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeathStation 9000}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kre'fey}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Samar (PG-41)}}