Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Science}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin McCarley}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin McCarley}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruppert Rudolph Hunziker}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruppert Rudolph Hunziker}}

Revision as of 18:08, 3 January 2009

< January 2 January 4 >

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. John254 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Science

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

Delete per original research. Totally unsourced and made up. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has also nominated Topic outline of Big Science, part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge (which is part of Wikipedia's content system accessible from the main menu), for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science. The Transhumanist 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. References are not exactly compelling evidence of usage of this neologism which seems to be nothing more than a wordplay on the term big business. Keep and cleanup per all comments below. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't looked to see what sources exist, have you? The very first Google Books hit (for me, here, at least) is ISBN 9780804718790. Not looking for sources means that one cannot honestly say that no sources exist, and if one cannot honestly say that, one cannot make an argument that is well-founded in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which requires that no sources exist, with all attempts to find them failing, not that no sources are cited. If one doesn't make the attempt to find sources that policy discusses, one's argument doesn't have a basis in policy. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Are you serious? This is an absurd nomination; the concept of "big science" is well-established in both both historical literature and science policy literature. If there are parts within it that are problematic, they can be excised, but the main problem is not that it's original research (from a quick read, it's pretty well consonant with published work) but that it is under-referenced.--ragesoss (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep what rock did you crawl from under to call "big science" a neologism.--OMCV (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for my earlier tone. I thought it would be worth while to point editors in the direction of Britannica's page on big science. It would be worth while considering the references on this page (which over lap with DGG's references) and the author Michael Aaron Dennis whose specialization is the history of science. This is still ridiculous.--OMCV (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep[1] [2] [3] [4] pgr94 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Weak keep no indication of non-WP:OR existence as a cohesive topic, as opposed to simply the juxtaposition of "big" & "science" in a sentence or title. No indication that sociology of science (or similar disciplines) considers this a topic of study. HrafnTalkStalk 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider the following quote. "This becomes all the more important in the current historical shift from little science to big science, with its expensive and often centralized equipment needed for research." from, Merton, Robert K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science (PDF). Science 159 (3810), 56-63. This paper is from a preeminent science sociologist (perhaps the preeminent science sociologist of his time) and uses the term "big science" clearly. Further more this is an old reference, since that time the terms has only become more established. To those who call this OR or a neologism it would be worth while to conduct your research efforts beyond wikipedia if your efforts are to enhance wikipedia.--OMCV (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering it, I note that (i) this appears to be the sole mention of "big science" (not even capitalised) in this article (nor is it mentioned anywhere else in Robert K. Merlon's Structural Analysis: The Design of Modern Sociology, which also includes this quote), and (ii) it offers no indication that the author considers it a 'term of art' or is employing "from little science to big science" to denote that science is becoming more capital-intensive (rather than indicating that "little science" or "big science" have any meaning, in and of themselves). Laying claim to a distinct topic on the basis of such fleeting mentions is most certainly WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't looked for yourself to see what sources exist, either, have you? Please go to the top of this very discussion and read. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing !vote to "weak keep" on the basis of new material below (the "weak" being because, until new sources are built into an article, it is generally difficult to see how much substance they add -- 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'), and in spite of Uncle G's unpersuasive badgering. HrafnTalkStalk 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you find a source that explicitly documents the subject, cited right at the top of the discussion, and an explanation of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and how you aren't following either, to be "unpersuasive badgering", then you are not approaching Wikipedia correctly. Sources are supposed to be persuasive, and you are supposed to both look for them yourself, and look at the sources that other editors find and cite. You don't help either AFD or Wikpiedia by making no attempt to look for sources yourself and by not even reading the prior conversation in discussions that you contribute to. Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not accept your interpretation of the above citations. Mere usage of a two-word phrase is not "explicitly document[ing] the subject" -- hence "unpersuasive ". Your repeated demands that everybody who disagrees with you see things your way is badgering, and your continuation of it is WP:HARASS. Kindly cease and desist. HrafnTalkStalk 06:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, see neologism. Vague phrase used by anti-science people to criticize science without having to actually do the research and has no clear definition or usage. Borders on WP:OR. Tgreach (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You also haven't looked to see what sources exist, have you? Peter Galison is not an "anti-science person". Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Big OR. While the term is in use, one has to present references which research/discuss the term, rather than simply use it. For comparison, Rocket Science/ (in "air quotes", as in "it is not Rocket Science") is just as a frequent label, but it quietly redirects to "rocket science". `'Míkka>t 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep Standard terminology, the concept based originally on the classic Price, Derek J. de Solla. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, 1963. (and his more recent Price, Derek J. de Solla, Little Science, Big Science-- and Beyond. Columbia University Press, 1986.) Consider also: Hughes, Jeff. The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb. Columbia University Press, 2002., and Weinberg, Alvin M. Reflections on Big Science. M. I. T. Press, 1967.Galison, Peter, and Bruce William Hevly. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford University Press, 1992. ; Nowotny, Helga, and Hilary Rose. Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science. D. Reidel Pub. Co, 1979. (and I could keep going--these are each books with many hundreds of holdings in WorldCat) Inadequate job of article-writing; inadequate job of checking before nominating. (the de Solla Price book alone is worthy of an individual article, and probably the Weinberg also) DGG (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence against neologism: [5] 

big science  
n.   Scientific research involving large amounts of money and often large teams of researchers. 
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Merriam Webster: [6] 

Main Entry: big science 
Function: noun 
Usage: often capitalized B&S 
Date: 1961
large-scale scientific research consisting of projects funded usually by a national government or group of governments

pgr94 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A simple google book search shows books about big science and its rise. The fact the article may need inline citations or more references is not a reason to delete; the references are clearly out there. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see: "Two Leaders Challenge The 'Big Science' Trend" By PHILIP M. BOFFEY, May 3, 1988 and "Big Science; Is It Worth the Price?; Small-Scale Science Feels the Pinch From Big Projects" By WILLIAM J. BROAD, September 4, 1990 Both are from the New York Times. --mikeu talk 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Leon M. Lederman quote at Talk:Big_Science#possible_refs where a nobel prize winning physicist defines the term. --mikeu talk 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: if Nature magazine, the AAAS and Britannica all use this term in headlines and as main articles, this should be a speedy keep. If there are concerns about the prominence of the term then one can debate how long the article should be. But outright deletion of this is ridiculous. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously not a neologism. Has some sources (but more would be better). Gandalf61 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Sources are very easy to find. For example: The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb, by Jeff Hughes. And Mining the Genome: Big Science as Big Business -- A special report - Profits and ethics clash in research on genetic coding, by Lawrence M. Fisher, New York Times, January 30, 1994. The Transhumanist 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (per WP:SNOW) and merge. (non-administrative closure) — RyanCross (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erin McCarley

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

Non-notable autobiography (the main contributor is User:Erin McCarley). The only real claim of notability that I see in the article is "Her music has been featured on the hit shows One Tree Hill and Grey's Anatomy", but I don't know if that's enough to warrant an article for her. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating her CD for the same reasons (with the exception of this one not being written by the subject).

Love, Save the Empty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the artist for a weak WP:MUSIC#C10 for the Grey's Anatomy and One Tree Hill songs, [7] & [8]. And a weak WP:MUSIC#C4 for a tour {see previous link}. Merge lock, stock & barrel the album into the main article though, per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She will apparently be performing live on the Letterman show on Tuesday ([9]), and sifting through the following should throw up enough to demonstrate notability and expand the article: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. As far as the album is concerned, I would advise waiting until a week or so after its release (released January 6) to see if it charts in a big way or receives significant coverage. If not, merge into the main article until it does.--Michig (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the improvements made by Michig. Subject has a national tour, meeting WP:Music. Kudos to Michig for making the effort to save this. Merge the the album article to this article. Dlohcierekim 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep See New York Post article in their "Page Six" magazine of Sunday January 4, 2008. Article says it all, plus her album hits stores on January 6, 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.175.130 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC) — 69.38.175.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep As per the previous input (hey, the other guys got here before I did and said what I wanted to say!). Ecoleetage (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appeared on Myspace home page, which led to my looking her up on wikipedia. Page is referenced, artist has ITunes release, as well music featured in mvies and Tv. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think those meet WP:Music. The national tour does. Dlohcierekim 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruppert Rudolph Hunziker

Ruppert Rudolph Hunziker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant copyright infringement and conflict-of-interest (User:Rpclod writing about (R)u(p)ert). Blatant infringement from http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/ucceRice/editor/hunziker.htm. Author removed previous CSD tag. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: At first glance this seems like a reasonable article about a productive scientist, now dead, who wrote various publications. But a Google check shows almost nothing about him apart from some genealogy stuff and the UC Davis article. No evidence of notability other than this one article and the subject's papers - and any researcher is likely to publish a number of papers during their career. (The copyright infringement could be fixed easily - don't think this is the real issue). Aymatth2 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I fail to see how one finds "Blatant copyright infringement and conflict-of-interest". While facts in the two are similar (and the UC Davis article is specifically cited), the content in the Wikipedia article is more substantial and the text and presentation differ substantially. Specific details regarding any concern would be appreciated. The co-existence of an "R" and a "P" in the subject's name and the author's nom de Wiki is coincidental. Removal of a previous tag was inadvertant.
  2. The above commenters have obviously contributed very significantly to Wikipedia and perform valuable service by reviewing new articles. However, I caution that Wikipedia needs to be careful: historians have a role in defining societal values, not just recording information. In this instance, contributors to articles on a second-rate pedophile rapper and a minor league pro wrestler would delete an article regarding a scientist who provided early warning of immense damage to a critical agricultural area and helped transfer agricultural knowledge to another country. I realize that what occurs with one article does not necessarily define the notability of another, but relative balance is needed.--Rpclod (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recognize your concern that an article about a scientist who has made valuable contributions is being considered for deletion, while articles about people whose importance in your view (and mine) is highly questionable are retained. But Wikipedia does have basic guidelines about what can be included and what cannot, and a key one is notability. Although often violated, the principle is that all content should be backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject (e.g. not self-published) and that an article should have "several" such independent sources. Everyone has different views on what subjects are important: the notability test avoids the issue. Paris Hilton is notable because there is a great deal of independent commentary about her. Whatever my personal views, I am not notable in the Wikipedia sense: nobody has written about me. If you could find independent sources that discuss Hunziker's life or works other than the one UC Davis article, that would establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. This doesn't seem to be a blatant copyvio or conflict-of-interest, but on the other hand, I don't think it passes WP:PROF either. Ruppert Hunziker may well have made plenty of useful contributions to science, but there needs to be evidence that he was particularly highly-regarded as an expert in his field - not all academics deserve articles. I'd prefer if someone more knowledgeable in the area than me could judge this one, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side Comments: there is a minor copyvio - one paragraph copied from the UC Davis article. Trivial to fix. I can't see the conflict of interest with an soil chemist who died aged 80 five years ago. Maybe the big agri-combos are watching this debate with bated breath. I doubt it. Personally, I think "conflict of interest" is not a very useful idea. If an article is neutral, balanced, fully backed up reputable independent sources, I don't care who wrote it. But I want sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there will be sources. He was a doctoral graduate who went into commercial work and published a few papers, which apparently have not been cited since, at least as far as the journals in Scopus & Web of Science are concerned, but also checking the miscellany of material in Google scholar, which lists just his Masters and doctoral theses and nothing else. We have had this problem before with scientists who do all their work in industry in many different fields; if nobody writes about them, and they don't publish significantly in journals, or write widely used textbooks, it's almost impossible with available sources to find out how they may have influenced people or been regarded as an authority. There may be sources eventually, in various agricultural publications in the area or published memoirs, but normally this is something we just cannot find evidence for, except in the very rare sporadic cases where some specialist historian has actually written something. DGG (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: I've added a COPYVIO tag to the article at the start of the two paragraph copyright violation. The second paragraph might have an extra sentence at the start but from then on it's a copy from an online source. I've also added the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 9. Even though a deletion does seem to be in the works. Future participants in this deletion discussion may want to look at the untagged version of the page hereUsrnme h8er (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gscholar only turns up one hit. The UCD link doesn't indicate he was a professor, and the online site for the Davis newspaper (behind a paywall, but I have a subscription) doesn't turn up any hits. There are lots and lots of PhDs in soil science working for private companies in this valley, and I'm not finding anything to distinguish this particular one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the minor copyvios and the lack of reliable sourcess. Appears to fail notability guidelines, as is shown by the low number of search results on both Google and Gscholar. Elucidate (light up) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Colony

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopefully Mr. holcomb will become notable and some of this information can be included in his article. This subject does no appear notable per guidelines as there hasn't been substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Article in current form has sufficient sources to establish notability. Raitchison (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- plenty of sources, maybe it lacked sources when nominated. If so it has them now. Geo Swan (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Creepy Lane Chronicles

The Creepy Lane Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a short story series by a child author. The article neither cites any sources nor asserts notability, but does not fall under speedy deletion criteria. Delete unless sources that establish notability can be found and integrated into the text. TheLetterM (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can find no indication these stories have been published.Shsilver (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be unpublished. Possible speedy, as no claim of notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CleverTexting

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

non-notable software Sceptre (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of any notability and not likely to in the future except as the most pointless Java app ever seeing as most mobile phones have had predictive text for years? Nancy talk 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Almost meets speedy deletion criterion db-corp but doesn't concentrate on the actual company. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per criterion G3: "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation...". Punkmorten (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola Sodzinako

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

I can find no information on this player, there is no such English Premier League club as Spartaka F.C and I strongly suspect that this is a hoax article. I have tagged it as a hoax but that was immediately removed, I have suggested to author that they blank the page so it can be speedy deleted but to no avail. Thus I bring it here. Paste Talk 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AER Amplifiers

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

No references, no claim to notability. Mikeblas (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. There's pretty good coverage of their products on forums, online stores, etc. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more needs to be said than what's already been said above. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn, all !votes were for keep. Good job JulesH! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This isn't an article, it appears to be only the resolution itself, not encyclopedic. dougweller (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have summarized the resolution, turning it into something more akin to a proper article, along with a link to a news article from the time of the resolution. JulesH (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep now that JulesH has cleaned things up. — PyTom (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC):[reply]
    • Comment I'm happy with that, but I think we need a source for the quote. dougweller (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's from the linked BBC News article. JulesH (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good job JulesH!  LinguistAtLarge  19:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important. Punkmorten (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust

30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This miniseries which was only available via the internet or via On Demand programming has not received any attention in reliable sources that I can find, and I can find no evidence that it meets either the general notability criteria or the film notability criteria. Raven1977 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Article meets web notability per everyone who commented below. Raven1977 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Olympic

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

Non-notable soccer team Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I'm unaware of any consensus regarding Irish clubs, I would say a team competing in a local amateur county league would not meet notability standards here. Bettia (rawr!) 10:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a pub team. Despite having about as much coverage as a a bloke called Fábio in local media, I'd suggest this is about as notable as any other Sunday league pub team.--ClubOranjeTalk 11:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and then redirect to 6-pack as plausible search term. Also deleting Sega Genesis 6-PAK, as duplicate article for which all discussionhere is also applicable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 pak

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

WP:NN product bundling. The individual games are very notable, but not the bundle itself. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - It seems to have been covered by sufficient online sites (Google shows 7,500+ results) to merit an article. The bundle was also covered by JS Online here. The article needs revision, but I think the subject is just notable enough. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect - It turns out that this article's topic also exists at Sega Genesis 6-PAK. The content from 6 pak should be merged there, where an AfD can be pursued if necessary. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's that important it can be mentioned in the articles for the individual games. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Six pack dab page as a likely spelling of that. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Six pack per IP above. I don't even see a reason to delete right now (with the exception of someone wanting to redirect-war over this). MuZemike (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to six pack - doesn't seem like a notable compilation, would be more useful as a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red between the lines

Red between the lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Independent low-budget (in fact according the the article, no-budget) film which does not seem to have bothered any news organisations. Fails WP:MOVIE. Nancy talk 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MOVIE on all points. Not distubuted to the public beyond a YouTube trailer, it's not historically notable, no awards, not in a national archive, not taught in schools/colleges/universities. I see no reason to believe this is notable beyond its makers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NF in as many ways as one can search. Oh, it might get a nice reception if it ever gets to a film festival... but no sourcable notability as of yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP; does not fall under Wikipedia's notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentabarf (software)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there is hope for the page. I have flagged it for rescue. -- IRP ☎ 16:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. Schuym1 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ShutUpAndLetMeGo

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Nicholls

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

Fails WP:BIO - unable to find significant coverage. Also WP:NOT#NEWS. —Snigbrook 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first two only contain one line or two that is relevant to this article, which is not enough, and the other two (both are the same url) are on a blog and appear to be about another person with a similar name. This article could be merged if there was an article about the crime he was convicted of (per WP:BLP1E) but there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources. There is no inherent notability for criminals (e.g. Ian Huntley is redirected to Soham murders), so I don't think this meets the relevant guidelines. —Snigbrook 15:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the merge proposal? Can the content be merge and titled appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a one sentence merge and redirect (to the appropriate section) might be the way to go. The possible suicide attempt and tape are already mentioned in the Soham murders article so mentioning that Aaron Nicholls was allegedly involved and what he was convicted of doesn't seem like a big deal. As he is somewhat notable for his own horrific crimes and his involvement in this other incident, I think including him in some fashion seems appropriate, but the whole thing is pretty awful, and so distasteful I don't want to have much to do with it. Too upsetting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" Scapler (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete - blatant hoax. — ERcheck (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leagurian Mountains

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

Outright hoax which appears to be a joke connected to the Appalachian League, a baseball league that's listed under See also. There are no mountains in the area described by the article, which is — rather tellingly — actually called the Hudson Bay Lowlands, and the image that was originally chosen to illustrate it was of a mountain in British Columbia. Despite the claim that this chain contains some of the highest mountains in Ontario, its highest peak is almost double the height of the actual highest point of land in the province — and despite the claim that it's a popular vacation area, the Hudson Bay area is remote and spectacularly difficult to reach in all three provinces in question. There was an attempt to speedy it, which was declined by an administrator. My own instinct would have been to just speedy the damn thing anyway, but WP:CSD does have that pesky little "hoaxes don't qualify" clause. Yaaaargh. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3—blatant and obvious misinformation. Deor (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A ridiculous and not very convincing hoax. The user who created it should be chastized for wasting other people's time.Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 Vandalism. Sorry, but blatant hoaxes do qualify under this criterion, and WP:CSD#G3 says it rather plainly. The area around Hudson Bay is hard to reach, and that's for lack of roads due to the sparseness of the population. The land, which is part of the Canadian Shield, is more hilly than Florida or Kansas, but by other standards it qualifies as "flat." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really appropriate to respeedy something that already has a declined speedy in its edit history. FWIW. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't re-tag it. :-) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I was the one that placed the speedy delete template on that article, because it is a ridiculous article. Black Tusk (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Morecambe and Wise. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Morecambe & Wise

AfDs for this article:
The Adventures Of Morecambe & Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One-off TV show without its notability established. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Ahmed

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

Journalist with questionable notability. Prod was contested by the creator (almost certainly Shiraz Ahmed himself), on the grounds that his employer is "one of the leading business newspapers of Pakistan," something that should not need to be mentioned. No sources, and googling that name (specifying that I'm looking for someone working at The Financial Daily) returns nothing of substance. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't really get my head around the google new archive results for "Shiraz Ahmed". There appears to be a cricketer with that name and a number of others. Probably just the effect of sticking two reasonably common names together and news searching it. In any case, I find myself agreeing with the nom on this one. Delete unless further notability can be established. If anything, there appear to exist more notable people by that name. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Malik

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

Unreferenced journalist who appears non-notable. Difficult to check as a (different) notablemore widely referenced person exists with the same name, but no claim in the article leads to a different conclusion. Bongomatic 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If a more notable person exists with the same name, shouldn't the content just be changed to reflect that? Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not really notable (changed nom above). See http://people.forbes.com/profile/aslam-malik/4959.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability and article needs a lot of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cliodynamics

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

No evidence provided for notability for the subject, I question that it justifies an article separate from the existing ones on the authors in the bibliography. dougweller (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not my area of expertise, but it seems very similar to this article. Plagarism, perhaps? I have no issues with the topic itself though, I believe the extensive coverage of the subject provides some evidence of notability. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Weak keep no third party sources and no indication that this is widely regarded as a discrete field of study. HrafnTalkStalk 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nature piece is only an essay, and by the coiner of the term -- but if Nature deigns to at least acknowledge the existence of an idea, I suppose it's notable enough for inclusion here. HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is now a reference to Nature. It is a legitimate field of study. Doesn't anyone read Asimov Foundation anymore? --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Perhaps concerning that the Nature article is by Turchin himself, but the fact Nature published it probably makes this notable enough us. They also did an editor's summary, although I think they might do this for all their essays! Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a significant field of study; even if this particular name for it is not well-established, it seems to be the best title for now.--ragesoss (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a known new field of study; I know it has been talked about in at least a couple of conference, and in articles in peer reviewed journals (eg Nature).70.81.15.136 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Not very speedy, was it?) Grandmasterka 11:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Championship Wrestling

Hardcore Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable backyard wrestling "promotion", fails WP:CORP and WP:A One Night In Hackney303 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7, not even close to notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the article does claim notability (although the claim is BS and not true). TJ Spyke 05:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom, and it's borderline speedy delete ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a backyard wrestling fed is reason enough, but it also fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Can we prove this outfit really even existed? Even if it did, it fails WP:N. Likely a hoax. Realkyhick 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Argg!!! its still here.Peter Rehse 07:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — as per all above. — ERcheck (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete All reasons above. Nothing notable about a bunch of kids hitting each other with chairs. --Nymetsfan 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all above. And what the hell is going on in that picture? Wavy G 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As ever, discussion on whether to merge or redirect the article somewhere can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiles of the Hold

AfDs for this article:
Tiles of the Hold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List was previously deleted as nonnotable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold in September 2008. As this list had a little more (in-universe) information than the AfDed list, I chose not to speedy it as WP:CSD#G4 and prodded it instead. Prod-tag was removed with some explanation at the article's talkpage (Talk:Tiles of the Hold), but I am (still) not convinced that his list should be included in wikipedia (nothing significant found on Google Books/Scholar/News), so here we are again. – sgeureka t•c 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- This article has been updated, and although, at present, it does not meet notability guidelines there are at least two forthcoming novels that will use this information. Prior to them, two novels have used this information in an introductory note and practical note. Also, a reason for the lack notability in 'Google' hits is because of the complexity of the series and only a few sites have gone and done work on it. Google Scholar rarely has fiction elements on it. Google News would not have anything to do with elements of a book, unless there is a book review in a magazine, which usually is not detailed enough to give away plot. No information is original research based on primary source material. It is directly from the book although formatted for readability and put into context. This information will be useful in the future. There is no reason to delete it. Thank you, Krmarshall (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note: Krmarshall is the article re-creator.) Articles that were recently deleted through consensus should not be recreated unless the concerns of the previous AfD no longer apply (which is not the case here), or unless WP:DRV overrules the AfD (also not the case). Original research was not noted as a reason for deletion here. If consensus in this AfD determines that this list should be kept, then that's also fine. – sgeureka t•c 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If there are forthcoming novels that will make this notable, then when the novels have been published and there is some comment on them, it should be possible to write an article. DGG (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have analyzed this further, below. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or userfy, editor is obviously making a good faith effort to improve the article. travb (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new editor removed the AfD tag[27] and Sgeureka replaced it. I did this the first time my article was put up for deletion too. The new editor had a mere 365 edits before they created the page.
Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept. travb (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete How can you have a "Keep" argument that says the subject is not notable? No reliable third party sources address the subject. The only source is from the book itself. There is no policy or guideline basis for a keep argument. The good faith of the editor not withstanding. As the source for this is the book itself, this is WP:OR at best. There is no point in userfying this. The quality of the keep arguments here astounds me. Dlohcierekim 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Add delete per arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold. As this is a mere recreation of material deleted after that discussion, as there is no improvement and no sourcing, as as there is no basis for keep arguments, Speedy Deletion as recreated material is certainly appropriate. Dlohcierekim 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note is taken that the creator of the article is a participant in the discussion. Dlohcierekim 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge as I am about to suggest. I've been asked to reconsider. I think major plot elements in fiction are always notable if the fiction is notable enough. I think these are not major plot elements, but minor ones, just part of the background machinery, and would only be notable if the fiction were exceptionally notable. I see no evidence of anything more. But I do not know the series, so I may well be wrong; I am judging only by the material in the Wikipedia articles, which do not seem of great clarity. If I am wrong, there should be discussions of the books in which these are referred to , and I do not see this. I have my doubts about Deck of the Dragons, but at least this seems to apply to the entire series. This seems to apply to one part of the fictional universe only. Perhaps then they two articles should be merged, unde some such title as Divination in The Malazan Book of the Fallen, with a possible redirect from this title. Otherwise, it seems unduely specialized. As usual, I don;t really think afd is the best place for such discussions. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On the one hand it's a bit in universesque, on the other hand it's a worthile listing that's relevant to a successful novel. I lean towards including it somehow in a tightened format or even merged into parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and there is nothing to preserve. Userpages are not preserves for indiscriminate, nn info that dose not met notability. Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Useful is not an notability criterion. cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no reliable sources sufficient to establish notability for this thoroughly unencyclopedic list about the minute details of a fantasy series.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Keep:
I agree with Inclusionist:
Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept.
What harm is there to keeping this article alive. I have added to it, again. And believe there is still more to add. I have a busy life outside of this, so it takes some time to create a full article. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are articles.Krmarshall (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a very well done attempt to cover up the fact that this webcomic is lacking any notability by mentioning and sourcing a large number of unnotable events. The comic has not won an award and is not published in a notable publication. In fact, the webcomic has less than 200 unique visitors to its website on most days: Stats at Project Wonderful. Shishigami (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 1. Comic-Con is a seriously notable event. 2. The stats cited are not representative. They are the stats for a specific ad, not the stats for their whole site. Besides, RSS subscriptions and some viewers for reading webcomics don't even show the ads, so those users don't affect an ad's display count. 3. Comic-Con is NOTABLE. With 140,000 people attending it, it's worth mentioning twice. (You created a second account just to nominate this one article for deletion?[28] Seriously? That's odd.) MMMMMMMM (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither of the mystery nominator's arguments hold up. Comic-Con is absolutely notable. Ad stats do not equal the comic's stats. For instance, my friends and I use a browser setting that won't let ads like that appear, therefore none of us would show up in such numbers. Shoester (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComicCon is certainly notable, but its notability is not rubbing off on the comics which are presented there by their creators. The facts remain that this webcomic is not published in any notable publication, that it has not won any notable award, that no articles about it have been written in notable publications and that the number of visitors to its website is very low. If this webcomic is notable enough for Wikipedia than several thousand other webcomics are as well. --Shishigami (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Notability is not established, and certainly is not inherited from Comic-Con. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're not just hawking their wares at these places. They're panelists at Comic-Con and WonderCon, so their convention involvement is no argument for deletion. Dr.Who (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: are the cartoon llama and the cartoon cat panelists in real life? If yes, this does not seem possible. If no, to whom are you referring? / edg ☺ ☭ 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AfD nominator, who is the one who raised the issue of event notability as though only nonnotable events had been mentioned (and who claims on her or his user page to win unspecified awards for writing unspecified articles while criticising others re awards), subsequently remarked on what it had to do with the creators. Therefore, I referred to the creators. Dr.Who (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but delete. There's nothing in this article that indicates that this webcomic is notable according to our inclusion guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am certainly open for arguments why the webcomic is notable, I believe that the reasoning of those who want to keep the article is erroneous since they suggest that the webcomic inherits the notability of Comic Con which does not make sense. The stats for the frontpage are also not misleading since they would be even low if the actual stats were 10 times higher which is totally unrealistic since only a minority of internet users switches off JavaScript. Alexa also shows that the number of visitors is low, the website has an "3 month average" Alexa rank of 1,227,016. --Shishigami (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plague metal

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

Appears to be nothing more than original research. Google search reveals nothing to me. Article was previously deleted in a prior AFD but it has been over a year since this article was recreated and without knowing how similar or different the article is to the one that was previously deleted, I'm sending it here to AFD instead of CSD. Bardin (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing found to indicate that this a significant genre or widely used term. Creating new genres every time a band finds something slightly different to growl about is rather silly. --Michig (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly non-notable, and most likely a hoax; bands get no Google hits. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Narrow Way (Newsletter)

The Narrow Way (Newsletter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article admits that this is a magazine only for members of the Assemblies of Yahweh, totaling at most a thousand readers. I cannot find any outside sources other than this single mention of its creation. Propose delete and redirect to Assemblies of Yahweh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are many references to the Narrow Way on the internet: [29] In Citer (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Not that google or yahoo hits are sufficient to demonstrate notability but the hits in your yahoo link above, with the exception of the hit to this wikipedia page, are mostly to appearances of the phrase "the narrow way" in contexts that have nothing to do with this newsletter.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why it's so difficult to find sources. I've checked Google books and scholar as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sufficient reliable sources are missing. Seems to be little more than a church bulletin. JodyB talk 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Urban dealt (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Doom metal

Acoustic Doom metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be nothing more than original research. Google search revealed nothing to me. Bardin (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Symphonic

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

Appears to be nothing more than original research. Google search revealed nothing to me. We already have a symphonic metal article.--Bardin (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce R. Booker

Bruce R. Booker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography; unreferenced; fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO; orphan article, apart from links added by this article's author. OttoTheFish (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you should read WP:AUTO again, it explicitly states that deletion is uncertain and that creating an autobio is discouraged (i.e., not forbidden). I know of several autobios that became acceptable articles on notable persons (not always without other editors battling problems with COI, though... :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And while being an autobiography by itself is hardly grounds for deletion, I have to wonder how notable a subject is when the subject himself is writing the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have cleaned up the article a bit and checked the external links. I also did Google and Google Scholar searches. For the moment, I have found nothing that supports notability. --Crusio (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a prominent writer and teacher in his specialized field.DGG (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. His most widely held book, The lie, is listed by WorldCat as being in 2 (two) libraries worldwide.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The merge proposal has been considered several times without consensus SilkTork *YES! 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008

John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A mini-controversy with no lasting importance Borock (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Controversy refers to events which happened before the presidential campaign, and were widely reprinted during. Page already avoided deletion in previous discussion early last year. Interesting that new deletion discussion comes up just as Iseman lawsuit and Times response have been added. With all these things in mind, I would argue much stronger deletion argument must be made in order to draw consensus than one similar argument made in last year's AfD. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The defamation lawsuit just filed shows that the article (which is about press actions as much as it's about McCain actions) has lasting importance. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into McCain Presidential Campaign article. It is not a "stand alone" sort of article at all. Collect (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into presidential campaign article Sceptre (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into campaign article per above. Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Every little political "controversy" doesn't need its own article. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into campaign article. Kelly hi! 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant enough to remain as a separate article, well-defined topic, and well-sourced.--ragesoss (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the lobbyist controversy itself has not had a lasting impact in regards to John McCain's political career, the appearance of the defamation lawsuit has established that the incident of its reporting has a lasting notability. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD and Wikipedia:Consensus#Forum shopping and the admittedly more aesthetic than practical reason that should it become merged, facts about the case will continue to reemerge on the main article, deleted with the summary, "This belongs in a sub-article". I have never seen an argument disdaining the veracity of a report in favor of the issue remaining on WP so that it can be debunked. Seems obvious to me. While the page remains, it can be debunked or verified. While it does not exist, the facts are not available. Anarchangel (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. Borock's argument that WP is not news is not policy. WP isn't a source of breaking original reports but is used for memorializing past events. What standard is being used to state that it is not of "lasting importance"? Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia; there are thousands of valid articles that may not fit someone's interpretation of "lasting importance". This was a significant event along with the criticism of The Times it elicited. This well-balanced article is too large to merge into the campaign article. Declaring it is "not a 'stand alone' sort of article at all" isn't an argument. The controversy in the campaign article has two paragraphs, per Wikipedia's summary style. Are those recommending merging wanting this section of the campaign article expanded with all of this detail? That isn't what summary style is all about; hence the need for a stand-alone article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into campaign article. Appears to be a fairly trivial mini controversy that should be covered, but doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dman727 (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability guidelines state that a subject, as long as it was once notable, always remains notable, it does not fall out of notability. travb (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Notability is permament and I see nothing to reassess the decision of the first AFD which decided it was notable - indeed the recent coverage in relation to the lawsuit only further demonstrates the notability of this article. It also shows why it is certainly not just the routine news coverage described under WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can understand where the nominator is coming from here, as in hindsight this seems like a manufactured controversy which did not seem to have any merit to it, and was not picked up on by other media sources. However, that's what makes it notable: the 'controversy' in this case is not so much over John McCain, as over the decision by the New York Times to publish the article. This is still an ongoing story, as shown by the recent action by Vicki Iseman to sue the NYT for $27 million (!), and the sources provide plenty of evidence of notability. (On the other hand, I would support merging Vicki Iseman into this article - I don't think she's notable in her own right. But that's a different discussion entirely.) Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given this article was created by excising this exact material from the Vicki Iseman page and that both articles have weathered deletion processes, the intention of merging that page into this one would require significant new argument, seeming to go around consensus as measured at those times. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only question is whether M/s Iseman has become a public person or not, not whether her notability is dependent, per se, on the original topic of the controversy. (To cite one of a million examples: We reads the article about Colonel Chas. A. Lindberg and, our coming across the blue-lettered name contained therein of Lucky Lindy's plane, namely, "The Spirit of St. Louis," if we thinks we wants to know more about this here plane, we clicks on those blue letters....) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources and is a current ongoing story due to high-profile notable libel case. 87.194.210.172 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename article Given that it's ostensibly about the NYT's questionable practices, it should be renamed to more fully reflect this. Jtrainor (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial (and widely referenced in the media) NYT article was about McCain's long history of questionable practice of close relationships to several lobbyists, but somehow the media attention about the entire article was steered to the singular issue of the relationship between McCain and one of the many lobbyists mentioned, apparently on the basis of anonymously sourced innuendo which formed the lead in the article (a questionable practice itself). If McCain hadn't established a lengthy trail of questionable practices with several lobbyists, the NYT article could never have been written, IMHO. If the Times had decided to publish the same article without leading references to Iseman, no lawsuit would have resulted (and fewer readers would have likely noticed the article at all). BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lawsuit related to the controversy was recently filed against the New York Times. SteveSims (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent arguments for retention presented above. John254 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:NAC--Jmundo (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternion (disambiguation)

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

The disambiguation page exists only to provide alternate (and obscure) dictionary definitions for quaternion. Looking through the page history, one finds that it also used to contain a redlink to an obscure musical composition [30]. Four years later, the redlink still has not been created. That leaves its only content as dictionary definitions. WP:NOTDICDEF, so it should be deleted. Ozob (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has Kusma found another meaning of quaternion, but it turns out that the redlink I mentioned above is mentioned on list of quarter tone pieces. Since there's at least three things to disambiguate, my former reasoning no longer stands. I withdraw the nomination. Ozob (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The paper-related term may be obscure, but we have an article on the subject, so it's reasonable to have a dab that points to it. JulesH (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we remove the "four soldiers" per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then the disambiguation page becomes unnecessary as a simple hatnote will suffice for paper quire. However, there probably exist some other obscure terms worth pointing at, for example in Armorial of the Holy Roman Empire. So I don't really see much point in deleting -- there will have to be some hatnote at quaternion anyway, and a disambiguation page is a cleaner solution than writing new hatnotes every now and then. Kusma (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Kumar Awasthi

Lalit Kumar Awasthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. I cannot find anywhere near substantial enough sourcing on this person to support a full biography. While he apparently exists, most of what's there are very trivial name drops. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. No evidence of significant citability of his work (almost nothing in GoogleScholar[31]) or of satisfying any other criteria of WP:PROF. I do find it fairly strange that a rather recent PhD (PhD 2003 according to his webpage[32]) is already a department head. Anyway, does not pass WP:PROF based on the information available. Nsk92 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deleted as an expired WP:PROD. — Aitias // discussion 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unspooled

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Also no sources.Borock (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In about 2 hours 45 minutes, this will be an expired PROD. I don't know why it was both prodded and sent to AfD, but this AfD can be closed delete then if no one calls "Keep" here. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Neck Of The Woods

Our Neck Of The Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice that this AfD points to a redirect. If deleted, both should go. That said, I feel this should be deleted as failing Wikipedia:Notability (films) Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no significant coverage in independent, third party sources to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia per our notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to College Station, Texas. MBisanz talk 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate, Texas

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

Unnotable local residential district (despite article name which names it like it were a city). Article is almost entirely fluff and local promotional sounding stuff. Has not received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources beyond local news and college news media. It isn't a historical landmark. Has been tagged for notability concerns and lack of references since January with no change. Failed PROD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some information can be found via Google search: there is this: [33] and a few results on Google Books (although I don't know how much there is in each, and whether it's enough for notability). If there is not enough I suggest a merge, with a removal of unverifiable content. —Snigbrook 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the City of College Station website (which is the city it is located in). Its notable for local folks as in "popular spot for students" and there are a few local books who mention it as part of the city's history, but it isn't notable outside of the Bryan-College Station area. Not sure there is much in the current version worth merging to the CS article though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Link is dead, Google turns up practically nothing. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this appears to be a real neighborhood recognized by the city legally, if nothing else, in the form of a 145-acre special tax zone created in 2006, as I just added to the article. There are a lot of sources on Google News Archive and Google Books. The whole 'not notable outside of X' is a red herring, you can always define X such that nothing is notable on a given scale. But it doesn't matter because we are not a paper encyclopedia bound by a space limitation and we include articles based on what sources are available, not on how subjectively important we think a topic is (I live 3,000 miles away, Northgate doesn't matter at all to me except in principle). --Rividian (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, local only notability is not sufficient for inclusion here, significant coverage is. And yes it exists, drive by it regularly. I know its there, but that doesn't make it notable. It does not have a lot of sources, one is the local paper and one is a trivial mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N doesn't mention the word "local", so your argument seems entirely off base... there is no requirement that sources be published X miles from the place the article is about. But like I said, what is "only notable on a local level" is a totally subjective designation, which is why we look to sources, not what we personally think is notable or not. I cited a newspaper article about the neighborhood, that's not trivial coverage, many other newspaper articles seem to exist. In "further reading" is a book I don't have access to that seems to cover the history of the area that became Northgate. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that book is a history of Texas A&M University, which Northgate is not really a part of (it butts up against it). WP:BIO specifically notes that local only mentions are not indicators of notability. No reason the same should not apply to a neighborhood. Otherwise we might as well have articles on every last neighborhood in the country, or at least the rich ones and student ones, because they all will generally be mentioned in local papers regularly, especially in areas like this with low crime so lots of human interest stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me... as long as the information is from sources one could access (even if, as in the case of this book, it would require an interlibrary loan). We could have referenced articles on all those neighborhoods and it would only be a good thing... it's not like we need to conserve space and limit the number of otherwise encyclopedic articles we can include. By the way, neighborhoods are not people... including an article on some PTA mom because she was the subject of 3 articles in a newspaper is obviously a bad idea due to privacy reasons... but a neighborhood is fundamentally different. The information will be meaningful to more people, and there's no privacy to be concerned with. --Rividian (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to College Station, Texas. There is no such place as "Northgate, Texas" outside of a website (northgatetx.com) that can't be found anymore. It doesn't appear to have any notability outside of being off-campus for Texas A&M students. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to College Station, Texas - seems to be just a district of that city rather than a separate location with independent notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to College Station, Texas. Simple enough. Dr.Who (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as in previous comments. -Yupik (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus here for either delete, merge, redirect or keep; please work it out on the talk page.  Sandstein  16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GN-0000 00 Gundam

GN-0000 00 Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be entirely in-universe plot summary and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to a related "list of ___" article. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate material, and per normal policies towards fictional material, subjects such as these, unless notable in the fiction itself (WP:FICTION), does not deserve its own article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- A merge to the abovementioned list might be appropriate if a) there was any sourced information that could be salvaged, and b) if this particular suit wasn't already mentioned there. Reyk YO! 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything worth merging. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units, but without prejudice to recreation when a reliably sourced article appears. — PyTom (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it because the the 00 Gundam is more detailed than the other you just gotta give it time to get bigger. Tylerwade123 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Not every event, place, character, battle or gizmo in a piece of fiction or a computer game needs its own article, if it lacks independent coverage. Edison (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep We need an argument for why we ought not to cover these, not for why we cannot. The quality of this article makes it clear we can cover them if we want to. My own thought remains that a comparative article discussing them in brief and in parallel is the way to go. The only problem with that approach is because it will be the next one up to be deleted. The key reason for why we might not want to is that I cant imagine anyone caring very much about the detail who needs to find the information here rather than wikia, but that is a reflection of my own total lack of interest in the subject, and I decline to judge on that basis, or we'd remove all of a number of classes of professions and a good many genres which I think intrinsically worthless. DGG (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is not the detail but the notability. If it is part of a fictional series, which is notable as I said above, then yes, the series deserves a article, but not every little whimsical thing in the series, regardless of how much "detail" we could provide. That should be left to a wikia type encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a "in-universe" guide to all Gundams, look at how long the List article is! If it doesn't establish notability, then it doesn't deserve a wiki article, per WP:FICTION and WP:NOT. Also consider WP:NOHARM. (I'm reiterating what I think is the general procedure for fictional subjects such as this btw)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary protagonist mobile suit in a Gundam series. The name of the series is derived from the name of this mobile suit. This is not just any whimsical thing. --Polaron | Talk 16:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Polaron. Edward321 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Edward321 echoing Polaron. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info to suitable location. Not notable outside of the series. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward321. Jtrainor (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to list. This fictional element does not have the independent notability required to have a standalone article. In fact, the article doesn't have a single third party source and is entirely a plot summery. It may, however, be covered by a list per WP:FICT. The same can be said for almost all of the other standalone Mobile Suit Gundam 00 since they all have the same issues. --Farix (Talk) 15:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care if this article is kept or merged - just so long as it is ACTUALLY MERGED, lest we wind up with with a WP:NOTAGAIN situation like the one unfolding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units (2nd nomination). 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe that this article needs to be deleted; technical specs of the Mobile Suit can be found on other websites, or from watching the series. Wikipedia should not contain this level of detail of an in-universe fictional topic - it should probably be reserved for a GundamWiki Project. Plus, the general information of this Mobile Suit's technology is partly covered under List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 technology and I don't believe it needs to be repeated on this article. Just my two cents, have a good day. Huaf822k (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borgsolutions

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only sources cited are the company website and an article by a company principal. I was only able to find press releases online, no third-party coverage. Tagged for notability since September 2007. Jfire (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted NAC. Reyk YO! 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Jay

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

Person does not appear to exist or have notability of any kind. IndulgentReader (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the city streets"

AfDs for this article:
"the city streets" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think this meets the music notability guidelines. Neutralitytalk 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: appears to be a myspace band with non-notable indie releases WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon McGrath

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

Notable? Seems to have only some very minor media attention. Neutralitytalk 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The first two external links seem to establish notability, to me. JulesH (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a popular local musician in the Edmonton Alberta Canada area. Very popular and has held a number of #1 albums on local radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.90.49 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University European Union Society

Cambridge University European Union Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Neutralitytalk 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested and required by members of various departments within Cambridge University, and necessary to raise awareness of society itself --RRowbottom (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Neutralitytalk 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Non-notable.--Mitigate & Satiate (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Struck comment by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what prompted the AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. No significant coverage in independent, reliable media. Furthermore, I believe that the creating author is violating WP:CONFLICT. ThePointblank (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: A Google check does show some evidence of notability - independent sources referring to the society. But it really should be re-written to back up all assertions from these sources, as opposed to self-published references. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. Second choice would be a merge into the university or a list of student groups there. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. I notice, in passing, that there are a number of pages on equally nn CU societies. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added a section to the article with 'Possible References', which gives all the independent sources I could find. Very weak ... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. TJ Spyke 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backcountry snowboarding

Complete lack of encyclopedic content that's killed editing. Topic is notable but all the text is from a college project posted into Wikipedia by single purpose account[34] and reads like a how-to. Poster claims no copyvio but we have no way of knowing. Been on the wikify log for 1.5 years with little improvement or editing, probably due to the length and the difficulty of wikifying. Topic could be accomodated in snowboarding. I think deletion/blanking is the only option here. Phil153 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This could be merged into snowboarding, but it looks to be rather different. It has problems, but I am inclined to think it can be fixed rather than deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I have entirely rewritten the article ([35]) so that it no longer reads like a how-to or an essay. I don't believe that there is currently any reason to delete this article as it is now encyclopedic. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination thanks to Arbitrarily0's excellent work. Phil153 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Danzik

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

This article came with an impressive list of external links (see this earlier revision for the whole list). I noticed that one link was dead, and tidied it up. On inspection, all the rest of the external links were variously to dead links, press releases, mere mentions in passing, and database entries, none of which appeared to meet the WP:RS criteria, and I have removed these too. Without these, I can't see that what remains passes the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're confusing verifiability criteria with notability criteria. Notability required multiple non-trivial sources. An article mentioning a subject in passing or in a database can still be reliable even if the coverage isn't indepth. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I should rephrase that. The links removed were either dead, not RS, or did not meet the BIO criteria. The patent listings are clearly reliable primary sources, but do not meet the BIO requirements. Otherwise, we would need to have an article on every person who had ever filed a patent. Similarly, press releases are not sufficient; anyone can have a press release distributed by any of the many release distribution services; they are not, in general, then fact-checked by their republishers. The person in question sounds quite interesting, and I'd happily support keeping the article if third-party sources that meet the WP:BIO criteria were available. Unfortunately, I can't see any evidence that they are. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no evidence of notability. Holding a patent does not make a person notable; there is no evidence that any of the patents are notable. The Reuter's EL is a press release, and does not provide evidence that Danzik is notable. — ERcheck (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Patents, especially the first plastic lumber, and a new renewable liquid fuel source is groundbreaking and important work. Also growing Wiki support. Most link destruction was done by unknowns. This can be repaired. It is also impossible to know if the person saying "Delete" is unbiased and not "put forth" by someone with motive. NPSE links were removed, SPE links were removed. Totally unfair to other researchers looking for basis of information in olefin sciences and original inventions and ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventorssociety (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Growing Wiki support? If these patents are so groundbreaking and important, one would expect them to have been written about--but I can't find anything at all. In fact, the only hit I got through Google news was about the house the guy bought for $6 million. I am not sure exactly what links you're referring to above (or what's unfair about previous edits), and perhaps I am also guilty of what you call "link destruction"--since I removed the links to various databases that list patents, without a single explanation as to what those things are, or, more to the point, how they are important. If you want to save your guy, you need to find sources that pass muster to establish his notability (I let the Reuters-thing stand, even though it's a press release: you need better sources than that). Drmies (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hope his inventions are successful and become notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For the reasons above and he also does not seem to pass the Google test. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anome: is a member of the Mormon "Church" and is tied to Mity Lite and has a hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.101.58 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it Easy: The substantial personal and corporate financial support that is provided will also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.101.58 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is unsalvageable WP:OR,  Sandstein  16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page should be deleted because its entire content constitutes original research. This wiki has countless problems, some of which are unsolvable: 1) it presents a racist POV despite claims to the contrary; 2) the topic is not discussed in these terms in any reliable source that I know of; 3) the POV lead paragraphs are an editor’s interpretive claims about a mixed bag of primary sources (in violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources); 4) the rest of the article mixes topics that are not discussed together in any reliable source that I know of (an obvious case of SYNTHESIS); 5) the rest of the article also has nothing to do with the article's title; 6) apart from the lead paragraphs, the article is actually about Sinicization, a notion that already has its own wiki; 7) finally, the wiki’s title is not "recognizable," as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. All in all, an extreme case of a bad wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalibi (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 January 2009

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious case of WP:Synthesis.
    • First half of intro is copied-and-pasted from article Huaxia. Second half of the intro attempts to define "Differences between Huaxia and barbarians" but the definition is unsourced.
    • The section "The Differences between China and Minority Nationality in the Ancient Chinese Frontier Conception" is a direct copy-and-paste from the abstract of the source that is given, and is an assertion without any explanation or elaboration, making it utterly pointless.
    • The section "Famous foreigners followed Confucius teaching" is completely unsourced and what more, readers are left wondering what the relevance is.
    • The first half of section "Jesuit missionary helped to spread Confucius teaching" is completely unsourced. The second half is given one source that does not back up its claims. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would this fall under any speedies? Maybe nonsense, attack page, vandalism, or notability? So many issues with the article, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NAMING, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename or merge. This article talks about the concept 華夷之辨, which is of course not original research. But it should be rewritten and renamed to a more common title. Currently zh:華夷之辨 has a interlanguage link to Sinocentrism#Cultural Sinocentrism. I think that this article can be renamed to Cultural Sinocentrism or merged to Sinocentrism.--Neo-Jay (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article is irretrievable. Possibly some of the material (or even the great Chinese "debate" about Huaxia and barbarians) should go in a separate section in the article on barbarians. The fact that Chinese at one stage in their history were highly interested in the difference between themselves and barbarians, and whether the barbarians were "improvable" or not, is a historical debate. It should be written that way. Whether enough sources can be found is another issue. Bathrobe (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename or merge. I agree with Neo-Jay's suggestion that the article either be renamed to Cultural Sinocentrism or otherwise merged into Sinocentrism. It really needs to be fleshed out, though, and explained in such a way that non-Sinologists and/or Chinese readers can understand. L (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think this is an article title we want to keep, and the content is so poorly written that I don't think we want to keep it either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - thios article seems to have the grounding for an academic essay or study; the actual phrase or whatever the title really is is not really the subject of this essay. In order to become encyclopaedic, the article would have to be rewritten completely, in order to focus entirely upon the title; not an analysis of the two cultures. Perhaps some of the content could be merged with Huaxia or Confucianism - if any of it is notable enough. Sorry, but this article just isn't an encyclopaedia entry. – Toon(talk) 22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An abomination. Can't see how a rewrite could save it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've already explained my reasons in detail in the talk page and in the deletion paragraph. Just a few more points. Despite the creator's claim the "Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 ("The 'China-barbarian' distinction"?) was purely cultural, some ancient Chinese writers (like Wang Fuzhi) occasionally emphasized the racial aspects over the cultural ones. Asserting that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" was (as opposed to "claimed to be") a purely cultural conception and discussing it in a separate article would mean creating a content fork, and even arguably a POV fork. We should discuss the dual aspect of "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (culturalism sometimes mixed with racist conceptions) in the article on Sinocentrism, which already discusses some of these issues. That wiki is not perfect, but because it's already clear and substantial, it forms a much better basis for expansion than the current article. Neo-Jay and L have generously suggested that the article should be kept and renamed. But they also agreed that the article should be "rewritten." The problem is that almost none of the current content can be salvaged: the article would therefore need to be rewritten from scratch. Why save a page when 1) it still lacks a proper title; 2) it needs to be blanked before it can be "rewritten"; and 3) its best hope is eventually to get merged into a better article? Deletion is much simpler. Madalibi (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non salvagable content and inherent POV. Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure if I'm supposed to vote here or after the tl;dr block below. This article is fundamentally hopeless as the topic has many things wrong with it. "Barbarians" is nowhere close to being NPOV, and they aren't even a real race of people, only a generalisation. A hurtful generalisation at that. Perhaps the word was a mistranslation, but still the content of the article reads like original research. This would require a fundamental rewrite to achive anything encyclopedic and it would be easier to start over from scratch. Themfromspace (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading the debate on this page, I conclude that the article itself is an attack page. In addition, it contains too much original research where the required supporting material is not forthcoming. Albert584 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang provide new references ;
  • Keep, as this is an ancient Chinese concept, which has its own Chinese wiki. To understand this ancient concept it is preferable to have the ability to read Chinese; if not, it shall take a bit more time to understand it. I first present two external links here to let other editors to have a bit of idea.
= (Ref 1) ;=

New Element in International Politics and Debate over China and Foreign Country in Late Ming Dynasty is the title of an essay by Mr.PANG Nai-ming of Nankai university, published in a journal called Seeking Truth. Googl on-line translation is here A new international political factors and the late Ming Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨), because the title of the essay is 国际政治新因素与明朝后期华夷之辨. That shows that Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨) is a very serious academic subject, and is not racist at all. If you google 華夷之辨, 205,000 articles turn up. I shall come back with more reference. Arilang talk 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

= (Ref 2) ;=

Humanistic philosophy of Hong Kong's website http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/ ~ hkshp has published an article in Chinese:香港人文哲學會網頁http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkshp 夷夏之辨對中國佛教的影響，主要體現在儒釋道三教關係中。 ... 綜而觀之，華夷之辯的基本精神主要有兩個方面：其一是，夷夏有別，華夏文化高於四夷文化，中國是禮儀之....The google online English translation is here: Distinction between夷夏and Buddhism (China)刘立夫(Philosophy Department of Nanjing University, Dr.) Hengyucius (France "World Hongming Philosophical quarter Journal "Editorial Board President, Nanjing University Ph.D., Jiangnan Institute of Culture Studies, Professor of Philosophy

From the above essay, Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨) is a very important concept, well worth the place of a wiki article. Arilang talk 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

= (Ref 3) ;=

Another essay on Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨)

http://www.zisi.net/htm/ztlw2/lxyj/2005-05-10-19729.htm has an essay on Chinese nationalism. Quote:Ancient China on the concept of the nation, mainly "Hua Yi Zhi Bian." 而“华夷之辨”主要是文化上的区分。 And "Hua Yi Zhi Bian" The main thing is to distinguish between cultural. 华，是华夏，指以汉族为主体，生息繁衍于中原地区的人民。 Howard is the Chinese, refers to the Han Chinese as the main body, the Central Plains region live and reproduce in people. 夷则指周边民族。 Yi refers to the surrounding peoples Unquoted.

The google online translation is here:[36]


= (Ref 4) ;=

Google online translation

找论文网 > 文化论文 > 文化学综合论文 > Find papers Network> Cultural Papers> Cultural Studies Comprehensive Papers>



= (Ref 5) ;=

The evolution of modern Chinese way of thinking, a thinking 来源：中国社会科学院院报2005-4-21 作者：王中江发布时间：2005-04-28 Source: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute reported 2005-4-21 Author: Wang Zhong Jiang Published :2005-04-28

Google online translation

= (Ref 6) ;=

Google online translation from China Surveying and Mapping is reported that China Surveying and Mapping Forum

= (Ref 7) ;=

Google online translation

Borderland History and Geography Books: Ancient Chinese System of Central passenger Museum

  • Blockquoted references from User:Arilang1234 to increase readability of AfD. If someone knows a better markup to accomplish this please feel free. Usrnme h8er (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments;
  • This is why the article is Synthetic. None of these sources actually discuss 華夷之辨 in and of itself, but use the idea to discuss other topics. Just because there is a Chinese WP article on it, and just because there are X Google hits on it, does not necessarily mean an article can be created on it. I'm well aware of the concept of 華夷之辨, but it's not the first, and surely won't be the last, concept that has not been thoroughly researched such that there is an authoritative and academic definition for it. Which means that an attempt to write an article about it ends up looking like the mess of an article that we're voting on to delete. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Ref 8);
  • To answer user HongQiGong:A source that entirely discuss Hua Yi Zhi Bian 華夷之辨.

Google online translation:Hua Yi Zhi Bian 华夷之辨 ，或称“ 夷夏之辨 ”，区辨华夏与蛮夷 。 Hua Yi Qi, or "Distinction between夷夏",distinguish the Chinese and living overseas. 古代华夏族群居于中原，为文明中心，而周边则较落后，因此逐渐产生了以文明礼义为标准进行人群分辨的观念，区分人群以文化和文明程度，而不以种族，合于华夏礼俗文明者为华，或称夏、华夏、中国人，不合者为夷，或称蛮夷、化外之民。

The above source is from baike.baidu.com (Chinese:百度百科 ), a online free Chinese encyclopedia which has more than 2 millions articles.

I am using this reference to answer all those critics saying the article is racist(including user Bathrobe), no, this article is not racist, if you just read this reference from baike.baidu.com Arilang talk 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the origin of this Baidu entry, see this section below. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Ref 9);


Google online translation正确理解儒家华夷之辨理论，兼谈“华夏复兴衣冠先行”口号的问题作者:泰山 转贴自:儒教复兴, this is a very serious and academic discussion about Confucius teaching and 华夷之辨

(Ref 10);


The above quote is an essay of solid and academic discussion on "Hua Yi Zhi Bian".

Google online translation

Racism ;
The whole article disturbs me greatly. It as if an anti-Papist were to write an article on the question of whether the Pope is the Anti-Christ -- and instead of stating that this was a debate with a specific background (anti-Papism), the person creating the article simply wrote a summary of his own view that the Pope is indeed the anti-Christ, with a few links thrown in.
The whole issue discussed in this "article" is highly racist. It is about whether non-Chinese can ever come up to the level of (Confucianist) Chinese. And it was an issue in China precisely because there were plenty of Chinese who believed that the barbarians could NOT become refined and civilised. That is, the enlightened types who believed in the "improvability" of barbarians were only one camp in the argument.
I also find it difficult to accept the creator of the article's condescending attitude to those who can't read Chinese, to whom he must very patient to explain what it is all about. If the creator of the article is unable to express and explain this concept so that even foreigners not familiar with Chinese civilisation can understand it, he shouldn't really be writing articles like this. The poor quality of the article is what is arousing so much unflattering comment. The fact is that, whatever the historical concept may be, the article is so poorly written as to be virtually unsalvageable. That is why it should be deleted.
Moreover, there is so much unconscious racism in there that it is difficult to know where you should start to write it as a proper article.
Bathrobe (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer user Bathrobe's comment:
  1. Yes it is about the great Chinese "debate" about Huaxia and barbarians
  2. Yes it is a historical debate.
  3. No, it is not racist The whole issue discussed in this "article" is highly racist this statement from user Bathrobe clearly shows that he has not read the references at all. Please give me a quote from any of the references that show racism
  4. Yes the quality of the article is poorThe poor quality of the article is what is arousing so much unflattering comment. but it can be improved.
  5. There is so much unconscious racism now now user Bathrobe is either acting like a Thought Police or a psychologist, instead of a plain wiki editor. Arilang talk 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm now being accused of being Thought Police! This is really off the point, but I'll try to explain briefly why I feel there is unconscious racism in the article. (1) Ancient Huaxia is equated to Chinese civilisation, non-Chinese are classed as barbarians. In other words, the Chinese were civilised, everyone else was barbarian. This predated Confucianist thought, which according to the article held that barbarians could become civilised by embracing li. (2) The concept that the Chinese are the holders of the key to civilisation, and that other people have to conform to Chinese ways in order to be redeemed from their barbaric status, is a kind of cultural (and racial) supremacism. (3) People like Ricci are mentioned, presumably to prove that barbarians could indeed embrace Huaxia culture and thus not be regarded as barbarians. The fact that these people had their own culture and civilisation does not excuse them from barbarian status -- only the embrace of Chinese culture does. All of these unconscious assumptions can be regarded as racist. The article doesn't actually try to analyse this -- it simply adds the judgement that the Huaxia/barbarian distinction was not racist!
In addition, the article fails to address other aspects of the debate, such as the existence of views that barbarians could not be redeemed, This therefore suggests that the distinction between Huaxia and barbarian was an innocuous and benevolent one. In fact, it sounds like a "whitewash" of historical attitudes. I'm afraid that whitewashing racism, past or present, is usually regarded as just as racist as out-and-out discrimination.
I hope I have made clear why I regard the basic assumptions of the article to be racist. Perhaps racism was not the intent of the article. But that is how it reads.
At any rate, this debate is sidetracking the issue. The reason that we have got onto this is because the article is so poorly written. Were the article to be written from an objective viewpoint with proper use of sources, we would not be having this debate about whether the article is racist or not. But the article merely strings together a succession of disparate paragraphs without any clear point, leaving the reader to try and figure out what exactly is going on. Perhaps a background in Chinese culture is needed -- let's face it, who but a Chinese is going to associate a bald paragraph on Confucian li with the Huaxia/barbarian distinction?
In addition, while making the value judgement that the Huaxia/barbarian distinction was not racist, the article fails to actually include material that has a bearing on the issue, such as the fact that Chinese characters for the names for these barbarian peoples included the radical for "dog".
Stringing together a few paragraphs copied from somewhere else and pretending that they are giving an encyclopaedic view is not the way to write an article. If you wrote all the background text and explanations needed to make this muddle into a coherent and intelligible article, you could trash 95% of what is there now. In other words, this is not an article!
Bathrobe (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bathrobe's analysis. Another reason why this wiki seems to present a racist POV is the article's title. Other articles titled "Differences between X and Y" (there are about 20 of them on the wiki) are about objective differences between X and Y, as in Differences between Hindi and Urdu, Difference between a butterfly and a moth, or Differences between Dano-Norwegian and Standard Danish. By its very formulation, the current title implies that the article will tell us about inherent differences between Huaxia ("a great civilization," says the lead paragraph) and "barbarians." Translated back into long-hand Chinese, the title would read something like "Huaxia yu yemanren zhi jian de qubie" 華夏與野蠻人之間的區別, clearly not an acceptable concept. Madalibi (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to backtrack here. The very poor language and structure of the article gave an impression of great arrogance and racism. But Arilang does have a point, that is obscured by his poor editing. The point he was trying to make is that Confucianist thought, rather like French culture and American corporate culture, has universalistic pretensions. That is, while it believes itself to be an inherently superior system of thought or culture, theoretically at least, it leaves open membership to anyone who wishes to adhere to its cultural norms. Thus, French culture was a universal culture open to those who wished to become immersed in it, including black Africans. American corporations are open to anyone who is able to master its norms, walk the walk and talk the talk, whether they are American or not. In the same sense, Confucianist China believed that it was a universal culture that anyone could become a member of, provided they mastered its culture and its norms. In that sense, the article is probably not racist in the way that I earlier pointed out. But that does not stop it from being insufferably arrogant, and that is unfortunately the dominant impression that the article conveys.
So I am going to take back my simple accusation of "racism". The article is not racist per se, but it is based on assumptions of cultural arrogance.
However, this is a side issue. The fact is that the article is so poorly written as to be almost worthless. I still support deletion, and hope that one of the millions of Chinese netizens can come along and do a better job.
123.121.238.37 (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (Bathrobe, not logged on)[reply]
The Chinese wiki called "Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 ;

Some editors have argued that this topic is legitimate because there is a page for it on Chinese Wikipedia, so I went to check what that source says. The page history shows that this wiki was created and written almost entirely by a single editor (中華國, now banned). Different editors proposed mergers with the Chinese article on "Sinocentrism," and later "Han chauvinism," but the page creator removed these proposals without any explanation [37]. Someone re-inserted a proposal to merge with "Sinocentrism" [38], but the creator of the page removed it again, simply asserting that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is "completely different" from Sinocentrism [39], even though the page then contained several interlanguage links to pages on Sinocentrism that he had himself inserted. [40]

For a long time, the page was also tagged for "original research" (原創研究). An editor (not the creator, who had been banned by then) eventually removed the tag after adding three external links, but no inline citation. [41]

Finally, another editor added [42] the current notice that this article is about "Cultural sinocentrism" (literally, "China's cultural-centrism" 中国的文化中心主义), and that discussions of "Racial sinocentrism" (literally "China's racial-centrism" 中国的种族中心主义) are found elsewhere. On the same edit, the editor inserted the current interlanguage link to Sinocentrism#Cultural sinocentrism and removed the old links to articles on Sinocentrism in four different languages, which had been there since the beginning.

In my opinion, this entire Chinese wiki constitutes "original research," because not a single synthetic claim or claim on primary sources is referenced. I also found that the article takes for granted the unreferenced POV that the peoples around Huaxia were backwards and uncivilized (古代華夏族群居于中原，爲文明中心，而周邊則較落後，因此逐漸產生了以文明禮義爲標準進行人群分辨的觀念). In other words, this wiki is very weak by Wikipedia standards.

Interestingly, the "Baidu Encyclopedia" article on "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (Arilang's "Ref 8" above) is a mirror page of the Chinese Wikipedia page. It cannot in and of itself confirm that the topic "Hua-Yi zhi bian" deserves an entry in an encyclopedia.

Regards, Madalibi (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu's encyclopedia is as reliable as Wikipedia is - its contents are contributed entirely by anonymous users. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baidu has far more articles than Chinese Wikipedia, and its articles are usually of better quality. "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is one rare case in which the Baidu page was copied directly from Chinese Wikipedia! Madalibi (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 and China's 200 million netizens ;

Editors please read (ref 10), before making any judgement.
In (ref 10), the essay explains the origin of Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨" in great depth and details. The idea of Hua Yi zhi bian actually was formed thousands of years ago by Confucius. A 3000 years old ideology formulated by Confucius, and this idea, is very much alive among millions of Han Chinese. Editors can use all kinds of reasons to refuse to keep it as an article, that is OK. But please keep in mind that the number of Chinese netizens is about 200 millions plus. And then 300 millions, 400 millions, 500 millions. I believe that in not very distant future, English wikipedia will have many more Chinese editors, and they will create many more Chinese-related articles, including Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨".

What I am saying is, no matter we like it or not, Chinese is coming onto the world stage, in every aspects, internet included. Arilang talk 11:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is opposed to Chinese editors coming on to edit. The problem is the quality of the articles that are written. Please don't try and pretend you have the support of millions of Chinese netizens when people try to have substandard efforts deleted. The problem is not the topic. It's the quality of the writing and the quality of the editing.
123.121.238.37 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)(Bathrobe, not logged in)[reply]
Arilang - under that argument, we can literally create an article for every single Chinese idiom there ever was. But like I've said on more than one occasion, just because a concept exists, doesn't mean it has been well-researched and defined, enough so that we can make an entire article out of it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HongQiGong, you and me(and possibly Madalibi) know that there are many pro-Han people on Chinese blogosphere, and editors the like of Madalibi and Bathrobe are in the minority, who do not enjoy much popularity, to say the least. Just go visit those pro-Han forums, and read those pro-Han blogs, you can feel the pulse, the power, the potential. Yes, at the moment you guys can twist the wiki rules original research and "POV" and insert you own interpretations, fair enough, you can do whatever you like. Now if only 10% of the 200 plus millions of Chinese netizens decide to learn English and become wiki editors, who shall win at the end of the day, pro-Han people or pro-Manchu people? You tell me. Arilang talk 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Arilang, let's try and stay civil; nobody is trying to twist any rules, the consensus is just that this article isn't appropriate in its current incarnation. I know it sucks when an article you wrote gets nominated for deletion, but it really is nothing personal. – Toon(talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone tell me the relevance of "pro-Han" and "pro-Manchu" to the issue of the Huaxia/barbarian distinction? Or is there a hidden agenda or secret subtext that we are not being told about?
Bathrobe (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang - you are truly ridiculous. About 90% of the article is a direct copy-and-paste from the following articles: Huaxia, Li (Confucian), Matteo Ricci, Giulio Alenio, Li Keyong. And you still refuse to acknowledge that you've basically thrown together a bunch of peripherally related topics to try to piece together an article. Instead you choose to accuse others of being biased against Han Chinese people. Maybe you are just inexperienced to the stricter standards of English Wikipedia, but I'm fairly certain that if 10% of the 200 plus million Chinese netizens become experienced English WP editors, they will agree that this article ought to be deleted as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 being used as political and racist weapons;
@ user Bathrobe:No, there is no hidden agenda nor secret subtext, and your were partly correct(not 100%, may be 10%) when you commented that Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 is about racism. The anti-Manchu slogan in Revive China Society says it all:

This slogan was derived from Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨, the English word by word translation is the title of the article with AfD tag:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Arilang talk 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Arilang, you ask who (Han or Manchu) shall win at the end of the day "if only 10% of the 200 plus millions of Chinese netizens decide to learn English and become wiki editors". Neither. Wiki's neutrality philosophy would need to have collapsed, meaning Wiki would disappear. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang's opinion of the Manchus is that they were "the most murderous barbarians of them all" [43] and that "barbarians are barbarians, like it or not" [44]. Everybody who disagrees or who says that this kind of POV is inappropriate on Wikipedia is "anti-Han" and "pro-Manchu." I can't believe Arilang still refuses to consider even the possibility that this page is flawed. You're not the victim of "pro-Manchu" rule twisters, Arilang. The only two editors who have voted to keep this article came here at your invitation [45] [46], and even they said the article should be rewritten. When will it click? And I've had enough of your ad hominems and insinuations. I have no problem with you if you remain civil and you assume good faith, but the next time you respond to good-faith criticisms with an ad hominem (as when you accused me of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action" [whatever that meant], of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!), I will report you to an administrator. Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my response to Bathrobe, I mentioned that a famous Han Chinese Dr. Sun Yatsen's anti-Manchu revolutionary slogan: Expel the northern barbarians, revive Zhonghua, and establish a republic. (驅逐韃虜，恢復中華，建立合眾政府), meaning that Hua-Yi zhi bian (華夷之辨) can be both political and racial.

Well, I forgot that there was another famous Han Chinese Zhu Yuanzhang (though there was gossips saying that he was actually a Hui) wrote on his manifesto of fighting off the Mongol Barbarians, thanks to user Bathrobe Talk:Sinocentrism#Is this Sinocentrism or Han Chauvinism?


To user Bathrobe and other editors, this is a battle call to get rid of the murderous and genocidal Mongols, and is definitely not a Come to my birthday party invitation. Just read this: Quote:Mongols' raids and invasions are generally regarded as one of the deadliest to human life[1][2] and ranking in third after the deaths from World War II and the An Shi Rebellion Unquoted.

There are many other cases of East Asia nations using Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 as a weapons to fight each other.

And one more comment to user Bathrobe, Ming Taizu is a hero of many pro-Han netizens, I bet you would receive all kind of abuses from them if one day you decide to go into their territory and post something nasty about Ming Taizu, and you probably get booted out by them in a very short time. Arilang talk 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remind Arilang about WP: ATTACK or would this be "twisting the rules"? Here's what this official Wikipedia policy says:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Madalibi (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formal apology to user Madalibi and any other editors whom I may have offended;

I take back my comments on calling other editors (including user Madalibi) twisting the rules, if ever other editors think that my comments were of personal attacks, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's delicate feelings and I shall apology to them with all my sincerity, and I solemnly promise that there shall not be a second time. On me calling User Madalibi various names, "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action"Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation,"denying the holocaust all these names calling are just jokes, although I really really wish I could be a re-incarnation of something, or someone(may be as yet another Dalai Lama), how wonderful life would be if one can come back again and again and again, into perpetuity. How nice, you can give it to me anytime. Arilang talk 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now delete the page?;

Shame on you, user Madalibi, for not getting the joke. And to all those users who have spent so much time and effort seriously discussing the question of whether this substandard article should be deleted, you should be ashamed for letting your pro-Manchu leanings get in the way of an objective judgement. You should know better!

Now that we know that the real motive for this article is to identify the Manchus as the most murderous barbarians of them all, can we take another vote? Should Differences between Huaxia and barbarians be deleted? And this time please keep your pro-Manchu feelings out of it.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been one of the most ridiculous AfD I've seen (conduct wise, not the nomination), I'm sure sarcasm helps the discussion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the term "facetious".
Bathrobe (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment Bathrobe, now you know that Arilang is not a boring kind of guy. Arilang talk 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Looking at the last few comments, I think whatever "discussion" we were having has pretty much ended. I'm not sure which admin is in charge of this AfD, but I think it may be time to pull the plug. Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs don't have particular admins in charge of them. Rather, any non-involved admin can close an AfD if consensus has been reached after five days (or a shorter period under limited circumstances). Thus, this AfD could potentially run for another three days, although I would rather it were cut short. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for the information. If the page creator has nothing to add and if he has no objection to ending this discussion before the five days have elapsed, I see no reason to argue further. What do other editors think? Madalibi (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be Barbarians too racist?;

I know that this article will be deleted, but I refuse to throw in the towel. Some editors mentioned that Barbarians not suitable for a wiki, Barbarians comes in too strong, too controversial, too racist. But editors seem to have forgotten the article in question is about a pre-modern historical term, or rather an ancient historical term. And in ancient times, not only barbarians a plenty, lots of foreign devils too. The Clash of Empires By Lydia He Liu


Publisher: Harvard University Press Pub. Date: September 2004 ISBN-13: 9780674013070


Example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

Boxer Rebellion is a classical example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong .

Quote:The Boxer Rebellion, or more properly Boxer Uprising, was a violent anti-foreign, anti-Christian movement by the “Boxers United in Righteousness,” Yihe tuan [1] or Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists in China. In response to imperialist expansion, growth of cosmopolitan influences, and missionary evangelism, and against the backdrop of state fiscal crisis and natural disasters, local organizations began to emerge in Shandong in 1898. Unquoted Arilang talk 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best arguments we can make for this topic;

Hi Arilang. I think we can make a fairly strong case for a topic like "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (though under a different title and better translated than "Diff. betwee Huaxia and barbarians") if we argue like this:

  • This topic is notable: for centuries (and even millennia), the distinction between Huaxia and "foreigners/barbarians" was central to China's view of itself as the center of human civilization. The same conception also guided China's foreign policy in many important dynasties, and it was crucial to the conflicts that opposed the Qing dynasty to foreign powers in the second half of the 19th century.
  • This topic is discussed in reliable secondary literature. These sources are mostly in Chinese, but this is to be expected for a Chinese topic. It is also discussed under different names in English-language scholarship.
  • The term "barbarian" is not neutral, but it doesn't matter as long as we are not the ones using it to refer to other people. We can discuss Chinese conceptions of barbarians as legitimately as we can discuss Greek and Roman conceptions of barbarians.

If you manage to write a page like this that summarizes reliable secondary sources (including Lydia Liu, whom you just cited), then great! We could then see if it looks like Sinocentrism, but this is another issue. In any case, if someone tagged this hypothetical page for deletion, let me know, and I will defend it as forcefully as I can, because I think this is an important topic that deserves to be discussed. But this is unfortunately not what the current page is about. For it to be neutral and grounded in reliable sources, the current article would have to be thoroughly reconceived and rewritten, and this is why I am arguing for deletion. I am not opposing the topic: just the page as it stands now. Madalibi (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kowtow to you;

Madalibi, you are great! This time my Kowtow is for real, no more sarcastic. I shall leave the writing to you, because my vocabulary is limited. I think not only you can use it in your doctorate thesis, may be you can even write a book on it, and don't forget to put my name down as a co-author. Arilang talk 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks a lot, Arilang! You definitely know how to entertain. This page is way up there with cow tipping! Madalibi (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More examples of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 manifest inself in diifferent forms throughout China's long history. Especially Cultural Revolution, not only we can use Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 as a tool to explain its formation and its development. For example, during the Cultural Revolution, the Embassy of Great Britian was burned, this incidence can be easily expalined using Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 as a tool, because Confucius said, people who refuse to follow Li (Confucian) will become barbarians, so those red guards were barbarians. Likewise, Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots can be explained in the same way.

Because Han Chinese have Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 for thousands of years, its society is not governed by rule of law, instead, it is governed by morarity, which in itself is abstract and vague. Have I make myself clear? Arilang talk 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

user Madalibi stated that,during the Manchu conquest of China proper, massive amount of Han Chinese were killed by Manchu soldiers. Because a lot of the soldiers were surrenders from former Ming Army, naturally these were Ming soldiers. A lot of historians could not explain this historical fact, that is, how do you explain, Han soldiers turned around and massacred their own Han people? Well, me explaination is, again, Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong, because Confucius said, barbarians and civilized people are interchangeable, because when people rejected Li (Confucian) teaching, they would become barbarians. So the Ming soldiers/turned Manchu soldiers had become barbarians, regardless of their ethnicity. Arilang talk 00:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

I was lucky to be a major contributor of 2008 Chinese milk scandal, so I can claim a bit of authority on the subject. At the beginning I could not believe the fact that this poisoned milk problems could be so wide-spread and persistent problem. I mean in the West, this case would be quickly resolved with the resignation of government ministers(or probably the whole government) and then everything is over. But not in this case. This case is far from over, and it just drag on. Why? Again, Confucius already said, thousand of years ago. Han Chinese did not have Ten Commandments, so Thou shall not kill is not in their vocabulary. Arilang talk 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Positive manifestation of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨;


In 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony#Attending heads of state, there is a list of heads of states and dignitaries, which looks like a who-is-who of United Nations. Some critics claimed that the Communist China government was spending hundreds of millions of US$ to recreate the falsified dreams of the past glory of dynasties like Tang, Song and Ming, of becoming the Celestial Dynasty (天朝) again, yet another manifestation of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨. Arilang talk 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be semi speculative/close to OR (read:belonging somewhere else, diff article, or subsection)? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support user Madalibi's position;

Despite being a notorious Manchu sympathiser :), I support User Madalibi's suggestion. The entire question of how Chinese regarded themselves vis-à-vis "barbarians" is a very serious topic. It deserves much better treatment than the current article, which really isn't an article at all.

As for the role of Hua-yi zhi bian in the additional contexts that Arilang has mentioned (such as Ming soldiers massacring Han Chinese), we would again require some serious scholarly backup. Anyone can come up with theories as to the reason for certain behaviour. Yes, it's tempting to say that the Ming soldiers reverted to barbarism under 華夷之辨 gone wrong. You could just as easily explain it by resorting to the theory that "human nature is inherently evil (性恶)", which is an ancient Chinese theory. Or the theory that "life is cheap in the Orient". (This last one is quite ridiculous, but until quite recently there were many Westerners who would quite seriously put this forward as a philosophy of life in eastern countries.)

I think that any rewriting of the article must try to stick to introducing conventional views on 華夷之辨, not theorising how it might explain this or explain that.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three words: reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, we're back to WP: OR. Madalibi (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this belong say elsewhere, like a sandbox on a user's page instead of AfD? This is page planning, not AfD'ing! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest?;

I believe that some users here may have a conflict of interest. I hope that the editors here are well aware that continuing to edit after knowing that they have a conflict of interest could lead to fairly severe restrictions under some circumstances. For example, a couple of editors here appear to have condescending views of certain ethnic groups. In this case, the editors involved probably should not be editing this page or the article itself at all. Albert584 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, following expansion of the disambiguation, therefore making it useful. Tavix (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Weber (disambiguation)

Carl Weber (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unneeded disambiguation; only redirects to one article. Tavix (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as superfluous. Unlinked and a hatnote covers the second usage. Tassedethe (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the disambig to conver two more "Carl Webers". Given this I believe this is a worthwhile disambig. Keep or Merge with Karl Weber. Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks fine to me. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like a useful dabpage to me.  LinguistAtLarge  20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - all you need are two valid targets to make a valid dab page (which it had when this was brought to AfD). It now has four. B.Wind (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Interesting list (last time a sports team from each major US/Canadian city won a championship), but IMHO WP:NOTDIR may apply in this case. I can't find a firm WP rule though. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really fit under WP:NOTDIR. I think there is some interest out there as to what cities have lacked a major sports championship the longest, which is why I created the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it does not belong in WP, but I do not know of a rule against this sort of article, and there re many lists which are far less likely to be referred to (e.g. the next 10,000 in line to the British throne). Collect (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original synthesis, not very well done and not very useful. I get the premise-- years refers to how many years it's been since the city had a championship in what the author postulates as the "Big Six" of sports leagues-- MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MSL and (since the NFL doesn't have Canadian teams, the CFL). The original synthesis has other problems too-- San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose are all part of the "San Francisco Bay area" (San Jose won the soccer championship in '03), as are Washington/Baltimore (D.C. United soccer champs in '04), while Green Bay, Wisconsin is its own metropolis. I guess that under those rules, it's mostly accurate, although the Cleveland Browns won several NFL championships after the Indians won the World Series in 1948. Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of "original synthesis" would apply to almost all lists, n'est-ce pas? As for utility, is the list of potential heirs to the British throne of much utility? Heck, how many lists are of great utility? Collect (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights were pretty good. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per collect. travb (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear original synthesis and trivial. While I think the list is interesting, it just doesn't fall under our guidelines, and I'm saying this as a person who deals with primarily with sports articles. There are many cities with at least one professional team. Keep voters is mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, look at the article and let people who know the subject well, deal with these AFDs. Secret account 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't see how this is any less notable than "Canadian provinces without major sports teams". Not that that is a valid excuse on Wikipedia, but it should be! -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morrell

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

Appears to be a self-promotion article written by individual named in article.

  • Keep. However short his career was, he was a professional athlete, which meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brian Morrell is and should be a notable page, Morrell still continues to be involved in the Fight game ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrmorrell (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment JulesH is correct that, if it's verified that Mr. Morrell's 1990 bout was sanctioned by a major professional boxing organization, then WP:ATHLETE would apply. I can't tell from the source (boxrec.com) what level of the sport this was at, and even that site lists this as unverified. Balancing against WP:ATHLETE is the problem of conflict of interest WP:COI, and I think that would squarely apply here. Being middle-aged myself, I wish Mr. Morrell all the best of luck in pursuing his dreams. Being mentioned in Wikipedia is near the bottom on a list of honors, however, because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-The "professional" fight in question cannot be verified. Sorry. In the interest of "full disclosure" I nominated the article for AfD. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Verified ???clik/chek any of the other fights, the main event was real as the entire fight card, BoxRec.com is in conjunction with Wikipedia themselves, a sort of brother (sister) site...

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Part of the requirements of WP:ATHLETE just like all of the notability guidelines is that the sources must be verifiable, independent, third party sources. The cited source is not verifiable, so it is not a reliable source. This means it cannot be used as evidence that this person meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE and deletion is in order. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What's the problem with the cited source? It appears to have a reputation of being at least mostly accurate (although somewhat incomplete), from a scan of comments about it on google. JulesH (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete even if fight can be verified it would still fail to meet the threshold of WP:ATHLETE. "Competion of equivalent standing for non-league sports" is a bit higher threshold than a grand total of 1 round, or being a sparring partner. Pretty much anyone can get 1 fight somewhere, he hasn't done anything notable.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polka Album

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

Supposedly a "Weird Al" Yankovic compilation album, but can't find any proof of its existence - no coverage even in blogs, much less reliable sources. Smells like a hoax to me. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No such album exists. "Polkamon" wasn't even from him, just one of the many songs which get credited to him (due to the singer sounding like him). TJ Spyke 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unlikely that this would not get any web coverage, and also from what TJ Spyke says, it is clearly a hoax. Chamal talk 06:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G3) as blatant misinformation. Being a fan of Weird Al, I know this is not even close to existence. I definitely call bullshit here. MuZemike (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually, Al did do "Polkamon", but that doesn't mean this album exists. There's no mention of this supposed record on Al's website and it looks like a hoax. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M Heller

Robert M Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not, so far as I can discern, meet WP:BIO criteria. Nicely sourced for the most part, I concede that freely, but I can't quite discern if any of the facts stated actually prove notability. Those more knowledgeable in this field are free and encouraged to disagree, of course! Vianello (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more links from eonline and abc news showing notability. Siamsens —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The ABC news link doesn't work, but the E-Online link does work. Vianello, you're right this page is nicely sourced but it smacks of self-promotion to me. Liberal Classic (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there is some duplication from http://www.rhellerlaw.com/attorney_profile.html in the wikipedia entry. Liberal Classic (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the article's user page User:Siamsens says: "Rex Flay Freiberger, living in Los Angeles, CA, resident alien". The law firm in question has a Los Angeles office. What is Mr. Freiberger's relationship with Robert Heller? Is there is potential conflict of interest? Liberal Classic (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article violates WP:COPYVIO from including text from the attorney's commercial website in the entry. I do not believe the subject meets WP:BIO because the depth of coverage is not substantial. Lastly, I suspect the author may be connected with the firm thus violating WP:COI. In conclusion, this entry is self-promotional, not encyclopedic. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — I have removed from the article the copyrighted content as stated in the WP:COPYVIO policy. MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 Notes

1. The abc link has been changed to the Intl Herald Tribune, this should meet notability requirements of two premium journalist pieces quoting Mr. Heller.
2. Heller's legal cases are high profile in the LA area, i wrote objectively about him and cited properly as mentioned by admin on the first note. My point being, the very fact that i live in LA reveals that I understand the subject.
3. If I were to write about my least favorite pokemon character would you question whether I watch the show or not? What are my intentions? This is very good question to ask, as you must question if the entry is to be unbiased. But wikipedia entries should only be written by those who are knowledgeable on the subject matter, written in a tonality of objectivity, which i did.

My intention is to get a correct, healthily cited notability required entry approved. Instruct to me why and the how if there is fault with room for improvement. If not please approve.Rex Freiberger (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Freiberger, if you read WP:BIO you will see the standard for notability is a little more strict that being quoted in the paper. One of the ways notability is established is when 3rd party sources write something substantial about a person. In this case, the depth of the coverage is not substantial. In fact, it could be argued the article is about actress Teri Hatcher, not Mr. Heller. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of (film)

In Search Of (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE, and/or WP:N. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating now, kasoda (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep I feel I resolved the WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE, and WP:N issues. kasoda (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed it said Release Date: 11/01/08. How can this be a upcoming film if it already was released? Also, if the film is not notable yet, or not foreseeably notable, it should not have an article until it actually is released and shown notable (at least that's what happens usually). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the upcoming film tag, Sorry I missed that. What notable does it need? Are box office numbers ,reviews, magazine write-up not enough? Sorry very new to this. kasoda (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. FutureFilm tag not needed since the film has been screening. Is not WP:CRYSTAL. Is not WP:FUTURE. Have myself addressed format problems, sourced the article, done some expansion, some sourcing, and removed the advert feel of the synopsis. Its just tickling the bar of WP:NF.... just. I have tagged it for WP:RESCUE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a question: This source says "From Here To Awesome Winners Screen in London", and lists In Search Of as one of these winners. What was the award they won? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Asserts notability in current form, can see where notability could be debatable but IMO meets enough of the criteria in WP:NF to keep. Raitchison (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the references now seem to me sufficient to pass the notability guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After improvements.  Sandstein  16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Sky

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

No notability asserted. Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. (Note that production images from the official site apparently are of a demo shoot, not the actual film.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge verifiable material into Samuli Torssonen. The content of the article, once you strip out the headers and infobox, is really quite short anyway. --Killing Vector (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's a bit of a pickle, since while the project unquestionably exists (for one thing, it received a total of 55,000€ of state support in 2008[47][48]), news about its status aren't very concrete. I'm going to say Keep on the basis that the grant authorities don't just hand over fifty big ones to vaporware projects, but I want the record to show that I am biased. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong keep as is now fairly very well sourced and kinda squeeks easily passses WP:GNG. I was only able to add English language sources to the film, but if the Finnish language samples provided by Agamamnon2 are an example, it is now getting enough (international) coverage to tickle meet WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done, btw, on finding those sources. I hadn't even seen that teaser trailer. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Money Crew

Jax Money Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a counterstrike team. They claim notability, but only have one secondary source - an interview in a counterstrike webzine. My sense is this entry serves to promote their team, rather than having encyclopedic value. Liberal Classic (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - JMC has (at least, see comment above) received significant coverage by multiple reliable gaming websites such as Gotfrag. Article needs cleanup, but that's not what AFD is for. --aktsu (t / c) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd keep this based on WP:ATHLETE for their participation in the Championship Gaming Series. Also, there are more reliable sources than is apparent from the article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by NrDg. Non-admin closure. --Amalthea 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Album (Chris Brown album)

Fourth Album (Chris Brown album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. AndrewHowse (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete , STOP.......Hammer time.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. hitting a crystal ball with a ten pound hammer per above. Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4, recreation of Graffiti (Chris Brown album) or Graffiti (album) with far, far less information, deleted per AfDs 1 and 2, and the only source is still only blog. The new article certainly doesn't adress the concerns from the previous discussion, and the content is a subset of the old article, i.e. is "substantially identical" in the spirit of G4. --Amalthea 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Alien (film)

Illegal Alien (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just as Erik says, this one seems to have died. Nothing new since October 2007. Likely sold a lot of albums after the announcement though. If it ever gets into production, bring it on back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You know what else should be deleted is that supposed Wikipedia documentary that's never coming out. JBsupreme (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep film article. No Consensus on the two biographies. They might benefit from a seperate relisting but they are not geting full consideration as part of this omnibus listing. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads or Tails (film)

Heads or Tails (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the notability guidelines and exist solely for self-promotional usage, and as such fail AUTO and COI. Main editor of both, Maryannmann (talk · contribs), appears to be a SPA, and is demonstrably Jeff Keilholtz per this diff.

Jeff Keilholtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ditto for Maryann Mann Tedickey (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Her notability as a writer is now sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Minor sourcing only. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ONLY the film Keep All. With respects to the nom, and disregarding the author's COI as the articles now belong to Wiki... I found and others..... which all have coverage of the film or its filmmakers. Though not all are "in depth", the amount of coverage is significant and I believe the article and filmakers as notable enough to an asset to Wiki if the articles are cleaned up. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm- most of the pages that I found discussing Jeff were written by Maryann. And the Atlantic Free Press appears to be a blogfarm. Tedickey (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After deeper research, I agree.
  • Update I just finished preliminary sourcing of the film's article and have not used anything written by Maryann, finding significant coverage in WP:RS. Maryann's notability as a writer may be iffy, but the film's is not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
true (the film exists, though I've read some questionable pages on imdb...). My interest is in the two topics devoted to Jeff and his alias Tedickey (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paints Jeff as a very creative writer... but not a notable actor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the point and concur. Perhaps the Jeff and Maryanne articles might be combined as they being the same person... though I would not know who belongs to whom (chuckle), so I'll withdraw any keep opinions for them. However, I still feel the film Heads or Tails now has an established notability despite the original author. Maybe it would have been best to have not combined two BLP AfD's with one film AfD, but I trust that the nom felt the connections were important. I have modified my opinion above accordingly. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable film, has received significant press coverage.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mann's article as a copyvio of this. (And how can you focus on something extensively?) Delete Keilholtz's article as asserting only the most minor of significance as an actor; as for writing, Keilholtz pens sociopolitical commentary under a pseudonym. He is published by a variety of publications. With no names and no evidence? As for the movie, I don't know. I see that it cost nothing to make, which might make it interesting. IMDB offers just on external review, but the website hosting it is dead. Morenoodles (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:MichaelQSchmidt. now sourced, meets notability. travb (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging Basisinkomen

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

Vereniging Basisinkomen is about a not notable Dutch organization, it is from Dutch language sources and unverifiable to English readers. It is a not notable organization, most every thing in the article is about basic income, and that has it's own article all ready. The article was selfpromotion by a community banned editor the organizations officer. Its deletion was blocked by the officer before he was community banned RetroS1mone talk 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The references are more than adequate to establish notability. There is no requirement that references be in English, and editors who cannot read Dutch can get a good idea of what the references say by using Google Translate. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how those references establish the notability of the organization. Sure, they establish that the issue of a 'basisinkomen' has been on the agenda and in the press, but there is no coverage of the actual organization. Ref. 4, to an article in Trouw, could possibly one such reference, but searching the archives on www.trouw.nl delivers nothing--the organization is only mentioned on their blogs. I looked through ten pages of Google hits, and the only hit (nothing from any of the Dutch papers or magazines, just blogs and press releases) is in a book, where the organization is cited for a definition of 'basisinkomen.' That is not in-depth coverage. In short (and I don't care for any bans), the organization is not notable, and the sources don't establish it as such. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Blogs are only unreliable when they're created by hobbyists or people of whom the identity cannot be determined. Since Trouw itself is a notable and reliable source, it should follow that its website and blog are too. Textbook example of a blog that can be considered a reliable source. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that blog is reliable, it doesn't help much, in my opinion. The problem for me is that none of the newspapers have EVER written about this club, as far as I can tell. That confirms my suspicions--it's a fringe organization with laudable goals, but fringe. Not notable. And while I created Basic income in the Netherlands for this purpose, I don't see much in this article that can be merged. I'll be glad, if "merge" is the outcome, to do so, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to that; if it is condensed to one paragraph, it could fit under the 'advocates' heading, esp. since Saar Boerlage is mentioned in there, and her name comes up in this article too. But esp. some of the references need to be cut, I think, or moved--it would be best, in my opinion, to merge it into an article 'Basic Income in the Netherlands,' since it's a bit too much for 'Basic Income' and not enough to stand on its own. Besides, these references might actually make it fairly easy to hammer out a stub for 'Basic Income in NL.' Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basic Income in the Netherlands: done. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add a sentence to Basic income when people find a notable source for it. RetroS1mone talk 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or to be merged into an article on 'Basic Income in the Netherlands'. "Basic income" is way to general to accomodate these informations. G Purevdorj (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Enough has been said on this non-topic. Miami33139 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - during the first AFD I initially !voted keep, based on the presence of a large number of sources. I then reviewed the sources in greater depth, and found them lacking and changed to !undecided. Mentions were either brief throwaways that couldn't be used to justify any text (i.e. essentially stating that VBI exists but not staying much else beyond address and phone number) or were from themselves extremely dubious notability sources (and here I'm thinking of the nomination of one VBI member for an award by a tiny political party, that no longer exists and never received a parliamentary presence, from another country in a non-Dutch/English language source, for which their work, of which VBI was only part - that may be notability for the person, at a stretch, but not for the organization). After re-visiting all my previous analysis and discussions on the organization and the references/sources, and checking the history to see nothing has changed since my last edit bar the addition of a category, I am quite comfortable with a !vote of delete. Discussion is minimal and insufficient to pass the guidelines of WP:CORP. I am comfortable with what minimal information that exists being merged into the Basic income in the Netherlands page as a section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge According to the previous commenter the sources are lacking in depth to support an article, but he ends by saying that it could still be merged. Since it is still verifiable, a brief mention in the already named article is warranted. To nominator: while English references are preferred, they're not required. Please read the rules, so you can base your nomination of common practice rather than your own opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - this fictional school has no notability beyond the associated TV series. Prod removed by editor stating that the unreferenced and trivial details should be merged to Strangers with Candy, although that editor really should know by now that lists of unsourced trivia are not particularly welcome on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Otto's spot on. This is nothing but unsourced trivia. Reyk YO! 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real world notability and mainly fancruft. Matt (Talk) 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Matt.T JuJube (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of it being a major setting for a major series. The materials cited seem to talk about the school itself in a specific way. There is no need for the references to be primarily about the subject, as long as they cover it. The nomination seems to be based on an opinion about WP content, not just the suitability for an article. About two years go there was indeed a pattern of deletion of what was then denigrated as trivia, but such deletions since become very unusual. Fortunately, even if the article is deleted, no decision here can prevent the addition of content to an article--that will need to be discussed on the article talk pages. DGG (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About two years go there was indeed a pattern of deletion of what was then denigrated as trivia, but such deletions since become very unusual. More's the pity. Sadly too many editors would rather have gigantic lists of idiotic nonsense like "in episode 14 of season two of The Made-up Show, a character is wearing a Dukes of Hazard wristwatch and the time on it is 11:36" than have articles that are actually encyclopedic in content, thus the lists of idiotic trivia have become harder and harder to delete as the garbage heaps that they are. As for the need for sources to be "primarily" about a topic to establish the notability of the topic, you are correct that this is not a requirement. However, significant coverage is required. You are also correct that the sources about the show "seem to talk about the school in a specific way". That way is by merely mentioning the school as the setting of the program. Where are the sources that address the subject directly in detail, as required by WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The "parent" article and the school section in particular would benefit from the inclusion of some of this content. Unlike many pop-fiction subject, it has some sourcing too. So I don't see a reason it needs to be deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:PERNOM all being insufficient "reasons" for deletion. This setting in question is the principal location of a television show and film and is covered in multiple reliable secondary sources found on Google News. Moreover, per the GFDL, we must keep the edit history of merged content public. Thus, as this discussion cannot close as delete per the GFDL, a merge discussion should be discussed on the article's talk page, which I reckon we can all see as a fair compromise. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources to which you link do not establish the notability of the school separate from the series or film, as they are mere mentions of the school's name and mere mentions are not "significant coverage" as required by WP:N which states in relevant part that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Trivial mentions are defined by example as one-sentence mentions in a larger work. Of course reviews of the film are going to mention its setting. That does not make the setting independently notable as mere existence does not make a topic notable. Find some sources that discuss the topic directly in detail. Otto4711 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is an acceptable spinoff article because it concerns a subject that appears in both the film and television series and thus serves as a gateway to those articles. The sources successfully establish notability because they not only verify this article's content, but also demonstrate that it is worth mentioning in more than just a couple reviews that appear on Google News and when they discuss the school, they discuss how it does not reflect reality, the factions in the school, etc., i.e. they provide out of universe non-trivial coverage of the school, or put simply more than significant coverage for our purposes. A fair compromise here would be a merge and redirect with the edit history in tact as a reasonable middle ground. There is certainly no compelling reason to redlink the article, but I would agree that it probably could be covered sufficiently in the article where the sourced information was merged to earlier. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG and A Nobody -- good points are raised. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a little bit more work, but delete the "Fact" section as itviolates WP:TRIVIA. --Mark Chung (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Strangers with Candy. This is a fictional setting with no independent notability, and the current article essentially consists of a list of trivia. Terraxos (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Strangers with Candy. The fictional setting's value lies within the context of the programme. Dr.Who (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Keep for now. The nomination was to delete. Provide an opportunity for merge discussion on the article's talk page per A Nobody. Dr.Who (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced trivia and plotcruft, non-notable subject, no real-world content. Unlikely search term. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this verifiable and notable information has already been merged, it cannot be deleted, but only redirected at worst with the edit history intact per the GFDL. Plus, WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are never valid "reasons" for deletion. Plus, it is a valid search term that is notable to hundreds of readers and editors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I have to say that I don't appreciate being dismissed as waving at WP:JNN and even if I did I would still feel constrained to point out that it and the other things you linked to are part of an essay, not part of any policy or guideline, and thus are not binding on this discussion. Second, while "Flatpoint High School" might possibly be a valid search term, "Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)" is not. Finally, since the information merged is unsourced, it is subject to removal at any time. The unsourced material has now been removed from Strangers with Candy, as has the impediment to the deletion under the GFDL (noting that WP:Merge and delete is also an essay that may freely be disregarded). Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material that was merged was the sourced material, which means the GFDL concern remains and thus this article cannot be deleted. There is no policy based reason for deletion. The subject is notable because it appears in both a film and television series as the principal location. The subject is verifiable in multiple reliable secondary sources as demonstrated by a Google news search. Thus, the article meets are notability and verifiability policies/guidelines while being consistent with our First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia covering fictional topics with importance to people in the real world. Thus, coupled with the merge of sourced material means that while some could be a credible case for merging and redirecting, there is no compelling reason to redlink this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW Delete. Fails WP:V and all applicable inclusion guidelines, probably hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (film)

Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. No references provided to evidence that the production exists; if it does, nothing shown to evidence that this film does not explicitly fail the future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is woefully little available with a search. If/when this film gets going, there may be more. But for now... it can go. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, sources, anything. This page should have been speedy deleted a few days ago, but the tag was removed repeatedly by an anonymous user.  AcroX  03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need to talk five days about this? The article was created by someone with the film as their username, and this nonsense was speedied once before already. No sources, and if it was just announced it wouldn't come out in 2009. I wouldn't even doubt this editor placed the September hoax under another name either. Nate • (chatter) 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to University of Hertfordshire. Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UH Racing

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

Non-notable. Formula SAE/Formula Student is a university-level engineering and racing program. It's specific participating universities and teams are not notable. The359 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As one of the most successful and longest running UK formula student team, UH Racing is exceptional among Foumula Student teams for it's commitment and success. UH Racing is also one of the greatest suppliers of Graduates to Motorsport, particularly F1. The associated Engineering course at the University of Hertfordshire is the only University to be accredited by the Motorsport Academy as a recognised educator. It is also accredited by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (who organise the Formula Student competition) and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. UH Racing also developed the World's First Hydrogen powered competitive race car. Perhaps inclusion of details of this vehicle will increase notability? — 84.69.129.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Hertfordshire until there are sufficient independent, secondary sources for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per DoubleBlue --Numyht (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. A student competition only, in a sport where there is professional competition. The later success of some of their graduates does not justify an article on the team. At present the article serves only the vanity of the participants. DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no objection to a subsequent redirect being created. Insufficient independent sources to meet WP:V which is a policy requirement. TerriersFan (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Notability: One of a few UK universities to compete in the US Formula SAE competition, and different awards. Few sources but enough to establish WP:N. --Jmundo (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete (G7). — Aitias // discussion 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Live Performances

Madonna Live Performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure what cat to speedy this with so I figured I'd send it to AfD instead. If anyone can let me know what cat this would be speedy'd with I'd appreciate it Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to answer it, but I don't really understand what's your point. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the word I was looking for! Listcruft, this is a totally unnecessary list and does not have a place on Wikipedia. Check out WP:NOT. Hope you understand and thanks for contributing to the project -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, i wanted to create it cause it is the kind of thing I come to wikipedia looking for, but maybe it is just me, my friends and other fans. But I understand. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD criteria G7, as the page was blanked by the author. – Alex43223 T | C | E 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G7). — Aitias // discussion 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valdelamar crime family

Valdelamar crime family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any ghits on "Arturo Valdelamar" indicating any kind of crime connection, just 16 hits, and nothing in news. I tried a few other names with no luck either, and the external links don't mention this alleged crime family at all. Seems to be an elaborate WP:HOAX, possible personal attack. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article creator/sole contributor has blanked the article (except for the AfD/hoax tag), marking for speedy delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dense (film)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vanessa A. Williams. There is some coverage available ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53]). Unfortunately all of these (except last) require registration, although the Google search confirms they mention the film. All of this is still not sufficient to fulfill WP:NF. But considering it was a credited work by notable person, a redirect would be beneficial. LeaveSleaves 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I have now expanded and sourced the article per film MOS. Notability is currently thin, but I think it just nudges to the plus side of WP:NF. I have tagged to article for WP:RESCUE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr. Schmidt or Redirect per Leave Sleaves. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a film a to justify notability it has to be widely released OR needs to have non-trivial coverage thorough secondary sources that does not include simply information about screenings OR significant critical reception. Just because a film is produced by a major network is not a valid reason for inclusion. Notability is not inherited. But as a work of a known person, the film does warrant mention is that person's article. Hence my suggestion for a redirect. LeaveSleaves 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, the sources need not be exclusive... just simply "more than a trivial". I can well believe that when it was first released as her directorial debut, it got lots of coverage... and since notability is not temporary I will be searching in that direction. If I cannot find such, a merge and redirect will serve. No need to jump onto a delete or merge too soon as Wiki does not have a deadline. And because of her notability, any such article will definitely mention her. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one: a less-than-trivial article from unityfirst.com: "Vanessa Williams to screen her Directorial debut 'Dense' at the Martha's Vineyard African American Film Festival, August 12-15". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this non-trivial? The source talks more about the person than the film. There is no description of the film or its production, nor is there any critical comment. I'm sorry but I don't see how this meets any of the required notability requirements of a film. LeaveSleaves 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a real shame that her own notability has overshadowed coverage of her directorial debut. It's a shame that the film had not been written and directed by someone otherwise non-notable. It's shame that coverage of her film would by the nature of her own notability, include informations about her not directly related to the film. It's a shame that the film and fimmaker cannot be seperated. Its unrealistic to expect that sources about the film to NOT include her. In my search I also found an archive of the February 25 2005 issue of The Metro Herald, Page 16, where there is another "mention"... of her particpation in the commenoration of Black History Month where "Dense" was screened and Vanessa WIlliams spoke about her film. Again... it is an absolute pity the article about the film cannot be seperate from the filmmaker. A pity too.... that she can now do nothing individually creative and have it accepted as an act apart from her own notability. If she discovered the cure for cancer, you can just bet that any article about the cure would itself include volumes about the person who made the discovery. Would that make the discovery less notable? However, the question is moot. I give up.... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying that the news item shouldn't include her. I'm asking for sources that talk at least something about the film instead of her other endeavors. Is that too much to ask? LeaveSleaves 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, because of her incredble notability, yes. This may qualify as one of those situations spoken of at the head of every guideline... "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." That caveat is included on those pages for a reason. This might be just that "exception". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by LeaveSleeves and Schmidt Tavix (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Films shown by the major networks have sufficient distribution to be notable. DGG (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also, we generally cover the works of notable people if something can be said about them. Since Vanessa Williams is an award winning person and this is her directorial debut, it's an important part of her body of work and thus notable enough for inclusion (the sources make it verifiable, while the facts about the director make it notable. the whole general notability criterion only comes into play when other criteria cannot be met). - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad for Business (film)

Bad for Business (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cableready Productions

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

Article about non-notable company with no third-party reference sources DAJF (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables (2010 film)

The Expendables (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Suggest a merge/redirect to Stallone article for the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adhavan

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in full agreement with the nom. There is information available about the proposed film and that it is "expected" to begin filming in 2009, AFTER the director finishes up another as-yet-unfilmed project. There is no harm in waiting for more to become available... financing...casting... principle filming... THEN the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kristo

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

Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Player in question has yet to play professionally or at the highest level of amateur hockey (World Championships or Olympics). – Nurmsook! talk... 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject was not a first round NHL draft choice, has not won a significant amateur award, and has not played professionally. Article can be re-created once one of the above criteria are met. Patken4 (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N can be recreated when/if they play professionally or otherwise achieve notability. -Djsasso (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way to move the article to my userpage as a sandbox? That way it doesn't have to be recreated from scratch. --Coppercanuck (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just copy/paste the text to your userpage; either to the main userpage, or create a sandbox page such as User:Coppercanuck/Sandbox. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can also ask for it to be undeleted when he meets the criteria. Deleted articles are saved after deletion, non-admins just can't see it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I think User:EEMIV put it best: "This list looks like a packing receipt mixed with the last page of a VCR instruction manual." From what I gather, it's the remarkably poor structure of this list combined with the total lack of references of any sort that is making this list the victim of repeat AfD's. This list does appear to have been the target of several merges, and so those merges have simply dumped information in without doing much to clean it up. I believe, and it seems a consensus here believes the same, that a very substantial cleanup effort would go a long way toward improving this article; finding references, adding information, and possibly splitting back out as recommended in this discussion. If you are a member of a relevant Wikiproject, please work with your fellow editors to get some sort of collaboration done on this list, because it really really needs it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units

AfDs for this article:
List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated in 2007, but no consensus was reached. Does not establish notability with independant sources, Fancruft list of mostly extremely minor mecha, no references. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep as it's been established that list sub-articles related to an individual series (and in this case, quite a large number of series) do not need to establish notability independent of the main article (or in this case, articles). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment such consensus has been established for lists of characters; I've yet to see any consensus for lists of robots or ships. Doceirias (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For Gundam series, the robots and ships (especially the robots) could be considered characters given how much merchandising is created for them, even 30 years after they were first introduced. I think this is a good application of that consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may help to note that this article has been the merge target for the following articles:
  • Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure about voting delete here, but wow that's an incredibly useless article. For lists of characters and the like, isn't it customary to have some sort of description or whatnot instead of just a list of random names? This is made more distressing here because the names of these mechs are all model numbers made of jumbled digits and letters. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I suspect that's what will eventually be there, but as you noticed, there are a large number of them. It will take some time, but this is what lists are for and Wikipedia isn't on a timeline for completion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, well, at one time there WAS a LOT of information - most of these mobile units had their own detailed webpages. Then someone got a wild hair up their ass and afd' the lot, and "merged" everything. You are now seeing the results of this "merging." Now we're looking at deleting this article too, which is skirting WP:NOTAGAIN. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep As per user:Nihonjoe. On second thought, user:Themfromspace is correct. Proxy User (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure where Nihonjoe and Proxy User see that its been established that this type of article doesnt neet to establish notability independant of the main article, because when I read Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists I see it clearly stated that "stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles, and as such are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Themfromspace (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As far as I can tell, WP:N isn't a Wikipedia content policy. Though, I don't agree with Nihonjoe either. Statements like "list sub-articles related to an individual series [...] do not need to establish notability independent of the main article" have been made by many editors, but I've yet to see it written in a guideline/policy. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Themfromspace puts it very eloquently. Lists are not exempt from notability and verifiability policies and guidelines. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very strong keep, actually, for this page where other articles were merged. The practice of removing content by first redirecting/merging it, and then trying to delete the combination page, is harmful to the encyclopedia, and prevents orderly consideration of how to handle these articles. I think this is POINT, a determination by a few individuals to press their view that more than minimal coverage of these topics is unworthy of an encyclopedia. The argument that the information is not verifiable is not correct, for primary sources will do to verify this sort of content. DGG (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The list may be a valuable information source for someone interested in the subject, meets wp:list.--Jmundo (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: each of these have 100+ non-wikipedia hits at least. Most (all?) seem to have at least a few (self-published but apparently well-respected) website hits where there are gory details on each "unit". Not traditional notability, but I'm good with it. Add a copy of DGG's arguments here too. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article is currently rather horrible, it is a legitmate spinoff article to keep the main article from growing too long. The main problem is the Gundam franchise is large, comparable to the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises, yet the Gundam Project has only a handful of editors, so cleanup and improvement can take a while. Edward321 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it's one thing to have a list of characters separate without looking at notability. It's another thing to have a list of fictional objects separate. I'm not seeing the notability that makes such a thing a legitimate spinout. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Of course, those pages all have proper descriptions of the items "listed", whereas this article has a couple of paragraphs and then a very long list, some wikilinked but much of it isnt. People are concentrating on notability and verification and ignoring that its still fancruft. If this page was like the others, I'd not have started the Afd. However as it stands, much of the page is only useful to hardcore fans who can get the information elsewhere. About half the list is just a plain text list of minor variations of minor mecha even within the Gundam universe. If even the minor models had a paragraph at least describing them with the variations below, it would be a decent page for everyone. As it stands we have a article flagged for rescue, people asking for it to be kept, but not a single person has tried to improve the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. This meets list policies. I also note the perjorative term used by the nom. Jtrainor (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again per DGG. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bereft of even an inkling of notably. Totally unencyclopedic original research. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. HiDrNick! 16:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But tell us what you really think! Seriously, how on earth is a verifiable list OR? Could you explain your comments? Hobit (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jtrainor (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmmrphgrbl. Bad articles combine into bad lists. One-off AFDs don't fix this. This needs a real parent article, like "Mechanical design of Universal Century Gundam series" and needs to be upmerged (and NOT in list form) there. Failing that, it's more or less a harmless salvage yard, but I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would be happy to work on it, but I do not have the resources to do so. There have been hundreds of books published in Japan on Gundam and the robots which populate the series. You can go into some bookstores there and see whole sections devoted to Gundam reference books. Unfortunately, I don't have any of them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In the past, when some of these reference books were used as sources, people complained because exact page numbers weren't cited. Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Depends on what you mean by "Gundam reference books." If you mean artbooks/licensed guides, you'll end up making more of this, only with more footnotes. That's somewhat better, I guess, but those aren't very good sources. Now, if we found some decent sources about concept, creation, influence on other works, etc. we'd have a hope of making a decent article. Until then, it's just shuffling around paraphrases of the most recent Gundam universe licensed guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, per above Keeps. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article requires editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nihonjoe. From a notability standpoint, the mecha in a Gundam program are actually more relevant than the characters themselves. MalikCarr (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gundam Mobile suits are a notable topic, and since they can generally be ordered by serial number, a list provides a way of keeping them in order. It's certainly possible to write properly-sourced articles about many of these, like Z Gundam and RB-79 Ball. — PyTom (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This list looks like a packing receipt mixed with the last page of a VCR instruction manual. I really can't wrap my head around all this Gundam stuff. However, I've been clicking around the WikiProject the last hour and it seems clear that a huge chunk, if not the vast majority, of the articles and lists in this WikiProject consist of poorly edited and in-universe plot summary, trivia, and speculation; much of it should be nuked from above (it's the only way to be sure). In comparison, however, to another list and yet another list, this one isn't that (or, rather, as) bad. The other two lists are laden with too much sheer unencyclopedic content; this list up for AfD instead suffers from a lack of context and a clear explanation for what all those sigils and characters mean, and an explanation for just how down into the nitty gritty of minutiae appearances does this list delve (i.e. is there an entry here for the might-be-a-bat-but-could-possibly-be-a-robot-because-it-has-a-shiny-piece thing?). I'm not !voting delete, however, because I think this is an arbitrary and not especially effective jumping-off point for culling through this franchise; probably the project is better served by merging all these disparate lists together and giving the WikiProject folks some specific "either cite this to the real world or it gets deleted" suggestions. Yes, I know that's the tacit requirement for all content added/restored to Wikipedia -- but, really, some of these niche fiction franchises have been working here in their own bubble for so long, with so much cruft (there, I said it) scattered around, that putting random holes/redlinks in their WikiProject/navigation templates probably won't help much. Rather than swooping in to delete stuff piecemeal, a little more engagement on their talk page to gauge involvement and willingness to revise would be most useful -- -- and perhaps this suggests that backbone isn't around, in which case, delete away. Anyway. I won't be upset to see this deleted, but I think it's only a superficial measure. Sorry for the rant. (And, yes, I appreciate the irony of hammering out all that just a few minutes after putting a specific suit of armor up for AfD -- then again, I differentiate between lists that amalgamate blurbs on multiple specific topics for which there generally is only in-universe content and articles focused solely and exhaustively on one such topic. Meh.) --EEMIV (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite for the inclined, there are literally tonnes of Japanese language references for several of the items on the list. It could be trimmed though. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A long list of combinations of letters and numbers does not make an encyclopedia article. The references appear to be from the franchise owners, and are not the "independent sources with substantial coverage needed to show notability. Edison (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with keeping lists that other cruft is "merged" to, but this list is a poor example of this. It contains only one-line entries, thus showing that not much content from a deleted cruft article is merged there, plus these entries can be of little use. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list needs a major overhaul. The main problem with the list is that it is trying to cover way too much at one time—11 anime series and 11 manga series, games, novels, and models. That means that the list is unfocused and unhelpful. What needs to be done is that individual lists for each of the anime and manga series needs to be split off with more details about the mobile suits' roles in the plot line along with other out-of-universe information. This main list can then become a navigation list between the series specific lists. I would also suggest that only the main mobile suits featured in each series be listed instead of every mobile suit ever mentioned or makes an appearance. --Farix (Talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a plan to me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, keep in mind that each and every list must assert the notability of the subject just as a major article would. I can't imagine that most of these mini-lists would meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability, especially if the major list is having trouble. Themfromspace (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commentSmaller, more detailed lists (with more emphasis on major models and less on listing every extremely minor variation) would be easier to prove notability and to reference then an extremely long list with a couple of odd paragraphs like this. If I had come across the sort of artcles The Farix is talking about, I'd most likely have left them alone (I've nothing against Gundam itself and am in fact watching 00).It's the long list of minor variations that led me to look over the article as a whole as a potential afd candidate. Based on current votes and comments, I expect the afd to be closed as keep/no consensus, so I hope to see attempts made to follow the suggestions made by various people to improve the article so it's useful for the common wikipedia user and not just for hardcore fansDandy Sephy (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' +1 with the above comments one center node redirecting to either smaller lists for those which gathered enough notability & references/sources or to the mecha section of their related parent-article for those which are too weak and have been merged. The current one big list will always be unevenly sourced as it depends heavily to each franchise success which is obviously uneven.--KrebMarkt 09:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs to be split by series in the future to allow for more content without getting too long. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of iPhone applications

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

This is a horribly incomplete and unuseful article that contains out-of-date information. There are over 10,000 applications for the iPhone, and only 28 or so are listed here. If someone wants to find notable applications, they can use this category or Template:iPhone, which makes this list redundant as well. Tavix (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are already thousands of applications for the iPhone and will just grow even larger. The vast majority of them are not notable and will never have articles. TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unmaintanable, category is better if we want to list ones with articles. — neuro(talk) 09:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in line with Neurolysis; such a list would be impossible to maintain. Those who become notable enough to have articles can be listed in Category:iPhone applications or something. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already taking place. See my external link above for the category. Tavix (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:LC is an essay and is not Wikipedia policy. I do not think it should be used as a reason to delete an article. Are there any policies you can cite for why the article should be deleted? ~ PaulT+/C 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not an FAQ, plot summary, lyric database, "statistics", or news report... so how does WP:IINFO apply? I don't understand why you are putting so much effort into deleting content on Wikipedia. Either something doesn't belong and it is obvious or there are doubts. If there are doubts there shouldn't be any need for a long-drawn out discussion like this. Just let it lie and stop wasting people's time. ~ PaulT+/C 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is a category, there can be a list. Actually, I would say that if there is a category, there always ought to be a list, as an alternative access,with additional information, as long as someone is willing to work on it. This is one of the more distinctive cases where I and the previous commentator differ, but I didn't plan the sequence here. Either view makes sense, but i think mine is more conducive to an encyclopedia intended to be of help to the users, not fit a theoretic minimal norm.- DGG (talk)
  • Yeah, the problem with your statement is that no one is willing to work on it, and it would be next to impossible to keep it maintained. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be at least one established editor working on it; I notice you as nominator did not notify him of this discussion, which does not seem like a fair way of proceeding. (I just did so). DGG (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I look at it, if an editor really cares about an article enough, they don't need my help to find a discussion on its deletion. Tavix (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's evidence that we do need a rule requiring it, after all. DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I first came across this article I wasn't sure it made sense to keep it and I almost put it up for AfD myself, but when I saw Category:Lists of software (specifically iPod games, List of Macintosh software, and List of Macintosh games) and how many other lists of software articles there were I couldn't see any good reason why there shouldn't be such an article about iPhone Apps. The scope needs to be defined a little bit more to restrict the list to notable iPhone Apps but there is certainly more information presented in this article than what is conveyed at Category:iPhone OS software. For one, the Apps originally demoed at WWDC are pointed out and each application's release date, publisher, and genre/category are listed. In addition, is there any reason why a list and a category couldn't/shouldn't coexist? (Oh, and thank you DGG for notifying me of this discussion.) ~ PaulT+/C 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between those articles and the iPhone one is there are hardly any notable iPhone applications, and there are over 10,500 apps. How do we decide which to put in the list? Tavix (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a reason to delete an article. The point is that there are and will be notable iPhone applications and therefore there should be a list of them with the appropriate additional information that cannot be conveyed by a category. ~ PaulT+/C 05:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see that now? No. You can't look into a crystal ball and hope that the article will turn into something special. Right now it is barely a list of 28 apps, half of them aren't even notable, which is in a dire need of an upgrade. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but at its current state, it would require a full rewrite to become even remotely usable. Tavix (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And needing a rewrite is a reason for deleting content? This is ridiculous. ~ PaulT+/C 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Psantora. I have an iPhone myself, and, upon looking this on Google, this is definitely worth keeping. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does seem fairly weak at the moment, but if there's a real intention to work on it I can certainly see it containing useful, sourceable information beyond what a category provides. A need for a rewrite is not in itself a good reason to delete an article if there's scope to make it encyclopedic, and certainly it's worth allowing some time to determine if that is the case. ~ mazca t|c 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - honestly, I'm hesitant to spend more time on this article as the nominator clearly seems ready to re-nominate the article regardless of the rationale and since he doesn't feel the need to notify anyone, the work I put into the article could be deleted at any time. ~ PaulT+/C 15:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories and lists are NOT one and the same. While they can be synergistic in some circumstances, clearly every category doesn't need a list article to follow it up. Stand-alone lists need to live up to the same notability standards as the rest of the articles on Wikipedia, while categories do not. This subject makes a fine category but as a list it's cruft. It violates WP:IINFO since, as the article states, there are over 10000 third-party applications available for the iPhone. If this page were properly maintained, it would be half a mile long! Since anyone can write an iPhone application and the list's subject matter is too broad for a strict criteria for inclusion, this list is just too vague and unmanageable to be a decent article. Themfromspace (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
categories and lists are indeed not the same. Lists are almost always more informative. A category may not literally need a list, but it should have one in every case where there is enough material to be worth the bother, anything useful to be added to the bare names, and people to do the work. DGG (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating what I posted earlier: this article is not an FAQ, plot summary, lyric database, "statistics", or news report... so how does WP:IINFO apply? ~ PaulT+/C 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IINFO lists five points but they are just examples of what constitutes indiscriminate information. I would argue that a list of over 10000 items (which is what this list would be if it were successfully expanded under its criteria for inclusion) IS indiscriminate. Not only does it fall under "statistics", but the wishy-washy criteria for inclusion mean that whatevers on the list at any time doesnt even have to be the most popular applications. Even (for example) a list of iPhone apps made by apple would be more discriminate than this and I would argue that such a list wouldn't be indiscriminate. Themfromspace (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is limited to those applications that have Wikipedia articles, though I do think that expanding it to include all Apps by notable (IE those that have wikipedia articles) developers (including Apple) might be useful and warranted as well. ~ PaulT+/C 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is true that categories and lists are two different things. Categories are useful, lists tend to be poorly maintained and filled with crufty garbage. Criteria for inclusion in this one is murky and arbitrary and it will never come anywhere near being complete. The only arguments I really see here besides DGG's are WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, both of which are irrelevant in an AfD. Trusilver 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for a list or other navigational device, Usefulness is a major criterion. The purpose of such pages is to be useful within the encyclopedia . DGG (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that argument is just as ignorant now as it was then. Unnecessary and irrelevant lists are the biggest liability Wikipedia has. They are almost universally bad, they require far more maintainence than the average article, and there is no shortage of people who will happily argue for their inclusion and then mysteriously find somewhere else to be when it comes time to actually keep them current. Oh, and I'm sorry Paul, I understand if you are new around here but it takes more to "sufficiently refute" something than for someone, somewhere to use it in an AfD that fails. It requires community consensus. AfD Closing admins to not write Wikipedia policy... God help us if they did. Trusilver 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sufficiently refute? I think you misread me: The argument "a category is sufficient" was refuted. I'm not saying it is the end-all be-all of the discussion, but I do think pointing it out has relevancy here. ~ PaulT+/C 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a starting point for a valid list topic. I don't have much to add beyond what DGG has said, but as usual he has it right. The fact that there are so many iPhone applications, with only small portion (but still large absolute number) ever likely to be covered in Wikipedia, is all the more reason why a list is appropriate in addition to categories. New editors pick up where old ones leave off all the time; the fact that there are few working on it right now is not a legitimate reason to delete.--ragesoss (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple secondary reliable sources which list iPhone applications [55][56][57], suggesting that the topic is indeed notable and verifiable. dissolvetalk 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jsadserver

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. There was barely any results on two Google searches and no results on two Google News searches and two Google Books searches. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it has sufficient notability. But it should probably be listed on the appropriate boards so the experts can weigh in as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Part

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

No notability asserted; possible COI. Wikipedia is not the IMDb, nor a promotional vehicle. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

David Sowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nicholas Zebrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related templates for deletion:

Template:David Sowden Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Nicholas Zebrun Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of food origins

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

Unreferenced, Original research, indiscriminate/unmaintainable list. — ERcheck (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Kind of a random list. There are some mistakes as well, although I am sure its creator meant well. Borock (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A perfectly reasonable encyclopedia entry. Needs to be referenced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not so much a list of food, but a list of plants (which just happen to be edible one way or another). And the origin of plants is more appropriately covered elsewhere. --Latebird (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepish commenty suggestion thing this is definitely useful, encyclopedic material (althouth not something I would expect to find in a classic paper encyclopedia IMHO). This'd be great if it was expanded a bit, with the various foods linked to their respective articles (or better - sections expanding upon the information in the list) and with at least short blurbs as to the specifics (i. e. if something wasn't used as food since ancient times, any information on when the edibility of a particular plant or creature was determined). Just an idea. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source. Food plants and animals aren't infinite. I will do a few with sources. A name change may be in order. Peek at List of culinary fruits to see how fruits are handled. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like an excellent article; needs sourcing for all plants listed and improvement. We can work together to do that. Badagnani (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list is a keeper. It shows what foods are indigenous to what regions of the world, which is encyclopedic. It can be sourced and the list can be kept to the major food stuffs. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete just a sketch probably not worth the expanding. A real article would be another matter. DGG (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - User:NVO's response to my above question was not forthcoming, and, contrary to his/her comment there is nothing to merge to, this article should be kept as an eminently notable article with the potential for significant growth and value to our project. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sarkis

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

Though this page is fairly well sourced, the author of the page is User:Sarkis26 which leads me to believe this is an auto-biographical entry. This violates WP:COI and to me, makes this encyclopedia entry an exercise in self promotion. Liberal Classic (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, I don't think it actually establishes notability or meets the notability criteria for authors. Having written a couple of books isn't really enough to justify inclusion. Google turns up a lot of self-promotion from Sarkis but not much genuine third party interest in the subject. NZ forever (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notability grounds. However, I'm concerned that the preceding comments are uncharitable and fail to assume good faith.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this page any different from Lara Honos-Webb and Jeffrey Brantley, also authors at New Harbinger? - Sarkis26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarkis26 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO sets the standard for notability. I don't see that either Lara Webb or Jeffrey Brantley are particularly notable. Having written a book or journal articles does not make one notable. Notability is established when others write substantial things about you. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This line of argument boils down to WP:OCE, and the admin who closes this debate will deal with it accordingly. To keep the article you need to show Stephanie Sarkis is notable by means of references in reputable, independent sources.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The subject received a somewhat-notable award from the APA, but has little other claim to notability.Quantumobserver (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:PROF, "honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." While the APA is a notable organization, the honor [58] does not meet the criteria for a major prize. W While assuming good faith, the submission does seem to have a promotional quality as the creator's edits are the creation of and edits to this article, edits the article on the publishing house for Sarkis' book, (see WP:COI) and comment here. While Sarkis does not meet the criteria for academics, the only criteria for notability that seems to be plausible at this point in Sarkis' career is as an author - which is it not clear that beyond book promotions that independent sources establish she meets notability criteria as an author. It is not shown that her books meet the criteria for notability. I've formatted the article's references so that it is easier to see the sources. — ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the creator's talk page on notability, references, and COI concerns. Continued edits increase COI concerns. I've left a further note on the editor's talk page as well as on the article talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:COI editing is not grounds for deletion. If the subject is non-notable that is another issue.  LinguistAtLarge  20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete gnews turns up 2 articles, however she's being quoted [59]not reported on and I don't feel they come anywhere near passing significant coverage. Everything through normal search [60] looks to be self promotion. No serious proof she passes any of the notability standards yet.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the moment. The article was nominated for AfD a full 26 minutes after creation. No apparent effort to address any issues in the article, no communication with its author. Please, this is getting tiresome: COI is NOT a reason to take an article to AfD, it is NOT a reason for deletion. Obviously, COI is a reason to clean up an article. This nomination is therefore incomplete, as the nom is not giving any valid reasons why this should be deleted. Are the works from this person cited in the professional (academic) literature? Are there reviews of her books published in reliable sources? What does Google Scholar say? If this doesn't meet WP:BIO, does it perhaps meet WP:ACADEMIC? --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this let me say I mean no disrespect to Dr. Sarkis and I apologize to the wikipedia community if I have done anything wrong. I just found it fraught with problems. It is difficult to assume good faith knowing the article was biographical. Are her awards and publications notable? Can an autobiography have a neutral point of view? If it is all POV, does it need to be gutted and rewritten? That's why I nominated it for deletion. I have no vested interest in the article being kept or deleted, and will abide by consensus. How should I handle this differently in the future? Liberal Classic (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liberal, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but I was losing my patience a bit at the umpteenth AfD stating COI as a deletion reason. In the case of the Sardis article, there are some claims of notability so you correctly decided not to go for speedy. Given that the article creator is probably the subject, prod would not be helpful either (although it might have been used to alert the editor to possible issues with COI and notability; tagging for those issues would have been another possible alternative). So your decision to go for AfD was not necessarily wrong, even if it was very rapid (in the end, I came down on the delete side). But given the possibility of notability, I would have liked to see more evidence of the lack thereof in the nom (such as Ghits, GNews, GScholar) and/or some attempt to communicate with the editor of the article to see whether additional sources possibly establishing notability exist. Although the majority of autobiographies indeed are on non-notable persons/bands/etc, some turn out to be on notable scientists (see for example Glenn McGee or Richard Tol or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chater), although it is often necessary that others edit the articles for COI and POV issues. As for good faith, often newbies are unaware of the fact that WP strongly discourages (but not forbids) the creation of an autobio, so I would still WP:AGF in those cases, at least initially. --Crusio (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick Google Scholar search suggests her work has not been highly cited by academics.[61] However, she appears to be notable as an author; her 2006 book 10 Simple Solutions to Adult ADD: How to Overcome Chronic Distraction & Accomplish Your Goals is ranked 7,265 at Amazon.com and has a top hundred ranking in their "family health" category;[62] it has been reviewed (as referenced in the article) in several places independent of the author/publisher. Also as referenced in the article, she has been quoted as an expert on ADD in the media, eg [63]. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The use of amazon ranks is not a legitimate measure, except for comparison with other books with the same publication history and audience , etc. One popular book on ADD is not notability in any reasonable way. DGG (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because of COI, but as non-notable, for the reasons cited by DGG and ChildofMidnight. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails to meet notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The claim that her views on ADHD caused controversy lacks WP:V, unless we are talking about very minor controversy. The book 10 simple solutions to adult ADD is in 265 libraries worldwide; I would expect more holdings for a keep recommendation.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of software

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

This list of lists appear to be a partial, redundant duplicate of the "Lists of software" category. (Already PRODded by me and dePRODded by an anonymous editor.) Goochelaar (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I do not object to the concept itself of a list of lists. It is only that it looks like the best this particular list can aspire to is becoming as comprehensive and as useful as Category:Lists of software already is. Goochelaar (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of internal lists? no, delete. We have the contents directories for that. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Being a "list of lists" isn't, IMHO, a valid reason for deletion, nor is being redundant to a category. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Lists of lists are perfectly fine to have here. Also, lists and categories can coexist. MuZemike (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is redundant. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 7 and 11. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that 11 doesn't apply precisely because it's a list of lists. Splitting this up is the only sensible way to go if you want to make it maintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle, and #5 might also be included in that. Tavix (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above, I don't believe criterion 11 applies, and 7 doesn't work on a combined list. It applies to actual entries instead of sublists. This list is a navigational tool for other software lists that links them together and makes them maintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary, redundant and just plain stupid. Just more impossible to maintain and bureaucratic garbage. Trusilver 02:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate navigational tool; lists of lists are technical devices for organization, and should not be deleted in cases where there is suitable material and people to work on them. DGG (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful navigational tool; not duplicate of category as provides alternative non-alphabetical classification; valid form of article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per WP:CLN; parenthetically I am disappointed editors are quoting from WP:LC as if it is a guideline or policy, when it is an essay. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists of lists are an appropriate subject matter, as long as the sublists belong as well. This list is a good way of organizing the broad variety of software. It is discriminate (only linking lists on Wikipedia) and the topic is encyclopedic.Themfromspace (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the purposes of a list is for navigtion (this is from WP:LIST). This article is clearly useful for organising and navigating through our lists about software. The end reader is likely to find this useful. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightfeather 3D Engine

Lightfeather 3D Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:N), or provide any citations from reliable, independent sources (WP:V). Prod contested by anonymous user without comment and no effort to address these issues. Marasmusine (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, no third-party reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont mind in my opinion there are some reasons for inclusion and some against. when it comes to notability, how do you decide whats notable and not and for what reasons. i think general rules can't apply to everything.

for example imo the notability of Lightfeather is through its technical "merits" (performance, features, design etc) which imo can't/shouldn't be explained in a wikipedia article. also, if you take a look at the lists of open source projects on wikipedia, you would probably have to remove 95% for notability reasons since theres always only one or two "big" ones in each category and the others are rather small projects. so where/how do you draw the line ? full disclosure: i am one of the authors of lightfeather User:mm765 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Picknell

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

The result was keep. It appears that he's - just - verifiable enough, and notable as acting foreign minister.  Sandstein  16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab Khan Tarzi

Abdul Wahab Khan Tarzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, orphan. JaGatalk 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, being the foreign minister of a country would tend to confer notability. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim of being foreign minister fails WP:V, I could not find a single independent source to support it. There are sources such as the Tarzi Family Historical Society, which seems like a vanity organization. As for being an officer of the Legion of Honour of France, there are 10,000 such Officers. As an academic, I could not find anything to suggest the he passes WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stifle, you should know better. It doesn't matter if the individual is a head of state, we deal in a little technicality known as "verifiability". I looked for a little while and I can find no second party sources that either confirm or deny the subject's identity. Were such sources to be available, then of course he would be notable just due to his position. But as it stands now, a lack of sources means that the article goes away until such a thing is available. Perhaps someone who understands the intricacies of this region's names could sniff out any possible variations that might lead to a credible source? Trusilver 08:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Given that he is supposed to have been foreign minister in the 1920s of a country like Afghanistan, that is much less "wired" to the Internet than most Western countries, I'd be surprised if there were online verifiable sources. Did the people above saying they can't find any sources look for anything NOT online? --Crusio (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he was indeed Foreign Affairs Minister of Afghanistan, it would not have been so hard to find some independent evidence on the Internet, even today. For example, this history site states that: “In April 1929 Afghan Foreign Minister Ghulam Sidiq Khan visited Berlin.” The site mentions another Tarzi, Mahmud Tarzi, as Foreign Affairs Minister of Afghanistan in 1919. This is another family member, who I believe easily passes WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article and site says he was acting Foreign Minister, not Foreign Minister. I think that is enough for notability, but the temporariness could make it hard to confirm with any but exhaustive and obscure off-line sources, especially for a country like Afghanistan. For comparison, we don't have articles on all the acting US Secretaries of State, e.g. Kenneth Rush, see List of Secretaries of State of the United States.John Z (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but should be improved. He seems to have been head of the country's tourist bureau for some years and served at least in the diplomatic corps if not as foreign minister. One source says he was the son of Mahmud Tarzi. Searching is partly hampered by name variants; I get the most hits on Google Books using "Abdul Wahab Tarzi". --Delirium (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found several mentions, including [64] which would probably not be RS, but which serves to confirm notability. I suspect that the Istanbul University link would be fruitful in getting real info on him. Collect (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foreign Ministers, even ones for a short period, are notable. I consider Acting ministers to be in that class; they exercise the functions of the office. DGG (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. Searching Google Books with "Abdul Wahab Tarzi" comes up with a number of references, most of which can't be accessed online, but several snippets confirm that he was prominent in the Afghan tourist office, one names him as the son of Mahmud Tarzi and another as a prominent student who was unusual in studying in England. An article on Mahmud Tarzi in the Middle East Journal[65] states "In Afghanistan, until recently, the study of Tarzi's career and ideas was discouraged, apparently in view of his close family ties and political association with King Amunullah Khan (1919-1928) and his ill fated reforms. Thus, until the late 1950's Afghan official sources omitted any mention of the name Tarzi." -- which might explain the dearth of official sources confirming his son's foreign office position. If anyone can access the article via JSTOR this might be a good reliable source. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Marmolejo

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

Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see enough evidence of passing WP:PROF. Heading a unit at the U. of Arizona is not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). By the way, this has the looks of an incipient WP:WALL, created by users Ojuelos1 (apparently deleted) and Ojuelos. See these articles: AMPEI, CONAHEC. --Eric Yurken (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Publications have received minimal attention; negligible news coverage for admin activities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Head of an international organizations such as CONAHEC, the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, is a major executive position, and sufficient for notability.DGG (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Article in the Spanish Wikipedia is more clear establishing notability. He is the executive director of CONAHEC, an international educational organization. 1 (scroll to the end). His participation in the organization has made him notable in the Spanish media, 2--Jmundo (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not terribly bothered if this one is kept, but I'm not sure there is much of a basis for writing/sourcing the article -- a google news search, here, doesn't produce all that much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the contrary, I would say that the search linked by Nomoskedasticity produces more than enough to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lolicon#United_States. Seems to be a consensus for this, and it'll help make the proposed split mentioned by Graymornings a little easier to manage. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Whorley

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

This article does not meet our inclusion criteria with respect to notability, as described in WP:BIO. Specifically, Dwight Whorley as a person does not appear to have had any coverage in reliable third party sources apart from media coverage related to the crimes he has been convicted for.

Accordingly, pursuant to our policy about the biograpies of living persons (WP:BLP), specifically its subsections WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E, any mention of his case (if any) should be a part of the article PROTECT Act of 2003, which is about the act under which he was convicted and the question of whose constitutionality seems to be the matter of interest in the whole story.

I have attempted to redirect the article accordingly; this has been reverted twice. I think deletion (and subsequent redirection) is now appropriate.  Sandstein  23:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am writing a lengthy deletion rationale is that the article is linked to from Slashdot, which means we might have many new people reading this.  Sandstein  23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect, as per nom. being jailed for child sex offences doesn't make someone notable in their own right. NZ forever (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You CANNOT both delete and redirect. It's either one or the other. A deletion makes a redirect impossible. You can REPLACE the content with a redirect though. That's what I think we should do if this isn't deemed notable enough. I think, if this person deserves an article, rather than naming it after Dwight Whorley, it should be named after the case, like Court v. Whorley or whatever the technical name of American cases would be (similar to how we have R v. Sharpe). In that case, you can redirect the name to the court case, because the court case is what is notable moreso than the person. Whorley is one of many people mentioned in the US section of the lolicon legality description, those other cases are just as similarly notable, including the one where PROTECT is being disputed by the CBLDF, which is still ongoing. Tyciol (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to the case, per Tyciol. A major test case. DGG (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. While the subject of the article is not notable per WP:BLP1E, the broader picture suggests that we keep the article. The incident culminated in a test case of US law which is notable. The article needs to be renamed and rewritten from this new perspective, but there is no reason to delete the article. Trusilver 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just going to suggest that the article be broadened into a general article about the legal issues surrounding lolicon when I found that one had already been proposed. Could we redirect to the new article and include the info in a Court v. Whorley section? Graymornings(talk) 18:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Hawks locations

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

Procedural nom, was tagged for PROD but was removed on last day of nom. No sourcing and nothing to establish notability for wholly in-universe locations in real world terms. treelo radda 11:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't need to be notable independently from the topic. It's part of comprehensive coverage of the main topic. And unverfied does not equal unverfiable. - Mgm|(talk) 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no, it does need independent notability from the topic. It's not comprehensive coverage of the main topic, it's excessive and unnecessary coverage of the main topic. It's comprehensive coverage of the topic when there is significant coverage of these locations in sources independent of the topic, which would justify the importance of this article. And I never said anything about verifiability; I noted that it was not notable. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss whether to merge at the talk pages. And then discuss the content, at whichever place it's decided to have it, remembering that straightforward description can be sourced from the primary source. This should have been done before bringing it here--because even if very little content should be decided to keep, a bare list would be appropriate. The original articles were set up to have this split from the beginning.DGG (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge Any particular reason why there can't be a succinct discussion of geographical locations on the main article? This is all just fan-cruft; there are better suited sites for this level of trivial detail, and under general principles (WP:NOT) really doesn't belong here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, at the present state of development of the articles, that would be the best solution in my opinion too--but this solution is not delete, but a merge. Perhaps you should restate your !vote. DGG (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my statement to a merge, but I would only recommend a merge of the intro paragraph of the nominated article, as that contains the most succinct description. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:29, 25 December 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 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAn echo of DGG's observation. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Sephiroth BCR is 100% correct on this. There is no need for this level of excruciating detail here or anywhere else. There is no appropriate content to merge; even if you accept the dubious assertions that content can be sourced entirely from primary sources and that "merge" means anything other than "do nothing, ever", the article is riddled with so many apparentlys that it's obvious that it's mostly original research and synthesis. Reyk YO! 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSorry, but no way these imaginary locations from a cartoon are notable.WVhybrid (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability in the real-world. Also fails WP:NOT#PLOT as there's nothing in the article talking about why these places are deserving of a list. It's just summary and no analysis. Themfromspace (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Starlet

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

Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Tagged for proposed deletion, but tag was removed by the page author. The only reference on the article even states that she is a "young new starlet." Per the notability guideline for pornographic actors, she has not won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award. She is not from a major pornographic magazine; although the article states (albeit unsourced) that she worked with a Penthouse photographer, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and she has not appeared in the magazine. Searching the IMDb produced no results for either her real name or stage name. Her first "major" release, titled "The Voyuer in Me", supposedly scheduled to come out in January 2009, produced no results (with "voyuer" or "voyeur") on IMDb or the internet. Even if it did, per WP:CRYSTAL, it has not yet been released. Continuing on the notability guideline, I don't believe she made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, or has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. With that, I believe the article fails the notability guideline for pornographic actors, and thus should be deleted. – Alex43223 T | C | E 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression: Years of Torment

Oppression: Years of Torment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. (Additionally, there is no evidence that this film ever wound up shooting, nor that the A-list actors claimed to be in the film participated.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Manoj Thompson

Stephen Manoj Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is incoherent but seems to be a promotional biography of a non-notable businessman who has written a book, which has had little RS coverage. He, himself, seems to have had even less. I don't think most of the refs are good RS, except for The Hindu, which only offers a listing confirming that the book exists without a review. Much of the rest is press releases and the like. A quick Google is not encouraging. DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ruoff

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Cite WP:ATHLETE. Further, this article does not include sufficient references, and it even lists things such as the subject's pet's name. This article is pure garbage.Timneu22 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rather than attack the motives of the author, perhaps we should just address the notability of the subject. While Ruoff is not a professional athlete, he certainly has been the subject of multiple published sources, thus meeting the basic criteria of notability. And, ah, here in WV we certainly have taken note of his performance on the court. Perhaps what is needed to prevent deletion is a plethora of references. WVhybrid (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This debate does not "attack" the article's creator, but it is worth noting that this article is part of a number of articles that are questionable in notability and/or deleted because of the lack of notability. This article is better than most of the other subjects that were created by that user and are in AFD, but it is still borderline. Timneu22 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:58, 1 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 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of references to this article to demonstrate that the subject of this article is notable. I think the article needs many more references, but from the two I added, it is clear to me that the article is a keeper. Also, I would again urge that only the article be considered, not the editor who created the article. I think in this case the creating editor has been acting in good faith, but that he needs to improve his editing style to provide references that prove notability. Perhaps instead of deletion, a "needs references" or even a "prod" tag is needed instead of an AfD. Thanks! WVhybrid (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the article doesn't meet the expanded criteria under WP:ATHLETE, it does appear the meet the basic requirements of WP:NOTABILITY by virtue of its published sources. Given that its subject, Alex Ruoff, is considered to be one of the star players of the Mountaineers basketball team, I would imagine that with a moderate amount of effort more sources could be gathered to further support his notability. I like WVhybrid's suggestion of keeping the article and tagging it with a "needs references" message. Brian Powell (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Bmpowell, took the words right out of my mouth.--Iamawesome800 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stanchek

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per §hep. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Stanchek is a two-time All-American and by the way, the creator has not created an article for every WVU athlete (obviously an exaggeration), only a small handful were deleted. John (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - John is the editor who has created all these troubled articles. Timneu22 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to be a pro ball player, and I see no notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. There's certainly a case to be made that div. 1 starting athletes in football and basketball are ntoable, but that's a guideline issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The evidence of notability is weak in my opinion, but with the draft coming up, there will be clearer evidence one way or the other soon enough of whether he should be included. I think it's reasonable to wait to see if he's drafted before deleting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep possible If your a football fan, you'll know how big being an All-American is and he's been an All-American 4 times!--Iamawesome800 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says he was "second-team All-American" his senior year. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how being a second-team All-American isn't notable. If the rules say so, then they should be altered. John (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If being second-team all-american was notable I suppose there would be substantial independent coverage of this athlete. I do think there's a case to be made that starting college athletes in major sports are notable, but this isn't the place for that discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we're three months away from the NFL draft, so deleting the article now is pointless bureaucracy since it's obviously going to get created in 3 months when he is drafted anyway. --B (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he makes it to the NFL and plays a game the article can easily be resurrected. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that would be speculation, see WP:CRYSTALBALL Scapler (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where I inserted my analysis of his draft prospect into an article. That rule says nothing about the basis on which an editor may support or oppose the deletion of an article. In fact, using your own good judgment about the future is probably an all around good idea in this case. Using WP:CRYSTALBALL to demand the procedural deletion of an article that we know we are going to create in short order is silly and only creating extra work. This person is obviously notable and it's hardly worth arguing. --B (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - An All-American, an all-conference selection, a multiple-year starter on a nationally ranked offensive line, one of the greatest lineman in school history, and an NFL Draft prospect. Not notable? This is pathetic. John (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Discounted Iamawesome800's and MISTER ALCOHOL's comments for making no pertinent arguments.  Sandstein  17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Sanders

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Jock Sanders may end up being notable, but right now he is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, just a backup college football running back Secret account 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He starts at receiver, has started a handful of times at running back, and was an all-conference selection. John (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to be a pro ball player, and I see no notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy The consensus for athletes puts a lot of emphasis on pro-play. I don't totally agree, but even so the level of notability here is not exceptional for a collegiate athlete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a pro player. JBsupreme (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's delete every college player then, if your notability rules state that being a pro makes an article notable or not. Whether I'm the creator or not, being an all-conference selection and being a multiple starter should be enough notability for our "rules". John (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some college players can be notable; it just so happens that this one is not. How many athletes from how many colleges are All-BIG EAST in a given sport? Just because John Smith from Rutgers is Second Team All-Big EAST tennis, this does not make the person notable. Timneu22 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substantial difference between being an all-conference selection in tennis and football. This is obvious. John (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be obvious to you — a West Virginian who follows American sports — but tennis has a more global following than American Football. Wikipedia is global. Timneu22 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Ebanks

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Like many of the other articles, this one is an orphan page. Timneu22 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He will definately be a freshman all-american or at least a second team all-conference selection, and starts for a Top 25 basketball team. John (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to be a pro ball player, and I see no notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His achievements are exceptional and appear to me to be notable. It's not well established notability yet, but as he's playing now it's reasonable to believe there's more to come. I see no use in deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Listed as one of the Top 15 impact freshman by Sports Illustrated coming into the 2008-2009 season" is notable. --B (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Bryant

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this freshman basketball player is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Backup point guard does not seem notable enough. Can be userfied and updated if notable achievments occur. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Markićević

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

He is a regional league player and not yet a professional player Matthew_hk tc 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever... in fact, there's no assertions of anything! As far as I know, the Srpska Liga is not a fully professional league, so he also fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Berry

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. The subject is not noteworthy, and this is an orphan page. Timneu22 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The links to the article on this AfD were broken. They have now been fixed. Thanks ~ mazca t|c 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although there's no need for this, because we've already decided before that this was notable. John (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - John is the editor who has created all these troubled articles. Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Articles can be nominated multiple times for deletion. Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whether it be futile or not, I see no reason for it if the article has already proven its notability. John (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see good evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All-Big East, there's your notability.--Iamawesome800 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't make someone notable. Should we list every All-BIG EAST women's volleyball players too? Timneu22 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Women's volleyball is not football. In the US, there are four sports - the NFL, college football, college basketball, and everything else. Any skill position starter for a major conference team in football is going to meet the general notability criterion of having multiple sources of information independent of the team/athlete. --B (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite efforts by the soccer crowd to redefine WP:ATHLETE in their own image, well-known starters for major conference teams are notable. --B (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Jade Fowler

Denver Jade Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article probably fails WP:N. Guy0307 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots

Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of roots collected for a new and controversial langauge family, Dené-Caucasian languages. Strongly smacks ongoing Original research IMO. In any case, wikipedia is not a dictionary. A couple examples (taken from references as whole, rather than a word from here, a word from there) would be enough in the article Dené-Caucasian languages. This is not the first attempt of making wikipedia a vehicle for marginal linguistic theories. The main page itself, "Dené-Caucasian languages" is highly unbalanced, since it covers only views of (not so numerous) proponents, without trace of criticism. `'Míkka>t 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I'm not extensively knowledgeable about the subject, but there are many references; they might all be even from a particular academic camp or school. But that does not mean the content is of no value. The nominator appears to be expressing a POV re this deletion proposal and also the Dene-Caucasion lnaguages article, with also a whiff of merge. --Fremte (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to disagree: the nominator expresses a worry that a not very well accepted theory is covered only by its proponents, i.e., his is NPOV, rather that POV :-) I copied a sentence to this end into the main article. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a word collection. Probably belongs to wiktionary somewhere. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though controversial, it is by no means fringe--a respectable academic hypothesis that may or may not prove to be accepted. Probably its a minority view at present, but minority views in linguistics are no uncommon and do not translate as fringe. The material is very well sourced to good publications (as far as the incomplete article goes--the tables need to be completed). It complements well the main article on the proposed language superfamily. DGG (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge As above. I think I am supposed to add this again, as did used Dzied Bulbash? --Fremte (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission EDitor

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

Delete. Software is obviously non-notable-- lacks proper sourcing because subject has never received non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haakai

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

Unreferenced, orphaned, and doesn't seem to be notable enough. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've also enjoyed the Exile and Avernum games and I can safely say that these don't even particularly stand out as notable characters even in the context of the game. I would very much doubt any substantial coverage of them has ever appeared in any usable sources. ~ mazca t|c 03:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Meschisvili

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing of importance happened because of his death such as a movie, documentary, book, or oganization. Schuym1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone is ignan't of recent Greek history and needs edumacation: Alex's disapperance sparked a whole series of investigations into child abuse and exploitation, a subject taboo in the Greek society. Yes, nothing of importance happened in the US about it. But it was the first instance of verified child exploitation in Greece over a decade. So, yeah, Scorteze did not direct a movie about Alex. in any case, read up on the subject before you send it to Afd. Project2501a (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for sources for him. If you can show me a source that verifies what you said, I will withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wasn't talking about importance in the US, I was talking about importance anywhere. It's not like my nomination said "nothing of importance happened in the US". I don't see how you got that out of "nothing of importance happened". Schuym1 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The article is about the "first known case of a teenager's murder by teenagers in the crime history of Greece" 1. This is more than routine news coverage that goes beyond the context of a single event, WP:NOT#NEWS.--Jmundo (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Stockton massacre. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Purdy

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

Although the proposal has been made to merge this article with Stockton massacre, there is nothing to merge that doesn't already exist there. The subject fails WP:BLP1E and there is no reason to have a separate article on him when all the pertinent information exists elsewhere. Trusilver 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is not a lot to merge, I'd propose not to delete the page, as a redirect to the Stockton massacre article has to be created anyway. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I don't see any problem with a redirect to Stockton massacre. Trusilver 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed I've changed my mind and added information to the article. See also here (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've read through the additions you have made to the article and while they are good and the article is better than it was before, it is still a violation of WP:BLP1E. When the subject is only know in conjunction with an event he was involved in, we write an article about the event rather than the person. Trusilver 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I wanted to add the biographical part to the Stockton massacre article, though there are people who are vehemently against this. During a discussion at the talk page of mentioned article I was pointed at the following section of the WP:BIO1E:
Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.
As there was quite a lot of news coverage exclusively about Purdy's life I'd say we should keep the article about him. Not that I would mind if it was merged into the Stockton massacre article, but then look at the Talk page. Half of it is bitching about even mentioning the perpetrator's name.(Lord Gøn (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stockton massacre and merge anything not already mentioned in that article. When your most significant accomplishment is to shoot a bunch of kids at an elementary school and then take your own life, you're a dirtbag who doesn't rate his own article. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of people notable for good things only. Your suggestion that this is relevant is completely opposed to the idea of a comprehensive encyclopedia, or to NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it can be pretty comprehensively discussed in the article about the crime, and with a redirect, it goes to the appropriate article. Does it matter if typing in his name takes a person to the article about the crime, rather than to this shrine? Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how many articles do we need about the same thing? There is already an article about the incident where everything important about the individual has been covered. What does him having his own article really accomplish besides adding irrelevant information? Trusilver 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the protectors of the Stockton massacre article can be convinced that having a section with biographical information about the perpetrator is not the end of the world, I'm all for merging and redirecting. If not, then keep it, for reasons cited above. It wouldn't be the first of its kind. Just look at Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold etc.(Lord Gøn (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far. Those individuals had significant and extensive press coverage surrounding their motives, as well as their entire lives basically being laid out and examined by the media. Now, you might say that the only reason that the same didn't happen with Patrick Purdy is because he committed his crime about a decade too early. But still, that doesn't change the fact that the "life" section of this article is 90% irrelevant fluff leading up to the last two paragraphs which are the only thing relevant to the crime. Trusilver 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far.
What do you want to say? That he isn't as important as Cho and Harris & Klebold? Well, the shooting certainly was a big story in 1989 and Purdy a person of interest, whose life was examined as far as it is possible, if the subject is a drifter with few personal contacts. And who decides what is "irrelevant fluff" anyway? Is the Background-section of the Charles Whitman article also "irrelevant fluff"? (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A glance at the article shows it is well referenced, and the references' titles alone show that he had significant and extensive press coverage focusing on him, examining his motives and life, like Cho, Harris and Klebold. The world outside Wikipedia clearly considered him notable, so we should too. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong or irrelevant with the life section; once a topic is judged notable, not everything in, or even most of an article has to be related to the cause of notability of the topic, it just has to be related to the notable topic and verifiable.John Z (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Purdy's notability is related solely to the Stockton massacre, in which he is clearly the major figure. It makes little sense, to me, to have two distinct articles. Merge the two under one name or the other, then redirect the remaining title. If there is nothing to merge from the Purdy article, as Trusilver indicates, than only a Redirect is needed. Tim Ross (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Matters

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Only one of the artists has an article. The creator also has a conflict of interest. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_3&oldid=261717089"