Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:10, 16 January 2009

< January 15	January 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Sullenberger

WP:BLP1E. Should be a redirect to US Airways Flight 1549, but not an article on its own.

Then withdraw the deletion, merge any information, and redirect the article. No need for an AFD to do this. Bjelleklang - talk 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been redirected and the redirect subsquently overturned by some overeager individual. No, unfortunately this needs an AfD. 78.34.145.54 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he meets the notability by having co-authored those papers. I think that as more comes out about him, there will be more notability for him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as notability has not been established outside the US Airways Flight 1549 article. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Keep based on snowball effect and new arguments. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the academic and professional work in accident investigation are notable. The crash certainly enhances this, but I believe notability was established before that. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep His notability existed prior to the recent event for expertise in aviation safety.Synchronism (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daysleeper. -- Sozi (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has some important events and accomplishments to his name, even other than the US Airways Flight 1549 incident. I think this article should be included. Chamal ^talk 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mr Sullenberger has now become an historical aviator - the first pilot to successfully ditch a large commercial aircraft with no fatalities. A place in history should equate to one's own wiki page. --Space cadet65 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, but at least now we know. Withdraw AfD. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball it- the guy's notable enough for his own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already withdrawn my AfD nom. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. Didn't mean to seem like I was piling on. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:04, 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. — Aitias // discussion 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Basics

Wikipedia is not a text book. dougweller (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Instruction guide, textbook, FAQ and catalogue all in one. No encyclopedic value here. Valuable as it may be for someone who is looking for such things, Wikipedia is not the place for them. Chamal ^talk 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a copy and paste from someone's class notes. A fairly long how-to manual. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be a copy-paste FAQ and glosssary -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline patent nonsense. decltype 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above (nonsense, cutting and pasting, unreferenced, WP not a manual, etc.) and the prediction of snow melting rapidly. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete heaps of snow has fallen here. The author mistook what Wikipedia was all about. JBsupreme (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this nonsensical 'article.' --Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as you love me so. JuJube (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A how-to manual, and not a very good one at that. Tim Ross (talk) 15:50, 19 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 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubertrophy

Article is on an obscure trophy in a video game, with no sources to provide notability. Failed PROD, as the author removed the tag. Author's only edits have been to this page Parler Vous (edits) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable videogame tournament with no coverage in reliable sources. Website is a myspace page. Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable game contest. JamesBurns (talk) 01:11, 19 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 per WP:CSD#G3. Garden. 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostboy (2010 movie)

Probable hoax. A google search for the film's title and lead actor produces no hits outside Wikipedia. Prod removed by anon user. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SD#G3; clearly a hoax with zero results from a search engine test. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. No information exists, verifiable or otherwise. Steve ^{T • C} 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 18:41, 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 speedy deleted by Pascal.Tesson. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Localizationism

WP:OR and possibly WP:Advertising. Either this is the artist's own term for his own work, in which case it's probable non WP:Notable, or, if it's a more general term, then this article is inappropriate because it explains the topic entirely in terms of one person's work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references produced. No results on a search of the Liverpool Biennial site, but not all artists involved in some way will be notable [1]. If the artist is notable, this should be converted to a much reduced bio. But I rather doubt that he is. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A quick reading suggests almost all of the article is direct quotation from the artist concerned, and is therefore a copyvio. JulesH (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since Jules's suspicion is confirmed here. Gotta love the rolling lave and the flying steed that is art, though. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 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 Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor evil pants

Hoax. Check the creator's contributions for plenty of vandalism. This is a contested prod. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as nominator. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability at all, no one named is notable, and no expectation that this anything more than game-playing on WP. Collect (talk) 12:26, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Savaidis

Fails to state why they're notable, No reliable and verifiable sources. Just because they're a radio DJ doesn't make them notable. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep [2] albeit not "very notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
keep [3] show some media interest in her move to a national broadcast program, which in itself is also another factor in establishing notability. Gnan garra 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this link indicates that there was an article published in the Adelaide Advertiser in March 2008, but no actual details, just notes the image was used in the article. This snip in September 2006 indicates that shes at least get some coverage over a 4 year period. Gnan garra 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Savaidis is now a radio host on 2MMM [4]. Sydney is a major radio market, notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. I'm finding a number of hits on Google News but they are all to radio schedules which isn't significant coverage. 2MMM link above is broken. The only news hit I'm finding that isn't a schedule is a simple one-line story about her last career move, hardly what would pass as "significant".--Rtphokie (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Link to 2MMM is repaired [5]. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wek Keep YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:11, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus with erection

Article covers single printing of a set of pictures of Jesus with an erect penis. This did not receive coverage outside of a single piece on WorldNetDaily and possibly local newspaper. Contested prod where the remover suggested that it was "interesting" and did not have a policy backed rationale. Suggesting removal per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:NOTE (specifically the GNC). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable for being the Outrage of the Day among cable news and trying to rouse up some people, and which quickly flashed by. Every stupid thing some artist with a sophomoric sense of humor does to decipt Jesus like this thing doesn't need attention or an article here. Nate • (chatter) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP does not keep an archive of every editorial cartoon, and this should not be the exception. Collect (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. Even those arguing delete can't help but admit it's notable... Wily D 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, you forgot that "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Never mind this article never reaching the requirements of the GNC. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, it meets the GNG without difficulty. It's probably also worth familiarising yourself with other bits before quoting them. While NOT#NEWS is worth noting de temps en temp, it's not a be all and end all that needs to be applied mindlessly. The issue of routine vs. nonroutine coverage is clearly "would merit usual inclusion". Of course, one can look at the bigger goal, as say "Can we write a neutral, encyclopaedic article?" - here the answer is clearly yes (as we already have). "Is it a asset to the encyclopaedia?" - again, yes. So what's to delete for? Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT is left as an argument for deletion, and it's not compelling in the least. Wily D 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One blurb on WorldNetDaily certainly does not meet the GNG. It is not substantative nor significant. Seriously, you're trying to protect a reactionary blip on the radar. This is not wikijoke, this is an encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article it is related to, the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, but it is not worthy of a standalone article. Another possible merge location would be the Controversial newspaper caricatures list. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with policies before quoting them. Substantive contrasts trivial. The WorldNetDaily story is substantial - not only that, but so substantial that one can't honestly and informedly argue otherwise. Subjects aren't about "worthiness" or "unworthiness" in whether or not they deserve an article on an ethical level - the point is whether or not having an article is a) possible and b) valuable to us. You might well feel it's stupid (and you're correct in that), but that's neither here nor there. We're not supposed to be trying to impose our values on readers (see WP:NPOV), but writing a comprehensive neutral reference work. The Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy is such an enormous subject that it necessitates many articles (if only to make them loadable in a reasonable time for those of us with 300 baud modulators/demodulators), forcing us to write many spun out articles for simple organisational purposes. Until you forget "worthy/unworthy" and stop trying to impose your values on the reader, it'll be hard to see, but "Does having this article make Wikipedia a better reference work?" has a clear answer "yes". "Does this meet the usual guidelines for what's included?" has a clear answer "yes", and it is because these two are supposed to be the same question. Wily D 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English Wikipedia isn't the only one with an article about this subject.SPNic (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]
- Why "citation needed?" All you have to do is look at the "In other languages" section. You'll see that it's also available in German, Simple English, and Alemannic? If it's gotten coverage in more than one Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it's notable.SPNic (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some students publish a silly cartoon as a stunt. They attract attention from William Donohue, Bill O'Reilly, and other usual suspects. Step one does not equal notability. Step two does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to back that up with sources? The article does NOT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. A student creates a provocative cartoon and it is published by a student newspaper, it gets mentioned in World Net Daily, a conservative paper. Not every silly cartoon which gets mentioned by conservative bloviators needs an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if people don't riot, pillage, and kill over your offensive cartoon, it's not as offensive as you'd like and not notable either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is of a single event with no lasting impression. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been on the O'Reilly Factor, which is one of the most watched TV "news" programs in the US. --Raphael1 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks the multiple substantive, reliable sources needed to establish notability. Deor (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, for instance, Deor. This is the only hit on Google news, my yardstick for this kind of thing, and it's from the U of Oregon campus paper. Comparing this to the Danish cartoons is a bit specious, since those are well-covered in the news. This isn't, no matter what O'Reilly claims--of course, if he rants about it continuously this may change, but until then, out it must go. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, that this story is almost 3 years old. Back in 2006 it has definitely reached substantial notability. --Raphael1 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't leave a dent in the news archives. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a totally notable Free Speech issue.Critical Chris (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that it is now much better sourced than when this deletion discussion started, and passes the notability threshold unambiguously.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that it's much better sourced. Two blog reports (major blogs, admittedly) have been added to the references (notes 2 & 3), but their focus is on O'Reilly's reaction, not on the cartoon that is nominally the subject of the article. Note 4 is a reference to what? an entire year's worth of the O'Reilly show?—in other words, a useless and unacceptable citation. The reference cited in note 5 has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and note 6 cites the work of another blogger, though this one appears to be a "videoblogger," whatever that may be. I'd like to see some mainstream coverage, please. Deor (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Reilly coverage and the Media Matters reaction constitutes significant coverage. Obviously note 4 is vague, but that's a problem with the article itself rather than the topic's notability.--ragesoss (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable free speech controversy, extending over a considerable period. An absurd use of not news. Some of what's in the news is notable. The citations should of course be improved to be as specific as possible. DGG (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is hardly "totally notable" its just a news item. And we're not a newspaper archive. JBsupreme (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with Edison that this is a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable per reliable sources (O'Reilly/Fox;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:46, 19 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 Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Kizashi

Wholly unsourced article about a possible planned car from Suzuki. WP:CRYSTAL also applies here. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per [6] -- Susuki has announced the car. [7] covered by press. "Suzuki is currently building a new assembly facility in Sagara, Japan, and this car will be built there once construction is complete. Suzuki also intends for all three Kizashi concepts to serve as the blueprints for a future line of flagship vehicles." Clear. Collect (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:N, notability is established the usual way. Wily D 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Despite the original editor's statement to the contrary, this does appear to belong on Wikiquote, and is not encyclopedic content. Ipsenaut (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on 42 seems like a very interesting rundown of the history and meaning of the inclusion of The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything in Adam's work. The rest is slag. Therefore, I suggest we Merge the "42" section into The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or (if that article is already to large) rename to 42 (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) or 42 (Douglas Adams) and dump the rest. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 08:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable fork of the main The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article. The subject is notable, the article is better referenced than most, and the writing is both clear and informative. This is more than a mere assemblage of quotations; instead it also puts those lines into context both in terms of the complex fictional universe as well as real world usage and impact. - Dravecky (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Über-Keep. HH has had a big impact on many people and if the article is deleated there would be no way to find where the quotes came from in an encyclopedic context.

Also: if none of the quotes are notible why wasnt the article removed a long time ago?

Also Also: (to counter CaveatLector) 42 isnt the only memorable quote that people remember and some consider others (eg "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike") more memorable.

Also III: If the article is deleated then it removes part of something that many people concider part of thier culture. rdunn 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you argue that this article has had an impact on people, so it should stay. This argument is null. Then you argue if the article were deleted there would be no way to find where the quotes come from. Wikiquote serves exactly that purpose. And finally you again appeal to the article's importance, which is subjective. I know not everyone uses Wikiquote. Could you suggest why this article needs to be on Wikipedia? Many articles have a link to their page on Wikiquote. Ipsenaut (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This article has some good stuff in it, but also some rubbish. I'd say merge the minor mentions i.e. "Knowing where one's towel is" to Wikiquote, and merge the big stuff i.e. "42" to the main article. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a collection in itself, its nonnotable. I highly recommend creating an entirely new article for the answer to life, the universe, and everything; as I believe that subject has attained real-world notability, but a "list of phrases from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is pure fancruft (and I said it) and adds little to the encyclopedia as the topic is too broad and trivial. The information contained within can be used better in other articles (Hitchhiker's guide, 42, etc). Themfromspace (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written, well sourced, clearly encyclopedic and notable, and a perfectly reasonable themed spin off with the H2G2 set of articles - sits alongside Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf61 Tavix (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though I created the article, I don't think it's quite in the spirit that I originally intended it, which is probably unworkable anyway. The article was probably inspired most by Not entirely unlike X in The Jargon File -- the idea being that the article would be about phrases that evolved meaning above and beyond the original context in the series. The 42 thing certainly has, but the other things are more obscure except to people who are already fans of the series. So most of this stuff is noteworthy in an in-universe context rather than a real-world context. Whether that's good enough for an encyclopedia here, I don't really know, so I'll decline to pass judgement. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The unusual language of these books has had a major influence on certain segments of culture. Article has 4 independent reliable sources, plus a number of other sources that are not independent of the originator of these phrases. A well sourced article about a notable subject. JulesH (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Looking at it, I'd say maybe a rename is in order, since its more of an article than just a list. But aside from that, there's no real reason to delete. Plenty of references throughout, and the imact of the language of HHGTTG is undeniable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Not an Earth book, never published on Earth, and until the terrible catastrophe occurred, never seen or heard of by any Earthman. Nevertheless, the article is sourced and the subject is clearly notable. The article has been around since 2004 without no one proposing deletion until now.
Keep Sources listed include sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that the article meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 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 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Woods Camp

I think that this article should be deleted as there is a lack of reliable sources independant of the summer camp itself or the camp's parent organisation, the YMCA of Greater Boston, which means that the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources or Wikipedia:Notability policies/guidelines.

The only sources provided in the article are two citations from the camp's website, and one cittion of the YMCA Greater Boston. Searching Google News for "North Woods" "Summer Camp" comes up with 171 results across all dates, but all of the ones I looked at used the term "North Woods" as a term for a geographical area, instead of the name of a specific summer camp. Filtering by adding "New Hampshire" failed to bring up any results specific to this camp, and using YMCA or Winnipesaukee (the lake the camp is on) as a qualifier provided only one relevant result,[8] a passing mention in an obituary for a man who worked as a chaplain at the camp at some point during his life. Similar searches of Google Scholar provided no relevant results I could find.

If multiple, reliable, independant sources can be provided, or the existence of such demonstrated, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination.

Declaration of Conflict: I worked at this camp as a foreign counselor a few years ago. The place is amazing, and I enjoyed my time there. However, I still believe that the camp does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- saberwyn 07:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 16 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) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources and lacks notability. Pyrrhus16 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, no reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 21 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 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity_and_inclusion

Complete OR, sources either don't mention the "concept", or are advertising. I can't think of a way to turn this into an encyclopedic entry. Dendlai (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC

Delete It appears to be WP:synthesis if not original research. The subjects are already covered sufficiently by Multiculturalism and the other articles linked to the disambiguation pages Diversity and Inclusive. It also appears to be largely redundant given the article Diversity training.Synchronism (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.boston.com/jobs/nehra/043007.shtml.Synchronism (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. But I don't see that this page is a verbatim copy of substantially all of the boston.com article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, original research (or original synthesis of research, in any case), and hopelessly POV. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:00, 19 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 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esenthel Engine

Declined G11 (for blatant advertisement) with the reason that it is "definitely not spam" and "can be improved." I, however, disagree with that. Besides being only nominated by the 11th Annuel Independent Games Festival (it hasn't actually won an award in anything as of yet), I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability as shown in this cursory Google search here. I also believe that the article is basically advertising itself, which is shown by telling users how much using the engine costs as well as specifying in an advertorial tone the requirements and documentation of the engine (also failing Wikipedia is not your own web host, as the whole article is basically acting as a directory page of a video game engine). MuZemike 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it was a finalist (but not a winner) in the 2007 Intel Game Demo competition[9]. SharkD (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just as a note, I was the one who declined the speedy. I have nothing against deletion and was considering tagging it with a prod, but this article is certainly not blatant spam. There is no indication within the article that it is self-promotional, nor is it written like an arguement. However, I'm not sure of the notability (as I have not researched it), so AfD is also an appropriate venue. No hard feelings if deleted, eh? DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 12:33, 16 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) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability (WP:N). Being the finalist in the Intel Game Demo competition helps support a claim of importance, but not on its own.
Delete - Doesn't look like anyone has found any good sources. SharkD (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiable and reliable sources or claim of notability. 16x9 (talk) 13:47, 23 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 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lewis Show

WP:NN local radio program. Some G-hits but nothing that would pass WP:RS, mostly blogs, podcast listings etc. Failed PROD by sole author's removal. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~This radio personality has received a fair amount of fame for his right wing viewpoint. I'm finding a number of articles in Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers as well as some stories elsewhere that look like wire reports. Also appears to have guest hosted the Rush Limbaugh show. The article as it exists now is barely a stub and needs some substantial improvement, with sufficient references of course.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to station article.--Rtphokie (talk) 05:06, 22 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) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable jenuk1985 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KTLK-FM; unnotable on his own. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 21 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 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hippiecore

No sources in the article. A Google search yields very little. Most likely a neologism. Graymornings_(talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a joke. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like it might exist from a google search. But I can't find any reliable sources, just blogs and forum entries. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. --JD554 (talk) 09:54, 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 redirect to Ben 10: Alien Force. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 Alien Force the Movie

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has begun. Suggest merge/redirect any useful content to source material's article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and merge. The article obviously doesn't have enough material to stand on its own, but covering plans for a film in the article about the source material is common and acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article for now, as I have just followed Mgm's advice and merged what little was there into Ben 10: Alien Force. When more is known, the article might easily be brought back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since production has not yet begun with no prejudice against recreation if it is reliably sourced to have begun. The content related to the film at Ben 10: Alien Force could use some sourcing, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. But the merge seemed to make sense, since that is where the information might best be expected to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem with the merge of details. Just not crazy about the "Confirmed by IMDb" kind of wording. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Just changed the merged wording from "confirmed by" to "as listed on". With the film not yet released, the cast is not "confirmed"... simply listed... and only a few can be WP:Verified elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 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 00:22, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect to the main article for the franchise. At this point in time, the movie is not at the stage of development where sufficient reliable sources can be provided to support an article on the subject, but it is an important development in the history of the franchise. At the point in the future where more reliable sources exist for the movie, the content can simply be split out again. -- saberwyn 07:10, 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 keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxacapan

I don't see how an ejido deserves an article. For one, it's just a co-op community, not an established city or town. The article says that the town is known for its snails which are actually found in Laguna Catemaco. I say delete or merge with a better article. (Laguna Catemaco) Undead Warrior (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could see a merge, but I don't think delete is a good idea. The community is mentioned here [10], "Maxacapan, ubicada 6 kilómetros al sudoeste de la cabecera municipal 990 habitantes. dedicados a la ganadería, pesca y agricultura." ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - okay, not sure about the quality of the sources, but it seems to be a separate settlement within the administrative district of Catemaco. see [11] for instance. Catemaco covers 700 square km, which is much larger than typical cities in many places, This map also shows them as separate settlements. Wily D 14:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears from the available source to be a village. The village also constitutes an economic community, a cooperative. Nonetheless, it eetains the political nature of being a distinct settlement. DGG (talk) 01:19, 17 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. kur ykh 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Technology

While article isn't obviously a PR effort, the company hardly scratches the surface of notability (the one hit, in German, in a Google News search is about trade name infringement, and the archives don't give much more either--but a lot more press releases). I can't find any independent and in-depth coverage of the company, and until that coverage turns up, the article, in my opinion, should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I'm not sure what nominator's looking for, but I found a few resources: ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). Plus there is some mention about name infringement, but I think I've narrowed it down to company in question. To me, these sources dignify significant coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be looking for things that aren't press releases--the five links you gave are all to press releases, and those are specifically excluded under WP:CORP, see Primary Criteria. I am not trying to deny that the company exists; I see no notability, and primary sources, which one could call these press releases if one is in a kind mood, do not help establish that. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at least some of those articles, viz. links 1, 3 and 5 can qualify as news articles. I accept that 2 and 4 are press releases, albeit from other companies and not Galaxy. The most notable thing I found about the company is its partnership with nvidia. But there is no indication of exclusivity in that partnership. Overall, I agree with your assessment and am not particularly gung-ho about the overall notability. ^LeaveSleaves 18:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 16 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 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if we can straighten it out. There's more in google News when you look in the archive also. But there seems to be more than one company involved here, There's the computer graphics card company in the article with an adequate ref. at [17] , there's a company selling backup software with a very good RS [18] and there's a possible There's a network company [19] and there'swhat seems to be a parent company of at least some of these [20]. DGG (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links 7 and 8 that you entered above is actually about a technology named "Galaxy" and not the company itself. When I looked for sources, I also found these links, but on closer examination it is clear that they have nothing to do with this company. ^LeaveSleaves 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines. While mentions of the company pop up in the news and we can verify its existance, there is no batch of independant reliable third-party sources written about the company to establish its notabilty. Themfromspace (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Noticed I hadn't voted. ^LeaveSleaves 12:17, 24 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) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Vaughan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tyler McQuade

Non-notable person. No references at all in Google to verify that this person exists, is a boxer, or is in any way notable. Previously taken to AfD under Tyler McQuade but deleted via G7 when author blanked article. Somno (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or google hits. Not notable, likely a vanity page. Mitico (talk) 15:15, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Joseph

not notable enough an amateur / NCAA basketball player. Not a statistical leader or starter on the team Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon and it should be deleted.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In the USA, members of Division I NCAA men's basketball teams play on a national stage. Each member of the team receives national (or at least regional) media coverage by reliable, third-party sources,[21][22][23] which is what our notability guidelines for people are meant to guarantee. Trying to determine who's a star and who's unlikely to see much court time is an invitation to speculation by Wikipedia editors, of the sort we're institutionally committed to avoid. All Division I men's college basketball players therefore compete on the highest level of their amateur sport, (and even beyond[24]) and as such meet current notability guidelines. For a more indepth archived discussion, please look here. GoCuse44 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Joseph is a starter.[25]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:00, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notworthy as a college athlete. Hogvillian (talk) 06:39, 18 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 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorkACE

Does not meet Notability Criteria

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the software was just released. The article itself is one big advertisement with the opening paragraph paraphrased from the company website. The only coverage I could find was this brief announcement. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my analysis of the sources below, I still feel that there is no standalone notability for WorkACE. However, an argument could be made for sufficient notability for the company QXSystems that an article could be created for it, and it would be appropriate to merge some of this material to the company's article, or in the alternative, delete if there is no merge target. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I would like to defend the deletion for the following reasons:

a. You wrote, "the software was just released". Its not released now, WorkACE was released in 2005. Thats almost 4 years now. b. You wrote, "The article itself is one big advertisement with the opening paragraph paraphrased from the company website". Yes, I agree its from the website, but this is way to describe WorkACE in a small para. If you feel it doesn't follow Wikipedia standards, can you please help me in defining the same. c. You wrote, "The only coverage I could find was this brief announcement". Its not correct, please refer to the following links:

There are many if you would search for them. d. You wrote, "That's not enough to establish notability". If the above links are not enough, can you please refer to:

http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/topstories/2008/408010301.asp
http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/topstories/2007/107120408.asp
http://www.smbit.in/ (on this jump to page 43 of September, 2008 issue)
http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?news_id=3072

other links can be searched for or can be shared upon request.

Please note that QXSystems the company behind WorkACE has been there for almost 11 years now and WorkACE.com is only the SaaS outlet, which was launched in 2007 itself(which is almost 2 yrs now).

Rgds, Sushant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.19.141 (talk)

Analysis of sources

Source 1 sounds like a regurgitated press release. And it likely is since the site publishes user submitted content. Not a reliable source for notability.

Source 2 is taken from Business Wire which is a press release service. Not a reliable source for notability.

Source 3 reads like a regurgitated press release. I invite other editors to review and make their own judgement. For me, it doesn't establish notability.

Source 4 is an article about the the company QXSystems, and only just mentions WorkACE. I would say this article contributes to establishing notability for the company, but not the product.

Source 5 is the same as the article I dug up. It's a very brief announcement about the company, and only mentions. WorkACE. As with source 4, I would say this article contributes to establishing notability for the company, but not the product.

Source 6 is a from PRWeb, a press release service. Not a reliable source for notability.

From the additional sources provided:

Source 1 is an actual article about the software. This does help establish notability.

Source 2 is an article that is about software as a service. It mentions WorkACE, but that is all. A mention does not help establish notability.

Source 3 has the product in a list provided material in the cover story. This one is marginal. For me, it is still only a mention, but I invite other editors to review for themselves.

Source 4 is an interview with Johan M Karlstedt, founder of the company. Workace has a paragrah in the article. The website indicates Press Releases, Contributions, Article ideas, etc. welcome. , os it is unclear how much editorial oversight is put into the work. In any case, this is still for me just a mention of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on this, it would appear that the ip-editor signing as Sushant is affiliated with the company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 18 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) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have deleted it as blatant spam. Phrases like "all compiled into a comprehensive, structured and cognitive online computing environment." are a dead giveaway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Software is too new to be notable, and all the "sources" found above are press releases that don't discuss the software in the detail required by WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 11:09, 21 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 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defused

Nom - weak claims but no evidence of notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not signed to any major record label, no notable members, no national tour, etc. iTunes means absolutely nuttin'. Graymornings_(talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the Music Notability page you'll see that this band qualifies. On the Music Notability page it talks about worldwide radio play. And plus, in my opinion the iTunes thing does mean something, but I don't see that in the music notability page. XM638 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, iTunes isn't radio - it's Internet. Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I love how you don't even read the article but then try to get it deleted. Read it and look at the references. It has a link to the radio station's charts and whatnot. I'm fully aware that iTunes isn't radio. XM638 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article - it was silly of you to say that I hadn't since you obviously couldn't know. "DistortionRadio" - isn't radio. It's an internet site. And it's a very non-notable website at that. And it's certainly not an indication of this band's notability. Indeed, the "chart" page you've listed as a reference indicates a whopping 17 page views - two of them mine. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you acted like iTunes was a radio station, no need to get hostile with me... So I'm curious: The band has been heard by thousands of people worldwide on that radio, that's a cold hard fact that's right on the artists page, and that doesn't count as notability even when the Music Notability page clearly says it is? It's your opinion that Distortion Radio isn't radio, times have changed and a lot of radio stations are online radio stations, this includes XM/Sirius radio who gets a good amount of it's listners from the internet. They license professional music like every other radio station, this band got played, got heard by thousands worldwide. I think that well meets the Notability requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

If the references are the problem, I can gladly get more, but this band meets both of the criteria I have mentioned above XM638 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References are the problem - we need more evidence of notability. If you can't find sources to back up your claims that this band is the "most prominent representative" of a particular style/scene, it's unverifiable. Additionally "major radio network" has a generally-accepted meaning, and a non-notable internet streaming site is not one of them. Graymornings_(talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Distortion Radio is not a radio station, and to call it anything else is being disingenuous. So I disagree that they meet the requirement of being placed on rotation by a major radio network. What they have is their song being requested and played on a internet music streaming site. I also fail to see any evidence that they are a prominent representative of a style or local scene. If you have additional sources that demonstrate notability, by all means put them forward. I can be convinced by sources. But I cannot be convinced by mere assertion notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Music. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand where everyone is comming from. However, I do not agree with Distortion Radio not being a radio station or something note worthy and I strongly disagree with the page being closed because of this. I don't see anything on the Notability page that says internet radio or "streaming" disqualifies it. Internet radio sites have to license the music, program the music, have shows, and everything else that the frequency stations do. And I'm not sure what others believe, but a major radio network to me is a station who gets a good amount of listeners or is something that can be heard over a wide range. XM638 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a context like this, a "major radio network" would be something like Clear Channel Communications or Pacifica Radio or the BBC. It doesn't necessarily have to be that huge, but certainly many orders of magnitude larger than Distortion Radio. I mean, just about any Joe Shmoe with a few hundred dollars can set up an internet radio station nowadays, including the cost of licensing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I can get ahold of some good references that show that Defused has been heard on other stations that meet this and an online article from the band's town newspaper talking about them would that be enough references? What do I need to get exactly? XM638 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just go ahead and delete it for now, I will restart it when I get some really good sources. If that's ok XM638 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting any of the WP:BAND 12 per above. tomasz. 19:34, 20 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 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eng-tips.com

Procedural nomination. This article was originally nominated for CSD and I find that the allbusiness.com source to be leaning too far toward legitimacy to delete the article. The article is still promotional in nature and could probably still be deletable under G11 criteria. However, I'm taking it to the community to decide it's notability. Trusilver 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Promotional. No reliable, non-trivial third-party mentions from what I could gather. Graymornings_(talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from blatant spam. It was written in a neutral POV (even during the version you read). In that version, the article also contained one reliable source. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I meant "few" reliable sources. Now that some reliable print sources have established notability/verifiability, I'm changing my vote to keep. I now have confidence that this article can be cleaned up and made Wiki-worthy. Graymornings_(talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be a legit company, but I read the article as a promotional piece lacking notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three magazine articles are cited to show eng-tips is notable. Lgmagone (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to make it non-promotional? I am not intending it to be a promotional article. 71.197.153.187 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what should be changed to make it non-promotional? I have cited three separate magazine articles discussing eng-tips.com71.197.153.187 (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional sources is not going to change the promotional tone that it already has. The wording of the content in the article itself needs to be changed in order to avoid having it has a promotional tone (see WP:SPAM). It can be as clearly notable as day, but if it's worded like you're trying to sell something, then it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia (this one or any one). MuZemike 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article promotional? This article has been neutrally written from the version that Trusilver brought the article to AfD. As a neutral, third-party who has no connections with this website, I am having trouble seeing the spam that you, the nom, and the above two deleters have purported to be in this article. However, I have no trouble in seeing violations of WP:BITE in this deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I am hearing three complaints:

It needs to be "wikified" at some point. (Question: Should the article be deleted because it is not wikified?)
Eng-tips.com may not be notable in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines.(Question: Do the references provided make it notable?)
The article reads more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia article. (Question: If eng-tips.com is notable, should the article be deleted because of poor writing? Or should it remain and get rewritten?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 January 2009

Several of the references in this version of the article are not reliable sources. However, this one is. An article should not be deleted due to wikification concerns. Nor should the article be deleted if it's promotional (which it is not). Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This website passes WP:WEB (criterion 1) with the magazine article from Test & Measurement World. One of the other two magazines is a duplicate of the Test & Measurement World article, but this only shows that the article was circulated to a larger number of people. The third magazine article, though written by a forum manager, was published as a technology article in Light magazine, which is owned by PennWell Corporation. Another two magazine sources are from Sensors Magazine. Eng-tips is also given a very brief mention in Hilary Nickell's Surfing Your Career, which says that this site is a "site of interest" for those wishing to pursue engineering careers. Reliable sources from engineering universities that use this website include page 11 of Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) written by Herbert F. Voigt, which provides an entire column profiling the usage of this website. This website is used by National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) as well as over 200 colleges and universities in Australia and the United States. There are enough news sources and magazine articles discussing this website to pass the general notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The coverage mentioned establishes the site as notable. The advertising tone can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article needs serious cleanup, but the references seem to warrant the article's inclusion. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth iteration of the article. The previous four were deleted within hours. The reason why it needs serious work is I am reluctant to put significant time into editing until I know that the article will not be speedily deleted. Lgmagone (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article is not being considered for speedy deletion. It is going through a discussion for deletion process which normally runs 5 days. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is inaccurate. I have gone back through the deletion logs for this article and the article has only been created a single time previously, on January 14th, where it was speedy deleted... improperly I think. Trusilver 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lgmagone, cleanup (reference formatting, removing duplicate information, encyclopedic tone) really doesn't take that long. I just did it. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time eng-tips.com was pulled down I tried to create an article for the company that runs eng-tips.com instead, hoping that my error was trying to create an article for a website instead of a company. I attempted three times to create that article before giving up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh_Group Lgmagone (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cunard: nice work. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Nice save. Graymornings_(talk) 22:14, 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 merge to Nintendo Entertainment System. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NES Test Station

Hoax Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Needs Deleting - Absolute cobblers at best, Complete B*llocks at worst :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, no such product exists. TJ Spyke 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — If not a hoax, then it's surely not verifiable; I cannot find anything on this at all. MuZemike 06:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, for goodness' sake. Here. That took me about 6 seconds on a search engine. I'll bet that's not all that's out there. Dancter (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But even if you found a reliable source, it could still not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, that could, I said only could have been made by the article creator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't make a recommendation about whether to keep or delete the article yet. But the subject isn't a hoax, and its existence and features can be verified. That was the basis of every "delete" recommendation that had been made. Dancter (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - After examining the creator's other edits, I understand how this article could be considered a hoax. The article could indeed contain some subtle errors or inaccuracies (this seems to be the editor's MO), but I'm quite sure the unit itself isn't a hoax. Look up "Nintendo Test Station". The hoax would have to be pretty elaborate for the device to be fake, and that doesn't fit the pattern. Also, after looking at the pictures, I could swear I've seen these things before. It's as recognizable to me as the Nintendo M82. Dancter (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and maybe condense) - The authors of Nintendo Entertainment System might appreciate this bit of info. SharkD (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Exactly the reason AfD exists; with sources an article's information is saved when it would be deleted usually. Good find by Dancter and an advisement not to delete before you try to find out if something is not a hoax. This product is too marginal to merit an article, but its use as a troubleshooting tool definitely merits a mention in the NES article. Nate • (chatter) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to Merge into Nintendo Entertainment System. The information should be kept, but probably best kept within a larger article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bill and Nate. This is appropriate to be merged into the NES article, ~~with~~ may need a bit of rephrasing (changing). Versus22_talk 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It certainly isn't a hoax. A simple google search came up with a few third party sources and pics.--Adam in MO Talk 07:35, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hightower Smith

This was originally a nomination to CSD that I rejected. I have found enough sources to pass WP:V, although I am not convinced he passes either of the criteria under WP:ATHLETE. Besides this is the likely WP:COI issue that the article suffers. Trusilver 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability, and I was trying to find some. Collect (talk) 13:06, 16 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) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is verifiable, he meets the criteria as having played on the highest possible professional level of the game. (Professional Darts Corporation) It split of from the better known British Darts Federation, but that has no influence. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of verifiability. If he is playing with PDC, I haven't found the evidence to support it other than the link in the article (which is simply a list of results for a single tournament). There doesn't appear to have been a single word written about him anywhere else online. And his being touted as "up and coming" by an anon on the article's talk page gives me flashbacks to a thousand different A7-speedied band articles. --Finngall ^talk 11:23, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric de Sturler

Delete: Does not meet any of the nine criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics): e.g., on the editorial board, but not an editor-in-chief, ... Plastikspork (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article was first created by IP 128.174.245.145, which is at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Checking this first version [26] and an edit by "DutchMom"[27] who only edits this page[28], it looks like there could be a WP:COI. Just FYI. Plastikspork (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment COI is not reason to delete, and all arguments on that basis are irrelevant. someone able to do so needs to analyze the importance of his actual work. DGG (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response: Good point, thank you. I just read that section in WP:COI. Plastikspork (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in field per [29] which establishes, I suggest, sufficient notability. Collect (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since he does not meet criteria 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 in WP:Notability (academics), which only leaves criteria 1, but I see no reliable indication of impact by reliable sources. He is not known for any important algorithms or theorems. He has some publications, but so does every academic professor in his field. The WP:BLP appears to cite no sources beyond de Sturler's own webpage, which is questionable for a BLP. 76.199.2.120 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since he has well over 300 citations to his pubs, I would say he either meets or is very close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Good point, but I would be careful with google scholar counts as they don't filter for self-citation, double counted preprint/tech-report versions of papers, etc. Better (in my opinon) would be to use Web of Science, but if an academic is notable, you would think there would be articles and press releases already written attesting to notability. For example, look at his advisor's page, Henk van der Vorst. Plastikspork (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, Web of Science's coverage of mathematics journals is not that good. However, here are the raw counts: 17 publications, 187 citations (top is doi:10.1007/PL00013391 with 85), h-index = 7. De Sturler's own publication list [30] has 42 publications. It also lists several plenary/keynote lectures and notes that he was on the panel for "Research Directions and Enabling Technologies for the Future of CS&E" at the SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, 2007. He definitely comes close, in my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not just that WoS has spotty journal coverage for this area. It's also that in the sort of computational science de Sturler does, a lot of the publications are in conferences rather than journals and WoS doesn't cover them at all; I haven't checked what of de Sturler's pubs are covered but I suspect his two highest-cited according to Google aren't in WoS. So I would be inclined to trust the Google scholar results. However, what I'm seeing in Google scholar isn't quite enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1, and there's little hint of a pass of the other criteria. Overall, I see this as a weak delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 17 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 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona method

Procedural nomination - nominator has no opinion. This was originally nominated for CSD. Although it is unsourced, a google search has revealed marginal evidence of notability, and although I'm not convinced it is enough to warrant inclusion, neither am I willing to delete it outright. This article has suffered from it's share of WP:COI and WP:OR issues, and even if kept will require a great deal of work. Trusilver 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline G11 as promotional,and no evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely lacks independent references (even after more than 18 months in the wikipedia), hence non verifiable content.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. Doesn't seem to provide any meaningful information. Bhimaji (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This particular brand of poppycock comes with personal endorsements from the authors of seriously horrible books. I presume that these are genuine, because I imagine that the legal penalties would be too great otherwise. Clearly this "method" is not notable in any substantive psychological sense, but it does seem likely that many well-meaning if rather dim people buy into this stuff. Do they actually do buy into it? I don't know, so no vote for now. Morenoodles (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep You did not do the book search -- where many separate books not connected to Levenson or Dwoskin refer to the "Sedona method." (83 hits on books.google.com alone). Clearly notable. [31] etc. The mathod may be wretched or not, but it is notable per WP standards. Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reference just mentions that it exists and roughly what it is. We're not denying it exists. It doesn't seem to me to confer notability, and they've never even tried it and are not a reliable source on it, it's not substantive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This definitely seems to be snake oil of some sort: a self-help program whose claims are essentially untestable because it neither defines what it sets out to help nor sets clear criteria for success and failure. If you're a Homo sapiens, you probably shouldn't feel good about yourself anyways: self-esteem is self-delusion. But there is no lack of sources referring to this method and discussing it in some detail, which makes it notable by our standards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a substantive third party reference then? Particularly if it's snake oil or pseudoscience I won't change my vote without it, because without it, the article will never achieve balance.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources = no article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources in the article do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The blurb on this retailer's page for a book titled Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology presents (if you click a "reveal" link) an extract that says .... psychotherapeutic methods of unknown or doubtful validity are proliferating on an almost weekly basis. For example, a recent and highly selective sampling of fringe psychotherapeutic practices (Eisner, 2000; see also Singer & Lalich, 1996) included neurolinguistic programming, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique, rage reduction therapy, primal scream therapy, feeling therapy, Buddha psychotherapy, past lives therapy, future lives therapy, alien abduction therapy, angel therapy, rebirthing, Sedona method, Silva method, entity depossession therapy, vegetotherapy, palm therapy, and a plethora of other methods. I believe that "Eisner 2000" is Donald A. Eisner, The Death of Psychotherapy (Greenwood Press, 2000): Amazon.com's list of "key phrases" for this book runs: New York, Thought Field Therapy, Past-Lives Therapy, Strategic Therapy, Basic Books, Consumer Reports, San Francisco, Beck Depression Inventory, Alien Abduction Therapy, American Psychological Association, Implosion Therapy, Sedona Method, Spiritual Therapy, Top Dog, Carl Rogers, Jesus Christ, Los Angeles, Reassessing Freud, Emotional Freedom Technique, Entity De-possession Therapy, Fritz Perls, Clinical Research There, Guilford Press, Harvest House Publishers, John Wiley (some of which are surely innocent). "Singer and Lalich 1996" is surely Crazy Therapies, though the first-quoted author doesn't explicitly say that this book treats it. I've half a mind to hand over the $11.95 for this paper (linked from the Crazy Therapies article), which may or may not list it. I don't know what all of this goes to prove, really. Just that at least one researcher has thought that this is sufficiently silly and conspicuous to be worth at least a quick look. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, that Professional psychology, research and practice article mentions the therapy once, as one of several methods they eliminated from their study since these methods were not rated by enough of the people who responded to their questionaire for them to get meaningful data. If you want the Pdf please e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 20 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 Eddie Murphy#Personal life . MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atisone Seiuli

Delete an unsalvageable WP:BLP violation. She's only notable for one event, but unfortunately she's dead so WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply. But her famous car-mate is not dead and WP:BLP applies full-on. The event is covered sufficiently at his bio or if you want more, merge what is sourced and salvageable (nothing really). The whole article is innuendo, suspicion, and sourced to rotten.com, imdb.com, and other sites which are not WP:RS for such claims as murder conspiracy and what may or may not have transpired... Best to delete the whole thing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's also been tagged for over a year and not cleansed of its problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Removed unsourced claims and BLP violations. Edison (talk) 02:30, 16 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) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eddie Murphy#Personal life and merge anything useful. There's one sentence there right now that doesn't even mention Seiuli's name. Rklear (talk) 02:08, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiskCryptor

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. An admin told me that the article does not meet csd-g4. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "...the first open source (GPL) full disk encryption system for MS Windows..." As raised before, what source attributes that statement? A self-published source? Sorry, this article was crap before and it's crap after its recreation. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I just don't understand why all the haters about this article? It is extraordinary difficult to locate a citation for anything being the "first" (let's talk about first human flight for example or the many other things we are traditionally taught that one person developed it first and years later we find out that is not quite the case). I am not aware of anyone else making the claim they were available before DiskCryptor, certainly TrueCrypt came later. In this case I think it makes sense to give the author the benefit of the doubt as no one else has come forward claiming anything different. This is simply not the kind of thing where a source would even exist. Still, it is the case that DiskCryptor was first and is thus notable. Can you tell I am annoyed that we keep going over this? --BenFranske (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.. DiskCryptor is notable as being first open source disk encryption system for Windows that allowed the user to encrypt the entire disk, including system partition. This is particularly significant and makes the article notable in itself, as there are very few systems which can do this which aren't commercial. As for being a "self published source", AFAIK the DiskCryptor WWW site doesn't actually say it was the first - the date of its release can be confirmed by checking the ITConsult PGP timstamps, which state its release date, and is in advance of any other system of its nature (full disk encryption). ISTM that a lot of the vitrol launched against this software centers around truecrypt fanboy-ism; a product which would have been the first free open source disk encryption for windows, had DiskCryptor not been released Nuwewsco (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Sorry if that sounds rather "boilerplate" but this seems pretty straightforward to me. If this product is notable, it hasn't been demonstrated. If sufficient information has been published to source a verifiable article, where is it? Currently there are two sources, one first-party, both self-published. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's dispense with the concerns about notability which is generally a BS argument. If whole drive encryption is a notable topic, then the first open source whole drive encryption program is notable regardless of how popular it is among English speakers. I have added several more citations indicating that DiskCryptor was first, or at least was released prior to the TrueCrypt 5 release which would be the only other contender I know of. You can look all day but people don't often write articles saying that "X was the first" until they are looking back at the history of something some time later. What people say is "X is now available" and these are generally what I have cited. Unless someone can prove that something else was first it makes sense to assume that DiskCryptor was first given what we know. --BenFranske (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, hate to inform you, but notability guidelines is what drives if an article is kept or deleted in this instance. If it's not notable, it's either selected for CSD or AFD. If we were to keep every passing article or crap about everything and anything, this encyclopedia would either be used as a driving vehicle for spam, or be filled with trivial, bad articles. seicer | talk | contribs 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, see the policy on verifiability: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" This seems to fit the case here, the dispute is about notability thus self-published sources should be allowed to show notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Web-site forums are not reliable sources. I'm tempted to remove the self-published sources, given that they are not verified against other credible sources. seicer | talk | contribs 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm seriously loosing faith in the place of common sense in Wikipedia here. Obviously using only a web forum as a major source for an article is a bad idea. However, using one to timestamp when a product was made available makes a lot of sense as products are often discussed in forums shortly after the announcement. You have to use your brain sometimes to determine if a source is appropriate or not for the purpose of citing it. In this case it is completely appropriate that a web forum be used to timestamp the arrival of a product. Please cite any policy which specifically states web forums are unacceptable. I would think they would fall under self-published sources which (as above) are valid for discussions of notability. I fail to understand your holy war against this article and am becoming seriously ticked off. Regardless of what I think about notability being BS. The policy is clear, self-published sources are valid for discussion of notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Regarding common sense: I do not think it is sensible to use "X is notable because X says so" as an argument for keeping articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, but I am not saying "X is notable because X says so" that would be if the DiskCryptor people declared themselves notable. I am saying X is notable because they were the first to do something. I have also provided several sources indicating they when X was released as well as discussing why few sources ever say something is first until years later. Not sure what more I can do for you. --BenFranske (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So be ticked off. Article deletion is a common process, and no one article is more special than another in the spirit of notability and article sourcing. We strive to have articles that are reliably and adequately sourced, that are declared notable, and if there are disagreements, then the article is either repaired or wiped under consensus. Such guidelines and policies are not open for reinterpretation for each and every article, although you are free to attempt to have these guidelines and policies changed through discussion on their respective discussion pages. As a note, you should seriously read Self-Published Sources seicer | talk | contribs 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My question then is this: would this article be notable if it is true that DiskCryptor was the first open source full drive encryption utility for Windows? If not then we are wasting time because I think that is what makes it notable. --BenFranske (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No. It still wouldn't pass WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be more specific about why it would not pass WP:N. Is it that coverage has not been significant enough? --BenFranske (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Restart) To quote:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

See also: General Notability Guideline for a breakdown of the schematics. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is that the "mainstream press" has not reported on DiskCryptor (eg. most references are self-published)? Seems like a bad idea to dump articles because they are under-reported by the "press" even if they may be of legitimate historical interest. This also seems to disadvantage open source software which often receives little press coverage. See CrossCrypt, Cryptoloop, GBDE, Private Disk, etc. for examples of software which would appear to be non-notable, there is lots more. --BenFranske (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were of legitimate historical interest, historians would have documented it, and we could base an article on the sources thus generated. Wikipedia is not here to document something that the world hasn't documented, however interesting, significant, unique, groundbreaking, or otherwise you personally, and subjectively, think it to be. This is an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of first instance. If you want this subject documented in the history books, go and write a history book that documents it. And if you find other articles for which proper sources cannot be found to exist (after looking for them, yourself, properly), nominate then for deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ISTM that the main arguments for deleting this article are that:
1. It was previously deleted
2. It isn't notable
3. It can't be verified that it's the first system of its kind
Addressing these, however:
1. The reason it was previously deleted for two reasons:
  1. Some users thought it was a copy of another product ("Truecrypt"), which had similar functionality, but couldn't encrypt the disk the Windows OS was stored on (although Truecrypt added this abilit much later).
    It wasn't a copy; and this is pretty clear from the fact it predated the version of Truecrypt's which could do this.
  2. The first version of the article was little more than a copy/paste from its WWW site, so it did make some sense to delete it.
  However, if you look at the article now, even though it's just a stub atm, this is clearly not the case anymore. I'll look into expanding it to make it more comprehensive.
2. This software is notable. As other users have pointed out, it was the first ever open source disk encryption system available which allowed the Windows system disk to be encrypted, which is notable in itself
  This is a pretty major achievement, and one that shouldn't be ignored. There's only one other program which offers this, and it's long since been debated as to whether the licence under which it's released really does conform to the open source definition
3. From the looks of it, a number of references have been put forward to verify that it was released before any other full disk encryption program; a couple were based on forumn entries which, although perhaps not particularly good source of information, do back up the claim. The other references which remain are from independant sources
Given time, I wouldn't mind extending the article to add more information Raftermast (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion forum postings from undentifiable people going under pseudonyms such as "jamie" and "Neowinian", whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined, let alone be determined to be good, are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination.
  And you clearly don't understand what notability is. It is not your personal, subjective, estimation of what is important, famous, groundbreaking, or significant in the world. It is Wikipedia:Notability, and it is not subjective. It is not based upon size, significance, popularity, usage, or fame. It is based upon sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 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 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for police officers

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. This is the 2nd nomination for this list. The last debate was held in 2005 and reached no consensus see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slang and offensive terms for police officers, a lot has changed since 2005. Deadly∀ssassin 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot may have changed since 2005, but has it done so in relation to this article? It may not always be wrong to put an article up for deletion a second time, but it is often not good practice to do so unless there have been significant changes. The one time I ever did this myself I was able to argue that discussions had moved on, and it was deleted. Wikipedia is not paper, this is an article of some legitimate sociological interest, more than just a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. PatGallacher (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been changes in terms of how Wikipedia cosniders notability, and the emergence of other projects like Wikitionary which didn't exist back then. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many such lists on the Wikipedia. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: "Other Stuff Exists" is not a valid argument. See WP:WAX. Tavix (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is at least as good as any other. And it's not a dictionary entry, but a pop culture reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it as good as any other? In a deletion discussion, it would help to use facts and policies other than personal opinion. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean to say is that some people would want to delete this list for other reasons that have no link to wiki quality standards. If you look at it objectively, you will find nothing wrong, just as you won't with others. That was just a reaction, though. My argument to keep is my second sentence. I agree with PatGallacher. This has the value of holding a cultural reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can't find your way to WP:NOT it's amazing you found your way to this discussion. Please don't accuse me of having ulterior motives in the future and assume good faith. Oh sorry, I mean WP:AGF, happy now? --Deadly∀ssassin 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply for Maziotis. Thanks for that additional assessment, it helps your argument a lot (at least to me). Tavix (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - DeadlyAssassin, I didn't mean you personally. But I'm sure a lot of people would want this list to go since this is a list about insults, not cartoon dummies. What I meant from the beginning was that if you look at it objectively, a list of dummies is as good as a list of insults. That's what I meant. Please take notice that you are reacting to a response. If you read what I wrote at the beginning, you will see no sting there for anybody. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. Apologies for my sharp reaction, tiredness is my only excuse. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any presently unsourced terms can be removed if reliable sources do not exist, or if the sources exist they can be added. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Such unofficial terms have been used for police officers and well documented in reliable sources for over 200 years. Peelers: [32] , [33] . "Fuzz:" [34] . "Pig:" [35] , [36] , "County mounty" [37] , [38] , etc. Try Google advanced book search and Google News archive.Edison (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original nomination didn't mention references, although as others have said the article is completely unreferenced. I don't see how this mitigates against the fact that wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as I understand where both parties are coming from and could see it go either way. Tavix (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. The info is uncited and I see some mistakes. For instance in "5-0" a 5 liter car engine is not very large, 305 cubic inches vs a 350 cubic inch engine which would be what is really used on a police car. So it looks like people just put in stuff as they feel like it. A lot is also kind of mean-spirited. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the way to deal with mistakes is to edit; the way to deal with lack of citations is to add them. This is a possibly encyclopedic topic, and there's literature on it.DGG (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned the mistake because it is an example of the carelessness of the article's contributors. I have no special way of finding information on slang expressions for police officers. I certainly have no way of proving one doesn't exist. One the other hand someone could remove all the uncited material. Would you like me to do that? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The best' way to do it is usually to source what you can, then purge what you can't. People find this far less objectionable than blind purging. WilyD 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. If I decide to do that I will do a Google search on each item to see if I can find a source for it. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Police officer. Just throwing it out as a possible compromise in the discussion. I mean, when I look into an article about police officers, I would probably except some nicknames/slang terms be mentioned in there; the article is small enough that this stuff could be merged into Police officer without much a hassle as far as WP:SIZE is concerned. MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Oh, and don't be a dick about it, either! ;) MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move sourced entries to Wiktionary and organize there using a category. Delete the rest. This isn't a list of encyclopedia articles, just a list of words/terms.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for want of any better choice. Merging into "police officers" seems odd for sure, and wiktionary does not actually have a set up for lists ... it should be edited for sources and errors, but that is not actually a valid reason for deletion in itself. Collect (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Wiktionary not only is set up for lists, it has plenty of them, including many lists of slang synonyms for things, such as d:Wikisaurus:penis. Wiktionary not only has full thesaurus capabilities, it also makes use the MediaWiki software's ability to automatically create lists. After all, a list of words is simply a category of articles, in a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sensible, encyclopaedic list, no arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what's encyclopedic about it? It's a list of words, the definitions of which belong in Wiktionary. It's all very well for users to call it sociological, but at the moment this is just a collection of slang, and has been for years. As we know WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia are not "... slang and idiom guides." --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Strong Keep) The list will only grow more detailed in time with sources and historical and sociological details. Totally notable from a linguistics and sociology standpoint.Critical Chris (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were an article that describes the reason why there are so many slang names for the police and how in broad terms they developed, even the acceptance of their use in society I might tend to agree. As it stands (and has stood for a number of years) this is a list of word definitions and some etymology, you know what they call those don't you?. Calling it sociological and linguistically notable doesn't make it so. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sociological and historical details? Please cite a source that demonstrates that there even are any sociological and historical details to be discussed in an encyclopaedic fashion. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just try to do a simple google search, such as: use of pig slang sociology. I found some. Maziotis (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary; however, Wiktionary is. Besides, it's rather worrying when there are {{cn}} tags for nearly every item. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two arguments were already addressed several times. Maziotis (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the no citation one was, I don't think the dictionary one has. After all WP:NOT is policy. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be honest, several can be cited. "Pig", "filth", "bobby", "Plod", and "Sweeney", most likely. I've never heard "Woodentop", though. It's like List of terms of endearment: "baby", "sweetie", "cutie" can be. "Newfoundland"? Not so much. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely mate, which was why I didn't include unreferenced as a reason for deletion. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one addressed that argument by saying that wikipedia IS a dictionary. That policy was never put into question. What has been argued, by at least three editors, is that this subject is of interest for an encyclopedia, as a legitimate sociological issue. Maziotis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Is your argument by that rationale then that whether the article is descriptive or not and whether it is against policy can be ignored? --Deadly∀ssassin 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply, I don't believe that it is going against that policy. That is what some people are arguing. I believe that even while it remains non-descriptive, it is a legitimate list on wikipedia for a set of cultural references. Maziotis (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Cultural reference" is often used to disguise the fact that there isn't really an encyclopaedic article to be had. It's a woolly phrase that really doesn't mean anything concrete. The thinking behind it is almost always that cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing causes encyclopaedia articles to magically arise from nothing. Conversely, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary not only is clear policy, it is even our oldest written policy. To argue against it, one should show that an article isn't a dictionary article, or a mere collection of dictionary articles strung together in a list. So where are the sources that discuss the "sociological and historical details" claimed to exist above? Where are the sources that actually discuss something that isn't dictionary article content? What is the "sociological issue" and where has it been documented? Or are you arguing that Wikipedia should be the first to put all of these words together and document a sociological issue underpinning them, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy? Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My argument is that we have a list that is of interest for anybody who is looking for particular references in our culture (slang terms; other social aspects related to police and community). I really can't say I undestand the wiki policy on lists such as this. We seem to have them by the thousands. I did make a reference to other editors claiming a sociological background being developt in the article. As for the necessary sources, I have to say I would be very interested in seeing them myself. Maziotis (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But what is the reason that this should take place on Wikipedia? If people are interested in doing research on social trends they can look elsewhere and find the data they need. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this would only be a deposit of those terms. We would have one place to find an extensive list of slang terms for police officers. I don't know if this is right, but it seems wikipedia is used a lot for this. On the other hand, there was the suggestion that the article itself could give an historical exposition on the phenomenon. We are still waiting for the sources. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Wiktionary whether or not it is kept on Wikipedia, since a copy of this probably should reside there regardless of if it exists here. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:57, 20 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 Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy M. Chan

Non-notable, appears to just be another professor with nothing notable for inclusion. Possibly also a conflict of interest, heavily edited by unregistered IPs who only edit this article. The359 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep prizes, editorships, full prof./research chair. JJL (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the University Research Chair at Waterloo may be enough for WP:PROF #5. Google scholar lists quite a few good publications although none obviously stand out by their citation record as great yet (the one with the most citations is the output-sensitive convex hull algorithm mentioned in the article but I like the dynamic convex hull and randomized optimization technique ones, halfway down the results page, even better). For those who complain that algorithm research is just shaving logarithmic factors off of time bounds, that's a pretty accurate description of much of his research, and that sort of incremental work doesn't always lead to high citation counts, but he does it very well. I work in the same area as him and think he fully deserves his place in Category:Researchers in geometric algorithms but it's hard to point to anything specific (beyond the research chair, or perhaps his very young age at Ph.D.) that we can use here to justify notability; nevertheless I'm certain he's someone for whom it will eventually be obvious that he should have an article here and I don't see the harm in keeping it until that time. (Yes, WP:CRYSTAL — but the article, and the bulk of my keep argument, is based on his present accomplishments.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least there is something worth mentioning about him, in contrast to some other academics who also have articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant prizes beyond the university, and a major chair within it. Waterloo is a major research university. It would be helpful to add references to some of his best papers. DGG (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David Eppstein. Also think that the Chair probably satisfies WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:10, 17 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 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Welsh

It is a topic that Google can find, but only 13 results, none of which appear at first glance to be reliable sources for the term, some of which are simply juxtaposition of Greco and Welsh. This looks like a non notable neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm about ready for someone to declare it S.O.P. to delete this type of random combination lacking persuasive evidence of notability (as in African-American). JJL (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable intersection of ethnic groups. This one qualifies deletion as a WP:DICDEF. Tavix (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Delete of course. PatGallacher (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix's response. It's just a definition of a small group. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides what others have said, the article is just about the expression, not about the people. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlikely to be more than a dicdef and a list of NN people. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow--delete. Is this even a group? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has very little content and doesn't assert notability to the topic. Da boch to this article, then. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never liked their records.Red Hurley (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a very big can of worms to be opening for something non-notable. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:32, 19 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 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People Skipped From the British Throne

Original research or synthesised original research, plus a somewhat bizarre title. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a ref.What!?Why?Who? (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They're already noted on Line of Succession to the British Throne. Craigy (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur that this is redundant--just a complement of the succession list. JJL (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Craigy. Tavix (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list begins with George Windsor. There are thousands of people who precede him genealogically but are skipped, i.e. all the descendants in the legitimate line of King Charles I. The ancestors of these people were skipped in 1714, and so they are skipped today. This list would more accurately be titled "Descendants of the Electress Sophia who are skipped ..." Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for redundancy, the reference (which is all too vague) apparently having been imported from the "Line of succession..." article. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment What if I get rid of the skipped on Line of Succession to the British Throne? Then would it be kept- that huge article is too big and people want to split it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What!?Why?Who? (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verify redundant, delete, and redirect -OR- do not delete, but redirect so verification can happen later. In any case, do not delete until it's known to be redundant.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derwent_College#College_facilities_and_events,. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club D

AfDs for this article:

Not really notable by any measure. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It seems to be a significant event at the college, but most of the material in this article is unsourced and unnecessary. It'd be better to have a paragraph under Derwent_College#College_facilities_and_events, which come to think of it already does have two such paragraphs (though they're also unreferenced). --Delirium (talk) 06:47, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this local event. JJL (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Delirium. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge/redirect to the college's article. Pretty much every college has a handful of events like this. Most of them aren't particularly notable; as I don't see any evidence of external coverage, this one doesn't appear to be an exception. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 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 keep. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Warning (film)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article seems to mainly cover g-man's review of the film and most of the edits on the page were done by someone with a similar name. The film is not notable and article would need to be rewritten if the film became notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G-man's conflict of interest and POV have been removed. Have been doing clean-up on the article, and found some decent sources and both positive and negative reviews. Did use the "G-Man" review, but made sure to state it as a blog. Will remove it as I find more. Will continue working on the article... as it now tickles the requirements of WP:NF and I have more to add. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any indy film will have fewer references than a major blockbuster, but this appears to be a significant enough release to warrant an article. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Article has been cleaned, sources have been added, and editors are working to improve the article, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:32, 15 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) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Article has been expanded and sources added since the nomination. New version could benefit from further discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has significantly improved since listing and merits keeping. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neon highfin barb

Species that "has yet to be scientifically described." Only ref is "personal experience," which is, well, not a ref. Looks like this is completely original research about a species that isn't recognized in the scientific community. Graymornings_(talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did search for 'Oreichthys sp. "drapefin"' and did get a few results, but those seemed to not be scientific studies. Per WP:OR Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also searched with few results, including within aquarium-related sources. As Graymornings suggested, it does seem to be an article made up only of original research. FaerieInGrey (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. There's a lot of unpublished original research here that needs to be removed, but the fish itself does appear to (a) exist and (b) be notable. Google search for "neon highfin barb" (in quotes) turns up only the article and a blog entry apparently by the author of the article. This name is just not in common use, despite the article's assertion that fish are commonly sold under this name in the aquarium trade. On the other hand "drapefin barb" does seem to be a common name for a fish that is available for purchase but which has not yet been allocated a binomial name, perhaps because there is some dispute over which genus it belongs in. Note that these fish are sometimes identified as Oreichthys cosuatis, and that article also mentions the OR regarding the DNA profiling of them. We do have some reliable sources: [39] reports the theory dismissed in the article that this fish is a species of Puntius. In the same magazine we have [40]. Also published (although not available online) is Kalodimos N. Courtship Behavior of the Drape Fin Barb, Oreichthys sp. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine, 2002. I don't know the content but it appears from the description to be an entire article about this fish. JulesH (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the article to remove the OR. I would suggest following the close of the AFD it is moved to Drape fin barb, which seems to be its most common name. JulesH (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oreichthys umangii appears to be another article about the same fish, and gives an additional reference which provides a binomial name, although this is apparently yet to be generally accepted. Changing my !vote to merge to oreichthys umangii. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it occurs to me that I don't have a reliable source stating that these are the same fish. So maybe the merge isn't appropriate. Not sure what to do here. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was pure OR, and you did a great job cleaning it up. I'm not sure what to do here, either. It's either the same fish as Oreichthys umangii or it's a species that may or may not have been scientifically described. Depending on that, it's a merge/redirect or a delete. I think we need an expert. I listed it at WP:FISH to see if anyone over there has an opinion, so maybe that'll get us somewhere. Graymornings_(talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an article whose time has not yet come. It makes little sense, to me, to have an article about an uncertainly identified animal, unless the article contains all the details necessary to make the identification (which would not be practical or encyclopedic). Better to wait until the taxonomy is worked out. Tim Ross (talk) 17:42, 19 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 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnant Bog

A non-notable film about a previously PRODed band. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty obvious one too. Tavix (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 17 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. The prevailing sentiment is that this article is not only much too inadequately sourced, but also violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which we tend to understand also as prohibiting the excessively detailed reporting of incidents resulting in very numerous deaths (such as large-scale accidents, massacres or wars), whether or not the people who have died are actually named. I'm amenable to userfying this if someone believes that this could be the basis of a much more concise, well-sourced section in some appropriate article (to the extent that consensus allows for its inclusion and such content does not already exist). Sandstein 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox. While deep sympathy goes out to those associated with the victims, this is not the place to create a memorial to them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there is a list of attacks on Israel in 2008 that lists not only deaths but also injuries, then there should be a list of attacks BY Israel in 2008. Or did you nominate List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 for deletion as well? Trachys (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please feel at liberty to nominate any article that you feel does not qualify for inclusion here to be deleted or improved. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the other article you refer to differs markedly from this one. It has almost no personal names mentioned, and all the attacks have citations. It is about the attacks, and is not a memorial. Do please bear in mind that each WP article stands or falls on its own unique merits. Precedent is not set here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So then suggest that the names of the victims be edited out. And do you not consider B'Tselem a reliable source? Trachys (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This article is a list of the fatalities. Thus it contains, by definition, the roll of the dead. Without the names it becomes a statistical list of attacks with qualitative descriptions of the attacks. Individual citations render each wholly verifiable. That is a different article, and one that I would welcome along the lines of the other article you used as an example. I have no knowledge of nor interest in the actual topic. My interest is the article and the encyclopaedia. I expect the source you quote is reliable, but I have no knowledge of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is now a statistical list of attacks with qualitative descriptions of the attacks. The article states the source of the data in a conspicuous manner. Interested users may decide on the reliability of the source. I for one consider the source independent and more reliable than, say, the New York Times. Trachys (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see it as a substantial improvement, though totals are what is required rather that a list of individuals who are not named by personal attributes. There are still a great many named and non notable individuals, however. I really do not see why you are worrying about the source. It feels rather "Methinks s/he doth protest too much" to me. If you are confident of your source then you are confident. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These type of lists are not memorials or soapboxes. See:

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq - Kept after AfD. From the article intro: "Besides serving as an indicator of some of the numbers of insurgent deaths during specific time periods, this article allows readers to investigate the circumstances of those deaths by reading the citation articles. It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of tactics by insurgents and the coalition."
List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq
List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 --Timeshifter (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts". Change to Delete in its current form per WP:COATRACK.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article overall has a problem along the lines of WP:COATRACK, as long as the introduction is kept WP:NPOV. This list, along with

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008

2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire

Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

and other related articles provide essential background info to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict that can not be covered adequately in that article. The alleged cause of the breakdown of the truce on both sides were these types of events. So readers want to know about violent events of both sides before the war. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains more detail, for its more limited subject, than List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. Perhaps it could be renamed to List of Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip in 2008? It is an indispensable adjunct to the facts in 'LormaiIi2008'. Note also that Israeli and Hamas forces have taken to propagandizing about how many they have killed, not how few; this article would in that light be a token of Israel's success. As you can see, the soapbox is in the eye of the beholder. Keep the useful facts. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Tavix (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least in its present form. As an absolute minimum, it needs sources. We do not usually try to keep track of every death in events like these. DGG (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly per DGG. In addition, unless there exists good reliable secondary sources for all of these deaths, I have no choice but to think that this is basically a memorial. MuZemike 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list of attacks, and not a memorial to any of the dead - it doesn't even name them. It needs much better sourcing, but that should be possible using reliable sources, and isn't a reason to delete. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has been substantially altered to remove the majority, but not all, of the roll of the dead. It would be valid for prior !voters to check that they have make their decisions based upon the article as it stands now rather than the article I nominated originally. The closing admin will need to validate with some precision the point from which a consensus on this article should be built. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. B'Tselem is the source for all the entries according to Trachys in a previous comment. It is a very reliable source. The sourcing needs to be explained clearly in the article, though. And the main index pages need to be linked to. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just we like we have List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009. However, the nominated article needs better sourcing. Imad marie (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a content fork from B'Tselem. A link to the B'Tselem source can be added as an external link to 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. -- Nudve (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a single page at http://www.btselem.org that separates out Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008. ~~If there were, I would agree with you.~~ --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: See later comments.)[reply]

The source this article explicitly uses is this one, although it does detail previous years as well. I don't know, it looks like a mirror. -- Nudve (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at that B'Tselem chart, I now think that the Wikipedia list is much better. The Wikipedia list has a table of contents by month, and there is no need to scroll horizontally for each entry in the chart. With my 17 inch monitor I have to scroll to read the info for each entry in the chart. So, since the Wikipedia article is basically finished, and much improved after going through this AfD, I think it should be kept. It is relevant at this time. Plus in the wikipedia article there is a bar chart that helps see deaths over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Nudve. The only source cited is the B'Tselem website (apart from the lead which gives a very POV background to the conflict and is not really related to the main subject of the article). Looks like this article is a mirror of B'Tselem. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem is the source for casualties in the infobox of Second Intifada. See: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp It is considered to be a reliable source. The intro can be made more WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More casualty lists:

I think that these Wikipedia lists are encyclopedic and relevant. They are WP:NPOV. And they have multiple references for some entries. Very useful for readers and researchers. The list in question here could benefit from some more references for some of the individual entries. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say such lists have entirely too much detail. We don't keep lists of traffic fatalities or murder incidents. They need to be consolidated at some higher level.—RJH (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as memorial - if kept, in needs a neutral rename along the lines of the "civilian casualties in the Second Intifada" pair, which should also be deleted IMHO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would be a much better idea to have articles called Causalities of the 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict and Causalities of the 2007-2008 Gaza Conflict. This page here is structured as simply a memorial. The use of a single source is also extremely problematic. The Squicks (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thousands are dead at this point, this is very notable and encyclopedic. More sourced information will be added about the victims in time.Critical Chris (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do people think about merging this information to the pages Causalities of the 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict and Causalities of the 2007-2008 Gaza Conflict, both of which I believe were proposed for creation before? The Squicks (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if the editors who recently voted to delete the article on the grounds that it is a memorial would explain how an article which doesn't name any of the dead serves this purpose. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—In its current form this article has too much detail. Compare, for example to Casualties of the Iraq War, Rwandan_Genocide#Genocide or War in Darfur#Mortality figures, which are orders of magnitude larger. This is just a demonstration of the old Stalin quote, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." The article needs a significant re-write; hopefully well after this tiny war is finished.—RJH (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete My concerns with the article in its current for are: 1. Each line needs to be sourced otherwise any IP with an axe to grind can add whatever they feel like. Although there is a list of references at the bottom, there are no citations on most if not all of what's listed 2. Is it possible to actually keep a list of this nature current? 3. The fact this war is underway and that lots of people have died is relevant and notable, but is it necessary to itemize everyone? Has a similar list been created for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? For the Six Day War? For World War II? I can't help but feel that this sort of a list is serving a non-WP:NPOV purpose by spotlighting the fact that lots of Palestinians are getting killed in a conflict that is current and controversial, and I believe that's beyond what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. 23skidoo (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK horror. In any case Causalities of the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza Conflict would be the title, but 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict needs to be worked upon first. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of editing at Casualties of the Iraq War. I also supported the editors of

This list covers before the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, so I don't know why both shouldn't be worked on now. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork intended more to push a political position than to inform the encyclopedia reader. --Delirium (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

So much information about Palestine is already censored or suppressed. This censorship makes it difficult or impossible to understand the situation in Palestine. The censorship creates a void that is filled with stereotypes, demonization, and dehumanization. Israelis and Palestinians alike are harmed by this war propaganda.
The information in this article may not be "notable" to those who put their faith in war-making, but it is certainly notable for the direct and indirect victims of war, and that includes most of us. An encyclopedia needs to take into account the needs of the majority of its readers, and I, for one, need this information!
I notice that pro-war forces are also trying to delete 2008-09_Israel–Gaza_Foreign_involvement. This article contains WP:RS information that was moved out of the main 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict article. We are encouraged to move the information from the main article into subarticles, but if the subarticles are then deleted, valuable information is lost. Suppression of information is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and with wikipedia's stated aims. See WP:NOTCENSORED NonZionist (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC) moved from Talk:List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 by 211.214.128.185 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's unsourced there's nothing to discuss. There's no reason to analyze WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:POVFORK, and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced to here: [41]. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the article would be more useful and relevant if it stopped counting 2008 Palestinian deaths at the beginning of the main Israeli airstrikes Dec. 27, 2008. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Il would even write Strong keep The pair of articles this article is modelled after: List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 not only cite each and every names of the victims, except the 4 on Dec 27 and 29 2008 (June 28, 2004: Four-year-old Afik Zahavi, and Mordehai Yosefof, 49, Sderot; September 29, 2004: Yuval Abebeh, 4, and Dorit Benisian, 2, Sderot; July 14, 2005: Dana Galkowicz, 22, Kibbutz Netiv Ha'asara; March 28, 2006: Near the Kibbutz Nachal Oz two Israeli-Arabs (Salam Ziadin and Khalid, 16, a Bedouin father and son) are killed when a dormant Qassam rocket they find in the Nahal Oz area explodes; November 15,2006: Faina Slutzker, 57, Sderot; May 21, 2007: Shir-El Feldman, 32, Sderot; February 27 2008, Ron Yahye, 47-year-old student, near Sapir Academic College, Negev; May 9 2008, 48-year-old Jimmy Kdoshim, while working in his garden in Kibbutz Kfar Aza; May 12 2008, Shuli Katz, a 70-year-old resident of Kibbutz Gvaram; May 19 2008, Shir-El Friedman, 35-year-old woman; June 5 2008, Amnon Ronsenberg, a 52-year-old father of three), which is legitimate, those victims deserve to be remembered of, but those two pages cite every rocket attack!

For the sake of Wikipedia's fairness not only this page deserves to be kept, but also reverted to its first status by User:Trachys where individuals names are given, which is more esay to verify than anonymous.

About the argument Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is clearly is out of topic: the text says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements" Victim's name quoted in List of Qassam rocket attacks, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and in this article are not "departed friends and relatives." and they hare not "Subjects of encyclopedia articles": they do not have their own article entry! They are victims whose name are public!

B'Tselem is the original source. It is a serious and reliable Israelian source. It is the main source for this article published on Jan 15 and nominated for deletion the next day. Wikipedia being a work in progress more might come in the future. Ist form is also a big ergonomic improvement from the original source

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Full_Data.asp?Category=1&region=GAZA

Every village in Europe keeps the list of the names and ages of the victims of WW1 and WW2 on marble stones. This is Internet in the 21st century. The modern lists may be kept on the Wikipedia: once again it does not infringe Wikipedia's rule Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL because each victim does not have it's individual article! --Cvrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Good points. We should avoid systemic bias, or the perception of it. I suggest people read the info, talk archives, and current talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. List of Qassam rocket attacks has details, names, dates, charts, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to log as nominator that the nomination was simply that, a nomination of this article. I have no bias in this conflict, which I see as appalling, but have insufficient understanding of the two sides to hold a valid opinion of the rights and wrongs of each party in the dispute. It is the article in isolation that concerns me, not the conflict. Avoidance of bias is done by the creation of articles and deletion of articles without reference in those processes to the politics behind the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your nomination your reason to delete the article was "Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox." I could see how one might think the article might be a memorial or a soapbox. It may need some work to be WP:NPOV. But I don't see it as a memorial in terms of Wikipedia's definition. From WP:NOTMEMORIAL: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives." The topic of the article is notable in my opinion. As is List of Qassam rocket attacks. Because arguments about the violent attacks of both sides before the war have been frequently noted in the media. There is not enough room in Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. There is no room left in those articles for anything more. Many articles have been spun out. I help edit 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It was getting around 350 edits a day recently. It is unrealistic to cover much more in encyclopedia detail in those 2 already-large articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That sounds more like an argument to delete List of Qassam rocket attacks and the other related articles than an argument to keep this one. These sorts of "list our side's grievances" articles seem more useful to POV-pushers than to Wikipedia's educational goals of spreading neutral, encyclopedic information, which is better done in unified treatments like Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict than POV-forks of "bad things Palestinians did to Israelis" and "bad things Israelis did to Palestinians". See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Delirium (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply higher up to Fiddle Faddle. Also, it is not necessarily POV pushing. At least not for me. It is just a matter of space. We could combine the violent acts into one article, but it would be huge. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be an indication that a comprehensive list of violent acts in a particular conflict simply isn't the proper role of an encyclopedia to document (as compared to the conflict itself and its context, which are good subjects for articles). For example, a list of every single bombing, artillery, or infantry action taken by either side even a single World War II campaign would be quite large and certainly couldn't fit into, say Battle of the Bulge or D-Day, but we don't break them out into List of German fatalities resulting from the Allied advance during the Normandy Invasion. --Delirium (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the prelude to World War II is covered by many articles. Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict does not cover the period preceding the war. It links to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Background. There is not enough room there to do more than cursory coverage of the background to the war. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge with Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --GHcool (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork/memorial. Themfromspace (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please consider renaming the article (perhaps to List of Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip in 2008 and removing the names of the diseased, as per the concerns raised by User:Timtrent. Dynablaster (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No offence,but I feel giving the statistics of how many people died in a day are redundant for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it'd be better if only ranking officials were included with a total of civilians casualties at the bottom of the entry. EX :

January 1rst

Nizar Rayan senior commander Total civilian casualties - XX

--Roaring Siren (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and expand to List of fatalities from Israel-Gaza conflict. Has a ring of neutrality to it... sounds like A4. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is covered in sufficient, encyclopaedic detail in 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Guest9999 (talk) 23:35, 21 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 San Fu Maltha with no prejudice to reversion. This is really a Keep closure with a personal editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Works

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep See [42] -- San Fu Matha does get mentioned in a RS for a film which is alsready on WP (actually a number of mentions, albeit none done about the company). Definitely meets notability standards, but the article is not of high quality at this point. Collect (talk) 13:34, 16 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 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in Dutch media ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]) apart from coverage from English media for the film Black Book (film). 25 Other credits present. In case the final verdict still leans towards delete, at least it should be redirected to San Fu Maltha. ^LeaveSleaves 12:01, 24 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) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information For Action

I can't see anything notable about this environmental action organisation. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can dig up some independent references. I can't find anything in the mainstream media about them. They apparently made a submission to the 2020 summit,[49] but anyone could do that, right? -- Mark Chovain 20:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schuym1. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowgum Films

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. Negligible results in news search. Web search shows majority results from social networking or video sharing sites. No third-party coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 17:52, 12 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) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs sourcing for the awards. The article needs to show the connection between the company and the notability of its projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish to note that my struck comment was intended for a different AfD. I still feel that notability for Snowgum might be shown if awards sourcing is done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source for one of the prizes [50]. But I doubt it helps the article in any way. The prize at the film festival has is under public's choice and not a jury award. Moreover it was given to the film and the writer-director, not the production company. Plus the film shared this prize with another film. You also need to consider that this article comes more under WP:CORP, and needs to satisfy notability requirements as such. ^LeaveSleaves 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I am not at this time opining a keep nor a delete... as conecting the company and the notability of its projects would be paramount. Certainly smaller independents do not have the easy-to-source notability of their bigger cousins (IE: Sony, MGM, Fox, Warners, etc.), so if it can be somehow established that the company creates notable projects... it would be a step in the right direction. But as you point out, a shared audience jury-award does not quite do it. This is the biggest problem with articles about smaller companies. They exist. They create films. They get their films out there... All the same basics as the big boys. But fighting WP:NOTINHERITED, it is difficult to source an individual notability. I'd love to see an WP:RS that tells of the company itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is lspace.org, SF Crowsnest, Snh.com, a similar story at theage.com, freelancing-gods.com, fantasy-fan.org, and Dreamers.com (google translation from Spanish), which are about the company in relationship (naturally) to their projects. And then we have a number of articles available about its founder. Gona be a toughie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per rescue. Company is getting coverage (minimal) for their work... and their works are themselves receiving coverage. Its a squeeker... but I think it now just tickles over WP:CORP without having the share notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 17 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 as blatant advertising. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Place

This article appears to have a few problems: first, it appears to be promotional - the editor appears, on searching the name, to be a high-level official with the organization that this is written about, so there's a WP:COI problem immediately, and the article is more advocacy than information. Second, there are no sources; I ran through Google News and found no references to it. It's not written in a neutral manner.All in all, I don't think the program in question is notable enough to be covered here at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a political manifesto, not an encyclopedia article. SpinningSpark 02:02, 12 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) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — doesn't matter if it's for Oxi Clean, innovative obscure operating system from a Linux kernel, or Water World in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin — it's still SPAM. MuZemike 06:50, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruktime

Non-notable soft drink produced by notable company. Should not be included in WP. Unable to find any significant English-language coverage, no significant Russian language coverage claimed. Bongo matic 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still included in practically all Russian coverage on market share (most recent ones are, quite naturally, not available publicly), but the whole line appears to be in decline, poorly distributed, and I won't be surprised if CC drops it quietly. Maybe you are right and one line entry in List of Coca-Cola brands is sufficient. NVO (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NOTPAPER. How can nominee claim "no significant Russian language coverage claimed" when there is page on the Russian wiki... (?). I would leave it to the Russians to decide what drinks there are notable. And what is a notable fizzy candy drink anaway, Wiki is not a paper. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to Wikipedia are not sufficient as sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources? Bongo matic 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 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) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Sources are available to establish notability in the English language and Russian language. Some of this sources should be included in the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:09, 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 no consensus. The discussion tended towards keeping the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knopperdisk

Non-notable operating system. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources (checked Google, Google News, Google blog search, technorati). Bongo matic 14:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per these Google results. Why should this not be notable? Power.corrupts (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the hits generated by that search do you believe to be significant and from a reliable source that is independent of the subject? I was unable to find any (I didn't look through hundreds of pages, but the first hundred entries or so). Rather, there are numerous software download pages, some blog entries, a couple of pages from the publisher, and this Wikipedia article and clones of it. Number of Google hits alone is not an argument for either keeping or deleting in a deletion discussion. Bongo matic 22:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many claims of lack of notability are ill-founded, and this is one of them. First I glanced at the article (I'm a layman here, and can only apply common sense). It is extremely factual, short, concise, to the point, almost terse - suitable for an OS article. I find absolutely no evidence of conflict of interest (COI), no canvassing, etc. Many different editors have contributed to the article.

The article is also available on other Wiki projects, the Spanish one is of somewhat better quality, someone took the effort to add an OS infobox, the Catalan (surprise!) page is as extensive as the English, the Romanian is a very short stub. But obviously some editors found the stuff notable enough to create these pages. I also note that there is no Dutch page on the thing, although the Spanish (and the other projects except the English) mention that is was developed there. This would lead me to assume some notability in that corner of pygmae OS system buffs. It certainly weakens claims of lack of notability.
Why shouldn't this terse information not be in an Encyclopedia like Wiki? What exactly would satify your thirst for notability. Yearly sales figues, market penetration and percent market share? Even if the system never made it to mainstream, wouldn't the sheer existence of the systems be worth of three lines on Wiki?
And yes, I managed to find a Google Scholar hit. Somewhere in this enormously specialized world, some tech buffs refer to the specific quirks of this OS. I have made no attempt whatsoever to understand it, but they discuss "every distribution from these two sets uses the APT package management system" and they are concerned about "collisions" (?). So perhaps it could be interesting to somebody, I don't know. But I don't see a collision with Wiki's notability criteria. Cerf, L; J Besson, C Robardet, JF Boulicaut (2008), Data-Peeler: Constraint-Based Closed Pattern Mining in n-ary Relations (PDF), Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Did I mention that the page has existed for 3½ years. On other projects they attempt to improve the article when they see it. On the English wiki the kneejerk reflex seem to be to attempt to delete it.

Power.corrupts (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the twist side of above commentary by Bongo: Merely claiming something isn't notable doesn't make it so. What did you attempt to determine notability, Schuym1? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Power corrupts comment does not change my mind. Schuym1 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not my responsibility to find sources to determine an article's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nominator's responsibility, however. I paged through lots of possible sources of for any presumption of notability (as mentioned in the nomination), but did not find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongo matic 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did mention that, both in your first and second posting. There are two principal issues: The first is the trivial one, that it takes me an awfull lot more effort to find sources, than it takes for you not to find any. And admittedly, I didn't find much, only one "hard" article, and it could rightfully be said, that Knopperdisk is not the centrality of that article.
Second, I would strees that it is too simplistic to view other language Wiki project merely as "mirrors". Many will start as mirrors, and from the dates of creation, this appears also to be the case for this article. But the projects reach a new audience, and may grow in different directions. At the very least, I find it problematic, to AfD an article without consulting these other projects. I have just located the main Spanish contributor es:Usuario:Shooke. I think I will drop him a line asking what he thinks about this AfD. Let's see what happens... Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a notable software, DistroWatch (a important web site of distros) consider it, please see in http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=knopperdisk , this is from Netherlands. And can probe in google more than 23,000 topics, thanks Shooke (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in Distrowatch is precisely the sort of directory entry that does not demonstrate notability. Bongo matic 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it "not demonstrate notability" ? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach comment It could be interesting to take this a littel further, just for the fun of experimenting. I have left messages at Editor user pages at the other wiki project, and I will post a general message at the discussion pages there. I will also drop an email to Knoppedisk itself, they should have precisely the type of information Bongomatic is requesting - I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Let see what happens... Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left this request at their webpage: Sirs, There is currently a discussion at the English Wikipedia concerning the so-called notability of your software. Apparently, little can be found at the Internet on third party, independent commentary on your product. I wonder if you would like to comment on that discussion, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knopperdisk#Knopperdisk. Remember that your answers must be highly factual and that any claims must meet Wiki's requirements of verifiability. Your answers must not be worded in a way, that they could be interpreted as advertising either. Sincerely, power.corrupts on en.Wikipedia Power.corrupts (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, how do you demostrate that some software is notable? You say "Unable to find coverage in reliable sources", is false because you "not found reliable source" not demostrate nothing Shooke (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject--like a full review in InfoWorld. See WP:ORG for more details. Bongo matic 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a reply from Sander Knopper, the developer of this Operating System. I am waiting for his permission to post it here, I could be meant as personal communication, and I forgot to ask in the first mail. He doesn't actively maintain it any longer, he has little interest in Wiki notability criteria, and he perhaps appears somewhat indifferent, if Wiki has an article or not on Knopperdisk.

I gave it some thought and took a second look at the notability guidelines. Bongomatic, right under you quoted lines the following criteria are listed: Significant coverage is "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"; sources are reliable, certainly verifiable; Independent of the subject - I would say yes to all of them. But above all, I think that Jimmy Wales' vision to "record the world's knowledge" is the guiding principle for me. The article is a factual as it can be, terse, the information is valid and verifiable. I cannot see at all how deletion of this information could add value to Wikipedia. On the other hand, I find it conceivable that the article, if retained, might add value (albeit marginal) to somebody. Perhaps I'm leaning on WP:NOTPAPER, perhaps I'm a hopeless inclusionist, perhaps I'm just hopeless. May I quote from WP:Notability: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Knopper now greenlighted that his mail to me is posted here:

Well, if there's not much you can find on the internet regarding my project, than there probably isn't any. Quite frankly, the project is more or less dead, I haven't made a new release for years (I think) and there most likely won't be any in the near future. I use the name "project" on purpose as well here, since I don't think of it as a "product", therefore I also don't try to sell it or whatsoever. So if I can help you with any notability issues you might have, that's fine. But I think I can't be of much help since you seem to have searched quite thorough yourself, right? Anyway, like I said, I don't actively maintain it anymore, though from time to time I give some pointers to people who are interested in it and contact me the same way you have. So I don't really feel like investing that much time in it right now. Quite frankly, I have no interest in reading the notability rules or any other rules the wiki might have, but if you can put up some questions that would help notability, I'm willing to answer them. Best Regards, Sander Knopper. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- listed on Distrowatch, even if it becomes unmantained people would be able to find the info about it on Wikipedia instead of Googling for info. man with one red shoe 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, listing on Distrowatch is not an indicator of notability. The ability to cross-reference non-notable listings is not a rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bongo matic 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, the two other editors appear to think that Distrowatch is an indicator of notability, you do not, either view appears subjective, bordering WP:POV, and neither view has been argued convincingly. I have no opinion on this, but would lean on the great variety of Google hits, that to me are indicative of "general interest". Power.corrupts (talk) 12:21, 19 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) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AxCrypt

Declined A7 speedy deletion nominee. The article makes no assertion of notability whatsoever, but falls outside the A7 specification. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: mere inclusion of a technology in the Microsoft Windows OS does not merit WP:Notability. There are probably hundreds of such products that have come and gone in such fashion. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't even included in the Windows OS. It integrates into Windows Explorer once it is installed by the user, which is something totally different and rather trivial. Notability lacking, etc. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable] software. Per Zetawoof it isn't actually included with Windows, but once installed it integrates into Windows Explorer. Matt (Talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 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 keep. Merge discussions (and they may well be appropriate) may occur outside of this Afd. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts

Though an old book, I do not think this particular book is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on WP:BK. It's great as a source, but what makes this book encyclopedic? The author of this Wikipedia page was involved in the "rediscovery" and "redistribution" of the book electronically, and for that they should be thanked. However, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia article it does not deserve. Use it as a source for fearsome critters, but an entire article devoted to a book so obscure that no copies could be located for a number of years? Also, no notable reviews, awards, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the statement that no copies could be located is hogwash, apparently meant to advertise the reprint. the orig ed. is in 35 university libraries DGG (talk) 22:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of book not established. It would be better to use it as a source for articles on the various creatures.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking around, I'm fairly sure we can establish notability. This book's discussion of that book rises above trivial. Probably trivial, Nontrivial but not independent, Marginally nontrivial, somewhat nontrivial. Although ads to a sensible inclusion. Wily D 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that an obscure book was once published, then was so obscure it was hard to find, then someone found a copy and put it on the internet, does not show it is so notable as to deserve a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and particularly fails WP:BK. The references provided by WilyD do not quite show satisfaction of WP:BK. Edison (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not "obscure" - it's pretty widely cited, considering. There just aren't very many sources that discuss it in depth, rather than merely cite information from it. We all see to agree it's around the edge of notability in that sense. But there's no call to misrepresent it. WilyD 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any book which required "an exhaustive, years-long search" to find a copy is obscure by definition. Also this article seems spammy and promotional. Edison (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That particular claim (about the "years-long search") is dubious. See DGG's comment above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on balance, the encyclopedia is better served by having this article, as the book is frequently referred to, and its nature should be explained. DGG (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per WilyD and DGG. Though the book probably doesn't meet WP:BK to the letter, there are enough references to it to suggest that it is at least somewhat important to folklorists. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand why we should delete this article when "it's great as a source". --J.Mundo (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason why we should preserve this article, which is to say the very reason why I have devoted so much time on this book. Is that this book while seemingly vague as it may or may not be within mainstream literature it is quintessential within in its genre. Without this book we would know essentially nothing today on mythical animals of the United States and that entire field folklore which it covers, a piece of American heritage, most likely would have been lost. I have reworked the article and hopefully more on to the readers satisfaction. My gracious thanks go out to those who help to save this article from deletion. Kudos. --User:Tripodero (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I added merge templates to two other pages. Could not some of the content be put there also? pages are: Fearsome critters and Legendary creatures. -Fremte (talk) 18:05, 19 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) 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Anti Cult Alliance

Article nominated by Siru108 with comment "Hoax?". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references, no results on Google. Very probably a hoax. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user who is trying to get this deleted (Siru108) is a member of one of the organisations listed as cults by the BACA. He says on his user page he follows Ole Nydahl's Diamond Way group. It is therefore no surprise that he wants this article removed. His opinion is far from neutral.
- BACA is supported in it's decisions on these 3 groups by the Non-Governmental Organisation INFORM.
- See the controversies sections on both Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way.
- See the 'Separation from contemporary Tibetan Buddhism' section on New Kadampa Tradition.
- Search Google for Edward Penney.
- I do beleive this article will be built upon in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandizzle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Irrespective of the motivation of the original nominator, in order for the article to be kept you'll need to demonstrate that the organization (a) exists in the first place (WP:V) and (b) has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, references in reliable third-party sources (WP:N) - and provide that evidence in the article itself. As things stand, you're not even over the first hurdle. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 14 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) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The group, as described, does not seem to be very notable, or even very Buddhist. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked this group up on Google and I couldn't find anything about them. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 18 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 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hill (musician)

Violates WP:NOTE; I searched Google for this person and came up with nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this guy mainly performed in the 50s and 60s I wouldn't be surprised if he can't be found online. (I'm already seeing material disappear about notable stuff from things after 2000). Before anyone deletes this an attempt should be made to check paper sources (I'll contact the original author. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability is not lost because the guy is pre-internet. I am trusting the original author on it. However, notability should be proven somehow.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 14 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) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an unsourced obituary of a good guy - local personage, etc. - but not a notable one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: have not been able to turn up anything in the local library on comedians and/or musicians with this name from the mentioned areas. Nothing on the internet either. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder if this person may be a hoax. Although it is claimed that he died in 2001, well into the Internet era, no obituaries have turned up on the Internet. Furthermore, the article has virtually no specific details about his entertainment career even though that is supposedly what made him notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm beginning to think.. JamesBurns (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cerejota, but compress (too much non-notable infomation even if the person themselves is notable) and add verifiable cites (internet or otherwise).Simon Dodd (talk) 21:12, 17 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesley Sullenberger}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Basics}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubertrophy}}