Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 25

< December 24	December 26 >

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 redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Resources Mobilization Act

Incorrect article name. New article at National Resources Mobilization Act NorthernThunder (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman O'Grady

Unverifiable, appears to be a hoax —Snigbrook 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being certifiable WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean IV O'Grady. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block author. I feel a bit stupid for having this on my watchlist and not noticing that it is bollocks. Looking at it again I now see that none of the external links is relevant for verification and it doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt. The author's entire history consists of vandalism and similar nonsense. It seems to be a vandalism only account. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just spam. None of the links are relevant and no citations are provided. NoVomit (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean IV O'Grady

Unverifiable, appears to be a hoax —Snigbrook 22:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden of hoaxes created by the same person. The article creator has been warned already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with due rapidity! Absolute unverifiable tosh! Eddie.willers (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Sean O'Grady listed in the external link is a journalist and does not seem to relate to anything listed here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been a speedy delete. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, no citations. NoVomit (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Última muñeca

Doesn't seem particularly notable, no sources. The practice does exist but is not notable enough for own article. 2 D ^C 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists and people have written about it; I see no problem with the article. No objection to merging this into Quinceañera and creating a redirect, though - that article's looking kind of thin as it is. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above - there isn't enough to justify a separate article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good stub. Merging might be reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--This is an important tradition for the Quinceañera and is a collector's item. --Jmundo (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. --Know zilla 19:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Evidently not notable enough for inclusion. — Aitias // discussion 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Kelly

Non-notable student activist. db and prod tags have been removed. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak delete. There's some local interest, but the sources that are accessible are letters and blogs and school newspapers. It doesn't seem to be an article worthy of a global encyclopedia. =Axlq 20:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal to: "There's some local interest, but the sources that are accessible are letters and blogs and school newspapers."
  A. There is: (i) Coverage in the Ottawa Sun, and (ii) an interview with James Hendricks on Roger's Talk Ottawa, viewable nationally via Rogers Cable.
  
  B. There are: (i) publications in reputable refereed science journals, and (ii) national and international science conferences.
(UofOVoice (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC))— UofVoice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
- - That's hardly a rebuttal. Citing the Ottawa Sun confirms my claim of only local interest, and I don't see that the journal articles have any direct relation to what the article claims makes Mr. Kelly notable. =Axlq 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not make enough noise. Fails WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:BIO1E for guidelines concerning Notable people and people notable for only one event. Also, may be a Conflict of Interest. --Non-dropframe (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal to: "Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:BIO1E for guidelines concerning [...] people notable for only one event."
  Kelly is not notable for "one event", but rather Kelly is notable for multiple events including: (1) Deregistration (2) Conflict with President (3) Interference of nomination (4) Arrest and banishment (5) Presentation at Canadian Undergraduate Physics Conference 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UofOVoice (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC) — UofVoice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Weak keep: While there is limited coverage, there is enough presented above to suggest Kelly is notable for more than one event. --99.246.141.250 (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC) — 99.246.141.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. He fails WP:BIO, and is barely of local attention. TJ Spyke 22:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep: There's a recording of Allan Rock yelling at him on his blog, Allan Rock is a big time Canadian politician, and current president of the University of Ottawa. That's pretty huge. Also, not that it's made big news or anything, but his Thesis proposal, and critique of Physics academia is pretty insightful, and looks like it will continue raising a stir in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.151.3 (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kelly has published sufficient works and appears central to a couple of notable events (lawsuit;deregistration over controversial thesis;arrest).--Afonseca (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC) — Afonseca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Kelly's publications don't seem to be what confers notability on him, according to th earticle. Millions of people are involved in lawsuits; by itself that doesn't confer notability either, and the lawsuit isn't mentioned in sources outside the local area, as far as I can tell. The same goes for deregistration and arrest; why is that notable to the rest of the world? =Axlq 21:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability within the university only--and considering what the notability is for, there are serious BLP problems with this article. (Even if he wants the article, for we should not take advantage.) The student scientific investigations would not not worthy of mention even if his behavior had attracted wider interest. Not everyone who a politician yells at is notable. And of course what might "raise a stir in the future is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kelly is a part of a North American movement which is growing in importance and public interest. He is notable for many actions not limited to the University of Ottawa campus including his talk on the sociology of physics given at the Canadian Physics Undergraduate Conference. His case was also widely discussed following a mass email which was sent to over 40 000 people linking to a recording of University of Ottawa President Allan Rock shouting at him. Jenflick.o Dec. 26, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenflick.o (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC) — Jenflick.o (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Local notability only. Looks a lot like a vanity page. NoVomit (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be kept; it is probable that notability can be achieved with further research.--66.16.249.106 (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC) — 66.16.249.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I'm a University of Ottawa student. The information contained in the media coverage that Kelly has received (in University of Ottawa student-newspapers and the 'Ottawa Sun') is relevant to university students across Canada and around the world. Kelly's actions are an important part of the Canadian student movement (e.g. see Wikipedia article about the Canadian Federation of Students) SeosamhH (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — SeosamhH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage to establish notability. Note that the Ottawa Sun article is not about Marc Kelly. In fact, there is no mention of Marc Kelly at all. The link is a scan of the article with the name "Denis Raincourt" struck through and Marc Kelly added in its place. It may very well be the newspaper misidentified the individual in the caption. But even if it were printed that way by the paper, it is an incidnetal mention. With no other coverage, interst is localised to within the university. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability seems to be limited to the University of Ottawa area based on sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing by nom my main concern was that the request for reliable verifiable sources claiming notability were not met in the article after 2 years and at least one repeated recent request---and there was a ton of 'noise' surrounding google searches for Smosh. NurseryRhyme provided enough independent reliable sources, that were not referencing the same event even, to prove notability. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh

Somehow this page survived deletion 2 years ago when it was previously nominated. The article is about a non-notable group of 2 that have released 63 youtube videos. The article makes a minor assertion of notability, that they are "currently the third most subscribed of all of YouTube." When this was added who knows, it could be 2 years old, thus the "currently" is not helpful. It is also not referenced. Currently there is only one independent sources--everything else that currently exists is their own youtube videos or myspace. The one reference, in entirety, "Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox, also known as Smosh, won for best comedy video." This does not represent, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Winning a single non-notable award, does not convey notability, especially when the award is deemed as advertising gimmick for Youtube. Smosh fails to meet satisfy the criteria at WP:CREATIVE and is questionable about WP:entertainer---but without resources, this cannot be confirmed. I was going to leave a note on Smosh's talk page asking for sources/proof that this article deserved to be kept, but two weeks ago somebody else raised the Spectre of deletion. The claims to notability are weak and without reliable independent sources, this article should be deleted. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known video artists who have had multiple notable references. See [1] (which says "Smosh is YouTube's most subscribed-to channel", surely proof of notability), [2], [3], [4], [5], and more. YouTube pays Smosh for their content. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's enough for me... those links should be included in the article. Withdrawing Nom---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butt (surname)

After multiple citation templates and requests were ignored by the primary authors for a year, I removed all questionable material, leaving a list of people who have variations on the name, and little more. A two month old merge proposal went ignored by the primary authors, whose only interest is in preventing any chagnes to the page, but not improvements. Further, the split between European Butts and between Indian Butts was left unclear, and no effort was made to separate the Butts of one group from the Butts of a totally different group. Finally, by the primary authors' own writings, Butt as an Indian tribe and such was really the Bhat tribe, but they wre unwilling to work on that page for whatever reasons. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Content duplicated at Butt. Tevildo (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant article. All seriousness aside, those people must hate to have that surname... Tavix (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tevildo. --Unscented (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:DR. This is a legit surname/dab page like the others at Category:Surnames.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.96.53.149.117 (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC) This is DEFINITELY not dispute resolution. If there's a problem change the article. Don't delete it.[reply]
- Note. To 'augment' the article, the above IP removed a great deal of material from the disambig page at Butt, and pasted it to the AfD'd article. ThuranX (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is in no way a WP:DR situation. There is no dispute, and there is a significant lack of information in the article which isn't better covered at Bhat and Butt, and no effort to improve long standing tags at this article has been made ,while the other two more than adequately cover the materials. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per Brewcrewer. I see nothing different about this article than the thousands of other disambig pages that we use. Expansion and cleanup is what we need, and it doesn't matter if it isn't finished today. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uh, this is not a disambig page. It's an article with unsupported, duplicated content better contextualized in other places. ThuranX (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep It need's fixing, but it should stay Good Tidings - Navarro (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the English ones but delete the others. This is the English wikipedia. Scaldi (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the English language Wikipedia. There's no rules that prohibit links or articles on non-English subjects. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to post this comment on Scaldi's talk page and found he's been blocked for sockpuppetry. We might like to discount his comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information to Butt that isn't already there. This is a duplicate article. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is just a directory anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge if needed. There was clearly no reason to bring this to AfD. The nominator should have just merged and redirected, if he did not like a separate article. The redirect Butt (surname) will always be needed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator tried that months ago, to no avail. So the nominator brought it here. Imagine that. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever... It was a content issue, and should not have been sent to AfD. After this discussion I will however be delighted to help him in kicking this surname into butt. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - this was never a content issue. It started as a fork of Bhat, and grew into an unsourced mess of information duplicated from other articles. That's been brought up here already. Sorry you can't understand that. I tried working with the primary author, tried fixing it, and nothing's worked, so I brought it here, because the info's already in other places. ThuranX (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Ramp Records

Only 115 hits, no reliable sources found. Doesn't even seem worth merging to Deric Ruttan or to EMI given that only one artist (who is irrefutably notable) is signed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I updated and sourced the artist roster. The label has also signed CCMA Male Artist of the Year winner Brad Johner, CCMA Rising Star winner Shane Yellowbird, Canadian Idol judge Zack Werner's band, Haymaker, and singer-songwriter Victoria Banks. Eric444 (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merge to the parent label be acceptable? Notable artists don't always a notable label make. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Just one artist then no, but if a record label has multiple notable artists, then (if I'm remembering right) the precedent has been that Wikipedia ought to have an article about the label. News articles and reviews that are about the artists will mention (in a non-trivial way) the record label, the argument would go. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionology

Per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This article is some original compilation of quotes from several Soviet-Ukrainian publications. Google search for "zionology doctrine" gives only 336 links, most of them wiki clones of the diccussed article, search in google books gives no references at all. DonaldDuck (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as Neologism wihtout foundation. ThuranX (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. There are a lot of russophone sources thereon.--Lute88 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this sources describe "Zionology" as political doctrine.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact. A pseudoscience rather.--Lute88 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Donald: I agree with Lute, even the fact that something may be a "pseudo-science" does NOT make it un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia has articles about the wackiest things as long as they are based on WP:RS and WP:CITE. Hence see Category:Pseudoscience, and if one doesn't like the article it can even go in Category:Pseudoscience articles needing expert attention but one doesn't run to zap something just because it sounds strange or distasteful. See also: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename to Soviet Anti-Zionism. I agree that Zionology appears to be a neologism, but the phenomenon described in the article is genuine. The term "Soviet Anti-Zionism" is used by one of the sources provided in the article and would be a more accurate, better-supported and more-intuitively understood title for the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Valid topic for an article, but invalid title for the topic. =Axlq 20:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The word is not in an English dictionary. But the concept of Russian/Soviet anti-semetic theories is a good topic. If the word starts showing up in mainstream newspapers and journals then the word has entered English and we can return the article name. SO, we should keep it, rename it, and then edit it carefully that everything is sources and not OR:Synthesis --Jayrav (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per above. --Know zilla 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this was a term that was evidently used in the Soviet Union as the sources show, albeit a nasty and despicable one at that. The fact that it does not have a place in an "English dictionary" does NOT delegitimize this Russian term. The application of WP:NEO is also mistaken here because that rule is applied to writers of articles on Wikipedia who create neologisms as articles but not to terms that were indeed made up and used in foreign countries. Sure, the Russian communists created and made up crazy words, and this one appears to be one of those. Unless better research can be presented that it was truly a non-sarter in Russia this article should be left as is! IZAK (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This term is very obscure neologism in Russian also, just as in English [6].DonaldDuck (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Alansohn. -- Nudve (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Rewrite as Anti-Zionism in the Soviet Union. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and the name - searching for сионология in Russian shows that it's not a neologism and it's perfectly reasonable to render it as "Zionology" in English. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piroxicam cap. 20 mg

This article is about a particular oral capsule presentation of an anti-inflammatory medication. It may be that this particular capsule does not have notability independent of the chemical itself, namely Piroxicam. Also, the information here is taken from a prescribing manual, and is clearly presented in a manner suitable for a health care professional who is considering prescribing the medication, rather than in a manner that is suitable for a lay user of an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTMANUAL; Possibly a copyvio from the manufacturer's datasheet, as well. Not worth a redirect as it's a very unlikely search term. Tevildo (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tevildo - and the formatting sux! Eddie.willers (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge anything useful into piroxicam. JFW | T@lk 01:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or I guess it could be redirected to piroxicam on the off chance someone is using very specific search terms... MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nabih Youssef

Article is a resume (albeit a poorly-written one) for the subject that appears to have been written by the subject; violates WP:NOT. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Although autobiographical articles are discouraged, Mr Youssef _does_ appear to pass WP:BIO as an award-winning engineer; the references seem to be genuine. Nothing that a bit of cleanup work won't remedy. Tevildo (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undoubtedly he is notable. However, my own personal feeling is that conflict of interest is insurmountable and irreparably taints the text created with that conflict present. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article is neutral and if no one told me someone with a COI was involved I wouldn't have known. So this article is suitable for inclusion and not irreparably tainted. Besides, it would be silly to delete it because of COI only to recreate it when a user in good standing writes the same content. Who writes it shouldn't matter as long as the article is neutral and verifiably correct. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, referenced and balanced stub at the moment. COI issue seems dealt with properly. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable career. and adequate article. We have repeated rejected the view that COI is a reason for rejection, but he can be mentioned here as a factor,for it does rightly give rise to a certain need for caution. DGG (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COI does not explicitly ban a user from editing an article about themselves, just discourages it. Because all citations are properly dealt with, and he does seem to pass WP:BIO, the article should be kept.--Mattworld (talk to me) 07:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War of the tribes

Violates WP:CRYSTAL as the game will supposedly go out in 2010 (read the sentence at the bottom of the page). I doubt the game would be notable even after its release.

Also, articles related to this game are Human-grasshoopers and Human-robots. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS:The related articles now redirect to War of the tribes. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable game for future release (according to the article) although there are a few (minor) sources obtainable via Google. Note this was a contested prod. Also I had redirected Human-grasshoopers and Human-robots to the article earlier as non notable characters within a non notable game. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where were the sources you found? All I could come up with was this blog entry, which is unrelated. (It uses the same name, but in relation to a particular playing style in the Magic: The Gathering CCG.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I guess I was being generous with a couple! I found the one you listed, now I've looked more carefully again I can't see any others. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Completely non-notable, still in development, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also delete [Human-grasshoopers]] and Human-robots. they should be merged even if War of the tribes was notable and it is not. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The utter lack of sources online (as well as the lack of a stated publisher or author) make me highly suspect that this is something WP:MADEUP. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sourced, future event, no company given. WP:MADEUP Empire3131 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake Recording Studios

blatant advertisement; questionable notability -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G11 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep Cruftacious--and for a supposedly top-tier studio, there's little nontrivial coverage to speak of. If there's an article in this, I don't see it. Blueboy 96 14:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep, per evidence from Jason Quinn. Article needs work, though--along with some nontrivial sourcing. Blueboy 96 14:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~undecided~~ keep - Article as currently written seems to serve more as an advertisement than an article on an encyclopedia-worthy company. The company seems to do decent business but so does my uncle's above-ground pool store. The reason for my unsure is the sentence, "[Studio A at Westlake Recording Studios] was where Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was recorded. Recording one of the biggest albums of all time is about as important of a feat that a recording studio can have, no? If true, I could be convinced this article is worthy. Notified the article's creator. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears true that the Thriller album was recorded there. Also Jagged Little Pill among others. I say Thriller alone makes this place notable. The article is certainly poorly written and needs to be improved. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Click on What links here - article needs working on but is otherwise sound.Lame Name (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs a wholesale rewrite. In addition to Jason Quinn's comments above, this book credits it (under the previous name Westlake Audio) as "one of the first big commercial efforts to produce acoustically standardised 'interchangeable' rooms", and says it spawned a whole class of "Westlake-style rooms" at other studios in the late 1970s. That all sounds vaguely notable for someone interested in the history of recording studios. --Delirium (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

友近, 藤原糊化, 亀子のぶお, はるな愛 and 藤原紀香

This article appears to be a Japanese poem. I can read Japanese passably myself, but for those who can't, see the automated translation. It appears to be a poem about a certain Japanese media personality (see here for an automated translation of the Japanese wikipedia article on her). There is no evidence that this poem has achieved notability, and en-wikipedia is not for original poetry. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating his other articles for consideration, as they are substantially identical. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to store Poems. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It's not a poem but the lyric of the school anthem of Heian High School in Kyoto as an IP user pointed out here. You can listen to the anthem. It starts 5:40. Oda Mari (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a COPYVIO. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as this isn't the Japanese Wikipedia, and it isn't even notable for someone to translate, according to what I'm hearing. Tavix (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All NN when translated. Most of this is already on has the Japanese Wikipedia, which makes them speediable per WP:CSD#A2. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Japanese (and relevant) wikipedias.96.53.149.117 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, non-translated. Zuiver jo (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation as Oda Mari pointed out. This edit identified it as 平安高校の校歌 "Heain Koko no Koka" (i.e. the school song of Heian High School), presumed copyrighted. Fg2 (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Add 僕はダンスがうまいです。松山智美より (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), nothing more than school songs and Delete all--Jac16888 (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question — Are Japanese school songs under copyright over there? If so, I would say G12. Otherwise transwiki all to the Japanese Wikipedia. Note that the names of these articles exist there, but they're not the same articles proper, so A2 cannot apply. MuZemike (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These should have all been speedied. -Yupik (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Eisenberg Rich

Notability is not in inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she donated $1.1 million to the Democrats, in total, before Bill Clinton pardoned her husband. She subsequently donated $450,000 to his presidential library. She subsequently took the fifth and was granted immunity from prosecution. She was discussed by at least one House committee, and her name appears widely through the news media of the day. As a socialite, she partied at the White House, visited more than a dozen times during Clinton's administration, and set up a charity foundation. She is reported to be a 'mega-fundraiser' for charity. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously the article needs to be expanded and better referenced. But her role in the Marc Rich pardon scandal is notable by any definition. It's not a matter of "inherited" notability; it's her own actions in helping procure the pardon that are notable, not her ex-wifeness. Beyond the pardon, she's a ~~notable~~ philanthropist, ~~and a notable~~ political fund-raiser, and Grammy-nominated songwriter. More and beter refs yes. Delete, no. David in DC (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, don't bite the newbies. David in DC (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--She had an active role in the pardon, and her notability goes beyond WP:BLP1E. --Jmundo (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've sourced and edited the article. Close as keep, per WP:SNOW? David in DC (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Send a note to see if the non-keeps concur, otherwise it may be best to let it run. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We might not have a rule that an extended interview in the New York Times infers notability but I would lean towards supporting it if such an idea popped up. Per BLP I would also suggest shifting the scandal bits down a bit in the still stubby article. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete all as obvious hoaxes (G3). Author Eaguirre74 (talk · contribs) blocked as well. Blueboy 96 14:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Anthem

Unverifiable, likely hoax. Google recognises not an album of this title by an artist of this name. -- Lu Ta 11:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have similar verifiability issues (created by the same editor):

Delete all as evident hoaxes. Earlier prod of Erick Aguirre contested by author without explanation or improvement. Hqb (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per nom. Obvious hoax (Mr Aguirre does exist, but he only has MySpace videos etc to his name). Possible G3/G11? Tevildo (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Not much sign of the World Tour - if he is around, he sounds like he's heading for non-notability rapidly... Peridon (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as it was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccer (the evolution style), was substantially the same as the deleted version and changes did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted (CSD G4). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer (The Evolution Style)

See WP:MADEUP. No offence to all you yanks, but given how much attention you pay to "soccer" I can't see you coming up with a revolutionary style of playing :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy A7~~. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. It was tagged once already, but the creator removed the tag. 98.210.221.74 (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 is not appropriate (it is a style, not an organisation); as such I've removed it. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - things made up one day... - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:NFT and WP:RS by miles. Besides, they didn't make this up, the idea was stolen. Brazilian style soccer already exists (which is a sort freestyle soccer tricks competition. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, someone in the united states actually caring about soccer? That can't be! Delete as a hoax. (sarcasm) Tavix (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - just another football juggler. He's good but there are many of them. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Says it's going to take off. WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL Empire3131 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4. See WP:Articles for deletion/Soccer (the evolution style). Do I need to add the tag? Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 tag added. Tevildo (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. discussion to merge/redirect can take place at the talk page –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokborok tei Hukumu Mission

Non-notable organization. Shovon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As pointed out by Juzhong below, the nominated version (sorry, admin only) appears to have been a copyright violation of this, I deleted those revisions. All comments below down through mine are based on the deleted version. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities. The article needs work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Makes sense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. "conducting Kokborok programs in All India Radio, Agartala since April 1994. " That would pass WP:WEB's "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (except for the online part, of course) Juzhong (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's kept it should be reverted back to [7] because the current content appears to be copied from their website. Juzhong (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent catch, but you didn't go far enough. Whether it's kept or not, the copyvio has to go. I've reverted to the version you indicated and deleted the remaining versions as tainted. I'll put a note up top to notify the closer. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank God there are editors on wikipedia which protect all wikipedians from perceived and imaged legal threats which may or may not ever happen. I sleep better at night knowing their are so many valiant editors cutting other editor's contributions to pieces. travb (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kokborok_language#Institutions_and_organisations Juzhong (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Comment No votes/comments were posted since Xymmax reverted to a non copyrighted version so a second relist seems to be warranted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, there was one !vote for a redirect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Juzhong, moving content and refs. Not enough refs or info to keep as a stand-alone article, but worth mention in the Kokborok language article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article can merge in Kokborok language or Kokborok language can expand to Kokborok language and culture and merge this article in this. Aminami (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above, "there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities." The article simply needs work, not deletion, I encourage the editor who put it up for deletion to take some time to improve the article, not delete it. travb (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I went looking for sources to try and improve it, but I found almost nothing from independent RS's. Juzhong (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tritonville Road

Non-notable road. While Ulysses is obviously notable, just because the road is mentioned in the book itself does not give it the right to have an article itself, no matter how famous the book. Balloholic (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is this up to WP:50k? No. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are suburbs of Dublin. Dublin metropolitan area has a population of 1.7 million. Thats enough for 34 streets. Given that it's the capital, it has an importance even more than ordinary for the size. Multiple by 2. Given importance in literature, and not just from Joyce, another 2. =128. The 50k figure is totally unofficial--I'd set it closer to 10k. Category Category:Streets in Dublin has 70 articles at present. Of course, there are a great many streets mentioned in Joyce's works. Probably all of them are in fact significant in the framework of the novel, and the significance of his exact geographical settings is a major critical theme--more so than in most books. Certainly every person place or thing in his books has been commented on-- see the article on the novel for where to find them.DGG (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tritonville Road is not a suburb, it's a road. --Balloholic (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirected - to Locations in Ulysses (novel) Per previous. --Balloholic (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- With regards to Dublin being the capital it could be argued that Cork is the capital of the People's Republic. Does it follow this rule? No. --Balloholic (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Severely strong delete. A mention in a novel is not significant enough to have an article on an encyclopedia of this type. It can be mentioned in the novel or an article on locations in that novel. That should be enough really. No need for snow. It is simply a map of a small countryside road (relatively to Dublin city centre) in prose. --Balloholic (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Balloholic is the same editor who put this article up for deletion. travb (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Footnote to NOTE This is worth restoring because of the possibility the nominator can be counted twice. The usual practice is that the nominator need not !vote. If it is right below the nom, it is harmless, but nominator !votes deep in the discussion have caused problems.John Z (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:DGG. travb (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a road, delete as it only has local notability. Tavix (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's arguments, particularly the Joyce connections. --Oakshade (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMONSENSE sees it go the ulysses locations article surely. I would think it should be deleted but I am open to the redirect if anyone else is. --Balloholic (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My common sense tells me that

the importance (or notability) of streets is likely to be much higher in cities of commercial, political, or literary importance, and that therefore a numerical rule for all makes little sense.
The historic downtown districts of long-established cities are likely to have a very high proportion of streets that will be notable
The importance of named streets used in literary works will depend both upon the importance of the work and the manner in which it makes use of the geography. To quote a standard reference work, "Joyce's Ulysses is probably the most conscientiously topographical novel ever written" (David Daiches & John Flower, Literary Landscpes of the British Isles NY: Paddington, 1979 ISBN 0448222051). DGG (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. The above user has left an identical contradictory comment here, a so-called "downtown district" that is actually running along a beach. Please consult before leaving further comment. This user has potentially a COI and seems to want to keep every road in Dublin even ones outside the city centre. I sugest it be established how far this user is from Dublin although that will not be enough. Thank you. --Balloholic (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which road are we discussing? Tritonville Rd is not along a beach. And, true, I admit I sometimes type a word when I have another article in a large batch in mind. I think its happened all of twice this month. But what potential COI I have I can not imagine. It's not as if I were a deletionist everywhere else except for Dublin. DGG (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would watch your wording. I am on Dublin currently. It may seem like I have a vendetta but that is because of the attention that all of you are attracting in pushing your point and discussing among each other on your separate user pages. I remind you that this is not a vote. You have to give a valid reason and simply cannot keep things because they are down the road from you. At least I am offering reasons that are genuine and am unbiased because I have no connection to Dublin. There has never been this much attention in any other place and it just shows how big and biased everyone is for Dublin. I take that as you admitting your error and will be strking out what is essentially a vote with no rationale. Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same should be mentioned about your multiple nominations of Dublin roads and towns. Please, Assume good faith. I see no erring in using the same or similar arguments in similar Afd's. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:DGG Snappy (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Locations in Ulysses (novel) per Balloholic. There's not enough material to warrant a separate entry. All information included is either a prosified map or a mention of the novel. A redirect will point readers to the information without keeping a stub without any information. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it is VERIFIABLE doesn't mean it is NOTABLE. Trusilver 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Patchen

Seems to be little more than an advertisement for a non-notable artist. There are also numerous links on the page solely advertising Mr. Patchen's artwork. ~~It also appears that the article is being maintained by Mr. Patchen in violation of WP:CONFLICT.~~ A Google search for "David Patchen" shows only 3,420 results, many of which are unrelated to this particular individual. Hence, I believe that article does not meet the requirements for notability. Chasingsol (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I have spent the past couple of days second-guessing this AfD trying to find reliable third party sources per WP:V, WP:CREATIVE and the comments from editors below. I have still failed to do so. The only references provided do not appear to meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and the majority of those that have been provided, including those below, are offering the subjects artwork for sale. The article has been stagnant for almost a year, with no attempt to provide and cite reliable sources. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Patchen himself has edited the article, there is only a COI if his edits are of a nature that conflict with the goals of Wikipedia (to produce a neutral sourced article). So I would leave that out of the argument entirely. I found a couple of articles that make a passing mention of him, but nothing extensive at all [8], [9]. I give this one a "delete" based on non-notability alone. LinguistAtLarge 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and direction. Striked out. Chasingsol (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its' beautiful work and a pleasing article, but notability is not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respectfully disagree here. Notability in the world of glass art should be clear by the presence in internationally-known gallery presence and participation in multiple shows in leading art markets. I would be happy to add additional external references to better establish notability but some references don't have urls such as teaching, demonstrations, lectures, especially in the Bay Area art scene (for example, my work was featured full size on the cover of the Arts section of the leading newspaper in Phoenix). I'm all for controlling the accuracy of the entry once it was brought to my attention--not for advertising. This should be clear from all my own contributions. I hope wikipedia agrees that the article is worth keeping. Davidpatchen (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)David Patchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpatchen (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: David, I have responded to your on your talk page. Best regards. --Chasingsol ^talk 09:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Per WP:CREATIVE. Presence in prestigious art galleries, exhibitions and winner of different awards:1 and 2--Jmundo (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jmundo: Those don't appear to be verifiable third-party sources. They are art galleries offering the work for sale (the shopping carts are dead giveaways!). I'm an admirer of his work, without question, I just haven't been able to find any third party sources to establish it's inclusion as a notable subject. Chasingsol ^(talk) 12:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article requires a large amount of expansion to Wikify and its subject's notability needs clear explanation; if they cannot be achieved then delete. Reserve judgement and keep therefore. Jubilee♫clipman 13:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & tag to cite sources. I guess the literature around contemporary American glass artists is limited. Given the specialist field, gallery appearances & awards suggests it probably meets WP:CREATIVE. Franciscrot (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, editor who put this up for deletion arguments seem to be an issue which can be remedied with simple editing, not with the drastic step of deletion. travb (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments by travb. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE as I see it, certainly a check or sources and the article do nothing to prove it passes that criteria for inclusion. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only found trivial mention in reliable sources about his work being exhibited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halls of Fame

This article is about an announced, but apparently unproduced, television series on The N, with which rapper Ludacris is supposed to be involved. The article was tagged for speedy deletion due to lack of sources. In fact, there are sources, a couple of which I have since added to the article. Unfortunately, substantially all the sources are from 2006, when the show was announced. The show is currently described in the article as scheduled to premiere in 2008, which obviously it isn't going to do since it's not on the network's schedule and there is less than a week left in the year. Two years is more than enough time in which to get a television series into production; as far as I can tell, the "Halls of Fame" project is no longer likely to ever make it to the screen. I recommend a delete, although if anyone can establish that the project is still viable, I may change my mind. Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, unless it can be shown that the series will in fact make it to the air. Sharpbrood (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of series not established. JamesBurns (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendent thought

Disjointed original research essay Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced gibberish. Hqb (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peridon (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - psychotic, drug-induced or otherwise incoherent. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when I die, I will go to Deletionpedia Franciscrot (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. kyle mew 01:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)
Delete self-evident. JuJube (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems and solutions of undetected firearm

Original research and essay. The title hints at a copyvio, but I can't find it yet! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't know about copyvio, although it may very well be, but definitely original research. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 10:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR. Tevildo (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like OR - not 100% sure what point he's trying to make anyway. Peridon (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research or personal reflection. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid Franciscrot (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to hear that, Francisrot. Is it because of the article? - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR - and very poorly written at that. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onza

No verifiable sources, looks like original research, few Yahoo! hits that match the article content. IUCN lists "Onza" as a Spanish name for the Jaguarundi. Propose Redirecting to Jaguarundi. Tombstone (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need AfD for a redirect, but keep for now. A Google Books search indicates that there are several sources describing the "Onza" as a cryptozoological cat, which may or may not be identical with the Jaguarundi, a real animal. I suggest conducting a WP:MERGE discussion at a later time if it becomes clear from reliable sources that they are indeed one and the same. Sandstein 09:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tombstone. It is clear that the article is not backed by factual data. The article should be deleted or re-written as a fictional reference.Swiftek (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and examine the references to see if merging is best. Scaldi (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to post a comment on Scaldi's talk page and found he's been blocked for sockpuppetry. We might like to discount his comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss disambiguation. According to the note near the bottom, the word can refer to two different creatures. Linking to either one would mean the other meaning would get obscured. Also, while the references are not cited inline, the article lists several that mean the article is verifiable unless proven otherwise. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although one of the books is self published, the American museum of Natural History bought it, and so did the Bronx Zoo. So at least the possibility is discussed academically. DGG (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G11 and A7. No claim to notability and promotional tone ("Taking personal risk in the venture of leading the people towards the light of a newer destination is nothing unknown to Sheikh Taposh.") Sandstein 10:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh

Non-notable politician. Being the son of a notable person does not make one notable. The subject has not (yet) been elected to parliament, rather is only a candidate in a future election (along with several thousand other candidates). While the subject has worked as the lawyer of another leader, that alone or the trivial mention of that job alone does not make him notable either. There are about 400 references to the subject, mostly trivial mentions in news related to Sheikh Hasina's court cases, from personal websites/law offices, or from a list of candidates in the upcoming election (where thousands of other candidates are also listed/mentioned). --Ragib (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians, which clearly states: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability --Ragib (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mallary

I declined a speedy on this but notability is questionable & Wikipedia is not a memorial. Posting an AfD for community input. Versa geek 07:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, borderline A7. Tevildo (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of him or his band meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC and his death, while tragic, is not sufficient for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Non-notable band as quotes "'small band' from Boston" helps proves. Also Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried so hard and yet still failed. 86.139.144.97 (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 86.139.144.97, object if you like but keep your goddamn snide comments to yourself. I had nothing to do with this page but I still ran across it. BTW, my brother did get signed, he just died right afterwards. Bet that's more than your sorry ass ever accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.20.29 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict allum

Hoax. Supplied references have nothing to do with the putative subject (#1, #2, #4) or do not exist (#3.) Almost no results for Google search on "Benedict allum". Spacepotato (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard for stuff that's made up to be notable, unless it's being made up is notable, which it isn't in this case. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evident hoax. No relevant hits on Google Web, Google Scholar, or Google Books. Hqb (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate it when they create horrible articles on Christmas day> Anyway, delete per nom, HOAX. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, very weird article. South Bay (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be the work of a bored teen ... or part of a serious research project on the reliability of Wikipedia – create one or more articles about nonexistent people, and see how long it takes for them to get deleted! Snowball.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause as well as hand out barnstars to ChildofMidnight and LinguistAtLarge for the article rescue. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion coffee

How-to on nonnotable topic. HeureusementIci (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the one hand, I don't know if anything in the article is salvageable. On the other hand, looking on the web the topic seems to be notable (for Dandelion tea and coffee). So I think it should be fixed. I have no objection to wiping it clean and adding two sourced sentences... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked it into a more acceptable piece. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following rework. Tevildo (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reworked article shows it's a verifiable beverage and the content is now encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good job ChildofMidnight! LinguistAtLarge 07:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at time of nomination the article had problems, but now it's pretty much exactly as an article should be; thank you to ChildofMidnight and LinguistAtLarge, who appear to have rescued it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulasa

Wikipedia is not news. Here theNotability is temporary, related only to news. So fails Notability is not temporary. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems quite notable with a lot of media coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--More than routine news coverage: "Following the public outcry, the governments of India and Nepal signed a 1985 cooperation agreement addressing the rescue and repatriation of Nepali girls trafficked into brothels in India."1 and 2. --Jmundo (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not significant electronic media coverage. Despite the amount of coverage the article claims the story generated, there is very little evidence available to verify all those facts. A possible solution could be merging it with Prostitution in India, although I'm not sure how practical that is. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Crimes or events that cause a change in law or regulations are generally considered notable. It's therefore not just a news event, but an event with far-reaching consequences. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See Mukhtaran Mai for similar bio articles. The notability is not temporary in such cases. These cases are used by human rights organizations to fight the crime so extremely notable I would say. But article might need some more reliable sources. --GP Pande 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdraw per TerriersFan (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Utley

After getting sent this, I looked up Tom Utley's article on Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that he passes the notability guideline for biographies. So, off to you, AFD people. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would like to see some type of reference and particularly independent sources. There does not seem to have been much work put into the piece and there is also the question of notability which is weak at best. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like an okay stub to me. Some evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established journalist on two major newspapers; passes WP:CREATIVE ("regarded as an important figure") on the basis of the Guardian article. Tevildo (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tevildo, can you please point me to another article that ranks him as important, please? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently a regular contributor to at least one national newspaper. Boddah —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - described by a rival publication as a 'star columnist'. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator Withdraw. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Washington

The subject not notable as an individual, simply as the subject of an infamous event. At least, merge to "Waco Horror," or the main article describing the totality of the event. Pepe Machao (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the standard, then we should delete Emmett Till's page, too, since he didn't do anything notable except get lynched. The point is, his case was important and significant. Waco Horror redirects to this page already, so we can't merge this page to it. The point is, there are plenty of people who didn't achieve anything great in their lifetimes, but whose deaths were extremely notable and historically important. Jesse Washington is one such person, so his page should remain. I just looked him up the other day, and I can't believe I'm the only one.QuizzicalBee (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really enjoyed the entry (from a historical point of view) and believe it is well written, present a notable event and person and has the beginning of some good reference material. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I don't see any problems with this article. Notable historical event with reliable reference. --Jmundo (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not the place for merge discussions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE, I changed the title and kept the text, therefore making the deletion nomination moot. Pepe Machao (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Sky

Notability concerns, previously speedied, then recreated, then tagged as speedy, then hangon'd. Really needs at least some discussion. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator should do his homework. Pepe Machao (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source for the article, the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival, I don't even think this kind of festival is notable enough. While other movies that did get other press coverage were shown here, such as "Food of Love" in 2002, I don't see much for this movie. No other confirmed showings. Second, the the article that reviewed this belonged to a "TWIT Magazine." I looked for the article and I don't see even 200 search results for just the publication. The third source, I looked at and it seems it was reviewed by a Jason Buchanan from AllMovie. Looking farther, it is just a brief notation of the plot and they do that to every film that comes out. They even comment on stuff that isn't films, so having a review by AllMovie isn't that special. It also had an IMDB entry, but they are like Wikipedia to a degree and willing to accept information on all kinds of films from anyone with a pulse. In short, not enough has come out about this film in the terms of reception and just being on IMDB and a small time movie festival isn't enough to establish notability to the film. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you saying that Wikipedia accepts information "from anyone with a pulse"? IF so, why are you saying Wikipedia should delete the article? Pepe Machao (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the film is notable in that it was presented at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival. Wikipedia should be inclusive of all information for the entire internet. I submit that "notability" is an ambiguous concept that is subject to relative opinion. User Zscout370's arguments might warrant the deletion of many films on this website. I dispute his high threshold of "notability"--JRiverton (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified the movie just came out a month ago. I personally believe that this issue should be revisited in 6 months. That should give it enough time for more reviews, festivals, etc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ZSCout. We want to know WHO "notified" you, WHEN you were notified, and BY WHAT MEANS this heretofore anonymous "notifier" used. You should understand how potentially scandalous your sudden change of heart can appear. Thank you. Pepe Machao (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith per WP:CIVIL. He "source" aside, he is correct. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's the reason my first response to the OP was that the OP should do his homework. But I just think its odd that Z-Scout made it sound like he got a 3am phone call filling him in on the movie, or something along those lines. Pepe Machao (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he did. Whatever the cause, he reconsidered his opinion and decided that the article deserves a chance to prove itself... so I'll choose not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I am much happier seeing an editor that has the courtesy to rethink an opinion than one who can never be swayed no matter what. As it is, and before responding here, I did some tweaks to the article to address an overly long plot section and added a few more sources. I think it passes now and will only get better with time. Merry Christmas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--It has received significant coverage and is widely distributed. --Jmundo (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just gave the article a cleanup per film MOS. It meets the standards set per film notability through the general notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and applaud nominator for doing the right thing and bringing this to AFD for a resolution tot he ongoing argument of whether this should be deleted or not. Remember folks, AFD is not a battle between two parties, it is a discussion among wikipedians. Let's try to keep this in mind before lainching hand-grenades at at eachother, ok? As for this article, the subject has only been produced a few months and only released for 1 month, and yet it has received very wide acclaim, and has been sponsored by a very noteworthy festival. It is listed in Eric Clapton's favorite movies of all time, and has been covered in numerous reliable sources. NOt bad for a one-month old movie. As Zscout says, this canbe re-reviewed in 6 months to make sure it was not a flash-in-the pan knd of thing, but deletion right now seems obtuse. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open tower

Non-notable open source video game Gary King (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My investigation resulted in the same conclusions reached by the nominator. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Looks interesting though, so I hope it does well. Marasmusine (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swaffling

Doesn't seem to be notable, but being the Dutch Word of the Year may count for something. HeureusementIci (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I assure you, no one asked me for my favorite word. I do note that the only English reference for a translation of a Dutch term is urbandictionary--and that we don't accept as a reference. The word is a translated neologism, and its meaning and scope is trivial. Perhaps it's the word of the year in the Netherlands now, but it won't be for long, and if some insensitive idiot wants to swing his dick against the Taj Mahal, who cares? Drmies (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in the Dutch wiktionary (which is where a word of the year should be). Since the whole thing was never officially translated and the win was based a single news event, I don't see how an article could be developed from this. The word of 2007 was Bokitoproof which is no longer in wide use, so this one too is unlikely to have lasting notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it exist on the English Wiktionary under Dutch words? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete People swaffle, but so far there was no name for it. There's an article on things like fellatio as well, which might as well be declared unimportant and flagged for deletion if swaffling doesn't qualify. With the media exposure regarding the topic, the election to word of the year and the picking up of the english neologism by some urban dictionaries, I think the existance of a wiki article on it is justified. - User:Naggiepoo|^(talk) 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not English. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Venera. John254 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venera 13 and 14

This article was a failed attempt to combine the Venera 13 and Venera 14 articles into a single page. The article was then redirected to Venera 13 alone, and is now a disambiguation page. I nominate this former article for deletion because I assert that as the merge failed, no one would likely ever search for the two missions combined or otherwise land here accidentally, and thus this can be safely deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom says it all... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary merger of two good articles; it might have seemed like a good idea at the time.Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was actually created before the other two articles were created, so the revision history of this article contains much of the content that has wound up being moved to the other two articles. Article histories are how Wikipedia preserves the attribution of contributions, which the GFDL requires, so deleting this article will make the other two articles into GFDL violations. I see no reason why this shouldn't be left as a disambiguation, it's harmless. However, if a decision is reached to delete it anyway, the deleting admin must first merge the history into one of the two articles before doing so. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, but I believe they can do just as you suggest and merge the histories, which would preserve GFDL compliance. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bryan. It's not by much, but he is correct. This article was the original and should be retained for attribution purposes as he states. If having the page in mainspace is a real problem, we could move it to the talkspace of Venera or one of the spin offs instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Beeblebrox pointed out, if history preservation is desired for GFDL compliance, that can be accomplished after deletion by merging page histories. Considering that this page redirected to Venera 13 prior to the conversion to a dab page, I would nominate that page to receive this page's history up to dab-ification. It's not a hard process, and any admin can carry it out. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge page histories when the history is deleted, because it wouldn't be present. Also, the histories seem to be overlapping, which would make the history of both target and origonal entry unreadable if merged. Besides, if we are supposed to split the article, it's impossible to merge histories properly with both resulting entries. History merging just doesn't work with this entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rebuild. It should be a real article like the Mariner 6 and 7 article, on the joint aspects of the mission. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to preserve history As per discussion. If that's the appropriate thing to do why hasn't anyone voted fot it? What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already indicated my support for a history merge, even nominating Venera 13 to receive the history. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what's the appropriate !vote to achieve that outcome? Delete and then merge? Isn't that just a merge? I guess I'm a little confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Basically, a history merge is a procedure performed by admins that involves deleting pages, moving pages, and then undeleting deleted revisions. If you're going to sum up your comment with a phrase, "history merge" would probably be most appropriate, because people closing AFDs will know what you mean. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Venera so that anyone looking for this title will find the more general article about the Venera missions, anyone not looking for this title can ignore it, and we don't have to merge the edit histories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balendu Shukla

Possibly failing WP:BIO for lack of multiple sources about this person's notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non notable social worker like the millions that are around the world. Lack of references too. --Balloholic (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- He won an award which is perfectly verifiable. That sets him apart from at least 70% of the other social workers, probably more of them. If you're gonna call him non-notable, I'd appreciate it if you at least comment on the award. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's quite likely this person has references in languages other than English. I'd like to see people from the WikiProject India involved in the debate before a final decision is made. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in WP:BIO it is clearly mention that if a person even nominated for award, is notable, this person infact won the award.Aminami (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This entry confuses me. Is 'Sir Balendu Shukla' knighted by the Queen? The term Sir is only used for a British knighthood and Chevalier for non-British (example France, Portugal, Spain, etc). Was Sir meant to be the Indian title Sri? This is totally different. Keep him and expand if he is knighted, drop him if he does not have a title. I agree with Mgm. Good call. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in WP:BIO As mentioned in the article Sir Balendu Shukla is a social worker working for environment and pollution hence its noticable that he is working for the solution of most genuine problem occuring globaly, such persons work must be mentioned and appreciable. so kindly keep the article we youth of Madhya Pradesh learn lot from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeergoswami (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As he awarded by government. i prefer to keep him on WP59.95.117.7 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I question whether one small award for work in a field makes someone inherently notable. Per Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. The award isn't really listed in the confusing prose, and doesn't appear to be notable on the level of a national honor and such. Although I'm sure that Balendu Shukla is a great person, he does not meet WP:BIO, and therefore, I must vote to delete. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nomader. Additionally, it seems that the only cited source has been removed for containing malware so the current version is completely unsourced. I'd be happy to reconsider if additional sources were located and added. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since I did not receive any reply to my early request for information regarding his use of the term 'Sir' I assume he does not have a knighthood. Therefore, the regional award does not rank as a notable achievement. Awards should usually be national or international in scope to rate entry into Wikipedia. Everyone's work is important in the eyes of some people, however, the extent of work, the total awards, knighthoods and honors and the degree of reference worth is of great importance. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough there to pass notability threshhold. But I applaud the subject's good works! ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Martín Aguilera

Article is unsourced, but reliable sources indicate that he has never played in a fully professional league (he may have appeared in the Spanish 2aB for Águilas but that is not a fully professional league) so the article fails WP:ATHLETE Jogurney (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate when/if becomes notable. Giant Snowman 16:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Know zilla 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Lenier

Poet - few google hits, despite claims to be bigger than Shakespeare, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines Richard Hock (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, this needs dablinks with Susan Lanier. LinguistAtLarge 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - move to Susan Jennifer Lenier as this appears to be her publishing name and a definite POV/OR cleanup. Claims of being regarded as better than Shakespeare need to be backed up by something. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the claim about Shakespeare is backed up. Can anyone dig up the article? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Book jacket claims--which is what I assume they are-- are meaningless, as is an absurdity in the Daily Mirror. She has two published books. Swansongs has only 51 holdings in WorldCat. Rain following : poems has 82. Even for poetry thats very low productivity & I'd want something much mroe reliable in the way of references.DGG (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've been following the discussion as I wasn't sure, but there didn't seem to be notability for inclusion. Unless something substantial is found and added I don't think the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Swansongs received rave reviews on publication and the fact that this was before the internet age should not count against the notability of the writer. Calling sources 'an absurdity' does not count against their relevance. Nick mallory (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two publications with a few reviews does not seem notable. Without the review text, a very thin article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Brookes

Journalist and Author, unreferenced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, no references found by searching Richard Hock (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article in local press: [10]. Interview with specialist magazine web site: [11]. Review of her novel in Vision Magazine, Issue 8, according to amazon (although there are several vision magazines, and I can't figure out which one they're referring to). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Jules H ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would consider dropping this entry since being a writer occasionally for a popular magazine does not make one an authority or notable. Notability is this case should be if she is 1. an authority in her field, 2. if the writer is well written in many similar magazines works or 3. if the individual has had numerous interviews. Also the concern I have is the lack of good independent references. Although the magazine to which the author writes is well known, so are Fate, Let's Live, American National Biography, American Fitness and Health. Writing for any of the magazines would not warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Being a Senior Editor would be worthy of inclusion. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Hartlepool RFC Under 18

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/West Hartlepool RFC Under 18

Unremarkable rugby club, no assertion of notability and no sources. Author has previously removed problem templates. [ cycle~ ] (talk), 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on further inspection, this "under-18s" club has a parent club (West Hartlepool R.F.C.), but I can't see the worth/relevance of merging this. Author has had multiple related articles speedied, but these are either autobiographies or empty pages. [ cycle~ ] (talk), 02:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, or coverage by independent sources. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - junior sports teams are rarely notable and this one isn't. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary

Article doesn't list any sources or establish notability. Orphaned and abandoned. Adam in MO Talk 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One fact away from CSD A3, and that one fact isn't sourced. Delete. --fvw * 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark it as a stub Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a high school? Seems to be so I would say keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, primary schools are not high schools. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article only says the school exists and doesn't provide any encyclopedic information like an article should. Articles are not placeholders. WP:BEEFSTEW (while it is an essay) gives some insights as to the sort of stuff a basic school article should cover. Following at least one or two of these points would make it a stub I'd consider more viable which the current entry isn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Singapore#Government-aided schools. No argument has been adduced to delete a valid search term. TerriersFan (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains absolutely no encyclopedic content. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for an absolute lack of content. The body of an article has to convey more information than the title and categorisation. Surprised it wasn't speedied to be honest. Cynical (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School. I'm going to relist to assess the notability of Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, no content, and the claim it is a SAP school sounds odd. Should have read previous comment. Redirect as per User:King of Hearts. There is enough there to justify keep. And apparently it is a SAP school. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Keep - Merge Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary into Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School. However, as a point of order, while I think it is an admirable notion, I don't think you can simply "assess the notability" of another article (Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School) without tagging that article also for AfD. I would suggest this be resolved by changing the original tagged article to a redirect and closing the AfD|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Evidently not notable enough for inclusion. — Aitias // discussion 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Titus

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

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

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

This is a well-written article, but the attention this person has gained from this blog has largely been local. Google produces about 4,000 hits, but aside from one link to CNN, it's all local press, forums, and Wordpress. Cue the Strings (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Anonymous Mark Titus is blowing up if you aren't paying attention. His blog now has over 100,000 hits and about 80,000 have come in the past two days. Give him a chance before you pull this deletion crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.245.128 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 63.236.245.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Well written article. Titus's blog is getting some serious exposure on sports.yahoo.com and also by "The sports guy" Bill Simmons. My vote is that the article stays. Redrocket55 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Redrocket55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mark Titus is attracting attention from people all over America, and even in Europe, as proven by a comment left on one of his blog entries by a European basketball player. Also, basketball players from universities other that The Ohio State University have praised and encouraged his blogging. A young man with such talent should be documented. Mark Titus has a future in writing and I feel that a Wikipedia article can help track his life and career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.43.121 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.239.43.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep If there is a sports-only version of wikipedia, I concede fully that Mr. Titus' entry belongs there. But in my opinion, his contributions to the blog-revolution are perhaps as important as all you wikipediists' contributions to the wiki-revolution and they need to be recorded. Please keep the entry! Kingpin (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Martinhurn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"keep" The blog is so good that in no time Titus will have National recognition. I heard a rumor that he's possibly going to be a guest on the Jim Rome show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.36.175 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.253.36.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

With all due respect to the IP commenters, can some registered users speak up? I'm just not sure how far Titus's contributions to the blogsophere have been recognized other than from fellow sports bloggers and one national supporter. There are an unlimited number of talented bloggers out there who get thousands of hits a day - but just because you're a strong writer doesn't mean your work merits an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia isn't a stepping stone to help bolster your career. I don't mean to imply that this article is being used for personal gain, but I haven't really seen a case made yet for his notability other than the fact that Yahoo supports him. - Cue the Strings (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment This AFD seems to have attracted comments from new editors. Their input is welcome but this discussion could use some input from experienced editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's Christmas. Might be worth clarifying the "trillion" goal / linking to relevant basketball rules articles 81.152.129.12 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.152.129.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Bah, Humbug!! MuZemike (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's a certain paradox in obtaining notability for being utterly unnotable. I'd require a good deal more attention from mainstream media for an article here. And ""keep" The blog is so good that in no time Titus will have National recognition." a little above, is of course an argument for deletion until he does perhaps have recognition. DGG (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notwithstanding the flood of single-purpose accounts and/or meatpuppets above, I come up with a couple of sources from gNews that can minimally establish notability of this blogger. MuZemike (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put quotes around the name and then check the false positives. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. This looks like the Mark Titus we are discussing about here and here. MuZemike (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two links don't do it. In addition, I couldn't find his name mentioned in any of these links. The articles are about certain games in which he might have played a part, and it thus mentioned. In any case, it does not satisfy the "significant coverage" required by WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without better sourcing, this must be deleted. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vieux Pin Winery

Non-notable winery that doesn't pass WP:CORP. Written as a blatant WP:ADVERT in a WP:WINEGUIDE style. Extreme dearth of reliable, independent third party sources to try and rewrite the article with as evidence by google and Google News as well as leading wine publications like Wine Spectator, Decanter and Wine Enthusiast, etc. Maybe the winery will eventually become notable and warrant an article that will written in a WP:NPOV and non-advert way. But apparently there are not enough sources now for that to happen Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Very advertorial. Perhaps could be merged into article on wineries in that area? ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there isn't any rticles on Okanagan wine or British Columbia wine. However, in looking at the reliable sources that could be used to create such articles (like the World Atlas of Wine, Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, Oxford Companion to Wine and the BC wine guide), there is no mention of Le Vieux Pin Winery in these sources to even establish notability in that localized context. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:Reliable sources needed to create a NPOV, V, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Doe

non-notable businessman, doesn't meet notability guidelines. One mention in the Guardian however. Richard Hock (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Looks non-notable to me. LinguistAtLarge 17:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Shoessss has me convinced that he's (barely) notable enough. LinguistAtLarge 21:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Able to find this [12] with a quick Google News search. Not sure if the piece should be about Confetti or Andrew Doe. Likewise, a general Google search showed these results [13]Overall, believe he or his company meet the notability guidelines. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator himself provides a source which demonstrates notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO. The sources cited above are trivial and fail WP:NOT#NEWS. The article itself contains no evidence that this web retailer has established notability in his field, or anywhere else.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment This relist was unintentional, I missed the first orange line when reviewing the log. However, it looks like the discussion could use a little more imput so I'll leave it be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Crot has heard of Confetti plenty & even bought himself a bubblegun there, WP:IAR. Never of Doe though. Franciscrot (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Crot believes his bubblegun is notable, only notability non-heritable). Author of Doe (Doe?) better off authoring Confetti article? Franciscrot (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just conceivable that the company might be just barely notable, but i don't see how he is. DGG (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Initially I was excited when I started to read the piece. It started like a really good entry. Then, however, it went nowhere. The sources are poor and an major independent on the individual is non-existent. The company, after some searching is semi-noteworthy at best but the individual seems to be lacking in three major categories: 1. notability, 2. references and 3. general importance to a substantial group. Also, one would need to know his actual input into the company.Royalhistorian (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no significant coverage established through the usual reliable sources. Notability not established. MuZemike (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rename: what little sourcing is there is focused on the company, not the co-founder. If enough can be cobbled together then rename it 'Confetti (company)' (or similar), otherwise delete. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmi (Nekokara)

Verbatim copy or chunks-copy of Banu Hashim ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 12:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoalbum

Possibly fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:WEB. A non-significant photo sharing website with a very focused and limited group of users. No second- or third-party notability. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bg face

Emoticon neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7: No sources (links to images were used as sources previously), so notability is not asserted. Almost no Google hits actually talking about emoticon. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 21:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for others to ponder. these Google image hits for "Bg face" suggest there are many uses apart from the article definition. "Bg face" +emoticon yielded 6 hits that do not support the use of this term. A Google search for "Bg face" yielded just over 200 hits. In skimming throught these, I found none that support the article with verifiable information from reliable sources. I earlier deleted a fragmented version as WP:CSD#G1. I have asked the creator to provide RS for this. I removed external links that were to four versionsof the image without textual content. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per apparent lack of independent reliable sources covering this that establish notability. Wiw8 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. NN protologism. Dloh cierekim 00:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XMLKR

Non-notable markup language (PROD removed by anon IP) Blowdart | ^talk 23:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, may be self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Edward321 reasons. But I would be sympathetic to seeing this page recreated a few months from now IFF the author's concept generates positive discussion in several respected AI papers and journals that are independent of the author. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Renata (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMAR MALCOLM

Nowhere does this article actually establish anything of importance or consequence that he has accomplished, except some unsourced generic praise. The closest it approaches to demonstrating notability is mentioning he belongs to some political groups in which it is ambiguously asserted somebody may have said good things about him at some point somewhere. Vianello (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, A7, no importance asserted. Just another kid making a vanity article about themselves. Redfarmer (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrence. I made this a benefit-of-a-doubt AfD simply because I felt someone COULD argue the decent placings in literary competitions could be notable (even though I wouldn't say so myself). I might have been less charitable if I had immediately noticed it was a vanity article, but, so it goes. - Vianello (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I listed it for speedy deletion, it's just vanity about an nn person. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references provided, seems like a copy & paste from another website. Newport Beach (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - obviously a young person playing around and wrote an article about themselves and how they expect to be important in the future. No references, no article. Pretty funny how the person is supposed to be an important member of the Republican Party yet isn't old enough to vote. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's 18, that's old enough to vote. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath (Walibi World)

Nominated for deletion by Mezelf14. No reason given. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is ~~Neutral~~. Tevildo (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for several reasons: It has no Wikify and the information is wrong. Like Mini Hyper Coaster that must be Mega Coaster. I hope that you guys can read it, because i come from the netherlands. Mezelf14 (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those aren't valid reasons for the article to be deleted. I've done a basic Wikify of the article and added a reference to the park's website; if there are any factual corrections needed, you (or anyone else) are free to make them. Tevildo (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i think that the quality of the dutch Wikipedia is higher so we have other rules. But maybe can someone place a Infobox with it, or a image? Mezelf14 (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that being the longest rollercoaster in the Benelux countries is adequate grounds for notability, and I don't see any other reasons for the article to be deleted. Tevildo (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Claim of notability is OK. "Needs to tidy" not a reason to delete. Other language versions offer more informaiton which can be used to improve. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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