Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

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 merge to Civil aviation authority. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Airworthiness Authority

Redundant page. Same thing as Civil aviation authority. Parler Vous (edits) 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect unique information to Civil aviation authority. SMSpivey (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per SMSpivey. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Appears to also violate WP:NEO. THF (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This good-faith creation seems to simply have missed the fact that there is an article at the other title. TBH, an AfD wasn't needed, it is an uncontroversial merge and could simply have been boldly done without discussion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:CSD G12. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solla Solla Inikkum

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and so tagged) as a blatant copyvio with no salvagable content. That said, an article in The Times of India indicates that filming is complete should someone wish to have a proper go at this article. PC78 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Show Cinema

No notability asserted. Wikipedia does not exist for self-promotion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Before giving an opinion, I felt compelled to go to the article and clean the sucker up... setting it up per MOS and setting up the references so they were refs and not simply inline EL's. My conclusion is that 1) yes... the article is quite spammy and 2) their is a major WP:COI for the author as he is writing about his own company. That worry aside... their projects all seem to fall under WP:Crystal as there is litle online about them that does circle right back to the fimmaker's own website. I tried to find independent WP:N for the company itself with the same results... nothing independent. Yes, the blogs are active about it... and in a few months there may actually be WP:RS about the company and its films... but currently? No. I urge the closing admin to userfy this back to its author... despite his obvious COI. He may find sponsorship from another wikipedian when the time is ripe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Akira (film)#Live action film. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akira (live action film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: shooting hasn't started. Cliff smith ^talk 08:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May fail WP:NFF, but meets the general notability guideline which overrides it. The discussions about whether this film is going to be made are notable in themselves. JulesH (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Akira (film), which is where this entire article is cut & pasted from. Fails WP:NFF, and I'm rather dubious of the above claim that it meets WP:N; in fact little if anything appears to have changed with regards to this film since it was last discussed at AfD back in February 2008. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't meet WP:N? Come on... there are 3 reliable sources used as references in the article. IGN has a total of 8 articles about it, all but one published since the AFD you mention, which is a clear change that invalidates the previous result. Additional sources are two-a-penny: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. And that's just a selection of what turned up on the first 5 pages of a google search. Google news would undoubtedly turn up a different set, and different keywords are likely to turn up still more. There can be no doubt that this film is notable, whether it actually gets finished or not. JulesH (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't checked all of those links, but there's at least one blog in there. Notable or not, WP:NFF exists for a reason. Anything you could write about this film, sourced or not, would be largely speculative. Now is not the time for a stand alone article, and for now it can be adequately covered at Akira (film). PC78 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only site that's obviously a blog is a blog of a journalist at Wired, and is therefore a reliable source. As to why WP:NFF exists, I'm not sure that it applies in the case of a film that is so clearly notable as this one. It is logical to avoid reporting the "Tom Cruise's next project is..." type of stuff that often ends up in the media, but the reaction that the production of this film has produced is of an entirely different kind. I see no reason not to write an article that covers the speculation about it. Such speculation would be sourced, and would seem to meet the requirements of both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. JulesH (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with PC78 and also with respects in partial agreement with the WP:N found by JulesH. Talk about the film may meet WP:GNG, but until it begins production, it does not merit per WP:NFFa seperate article... and a redirect will send readers to where they can learn about the rumoured/planned/proposed film in context with its inspiration. When it does begin production, and information is then available about cast/crew/production/storyline, then by all means give it its own well-sourced article. Basically... the seperate article is just a tad too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back and redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. I agree with his idea. While a production can be notable enough for inclusion somewhere, writing a separate article is a tad too soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. MichaelQSchmidt is right I think. WP:NFF is best understood as a style guideline in so far as it reccomends that even notable projects be merged before principle photography begins. This is to prevent Wikipedia becoming cluttered with perma-stubs about projects that generated buzz and then fell through, not to prevent coverage of actually notable projects which almost always (as in this case) have a logical parent article to put info on the production until it needs to be spun off. Of course, including what is really style guidance in a notability guideline is potentially confusing, but I still think it's the best place for it, all things considered. In any event, in cases such as this where WP:V and arguable WP:N are met, no deletion is necessary even if WP:NOTFILM calls for a merge and redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as you mention, the intention of NFF is not to suppress information, but to define the appropriateness of separate articles - this makes it no different from any other notability guideline, including the GNG. It is firmly a notability guideline, though, not a style one. No one doubts that many of the NFF cases met WP:V and WP:RS, but those are content standards. Had this project failed either of those, NFF would have been raised in this AfD, but only after those primary concerns. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NFF addresses a structural issue with film articles. When articles are created about planned films like this one, there is always the tone that the film will be made. There is usually coverage about the baby steps a film takes toward production, but when coverage stops for some time, it cannot be concluded whether or not the project is truly done for. So how is the existing coverage to be treated? These are guidelines for a specific scope (cinema) for which we know that the film industry will often start up many possible projects but only go through with a fraction of them, an issue not really found in other scopes. I think that the guidelines encompass both style and notability... there is no mutual exclusivity. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to say redirect, but where should we do so? Either Akira (manga)#Adaptations or Akira (film)#Live action film. The planned film is a remake of the 1988 film, yet the source material is grounded in the manga. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akira (film)#Live action film. I'm satisfied that this has enough ties to the 1988 film to warrant the location, and after the last time this was created (at Akira (2009 film)), the information was comfortably incorporated there without controversy. Suggest a link is included to Akira (film)#Live action film from Akira (manga)#Adaptations should the redirect be enacted. Steve ^{T • C} 00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akira (film)#Live action film per Steve and make sure Akira (manga)#Adaptations links to the section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13: Fear is Real (film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. AnyPerson (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: even if it isn't a hoax, shooting hasn't started apparently. Cliff smith ^talk 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. At best it's sheer speculation. I've removed the cast list per WP:BLP, since there's no source saying that any of the people involved are actually working on this film. I don't rule out that it's an outright hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF or it's a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Even if not a hoax, a cursory search find no confirmation of the film... hence failure of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF. No sources confirming this and since I know at least 5 actors on this list, I would've noticed if they'd been signed to do this. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlueTie

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but there appear to be some outside sources that verify notability. On the other hand, the article may, as was charged, be too much of an advertisement. I have decided to take it to the community to decide. Danaman5 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I see now that this article has been speedied and AFD'ed before. However, the new version appears to be different enough from the old versions to merit one more look. If the consensus is again for speedy deletion, I will salt it (this is about the fourth re-creation or so)--Danaman5 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of previous iterations of this article, the current article seems to meet requirements for articles about organizations WP:CORP. I have also cleaned up and formatted the article a bit. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable officers, well-cited. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rydelnik

Delete: Minor academic. No indication that he meets any of WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria (let alone verifiably so), and in any case appears to fail the "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." clause. Only source given is to the topic's webpage at the institution which employs him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. His most widely held book in libraries, Understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict, is in less than 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He hasn't done anything notable to make him stand out from other academics. I just don't think this man warrants an article on wikipedia.WackoJacko (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Moody, despite what might appear to be the implications of its name, is a very important long established (and fully accredited) college, and he is a full professor there, which to me is an indication that he might well be notable. DGG (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if we accept that Moody is a "major institution of higher education and research" (which is a stretch), Rydelnik is not a "named/personal chair appointment or 'Distinguished Professor'" there, so still fails WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria on that point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without further evidence, fails WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [11] provides enough news sources that either quote him (including the Jerusalem Post) or review his books to lead me to believe he's notable. There is certainly enough out there to write a well sourced (if short) article. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Typesetting System

A reimplementation of TeX but no evidence that anybody is using it. Apparently the latest state is an alpha release made in 2000 - not exactly an active project. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - True: Probably nobody is using it. NTS is interesting as a step in the evolution of TeX and as AFAIK the only software project substantially (ca. 75.000€) financed by user groups. And also as an example of a software project gone totally wrong.--Oneiros (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - could you explain how it's "a step in the evolution of TeX"? What came after as a result of having been informed by this project? It just sounds like a dead project that never got very far to begin with, fascinating as the concept may be. J L G 4 1 0 4 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first (and only) completely faithful (100%) reimplementation of TeX (in Java). It's slow, but it works. The project started as something else: The idea was to first create a prototype with which various concepts could be tested, and finally a fast implementation of a successor of TeX. Unfortunately the code is hindered by it's license, and the project ended in a political disaster.--Oneiros (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It sounds like it has some sort of historic significance, but I don't know how to make a case for its notability, which I'm guessing will be the challenge here. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll contact the original authors & the community (I hate this "canvassing"), but in the meantime missing notability alone shouldn't be reason for deletion. I think the article is of interest, but must be improved.--Oneiros (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on acknowledgement of historial significance, despite possible lack of sources. Frankly, this is one of those cases (it sounds like, to me) that may be reasonably exempted from the typical notability-checking practices, provided the good-faith efforts of Oneiros per above. Indeed, it seems like perhaps an unhealthy trend in AfD to attribute "notability" solely on the basis of clever Google searches, and then to consider inclusion solely on the outcome of such searches. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Although NTS is unlikely to be in active use today, it was a very significant milestone in the history of TeX, which is itself one of the most important developments in computer typesetting of the 20th and 21st centuries (to date, of course). Much as the NTS team had hoped that NTS would be widely used, the performance problems referred to in the History section of the main article prevented this from taking place. Disclaimer : the present commentator was a founder member of the NTS Team. Euphuist 14:36, 21 January 2009 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Rowe

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Richard (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously speedied by me for lack of assertion of notability; re-created today so I figured I'd refer this to the AFD community for resolution. If this article is to be included in Wikipedia, then we would be opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network. Richard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

(1) She is linked to by many articles already and mentioned in a bunch of others, so people obviously feel there should be an article on her,

At first, I was impressed and taken aback by how many articles link to Holly Rowe. However, on further investigation, many of these articles only link to her because she is in the list of ESPN personalities at the bottom of the article. In such articles, the article text itself doesn't mention her name (e.g. Jim Rome is Burning or Bonnie Bernstein). In articles that do mention her explicitly, the mention is usually to note that she was one of the ESPN reporters (e.g. Mike Patrick). Then there are the "List of... " articles. The best one is Sideline reporter where she is mentioned as one of the "Notable sideline reporters". Which begs the question... what exactly is she notable for other than being a sideline reporter? Oh, there is one incident ... the one mentioned in the Ron Franklin article. Right, sweetheart... that makes you notable... that Ron Franklin called you "sweetheart" and got smacked down for it. Woohoo! Such is the stuff that Wikipedia notability is made of. --Richard (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were close to 40 or so that explicitly mentioned her in the text of the article (not in the ESPN personalities navbox) before they started filtering down as links. Those were the ones I was talking about, as the statement I made was before any of those were showing up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) She is one of the only ESPN personalities without an article (See: List of ESPN personalities, List of ESPN College Football personalities, etc.).

The question being whether every ESPN personality should have an article solely because he/she is an ESPN personality or whether they should be notable for some other reason. --Richard (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it is a point worth considering if others of the same caliber are considered notable (a president, if you will), why a special case would be made to delete this one. That was all I was bringing up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) I certainly do not feel it would be "opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network", as the nom said; at least not any more than it has already been opened by the so-mentioned personalities already described. (in the lists, and other places) There is already a large president for people as notable as this to be included. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yuck. You're right. The door is already wide open and the whole host of ESPN personalities past and present have tramped through it. Let's see how this AFD goes. If the consensus is running towards Delete, I'll nominate the rest of the list. --Richard (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever you feel is best; I personally find the articles on ESPN personalities helpful, but I'll go along with whatever everyone else decides. Cardsplayer4life (talk)
- Keep, per Richard's observation. How many other articles have to go if this one does? Criticisms of the present content of the article, e.g. Baileypalblue, should be resolved by improving the article not deleting it.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the relevant copyvio policy, which states that pages are to be speedy deleted if all their content is copyvio and there is no prior non-infringing version to revert to. Alternatively, you could be bold and write a non-infringing version yourself. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Edited to change wording.Simon Dodd (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any perceived copyvio issues have been fixed now. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I think I was editing at the same time as you, Simon, and may have overtaken your edits. Apologies, mate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Cardsplayer4life and for having received an in depth article in the Daily Oklahoman (link) as well an many other mentions (see Google News). Icewedge (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, when I go to news.google.com and search on "Holly Rowe", only 3 search results come back and none of them seem to establish notability. Can you provide a URL which will display these "many other mentions" that you are referring to? --Richard (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to filter your search for all dates, not just the last week, which is the Google News default. Icewedge (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COPYVIO. This article is copied, with a few word changes and minor transpositions, from Holly Rowe's ESPNMediaZone bio. There is no salvageable prior draft. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited the article and fixed all the parts that could be construed as copyright issues. (Tried not to delete any of the actual information since that isn't copyrightable, just fixed anything that even remotely resembled the source.) Also, added some more info that is relevant. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a relevant article about a noteworthy individual. I find it disheartening that an article such as this about a female sportscaster would be deleted while all the male sportscaster articles are allowed, in the links provided above. There should not be different standards imposed just because this person is female. Hogvillian (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please leave gender politics out of this. The first version of the article was speedied by me because it did not assert notability. The second version is better written than the first but still does not assert notability unless we assert that all ESPN personalities are notable by the very fact that they are ESPN personalities. This then suggests that every sportscaster of a major broadcast or cable network is equally notable. This is not my definition of notability although I concede that the odds of reversing this precedent looks slim. I should comment that when I visited a handful of the other articles on ESPN personalities, most of them had some sort of notable sports career prior to becoming an ESPN personality. Holly Rowe has no other claim to notability other than being an ESPN personality (and I argue that is not a sufficient claim). --Richard (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly agree that gender should stay out of this (I don't think this article was targeted because the person is female). It succeeds on the merits mentioned above, so there is no need to make it a gender issue. I personally believe that both being an ESPN personality (I don't think anyone would argue Kirk Herbstreit or people like that were non-notable even though they are notable because they are on ESPN), and being mentioned in other media stories about her per Icewedge above makes her notable enough for inclusion. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gantz equipment

Unnotable list of "equipment" used within the Gantz manga and anime series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Would also fail WP:FICT and contains an excessive amount of non-free images along with some WP:OR Self-admitted by creator that he restore of information that was properly removed from the main article in August for being excessive plot/in-universe detail and unnecessary to the series' overall understanding.[12][13][14] Removal had clear consensus,[15][16] but creator disagreed and made a new split, adding in additional information taken from the Gantz wiki and the images. Note, article has frequently been tagged for various issues ("owner" quickly removes any tags), and was prodded in October, but again the creator removed that as well under the claim of "I disagree. Post your reasons on the talk page and we'll discuse it though. A series with millions of fans will have a list of things in it, just as other popular series have." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no clear consensus. There was her and two others who agreed the article was too long, but did not answer my questions about whether they thought the content was valid. If the only reason against it was the length of the main page, then wikipedia policy is to make a side page for it. And it has plenty of references from the Anime, Manga, and the official Gantz Manual. Comic books/manga need only mention what issue and page something was mentioned on, not find a third party review for it. And if you tag something, you must state the reason for the tag, and discuss it. To which tag are you referring to? Collectonian was arguing with me on my user page, upset that I undid her deletion of something on the main Gantz article, she erasing it because she had never heard of the Gantz/Manual and decided instead of looking it up, she'd just erase that bit someone had added. After arguing back and forth, she suddenly nominates this page I created for deletion. I am a bit concerned of her motives. I vote KEEP of course. It is relevant to the extremely popular series, just as the episode lists, the chapter list page, and the character list page. Dream Focus (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were nice enough to point out during the argument that you had circumvented consensus and readded the content (proudly declaring it, even, that you had gotten around the valid removal by moving it elsewhere). And your questions were answered about the validity of the content, you just didn't like the answers so you readded the information in a "new" article a month later when attention had died down. You have already noted very clearly on your talk page that you do not care at all about Wikipedia's actual editing guidelines, and instead make articles to suit your own purpose: to be interesting for series fans, not Wikipedia readers, and for entertainment.[17] For those not wanting to read the lengthy talk page, my issue was not with his reverting the removal, but with his personal remarks posted to the article talk page and his snarky remarks in the edit summary, instead of just a quick and polite note saying "hey found it" on my talk page; and with his later messing up my citing the readded material presuming to "correct" me even though he, by his own admission, was uninformed as to how to use the cite web templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[18] The comment in question, where I asked her to look up information if she didn't believe the manual existed, instead of just deleting it. Someone please go there and tell me your opinions on that. And most of wikipedia's readers are here because they enjoy reading articles, not because they are required to learn anything about Anime, manga, or whatnot. And as I have said, the only reason it was removed, was because the article was too long. That's the same reason why the character list was removed, and placed on another page. Its the same thing here, since the equipment is as important as the characters, in this particular series. Dream Focus (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character list splits are valid as per the Anime and manga MoS and consensus through AfD discussions. Additional fictional element lists are not. Equipment worn by characters, if relevant to major plot points, is covered in the plot summary. This is not the same as a character list. Equipment is not a character nor is it nearly as important as a character. And you seem to not be getting the point that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for fans of the series to learn more about it. And opinions on what? The content is now in the article, correctly written and sourced. Please stop trying to distract away from the actual issue of whether this list of equipment, which by your own admission is purely plot and has no third-party coverage meets the notability guidelines for existance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an additional note, I just spotted that this list was previously merged back to the main article[19] into a "Settings" section but was later reverted by Dream Focus[20], requesting a discussion and a talk page note was added by DF saying that it couldn't be merged back because it was split for length, which, of course[21], is incorrect as it wasn't split for length and the merged version was much briefer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One new person merged things from the character list and the equipment page to the main page, which several people posted was wrong. You have to discuss mergers before making them happen. Dream Focus (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no assertion of notability whatsoever through reliable sources independent of the topic and clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the excessive images were removed and the article was cleaned up, couldn't this be kept a valid sub-topic of the main Gantz page? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it still fails all notability guidelines and even cleaned up, it would completely fail WP:PLOT and WP:WAF as it has no third party coverage. Plus, it was already rejected as being invalid content in the main article. It can't be a sub-topic if it would never be allowed in the main article anyway. Even the Clow Cards of Cardcaptor Sakura failed these guidelines and the article was "deleted via redirection (as it was a very likely search term). This, doesn't even need a redirect as it isn't a likely search term.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the erasing of what the Clow Cards do. How can you understand the series, without knowing that? And this information was not rejected from being in the main article. After an edit revert incident you and I had, I posted for a third party opinion, and the two people that came over, said they agreed the article was too long, but didn't answer me when I asked about the content. If the consensus is that character pages are acceptable for series, but equipment pages are not(and there should be a set rule about this to avoid problems like this to begin with), then a brief mention of everything should be added back to the main Gantz article, since it is a key aspect of the series. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy or move to an appropriate wikia site, then delete~~ Delete Ok, this might be useful to someone, it just doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dream Focus, he took parts of it from the Gantz wikia, so it may already be transwikied there in a way. Someone may want to check to see just how much is "some". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one doing most of the editing on the Gantz wikia, and created the equipment page there, after first creating it on the official wikipedia a month or so before. Someone else added the images there, which I took to use here, and copied over some minor changes I did there to the main wikipedia article. Why is this relevant? Dream Focus (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[All!] Ok delete this sucker! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not really concerned so much by who did it, but by the fact that it was done. The articles at the moment are word for word in most places, as if someone has been trying to keep it as a copy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? The Wikia is just like the Wikipedia, except you can add in a lot more stuff. They even have a tag on the wikia to link to where on the wikipedia the original article was at. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT as a list. I see a great deal of original research in the description, typically preceded by weasel words such as "seems", "appears". And finally, understanding the equipment is not essential to understanding the series nor are they covered by third party sources. --Farix (Talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the weasel words, not realizing there was a rule about that. I thought it only meant words used to insult someone. I disagree that anyone could understand what the series is about, without understanding the equipment. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. This article has no backing to stand on its own. Fact & just fact concerning the equipments can/should be included in the Gantz main article, speculations should be left to the readers/viewers imagination. Readers/viewers have brains too, they can make their own original research with just the facts and only the facts.--KrebMarkt 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't state anywhere how the H gun works, so another editor wrote that it seemed to use gravity... I suppose it could be reworded to state just what was shown, without the "weasel words". And how much should be included in the main article? Before hand, some claimed it made the article too long, thus the reason for a side page. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:SIZE. At 60KB of proses you should split, at 100KB you must that is not the case here. --KrebMarkt 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another example of WP:FANCRUFT. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N, the previous and currently proposed WP:FICT, and can probably never be written in accordance with WP:WAF. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Please say Bad/Worst example of WP:FANCRUFT instead of just fancruft as some fancruft can be trimmed & refined into something relevant & useful for Wikipedia. In that specific case it's Very Bad fancruft in the intent & realization.--KrebMarkt 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was to preserve information many had worked on from the main page, which was deleted because someone thought it made the main article too long.Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been proven in several afnd's recently (even in a kept article), not all information needs preserving or should be present in the first place Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked the Gantz article. It's in pretty poor shape staring from the lead :( Meanwhile the list of equipment seems to have received more attention (woot pictures gallery)--KrebMarkt 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unnecessary list of unnotable fictional items, references are all primary, obvious ownership issues (no, merges do not necessarily require consensus and can easily be done under WP:Bold and removing completely valid tags for questionable reasons). No point redirecting, it's a questionable search term and based on edit history, likely to be reverted. Seems pretty open and shut Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&diff=257022873&oldid=256689225 A new editor merged the character list and the equipment page back into the main article, which I undid. This merge was discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gantz#Character_list and most were against it. And what tags are you referring to? I always explained my actions in the talk pages, and asked others to explain theres. Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...the editor who merged those articles is far beyond a "new" editor. He has been here for years. And, as Dandy Sephy notes, merging bolding does not require consensus, and TTN is well known for doing them. The character list merge was strongly opposed by multiple editors, while only you opposed the equipment merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All policies are just suggestions, not absolute laws. The wikipedia clearly states that. Years ago, there were a lot of articles like this, which have been deleted by those who decided that wikipedia should not have anything other than basic information on it. Why is a character page more valid to a series, than an equipment page? Will we begin eliminating those as well? They already eliminated the trivia sections on most articles, even when the information was valid and interesting to those interested in the subject. There is no shortage of server space. There is no reason to keep deleting things some might find of interest(within reason of course). You can easily ignore it. Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Equipments should have been put in a sub-section of plot, not as a section itself and even less as a section redirecting to a list; so does the rules of Gantz who deserved also a sub-section. A critical rule that dead player can be resurrected by another player willing to pay 100pts is missing. The plot should explain the nature of the two arch-arcs in the manga and how the stake evolved from a game to save oneself to a game to the world.--KrebMarkt 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my old Aspects of the Mission section for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&oldid=231192836 This also shows where the equipment list was at before being moved to a side page do to length. Dream Focus (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Why is a character page more valid to a series, than an equipment page?" suppossed to be a rhetorical question? Characters are a key element of a series, the entire series depends on the actions of characters. Entire series generally don't rely on a couple of pieces of equipment to tell their story. Policies may be "suggestions", but they are almost always proven to be correct and receive the backing of majoritys. Theres not a single keep in this nomination, you are clearly fighting an uphil battle and clutching at straws. I'm surprised this hasn't been closed already Dandy Sephy (talk)

It is not the backing of the majority. The overwhelming majority of people have never posted their say in the policy debate threads, and policy keeps on changing. Until there is an official election for all wikipedia users to vote on policy, you can't determine how many people support which ones. Its all determined by whatever people are around that day to vote on deleting something. And characters are one key aspect of a story, but not the only one. Any article could survive without more than a token mention of a few of the main characters in it, but we keep character list pages for now. Meanwhile other pages that also give useful information for a key aspect of the series, are deleted. Should the pages dedicated to space ships from popular science fiction series, or weapons and equipment from every series out there, be deleted simply because some feel them less valid than character pages? Dream Focus (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside wikipolitics, you're last claim falls flat on it's face in this context. Space ships from popular science fiction series are often notable (USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), USS_Voyager (Star Trek) for example), if not they are, or should be merged. Equipment from Gantz isn't notable, and you are the only person claiming it is. Each article is handled on a case by cases basis, this one isn't in your favour Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek Some series can have weapons list, others can not. It depends on how many fans of the series are around. There is no difference between the Gantz equipment list, and the list of Star Trek weapons. You shouldn't be able to simply delete something, because there aren't as many people around to protest. Dream Focus (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which also has a newspaper article as a reference. However the existence of that page holds no relevance in this discussion, both articles have their issues (many are the same), so you'll find no benefit from trying to use it in your defense. You seem to have no time for wikipedia policy or guidelines, and you're making a lot of questionable claims. Firstly you can't "just delete something", thats the whole point of AFD. There are plenty of people to protest as the AFD is located in the same place as all the other afds, even though it appears in the Anime and manga afd list, it still appears in the master list and in the fiction list. That no one is protesting should be a sign, and all this this is getting pretty tiresome. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm for keeping it, and I count 7 people saying delete. We aren't apparently going to convince each other of anything, so there can be no consensus. Therefor it stays, in accordance to wikipedia rules. Correct? Dream Focus (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Refer to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WHATISCONSENSUS for details. And closing editors are given latitude in determining a rough consensus. --Farix (Talk) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lehrer

Written by subject himself. Claims to have been suppressed by mainstream scientists, has been banned in the past for sock puppetry and personal attacks (relating to pages Bengalia and Bengaliidae). Notability is doubtful, except that there have been dismissive reviews of his self-published work on the family Bengaliidae that he has proposed. Shyamal (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Low citation impact. Most widely held book in libraries currently in less than 20 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have conducted an analysis (brief) of the new species discovered, and am now convinced of notability. Changed recommendation to “keep”. Thanks Frank Pais - indeed, the article needs development not deletion. Note: I corrected the indentation of Mista-X recommendation so that it is not missed by the closing admin.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find a thing in any peer-reviewed journals. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - There is a wide wealth of content written by Mr. Lehrer in various journals available on Lexis-Nexis. His academic contributions are highly specialized, and demonstrate a unique knowledge that is arguably not possessed by many of his scholastic peers. We can help develop this article into something beautiful. It mustn't be deleted. Frank Pais (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is that there are a very large number of people who describe species and notability of species authors is linked to the notability of the species (although species are automatically protected from deletion). Would also note that there are a number of Wikipedia editors who have better publication records and have described new species. If just content in any journal counted, one could produce an equally long list for every university staff member. Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - As per above. --Mista-X (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a Google Scholar and found:
- 20-odd articles by A Z Lehrer. Only 1 was cited elsewhere, and only once - and that was in another of his own articles, which he uploaded to Wikimedia.
- This review of Andy Z. Lehrer’s book on Bengalia, which concludes "It must be treated with the utmost caution and circumspection" - ouch!

I think there are 2 reasonable courses - delete, or include the conclusion of the book review, with ref of course. >-) Philcha (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article lacks sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources to establish notability. It basically looks like a web host for this guys personal bibliography at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We recently had a deletion discussion on an article where species’ discovery was the main claim of notability. We kept the article. It seems to me that the problems with this article call for revision tagging rather than deletion. After all, we are debating notability here, not how well written the article is.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little trouble in supporting the keep of Ludwig Carl Koch. The trouble in this case is that there has not been any substantial species discovery that has been widely cited by third party sources. It is more of taxonomic revisions, and many of the genus names and the new family that has been proposed has been dismissed. (The review is in fact more damning, suggests that the subject does not understand conventions in contemporary taxonomy, the ICZN code etc.) The subject has been waging personal-attacks against entomologists that he thinks are detractors. This is an autobiographical note and there are no reliable sources, nor is there any mention of his notability in any third-party source. This is quite different from the case of long dead scientists. Here is the very carefully worded summary of his work as described by a third-party source unconnected to him http://www.zmuc.dk/entoweb/sarcoweb/sarcweb/workers/Cur_work%5CLehrer.htm and you can decide how many on the rest of this list http://www.zmuc.dk/entoweb/sarcoweb/sarcweb/workers/Cur_work.htm should be considered notable. The most similar case I can think of is actually Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_Hoser but in that case the subject had arguably become notable by attracting media attention which provided "independent third-party" sources. Shyamal (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient publications to show he is one of the major figures in his subject. That other workers in the field disgree with some of his work--or even most of it--is not all that uncommon among systemic biologists. The very object of a major publication in taxonomy (called a "revision" or a "monograph" is to re-arrange all the previous classification everyone else has done. The quote from the review is selective. The conclusion is in full: "Although describing many new species and creating the foundation for a rational taxonomy of a species-rich genus, LEHRER’s work ‘Bengaliidae du Monde (Insecta: Diptera)’ is an incomplete work that masquerades as a full taxonomic revision. It must be treated with the utmost caution and circumspection." One could just as easily have quoted the first part and used it as positive. Presumably this controversy will be judged by the general opinion in the field. Obviously, there's a great deal of editing to do, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that this takes into account that the suggestion by User:Dyanega "as far as I have been able to determine, all of his publications cited here and elsewhere are either self-published directly ("Fragmenta Dipterologica"), printed by a publisher who has no peer-review requirements ("Pensoft Series Faunistica"), or printed in a journal that has no peer-review requirements ("Entom. Croat.")." (from User:Dyanega on the Talk:Bengalia#Familiarity_with_what_WP:NPOV_means) Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it meets the Zoological Code requirements for publication, it's published. This is one of the few fields that does have a standard. Basically the argument against this article is that he is not a particularly competent scientist, but that doesn't make him not notable--this is not one of the things we are supposed to be judging. If we started judging people by the intrinsic quality of their work, afd would be interminable.. DGG (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it meets ICZN criteria to qualify as a published description. But there is still no policy that grants automatic notability for authors of species. The notability per WP require independent third party citations for it. The contents of the article are completely WP:OR. There is little scope of improving this article if there is no reliable source for any of the biographical information. Compare the case of an author (Ramana Athreya) who has described just one species (as an amateur and in a rather obscure journal). Shyamal (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shyamal's research and per Eric Yurken's original reasoning, which still seems sound to me. Not every taxonomical classification imparts notability to the taxonomist; WP:ACADEMIC requires peer recognition of a greater sort than has been demonstrated here. If, indeed, Lehrer is a Galileo unappreciated by modern science, well, 22nd-century Wikipedia can celebrate his sacrifice and curse our ignorance. Willing to change my mind if Frank Pais can show me more notability than currently exists in an article consisting entirely of WP:OR and WP:PUFF, but simply having a publication record doesn't confer notability to me. THF (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete ISI h-index = 4, I see no reliable sources supporting a notable impact on the scholarship of his peers. I'm not moved by the argument that notability is inherited from the automatic notability of his study organism. I know *lots* of scientists that totally non-notable, but have described many new species. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSM Hot 25

Apparent hoax chart. No sources, and I can't find a trace of this anywhere. —Kww(talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have come to the exact same conclusion. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know whether it's a hoax or not, but I doubt a notable pop music charting organization would be so invisible on the internet. DSM Charts should go along with this article. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty doubtful that the Phillipines has any kind of country music station at all, so this chart sounds like WP:BOLLOCKS. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to ask a native Philipphinian (sp?) because I've seen weirder things. It's probably not common, but since they listen to other western music in the Philipphines, the idea of a significant amount of country fans isn't far-fetched. However, the idea that the January 21, 2009 chart has already been released now (17th) is preposterous. Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Filipino.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article appears as if the subject is the Philippines' equivalent to the United States' Billboard and Japan's Oricon. Our country does not yet have a nationwide music chart, only singles charts from individual radio stations. Starczamora (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We made have Top 10 countdown in our country but it's only per radio station and not a nationawide tally and awards are also given by every station to their top artist or group depending to their most requested song of the listeners and callers.JJSkarate 組手:くみて|空手道 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Joseph

Does not appear to be notable. Only refs are from apperently self-published sources and google doesn't turn up anything better. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school principal. I have removed some copyvio material from the article; I think the remainder is okay. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without more evidence fails WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kumetz

Both sources are from myspace and google only turns up 100 hits and change ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete guy is NN to the extreme. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yet another MySpace artist. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Diamond (vocal entertainer)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and general biographical guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to separate from Barry Diamond (American comedian) when searching. But on closer look and distinction, there is lack of third-party sources for this particular artist. Has evidently released two albums, both under non-notable record label, which has no coverage. Insufficient to meet WP:MUSIC. ^LeaveSleaves 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Almost all the ghits on Barry Diamond are for the comedian, not this guy. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Receptionist. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Front desk

This is, and has been, a strange entry and my rationale for putting it up for AfD is not as clear cut and policy based as it would normally be. I prodded this some time back and it was deleted, then I noticed it was recreated so I prodded it again and the prod was removed after a source was added.

The main argument I have here which I hate to fall back on is that this is in some way "unencyclopedic." For one thing the real title should be "hotel front desk" which really should not be an article (maybe a section of the article on hotels). Because of course there are all kind of places that have "front desks" in a manner of speaking though they are often called something different like a "reception desk" (which redirects to receptionist).

To me this would be like having an article on "restaurant dishwashing area" since that is an aspect of restaurants and presumably there are some things out there written about it (I could tell y'all some stories from my high school days!). Or we could have an article on "circulation department" (for a library) or "counselor's office" (for a school) or "receiving committee" (for the huge food co-op of which I am a member)—all of which are departments or offices unique to a particular industry or business. But I just don't think we want that kind of thing in this encyclopedia, though admittedly I can't cite a policy on that offhand (WP:NODEPARTMENTS?).

If there's a creative way to turn this into a viable article then fine, but otherwise I think it's going to look like it does now, i.e. more like a job description you get when you go in for an interview. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I think I'd say this is nothing but a dictionary definition: WP:DICDEF. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it might be a bit more than a simple dicdef, but it's close enough as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's the sheer size of the article that makes you wonder, what policy could it be? Seriously, I think the point of a lot of articles that violate DICDEF is to look like they're a lot more, which one can do by adding all kinds of stuff. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I followed the category link to Category:Hospitality occupations and note that the article Night auditor is somewhat intertwined with the article in question here. If the process results in deletion, then it will need to be dealt with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Receptionist - which needs rewriting, but it at least covers the broader definitions of a "Front desk". One example of the broader definition is my GP asks me to settle my account at the front desk on my way out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This might be saved by a major rewrite, but for now just let it go. I'm opposed to the suggested merge to Receptionist since that job is very different, at least in American English. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing: Online

Contested prod. Article about an online game that is about to shut down. No assertion of notability, and no available data on Alexa. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. The fact it is closing has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. If it has any notability, the closing will not make it disappear. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally NN. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 05:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no signs that this unauthorized game is notable. TJ Spyke 06:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The game ran for 7 years and is connected to a notable franchise. The fact it's shutting down has no basis on notability. I can't find anything in the article that indicates it is unauthorized and that again isn't criteria for deletion. Article needs revision, definitely. Alternately, I'm fine with merging it with the main Animal Crossing article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was nothing more than a non-notable fan site, one that shut down quite some time ago (it's down now, but a search of the Internet Archive shows the domain expired in March 2007 and became a Amazon Partners page). It also says it was not affiliated with Nintendo (http://web.archive.org/web/20050516002553/http://www.animalcrossingonline.com/). It ran for 4 years and there is no indication in the article that it was ever notable. TJ Spyke 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly written/Nonsense. This should have been tagged for speedy deletion, ~~as it looks almost looks like someone vandalized the article, including here~~. Versus22_talk 05:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing both WP:N and several aspects of What Wikipedia is not. Reads like an advertisement (not exactly of the blatant nature that would warrant G11, however), someone's web page, and a directory entry. Article would basically need a complete rewrite to become anywhere near encyclopedic, not to mention it also needs to meet notability standards, which apparently doesn't. MuZemike 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biff and Charlie

not notable; fails WP:FICTION. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn per the article itself and a gsearch (192 gits for "Biff and Charlie" and none in news; 3 passing hits from Books and Scholar). JJL (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of work appears notable (Emmy nomination), proper development of article impeded because article began being slammed with deletion tags after its creator, a new editor, had written one paragraph. Give its author a chance under WP:BITE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the author does indeed seem notable; perhaps creating a page for him and making this page a redirect to that would be best. JJL (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable...not even close. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above.. -- 128.97.245.3 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment created Chambers Stevens and suggest a redirect. JJL (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and I am dubious about the notability of the play's author. Sgroupace (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to badger you, but why do you think an Emmy nominee would not be notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly not notable. -- 149.142.220.74 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svenskavidr

Likely hoax. Google yields zero hits both for current title [22] and Cyrillic version [23] M0RD00R (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't know if it's a hoax, but it's not verifiable through Google, and this is the only page edited by its author. --Lockley (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stinks of a hoax, and I'll be surprised if it isn't. Can't find ANYTHING about it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--it's a hoax. Not a single hit on Google, that's pretty indicative; worse, nothing on Ethnologue. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Database Modeling Excel

Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new section CodePlex#Other projects. I have cleaned up the page and expanded it a little. However, I cannot find the reliable sources needed for it to be kept as a standalone article. The CodePlex article would greatly benefit from a summary list of projects and I am suggesting that a new section be started with a brief mention of this software. Smile a While (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and boldly carried out the merge. Smile a While (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The software has been published via CodePlex and SourceForge in years. so thinking it as CodePlex#other projects is a little bias. I am thinking that if the software is notable to mark it as a wikipedia article. The wikipedia is a really great website. and is adding a article like it helping the website or messing up the website? I think you are professional than me, it is acceptable that any decision from you. Following is my reason of keeping it as an article. Designing a database is a critical task in developing, and the software provides an easy, low workload way for database designers. The software supports SQL Server, Oracle and MySQL, and there is a plan to support PostgreSQL. BTW: I found there are lots of articles are in same situation like it, is there a way to mark an article as hidden, proposal, or something like it.Steven.n.yang (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these interesting and helpful points. At present the home page for Database Modeling Excel is within CodePlex so that points to CodePlex as being the right home for a summary. My view is that a reference to this software should be maintained somewhere but if you don't feel that the present location is appropriate then please suggest an alternative. Unfortunately, there is little chance of a standalone page surviving since that would require reliable independent sources to meet Wikipedia policy and these haven't been produced. Also, I haven't been able to find sufficient independent sources to make me confident that the software meets WP:N. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable excel code. Tavix (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable software. --Hamitr (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, although Merge and redirect to a new section CodePlex#Other projects, as suggested above would not be too bad a choice. Tim Ross (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Burnett

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Iamawesome800 Talk 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: plays (or played) for a fully professional team, exactly what WP:ATHLETE requires. Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delete per comments below. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be demonstrated that he actually played. Punkmorten (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never played for the two teams he signed with, the Minnesota Vikings (signed 5/3/2007, waived 6/20/2007) or the Saskatchewan Roughriders (signed 4/1/2008, released 6/1/2008). Baileypalblue (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. Timneu22 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability guidelines require that he play, not just be signed. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (strange for me, yes) not because of notability or athlete, but because of lack of sources cited. I'd be very much open to changing my position should the article be improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per multiple delete reasons I added {{Rescue}} as I don't know enough about him to research nor do I feel like doing it :-).--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue tags aren't to be used as a safety-net. In situations like this where it is obvious all the sourcing in the world won't help it is a bit pointless. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Tablature for the Diatonic Accordion

Delete novel musical notation of very recent creation with no widespread notability Mayalld (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that anybody besides this one non-notable accordionist is using this technique. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotized (Rihanna song)

Unsourced future single, not one source to back it up. Most certainly a hoax. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Hotness (album), the alleged album this song is part of. Fails WP:V, WP:NSONGS. PROD declined. Amalthea 15:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per articles own statements an unreleased single that is unlikley to be released. No problem with re-creation at later poing if many circumstances change however in current state should be deleted. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero evidence to support claim. Second (or third) the move to delete. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per above Tavix (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC # Songs JBsupreme (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album's main article. If there's nothing interesting, notable, or even true (if what you're saying about hoaxness is correct) to say about it, it shouldn't have an article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since I don't think that anything in the article is true there's nothing to merge. It certainly was not "made available for download" in November 2008 – if anything an early version of a song might have leaked; I haven't found anything to support even that, but there were similar claims surrounding "Sexuality" (Rihanna song). The only thing that might turn out true is that there is going to be a song with that title, but it's certainly not verifiable. --Amalthea 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^DELETE-It fails to agree with WP:MUSIC # Songs as JBsupreme says. It is also not notable enough to stand alone in one article. Kikkokalabud (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself says the CD single release was cancelled due to non-interest. I think this one has already established its notability, or lack thereof. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snoob

Delete non notable neologism, no content worth transwiki to wiktionary Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mayalld, notices that it also hasn't got an article in svwiki (where it also would be likely to be AfD:d). Tomas e (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism/non-notable He-man and the Masters of the Universe character. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism. JuJube (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug DeMartin

No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and although there are some references, they are from his university and his club, for whom he has not yet played: these do not seem sufficiently independent to establish notability. Kevin McE (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Not Notable until he plays a senior game at a professional level. Camw (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and cleaned up the article and made it fit into the footballer template before reading this. The young man is notable and will play for his club when the season begins. American footballers should be considered differently because of the structure of the college game/youth clubs in my opinion. There is nothing that presumes he won't be a professional as he is now about to sign his first contract. Morry32 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic inclusion depends on what has verifiably happened, not on what there is no reason to assume will not happen (WP:CRYSTAL). There are vast numbers of aspiring players who have signed contracts at professional clubs but have not yet appeared in a competitive match, and the creation of their articles is not recommended, nor is it justified by WP:ATHLETE Kevin McE (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Morry clarified on his talk page that this was meant to be a keep !vote, not just a comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Player is a new draftee who has not yet played a professional game, and therefore fails WP:FOOTY's guidelines for WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big Ten Player of the Year should confer notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for winning a major award in college athletics. matt91486 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore if/when he plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won several awards making him notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He certainly fails WP:ATHLETE at the moment (stating that he WILL appear for his club is crystalballery and shouldn't be used as a keep argument), but the awards won and sources supplied are enough to make him notable (NCAA honours are a pretty big deal in the States). Bettia (rawr!) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are available to establish the notability of the subject 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRPG

Fails WP:V and WP:N, non-notable open source project that is no longer actively developed according to the official website. Based entirely on original research; a quick scan through Google News Archive returns absolutely nothing. The second half is clearly vanity; the last person to edit prior to this AFD was this Greg "Oracle" Copeland guy mentioned many times in the article. I know he's a Battle for Wesnoth developer, but notability is not inherited. Tuxide (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many defunct open source projects that never reached the point of being usable. Looie496 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's one news aricle: [24]. Further, a Google search turns up ~225,000 hits, which is quite a lot. SharkD (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article's content currently fails basic WP:V policy, and I can't see any significant coverage from a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article I linked to meets the requirement. SharkD (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't seem particularly significant to me. Perhaps this falls under Wikipedia:N#cite_ref-3, although I'm not sure which "broader article" it could be mentioned in. Marasmusine (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because something is no longer currently in the works does not mean it needs to be deleted. (That would be like deleting articles on the U.S. Civil War simply because it's longer being fought.) The article needs some serious citation and possibly even a re-write, but can't we flag it for that? Kallimina (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. OpenRPG was pretty big in its day. Just because the development has stopped does not mean that it has ceased to be notable. Article might need clean-up, but deletion is never supposed to be a solution to that. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided, tagged since May last year. --Peephole (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing Run

This article seems useless - it's bascially a summary of a single video game mode and seems more like an FAQ than an encyclopedia article. WP:Not a game guide? _ZXCVBNM 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. _ZXCVBNM 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found several sites that at least mention the term: [25][26][27][28]; as well as some lecture notes on AI programming. SharkD (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a game guide. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unreal Tournament 2003. Not a notable subject. As it is unique to that game series, it should be briefly covered in the game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per SharkD's sources, this game mode is not unique to Unreal Tournament 2003; it also exists in Arena Wars, and has equivalent mode references in Tribes: Vengeance and Nox. And I wouldn't say that it's written in the style of a game guide or an FAQ. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J Silver Enterprises LLC

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Real-estate company with no assertion of notability, one employee. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete should be speedied. No assertion of notability. And no advertising Bali ultimate (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not speedy. The article makes claims of news reports, but is uncited. There is certainly more here than the requirements of a speedy deletion would merit. I support deletion given what is there, but I also support letting this have the full 5 day run to give editors a chance to improve it should sources be found and added. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP without reliable sources. Claims in the article and related changes to Ricardo Salinas Pliego are not supported by any references. This is a rumor post with a spammy aroma. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not advertising here.Critical Chris (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article It supports that the business was involved with celebrities something that is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.0.151 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the above IP (now blocked a second time) has been repeatedly removing the AFD notice from the article in question, and appears to be a single purpose account with a significant conflict of interest in the subject at hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PortaWalk, Inc.

Spam. Article created by an spa who repeatedly spams the company on the Wheelchair ramp page, removes the notability and refimprove tags from the article, and refuses to discuss, or to provide, reliable sources. AnyPerson (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete salt and otherwise nuke this emberassing advertising. Shouldn't this be speedy?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy deletion tag was removed - [29]. AnyPerson (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam spammity spam. Editor has been uncooperative and ignores attempted guidance from other editors. All of the refs are general facts about the Americans with Disabilities Act - nothing about the company itself. Graymornings_(talk) 01:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 and A7. Why was speedy declined - there is not even a scintilla of notability, just gobs of spam thrown in for good measure. ukexpat (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All references are to disability acts and nothing to do with the company. No claims of notability, seems like just advertising to me. Canterbury Tail talk 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am borderline in thinking that this is blatant spam FWIW. However, this is very well acting as a web page for a company, which is certainly not allowed. MuZemike 05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any admin passing by, please snowball close and delete. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment especially as the originating and majority contributor is now blanking the page. Canterbury Tail talk 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuszka

Unable to find a single review from an independent reliable source (there is one from the channel that aired the film). IMDB cites no reviews or awards. Searching in Google finds nothing more than mentions of viewing schedules with the occasional plot snippet from press release summaries. I originally tagged this article three months ago hoping that there would be some sources identified. But unfortunately there aren't. Bongo matic 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Channel that aired the movie is independent of the movie, they're not the production company or anything. Wily D 12:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever opined that an article should be deleted? Bongo matic 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he has :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Web search indicates that the film was screened at multiple film festivals and also won second prize at one of the festivals. There is lack of significant critical coverage which bothers me a little. But other than that, notable film. ^LeaveSleaves 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion on criteria in WP:FILM does it satisfy? Bongo matic 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably won't pass standard requirements under WP:NF, but being screened at multiple film festivals and receiving an award in one of these festivals definitely elevates the film past the inclusion criteria to my belief. Plus there is a chance of existence of non-electronic and non-English sources which would only increase its notability. ^LeaveSleaves 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That "Regional Jewish organizations in the United States regularly host screening of the film" would seem to indicate notability to that part of society. If it wasn't notable to them, why would they do so? There is Xavier University:"Xavier hosts special screening of Hanuszka as part of Israel's 60th anniversary celebration", The Holocaust Center of Northern California, Vancouver Jewish Film Festival, The Jewish Channel, The Jewish News Weekly, San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, and others. I think it is reasonable to believe that the reviews the nom wishes may be available in Polish or Israeli sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On occasion, the notability of article subjects should be evaluated in consideration of the status of WP:N as a guideline, not a policy. Being careful to avoid WP:ILIKEIT arguments, we should still consider whether there is clear and convincing evidence of notability within the subject's cultural milieu. Such notability is shown for "Hanuszka" by MichaelQSchmidt's argument and references: the extensive viewing of this film when it is shown by Jewish organizations confers a certain notability upon it. Moreover, searches for coverage of a subject in third-party RS should also reflect the subject's cultural context. As MichaelQSchmidt notes, a source search appropriate for this particular film would require that Polish or Hebrew sources be sought. Being an irremediably anglophone editor :) and not having access to the necessary translation software, I cannot conduct the search myself. However, we should not conclude that coverage of the film in WP:RS meeting WP:GNG doesn't exist until editors fluent in these languages have attempted to find sources. While WP:V does deprecate foreign-language sources, they are acceptable when irreplaceable by sources written in English. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two preceding have summed it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of objects in Artemis Fowl

Unreferenced list of nonnotable objects in Artemis Fowl. I see no potential for expansion, as this topic is not covered in third party sources - in other words, it's not notable. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the policy I was too tired to search for last night: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless listing of fictional objects. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per uncategorizable nonesense. What's next, "List of verbs used in Lord of the Rings?"Bali ultimate (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously? Tavix (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT from some of my favourite books. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - truly non-notable cruft. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 06:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The indivudual items may be notable (I only read two books and forgot most of what was in it). There's no inclusion criteria, and no way of expanding this beyond a random list of objects. They're better covered in the relevant book articles. (Is that movie still coming?) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no place in an encylopedia. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, does not belong in Wikipedia. Icy // ♫ 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE per nom, WP:RS and WP:NOTE. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:IINFO and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw your comments, so I agreed to them (and saw the guidelines) but Wikipedia might not have 'List of verbs used in Lord of the Rings' unless it goes and starts having an article about everything. --Leolisa1997 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Play (Swedish girl group). MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Munter

The only assertion for notability for this page is that this person was a member of a notable band (Play). To date, this artist has not had a notable independent career. In a Google search, no reliable third-party sources with significant coverage of Rosie Munter, as distinct from Play, were found. As notability is not automatically inherited (WP:ITSA), and independent notability has not been established and seems unlikely to be established, this article should be deleted as not notable. Rogerb67 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect As a member of a notable band, her biography could be included/merged in the band article so as to address the statement her independent career is not notable by making the information not be placed independently. (There's little biographical info unrelated to the band) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a useful search term, no need to merge, though; Play (Swedish girl group) gives as much biographical coverage as is customary for such articles, and merging in the bio information from Rosie Munter would create a lack of balance in the article. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the biographies of the other members of the group should go along with this one. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Play is start class, so balance is less important than whether material ought to be included. I concur that in principle short bios (which this page would qualify as) of the principal band members are appropriate. I note other band members have articles that look equally mergable. I wonder how much information will survive a merge though; Rosie Munter has only one reference, the subject's official website, which is currently offline. I have been unable to find a useful archival of this website, or any information in reliable sources. Thus only non-controversial information properly cited in the article may be retained; this boils down to four sentences, one of which has details suited to a discography, and another whose information is already in the article, leaving two sentences of biographical information whose self-published source is unavailable for verification. I have not investigated the other band members' pages in detail, but I suspect a similar situation may prevail there. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per reasonable outcome for individual with insufficient notability, but who was part of a notable act. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the original proposer, I am happy with a result of merge all appropriately sourced material per WP:BLP and redirect. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus reached? let's close this thing as a redirect and if there's stuff to merge it can be done from the history and worked out on the talk page of the target article. Let's do this thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, there is no deadline. There's no reason we can't follow WP:MERGE as usual. If we "shoot first and ask questions later" then firstly any good information on this page will be lost until the merge is completed, and secondly it is overwhelmingly likely it will never be completed, denying readers any useful information forever. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arina Tanemura. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Hime Kaden

Unnotable manga series of unknown length that fails WP:BK. Series has only just started serialization this month with only two chapters publisher. First volume released. Obviously no notability whatsoever. Prod was removed with reason that author's other works have articles (not a valid reason to keep per BK). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: Clearly fails WP:N, WP:BK, and WP:MOS-AM#Notablility. Therefore I can't say "keep". However, the success of the author's previous series (all except the second most recent one meet at least WP:MOS-AM#Notability) lets reasonably assume, that this series will eventually become notable. That's why it doesn't seem right to !vote for outright deletion. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the number of articles you can find about the announcement of this series, one can make an argument for the series notability based on coverage of the anticipation of it. I'm not sure I'm going to make it myself, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...except all of them are based off the same announcement so really just one source republished :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the problem of interpretation, yes. OTOH, it could be that all the reports exist indicates that the sources believe it's of note for their readers. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't forget about Japanese sources :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there any, no one has found them yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have fun here & tell me if it's WP:RS a japanese website

Shueisha is strongly pushing that series : First chapter free for reading, Shueisha. Whatever it's worth their effort is too soon to judge.

I think it should be putted in a fridge until we have enough ammunitions to support that article.--KrebMarkt 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding mangaspirits.com. I'm not sure if the authors qualify as experts in the field, however it is most definitely a blog, and says so on their "about" page. --Farix (Talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too early to tell if this new manga series will become notable. Better to wait until it is covered by third-party reliable sources. No predigest for recreation if the third-party reliable sources do appear. --Farix (Talk)
Merge to Arina Tanemura, the series creator. If it demonstrates enough notability later, it can be broken off into a separate article again. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Goodraise here -- it's not a keep, but given the author's status as a hitmaker and amount of notice the series announcement got, it's not a delete either. I think Edward321 has the best solution: merge to Arina Tanemura until such time as it more conclusively demonstrates notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgewars

Non-notable video game. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A simple search on Google produces about 12 links (in fact, there're way more than a dozen...I just gave up counting). It's notable enough to have it's own forum, web page, and a few reviews from various websites, like this one: [30]. Given enough time, it'll be quite a large game. I say we keep it for the time being and see how it holds up. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Per Zachary crimsonwolf. Livna-Maor (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the links seem to be from blogs. I can't find anything better. SharkD (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not show where this game has received significant coverage from a reliable source. Gamershell link above is not a review, and does not satisfy WP:N. Other search hits are directory entries [31] or self-published sources [32] - I can't see anything usable. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc.) include ready-to-use packages of hedgewars. Versions for Windows e.g. can be downloaded from Gamershell, which has had 1023 downloads for the last 5 weeks [33]. There also is a port for MacOSX [34]. Stats at software.informer [35] indicate that people from all over the world (Germany, Italy, Turkey, USA, Australia, Thailand, etc.) installed Hedgewars (which is mainly developed by some russia-based guys) on their computers. --84.138.81.62 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — 84.138.81.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - It is absolutely more notable than Wormux, because it is more complete. So the chances are relative high, that there will be more users than in Wormux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.151.102 (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only blogs and download sites mention it. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources provided and a google doesn't turn any up either --Peephole (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Tan Taan!

Delete non notable single Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This (using a different transliteration) confirms that this single charted in Japan. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep in light of running me eye over things one more time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song, insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The single charted, music of it was used in an anime. WP:MUSIC says charted hits are notable. It may be small, but I think it has enough facts to warrant a separate entry. Esradekan's comment about the size of the article might warrant a merge to the band, but since it meets WP:MUSIC, it's clearly not a suitable target for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, name of a single = plausible seach term. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Phil Bridger, Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Belefant

Delete non-notable biography. Asserts to have invented a technique, and sources a patent, but no evidence that it is discussed by reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty familiar with the film world and I've never heard of the guy. His IMDB credits are slim. He might be big the advertising world but I wouldn't know. No famous ad is mentioned. Apparently he has a web site at http://www.elixirlens.com/ Apparently his claim to notability is that he shoots through liquids. As a fellow artists let me say: yawn. Now he does have some prizes but nothing competitions are a dime a dozen. A reliable source, a newspaper perhaps, that favorably mentions his work would change my mind. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How about the Oregon Wine Press? http://oregonwinepress.com/index.php?pr=August_07_08 "Elixir Lens, Belefant’s brainchild newly opened in April, creates fine art souvenirs for independent wineries, among others, using an unusual photographic technique: Shooting through wine." Someone earlier said that although he had a patent, there was no evidence that he'd successfully marketed it. He also has another website with some of his commercials and his photographs through liquids. http://www.belefant.com/Home.html. MitchGans (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs wp:reliable sources to establish notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until some future period when perhaps his work will get some significancet published recognition. DGG (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kirby

Subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians. —Snigbrook 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable election candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In order for an unelected candidate to be notable, the candidate needs reliable coverage or notability outside the election, and this hasn't happened. Graymornings_(talk) 00:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The candidate of a major party in the UK (or US) political system for a recognized constituency is notable,even if he does not get elected. However, there should be some attempt to find additional information. People don'tnormally achieve thiswithout something in the newspapers to cite. DGG (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So cite it, I can't find anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, sorry but no they're not unless they get elected to a notable enough political body or achieve fame through third party sources for something else. No evidence of that in this case. Valenciano (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have grave doubts as to whether we should have bio-articles on prospective Parliamentary candidates, long before an election is called, ~~but I am not sure of the policy on this~~. We certainly do (and should not have them for councillors, on the one hand. We do have them for elected MPs on the other. ~~I am uncertain where we should draw the line.~~ According to WP:POLITICIAN, candidates (even for national office) are NN until elected, unless of course they meet notability criteria for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Anything of encyclopedic value can be covered in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. ninety:one 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my Talk page, but unsure if it carries over. There are specific differences in SBA Requirements for due diligence. For example, histories of applicable prior NAICS codes and PHII requirements after only 5 years no matter the types of underground tanks. User:Msteinbach:User talk:Msteinbach 18:44, 12 January 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the differences are minor they can be discussed. I'm not an expert on this area, but it seems to me that a single article could easily describe multiple similar standards. JulesH (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor detail of US government bureaucracy. If every regulation of every English speaking governmnet had a stub article, Wikipedia would be in a real mess. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment; it looks like the subject could be discussed in Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment#Other_types_of_ESA, or the increased due diligence requirements mentioned for SBA Phase I ESAs could be discussed in Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment#Scope_of_the_Phase_I_ESA. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown (experimental music)

nn unreferenced article also fails wp:bio Oo7565 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reviews at Allmusic, and an article of his time in The Hub at the San Francisco SF Weekly. Passes WP:MUSIC#C1. And that was only after a 30 sec search. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A glance at the Allmusic Guide profile Esradekan provided shows that Chris Brown has released two albums on John Zorn's Tzadik label: "Lava" and "Ruins". WP:MUSIC is quite clear on the notability guidelines here: if an artist "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", then he or she is notable. Tzadik is an important indie label. It has published works by such notable artists as Buckethead, Ruins, Secret Chiefs 3, and Zorn himself. Chris Brown has released two albums on this major indie label. If you have released two or more albums on a major indie label, you are notable. Therefore, Chris Brown is notable. Stipend Steve (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Cleanup needed though.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Komikoo

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable magazine. Just began publishing in 2008. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond blogs and forum posts. No bias against recreation once magazine is more established and better covered in reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable sources found. Scapler (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. The only source is a blog. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't neccesarily bad sources (blogs by known experts or journalists are perfectly acceptable sources). You should've mentioned the blog isn't independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable magazine. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am concerned about systemic bias here - normal source searching is not going to be adequate for a Malaysian comics magazine. The sources are all in Malay. I can't read them. I'd like to see us be cautious here, contact the article's creator, and get a better sense of what is going on here before we go deleting willy nilly. Certainly the mentions of the artists who have had work appear in the comic is significant - the three mentioned are significant illustrators with high profile work. A magazine that has published all three seems certain to pass WP:N. I need to see more significant evidence that this has been looked into by someone who, at the very least, knows Malay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your concern. I do not speak Malay, however I did not find anything that resembled a reliable source. I also checked the Malay wikipedia and did not find anything there either. I think this may indeed be a notable subject in the future, but as of right now, I don't think it is. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching about, though, I'm finding that artists who have published in the magazine have extremely significant resumes. Aadi Salman, in particular, has made the jump to US comics publishing, working on the graphic novel version of Silent Hill, which suggests that he's highly notable in his homeland. Certainly a US comics magazine published for several months and with comics from high-profile creators would not be deleted. Thus I am hard-pressed to justify the deletion of a similar magazine from a foreign country. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But do we have any notable references saying he did publish in this magazine, or are we just trusting the article? The article's claims to notability do not make it notable. Remember, WP:NOTABILITY#Notability requires objective evidence Scapler (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salman confirms it in his blog: [36]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good start. As I mentioned in the nomination, I have no problem supporting this article, but I haven't found any reliable sources that cover the subject. Please don't think that this is a case of IDONTKNOWIT, but I can't find anything! I'd be happy to look if someone could point me in the right direction. TN‑X-Man 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the right direction is a primer on Malay and a plane ticket to Kuala Lumpur - which is to say, we're dealing with an article that surely has sources, but those sources are surely Malaysian-language and regional sources. We're good at finding such sources in English. Malaysian? Harder. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - US-centric systemic bias is not a deletion reason. Can we get some Malaysians knowledgeable about comics on hand? - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even on the Malay language Google, I was unable to find much beyond blog entries. If anyone can with it though, have at it. Scapler (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - I have asked User:CHJL, who claims a professional level of Malay to help us with finding reliable sources, so we will see what he does. Scapler (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, I am not 100% convinced that there is any reason to think that the Malaysian comics scene has a huge online presence. We're talking about a country with 18% of households online. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think another issue that is pertinent here is verifiability. If we cannot find any sources, online or otherwise, then I don't believe WP:V is met. Of course, CHJL may be able to provide us with the relevant information. TN‑X-Man 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Komikoo blog does us fine from a verifiability perspective I should think. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hughes

Non-notable local councillor who fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has not been elected to any national or regional office. Being related to someone famous is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a single article concerning this person anywhere. Looks NN to me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Councillors are not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris MacManus

Non notable local councillor who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Just being related to someone does not confer notability. Valenciano (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a member of the local council of a small town does not make someone automatically notable (WP:POLITICIAN), and what little press coverage there is of him doesn't indicate that he's any more notable than an average local councillor. I wondered if being a member of Sinn Fein's national executive might mean he's a significant figure, but the only press coverage I can find of him in that capacity is references 3 and 4 in the article, neither of which focus on him. (#3 only lists him as a member of a delegation and doesn't mention him in the main article at all; #4 gives a brief quote but the article focuses entirely on the event he was speaking at, it isn't about the man himself.) Nasica (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're mixing two things up. An article focusing on the subject (or providing a significant amount of info about them is what is required for criterion 1 in bio guidelines or what is commonly known as WP:GNG. If "being a member of Sinn Fein's national executive" is verifiable (confirmation in one reliable source suffices) and that is something that would make him notable, GNG wouldn't even come into play. Remember: it is just one of the many possible criteria the guy can meet. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Nasica (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom.Red Hurley (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Horne

no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions WP:ENTERTAINER. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, only non trivial independent source appears to be this one WP:N. also note that primary editor is User:Mrspeed who may be Benjamin Speed, partner of Horne WP:COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep have located other independent reliable sources & included them in the article. After checking the article would have to agree that the primary editor maybe directly related to the subject of the article. Dan arndt (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some decent sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources in article meet WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, subject of an article in the SMH. Some of the other "sources" in the article are shaky, but I think that she still just falls over the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per improvements and soucing done since it was first nommed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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