Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TSS Titanic (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 14 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 13 February 15 February >

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 speedy delete. G7 - [1] J.delanoygabsadds 18:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King tef

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

Non-notable rap artist. Whole article appears to be self-promotion and pretty much all Google hits are self-promotion. No hint of independent sources.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on this page and will be adding references and magazine articles that this artist has been in. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASA2009 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is based on truth and facts. Updates will come with time.

Delete - we don't accept articles on "up and coming" people. We accept only articles on people who have arrived. Give this guy a few years and see if he can cut it. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, go ahead and delete. Thanx --ASA2009 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Radio

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

Notability in Question

  • No listing for this movie in IMDB
  • No listing for movie at the festival mentioned - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 14, 2009 @ 17:09
  • Delete both. spam. This seems connected to Michael Wilbur, also up for deletion and also not notable.--Artypants (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. - I too have looked but can find no confirmation of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Another article has been made about this "movie", see Broken Radio (film). Not sure if this new article should be included under this AfD or a new one entirely. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 14, 2009 @ 20:38
I think we are being given the run around. Maybe a good idea for Editors to band together and find out what's going on, and maybe alert an Admin or two. I admit I don't know whether a new AfD is started or get an Admin to speedy delete the new one. --Artypants (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the second article to this AfD and changed my !vote above to "delete both". It would be pointless to start another AfD, the articles are identical and clearly stand or fall together. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to "delete both" as well. Good move.--Artypants (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Delete Broken Radio (film)"" was accidently created
  • ""Keep Broken Radio"" IMDB only posts in-production movies from major production companies (dreamworks, universal, etc.) and not local. Local films are only accepted upon release and certificate of release, and a fee which has been paid if you want a copy of the receipt as proof. I have the films registration with the writers guild of america as proof of it. As for no existance in the listings from without a box, I stated that it had recieved honorable mention in the festival, meaning it was given that title but not accepted into the screenings, thusly it would not be listed. The providence film festival is a private film festival perfromed at providence college in providence, ri and I have in print files proving its award on that if you wish for me to reference, and or scan in for reference those. AS or ghost hunters the site I claimed to be not credible, I joined the crew in late 2008 as an interning prodiction assitant for the new season and will be credited upon the upon coming 2009-2010 season begining on March 18th and thusly I posted the first site to have the proof of said credits. Again, I have the paper work signed and dated by the shows producers as well as pilgrim films declaring my employment as an intern. I also have my certificates of awards won by the films I have produced, as well as links to either the film it self in some that I have only produced and links to trailers of other films in which I have directed and produced. All which I shall have on both sites by Sunday at midnight when all said documents are scanned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no significant verifiable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable film. JuJube (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Non-notable film. Article does not provide support for claims. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable with no prejudice against recreation. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student projects are not notable unless they qualify for other reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It got honorable mention at a film festival whose wikipedia page says has 25,000 attending. Do events that have that many people attending them get a page normally? Is any award given by such enough to make anyone notable? Dream Focus 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to the authors comment above the "honorable mention" is a polite way of saying that the festival declined to screen the film which cannot be taken as an indicium of notability. Indeed anything short of a Best of Festival type of award is unlikely to sway AfD commentators. Full length reviews in edited print or web publications (i.e. not blogs or reprints of producer provided copy) are the best way to establish notability. If they don't exist the film probably shouldn't have an article. See the relevant guideline. Also, to put the discussion in context, Wikipedia generally has a more stringent inclusion policy than IMDb and so is usually a poor choice for promotion if they have declined to host a page on the film. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY back to author User:Mwilbs. When verifiable notability exists, he can bring it on back with a smile. I would accept that the film title exists without seeing it on IMDB as long as I could verify it elsewhere. I could accept that it recieved an honorable mention at a film festival if I were shown a link to the festival page verifying its award. However, neither were supplied and neither can be found. User:Mwilbs needs to understand that if he and his films get a few nice reviews or write-ups, then that would be a whole different story. USERFY this, let him add those reviews and write-ups, and then he can ask for input about what it could need to assure it not being tossed back into AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:Mwilbs was blocked for making legal threats. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 03:44
  • Now that's a pity. Only on Wiki for 2 days and blocked. It was obvious from his growing animous that he was quite new to Wiki and was baffled and frustrated in his lack of knowledge. Its a real shame. But... that's how it goes. Newcomers will never find wiki a welcoming place unless they can accept that their early efforts will be usually tossed out time after time until they get it right. I recommended a userfication so that he might have had that time to learm. Oh, well. Was he ever ""Welcomed". I may be wrong, but it looks like the first thing in his talk page is a Deletion notice. Poor guy... he never knew what hit him. Ouch. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with you to an extent, don't feel to bad; He only came to the pedia to create an article about himself, and I can't imagine he would've hung around after they'd been created/established. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand too what you are saying. He got flustered. He over-reacted. He got himself blocked. Now he's yet one more citzen cursing wikipedia for its confusions. One has to muse sometimes about what might have happened had he been made to feel welcome... and his article placed in a "review" status before being tossed ill-prepared to mainspace. Oh, well. If he does reach a suitable success level, surely someone else will write about him or his films. Sure hope they do a good job. Hate to see his blood flowing from the same wounds.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea I agree, and you'll see I !voted with "no prejudice against recreation", but if he had "been made to feel welcome... and his article placed in a "review" status" he would've still buggered off, he was only here to promote himself. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilbur

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

Notability in Question

  • No listing for movies in IMDB
  • No listing for movie at the festival mentioned
  • No listing for individual in cast and crew reference
  • No listings in Google ttonyb1 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michael Wilbur, Broken Radio and Andrew Tyrrell (now deleted) all seem connected and all not notable. This looks like a planned campaign and is obvious it's using the Wiki to give them credibility. There are no third party independent references.--Artypants (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, he's not in the references and I can find no confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not Delete"- IMDB only posts in-production movies from major production companies (dreamworks, universal, etc.) and not local. Local films are only accepted upon release and certificate of release, and a fee which has been paid if you want a copy of the receipt as proof. I have my writers guild membership number if you would like to see that as a credible source, as well as the registration of broken radio with the writeres guild of america. As for no existance in the listings from without a box, I stated that it had recieved honorable mention in the festival, meaning it was given that title but not accepted into the screenings, thusly it would not be listed. The providence film festival is a private film festival perfromed at providence college in providence, ri and I have in print files proving its award on that if you wish for me to reference, and or scan in for reference those. AS or ghost hunters the site I claimed to be not credible, I joined the crew in late 2008 as an interning prodiction assitant for the new season and will be credited upon the upon coming 2009-2010 season begining on March 18th and thusly I posted the first site to have courage of said credits. Again, I have the paper work signed and dated by the shows producers as well as pilgrim films declaring my employment as an intern. I also have my certificates of awards won by the films I have produced, as well as links to either the film it self in some that I have only produced and links to trailers of other films in which I have directed and produced. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This very much looks like he is using the Wiki to make himself look important and successful, so as to impress people, and if he has been given the opportunity to be an “interning prodiction assitant” (interning production assistant) on the programme Ghost Hunters, then it is even more clearer that the Wiki is being used to impress them. This is not what the Wiki is about. To date, he has done nothing that would class as being notable on the Wiki, and it doesn’t help with him Blitzing Editors, I have replied to him on his talk page User talk:Mwilbs. The Wiki is not for people on an ego trip from nowhere land.--Artypants (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas it seems I've upset Michael Wilbur or Mwilbs as he is known. You can see his very mature rant on my User talk:Artypants. I think this proves the true reason behind his article.--Artypants (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, those who had not read the first comment by fartyinmypanties over here, you can see his very mature comment to me after I had left a civil comment asking him to talk to my face and not ignore any comment I made towards him. As a result things have escalated and action will be taken on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I will now be hearing from, quote: "my agency of william morris' law firms." Mwilbs has made it clear he will also be going against WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. A very nice person indeed. My reply is on my talk page. ttonyb1 had asked that we put a bit of perspective on the "issue", which I totally agree with. For this reason I shall not contribute any more to this AfD, but my vote of Delete remains. Wiki Editors should never be threatened.--Artypants (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Artypants. ArcAngel (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for reasons listed above by everyone. Dream Focus 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY back to author User:Mwilbs. When verifiable notability exists, bring it on back. I can accept that he has made several student films and one of them recieved an honorable mention at a film festival, but User:Mwilbs needs to understand that simply having done so does not mean an article need exist about him on Wiki. If he and his films get a few nice reviews or write-ups, then that would be a different story. And on or not-on IMDB means nothing, as it is already accepted that he has made these films and simply being on IMDB does not confer any notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per reasons listed above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 03:02
  • Delete and salt. Non-notable and self advertising. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G1 - nonsense J.delanoygabsadds 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munim Mohsin

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

I had marked this as a speedy, g3 (vandalism) because it seems to contain very dubious information. My speedy tag was removed by an anonymous IP, so I am now moving it to AfD. Specifically, the article contains very dubious claims such as "Munim Mohsin is a robot created n the megacity of Dhaka, Bangladesh", and the "robots claim to fame was for calling Syhletis 'the scum of the earth'. This was followed by week long protests all over the world..." More so, there is no complaince with WP:N, and no references at all have been provided. Aka042 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedy if possible. This article is nonsense. Note these statements from the article:
    • "Munims claim to fame was when he claimed all Sylhetis are the scum of the earth."
    • "President Obama had even stepped in and wrote a book about his experiences and thoughts on the matter."
    • "John McCain adopted another Bangladeshi."
    • "This story has been greatly exaggerated and is not to be taken seriously."
•••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--it's a joke, and it's not funny. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bray

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

Doesn't meet biography notability. By the note here User_talk:DoctorHugh0 and the history it appears that he recreated this article the day he was notified of it's deletion. Habanero-tan (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference is his own website! It does not meet the guide lines in anyway. Artypants, Babble 17:42, 18 February 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) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Add a {{unreferenced}}, wait a month and see what happens. The article claims notability but simply doesn't provide reliable sources under WP:RS. The creators/editors may have them but just need a week or two to post them.OlYellerTalktome 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 0 relevant Google News ghits. All awards (even if substantiated) aren't equal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Genetic diversity. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Distribution

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

Not notable, hoax. Its a science description from the book I Am Legend about a zombie virus, see the first edit. Later edits were just people deleting the zombie part. Habanero-tan (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf's Day

Olaf's Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced alternate name for Steak and Blow Job Day, or as the the Toronto radio station is calling it, Steak and Sex Day. Note that neither of the two more-widely-known names have articles written about them. Absolutely no support for the "Olaf's Day" name; delete as unverifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense. This entire article appears to be based upon a throwaway joke line from a CNN show in which someone mentioned "Steak and sex day." Also the joke had no mention of an "Olaf's Day". •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only fractionally better than a typical MADEUP topic. Sgroupace (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator is not advocating deletion, and AFD is not where we discuss merges. Non-admin closure. Powers T 21:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho

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

Notability, merge with List of school pranks - Habanero-tan (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Raebareli#Schools. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Vision School

New Vision School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have nominated this article for deletion as it does not provide a neutral point of view, the article does not cite its sources and is not encyclopedia quality. Panpanman (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC). EDIT: After the major cleanup from TerriersFan, the reasons for nomination are no longer valid and I will withdraw my vote for AfD. The New Vision School article may remain as a stub. Panpanman (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the reasons cited by the nominator are not per se reasons to delete, the sources don't seem to be particularly reliable and I don't see any true assertation of notability. It's just a small private school. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Raebareli#Schools where the school is already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by TerriersFan. Considering the dearth of information in the article, and in the absence of sources, there's not much point in maintaining this as a separate article. However, the proposed destination article section is an unannotated list; if this material is to be merged there, the Schools section Raebareli needs to be expanded to an annotated list. --Orlady (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bible

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

Teleshopping presenter. Although there seem to be quite a log of references sprinkled throughout, the only ones which actually refer to Jeff Bible are his MySpace[2] and his own website[3]. I have searched online for some independent references for this article but discovered none.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sin-Jin Smyth

Sin-Jin Smyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Berry

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

The NN star of a NN made-for-the-Net series. Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete The only source appears to be her own website. Unless anyone finds another this fails WP:WEB and WP:BLP hands down. FlyingToaster 17:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as borderline A7, but I declined speedy so it can be discussed here. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Many of the keeps are likely socks, there is consensus to delete. Xclamation point 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Pleitez

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

Article is about non-notable political aide. OCNative (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that there are no articles for any of the also-rans in any of the five previous articles on special elections in California for Congress:
(the exception being in the 50th, but in that election, Kaloogian and Morrow had been state legislators before running and Turner was in the NFL - those three are notable by virtue of being state legislators and an NFL player not because they ran for Congress). OCNative (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a congressional candidate, which clears the bar as far as notability goes. I'd keep. --Weebot (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete. He is indeed running for the seat (assuming Hilda Solis gets confirmed and the whole special election happens, which is not a sure thing at this point), but he is a long-shot and is not one of the leading candidates (Gil Cedillo and Judy Chu are). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Changing my position, due to WP:PEOPLE's guideline of: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" I'm not convinced the coverage is significant yet. The fact that everything written about the subject has been from the three WP:SPA/WP:COI accounts User:Gmuny11, User:Lealspeed, and User:Omrecinos, reinforces this view. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Convinced ? "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The requirements of Significant Coverage has been met according to the notability guidelines. User:omrecinos —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Primary notability guidelines, met. Coverage is available from reliable sources. Candidate is recognized as contender for the seat of 32nd Congressional in California. Media sources are independent of subject. Including Obama Transition review information, interviews by KNBC, KVEA, and KMEX on January 10, 2009. This coverage should be presumed substantive, regardless if it currently is not more or greater than other candidates in the political race. WP:N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2eXcL (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this account created day of this comment. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Question of whether he's the favorite to win is different from whether or not his campaign is being covered by independent reliable sources which it certainly is at this point. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 carterblanchard(talk) 09:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this account also created day of this comment. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important race and Pleitez has attracted substantial media and community attention. User:OCNative has a perceived bias against the candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viapastrengo (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel_Pleitez (4th nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viapastrengo (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 April 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 Second World. Xclamation point 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Second World

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

No notability asserted. Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handful Productions

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

Non-notable theatrical group. Does not meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find mentions of the group, and event listings but not coverage about the group. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also find only trivial mentions. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Peace

The Power of Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. No evidence that this has actually gone into production, and therefore it would fail the future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can adequately demonstrate that production has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no coverage about this film. The article spcifies some dates and festivals where announcements were to take place, but if they did, they weren't covered by any sources that cpuld be found through googling. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 17 February 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) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue. Please list at WP:MFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know

AfDs for this article:
User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know (edit | [[Talk:User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unneeded page from a user that serves no purpose to the encyclopedia Shnitzled (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a namesapce page! The user in question seems somewhat active, just hasn't done much with the page in question. Why is this even nominated?Vulture19 (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roelstra

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

Contested prod, the reason was Non-notable fictional character. To this, I add that there are no sources and the entire article is writen from the in-universe perspective. --Tone 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Tone 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for Cobra 12 - Full Limit

Alert for Cobra 12 - Full Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and possible hoax. A google search for "Alert for Cobra 12" finds nothing outside Wikipedia [4], though a few Asian websites are selling something called "Alarm for Cobra 12 Team 2" [5]. Katja Woywood is not credited with this supposed film on IMDb [6] (though she is credited with a 2003 TV series called "Alarm für Cobra 11 - Einsatz für Team 2"), while director Stefan Levin (article deleted) isn't listed at all [7]; the closest thing to this on IMDb is "Alarm für Cobra 11 - Burning Wheels" [8], but that's clearly not the same. Finally, a google search for "Alarm für Cobra 12" [9] finds little of relevance, though the top hit is a home made parody video on MySpace [10]. External links in the article offer nothing. Prod removed by IP without explanation. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vocalists

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

Superfluous, and the list would be huge if filled. Category:Singers is more than enough. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 11:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I agree that lists and categories can both be useful, but I don't see the potential for a list that casts as wide a net as this one. As a navigation tool, a list like this is not useful. It's no exaggeration to say that we have thousands of articles about persons who are singers, and that after such a list is (inevitably) split into A, B, C, each article would have hundreds of entries. If I'm looking for a particular needle, a smaller haystack is still a haystack. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this list topic is too broad in scope to be useful. JamesBurns (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Singers. I would say merge and redirect to List of singers, but that is just a redirect to the category, so we may as well redirect this to the same category. Though if this were made into a "list of lists", it would be acceptible as a stand-alone list per the guideline. DHowell (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J.Donnelly

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

This article was previously listed for speedy deletion, but he depth of the hoax was expanded claim notability. No such person exists. All the cited sources go to top-level domains. And "Tosca, the Opera", please!!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Btw, there is actually someone called Patrick J. Donnelly but he's not an actor. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it appears there is a Patrick J.Donnelly! But I still think the article deserves to be deleted as non-notable. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this may not be a hoax - if you type "Donnelly" into the search box on the Spotlight website an entry does come up, but it only gives the address of the casting agency. My reason to delete is that the parts listed - "Irish peasant." "Soldier in firing squad," "Stand-in double" etc. - are too minor to give notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notabilty grounds per JohnCD. I don't think it is a hoax, to be honest. The section on his service in the Irish army (I presume) is completely unsourced of course, but it does sound entirely plausible for someone serving in the Lebanon as part of UNIFIL, as many Irish soldiers of the time would have done. He is listed at Irish Equity. But unfortunately, it's his acting career that would be generate the reasons for inclusion here and the subject just doesn't seem to meet WP:N. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably not a hoax, but a non notable actor. Snappy (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY back to author at User:Norton3600/sandbox/Patrick J. Donnelly as he has specificaly stated on the article itself that he is new and needs time to bring it into line. Userfication will allow him the time. If it gets improved, it can come back. If not... well, he has shown the interest in learning and that is an appreciable quality. He may not know how or to whom or even what a userfication is. If it is userfied, he may need to be shown just where and how to continue working it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a living person? Assuming it's not a hoax that is! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this Donnelly guy is a great lad but I really can't see him qualifying the notability criteria any time soon. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodillos

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

Popular restaurant in Santa Ponsa, Spain. No significant and independent coverage. Wronkiew (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The only reliable source I found is this one: [11] (the restaurant is also mentioned on the guide's introductory page for Mallorcan dining, emphasising that they consider it important: [12]), but that is not enough to establish notability. If other sources turn up, consider this a keep. JulesH (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 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) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (for now). I am in the same position as JulesH. Perhaps someone who speaks Dutch could help see if there are any sources to be had in that language, since the owners are Dutch. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While WP:RS is somewhat vague on where the line is drawn on what a reliable source is, I believe the Travel Channel to be a reliable source. TC is notable and a third party. While it may be considered weak, it has obtained notoriety from a reliable source. In my opinion, it should be kept. OlYellerTalktome 12:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the Travel Channel is a reliable source, but JulesH's source is a destination guide. If TC had featured the restaurant on one of its segments or otherwise reported on it, I'd call it a keeper. But this is just a destination guide and as such I don't think the bar for being included in the list of restaurants is very high-- on the contrary, I think destination guides try to be have more inclusive listings of restaurants. Perhaps this can contribute towards notability, but by itself, I don't think it's enough to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have actually checked the TC link. I'm changing my vote and noting a lesson learned. :-) OlYellerTalktome 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Peterson (playwright)

James Peterson (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO & specifically WP:CREATIVE. His oeuvre consists of a single self-published one-act play which does not appear to be a "significant or well known work", indeed, outside primary sources I am having difficulty finding anything about it at all. Nancy talk 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage about him in reliable sources. Also, this current version of the article is a copyvio from [13]. If this does get kept, it needs to be reverted back to an earlier versiont hat was not a copy of the playwright's bio on his web site. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 17 February 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) 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons listed by Whpq. OlYellerTalktome 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. I can find very little about him, no references that are reliable third party. Artypants, Babble 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Man, One Woman

One Man, One Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. No evidence of charting (or even of release) in country stated. Not likely to develop beyond a stub. Paul75 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. Songs that won Academy Awards are de facto notable. This AfD has a snowball's chance of coming to a consensus for deletion. Non-admin closure. Powers T 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or Later (Madonna song)

Sooner or Later (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album track only. Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The song won an Academy Award - that sounds pretty notable to me. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Award winning song clearly meeting WP:NSONGS criterion 2. JulesH (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep An Academy Award winning song written by Stephen Sondheim. What more can you ask for? Pastor Theo (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons above.--Cbradshaw (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. But change name to (Sondheim song) because 1) he received Oscar, main focus of notability and 2) songs should be associated with authors, tracks to recording artists & this is about song not track. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. After weighing the arguments presented by each side, I've found consensus to be that this crash was minor and fails NOTNEWS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

News incident with no lasting encyclopedic notability, fails WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a Brit, but it still doesn't pass the policy and the guideline stated. I also find your assumption of bad faith rather concerning. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do feel free to keep those concerns to yourself. Shnitzled (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, too, am concerned, Shnitzled, and your tone isn't really helpful, either. We try very hard to work against regionalism...I personally have AfD'd a number of similar incidents that have happened in the U.S....far more so than have happened in other nations, in fact. Focus on the issue...it does or it does not meet the minimum criteria. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adequately covered in both London City Airport and BA CityFlyer articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as per proposer. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is notable, it seems as though as if anything that happens in Britain the Americans turn their backs too. It is notable that's why I think we should keep it, as people do like to know this information. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a US airliner did the same thing and got an article I would nominate it here. There is nothing unusual, unlike in the 2007 Dash 8 landing gear incidents or JetBlue Airways Flight 292, nor is there something like a fatality or a suggestion of poor legislation or design error playing a role. While I sympathise with the argument that we can keep such articles and see if laws are changed or aircraft redisigned, in reality too many airliners have such crashes for this to be feasable, with recreation if they become notable being the way to go. See also WP:CRYSTAL Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but I seriously believe that if this had happened in the U.S.A. you would keep it, so I'm sorry but I seriously believe there is a foul play here. Prove me wrong by keeping it. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joey, you are absolutely wrong. Here are 3 that happened in the US that I either nominated or !voted delete in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 528, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 268, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. You are missing the point entirely...an incident doesn't become notable simply because it happens in the UK rather than in the US. It is non-notable because a nose gear collapse just isn't notable...it's a minor incident that simply doesn't rise to encyclopedic level. No one was killed, and the plane is easily repairable. Life goes on. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect Joey? They have so many articles here on sports significant only to the USA, but when it comes to international sports, they get deleted for being "irrelevant". Typical. Shnitzled (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do you a deal. I'll find a similar incident from the US and write an article - hopefully this weekend, but if not then not for a week as I will be away. I'll then take it to AfD and we'll see what happens. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about an article on the helicopter crash involving Sun Myung Moon which happened late last year? You could find lots of press coverage. Redddogg (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look to be prefectly fair, the JetBlue Airways Flight 292 incident was practically the same when you look at it. It had nose gear problems, made a crash-landing, stopped on runway, emergency response, passengers & crew onboard and they all survived, so tell me where the difference is to BA CityFlyer Flight 8456. All I want here right now is to show the world things which are happening here in Britain too, not just America, I ain't got problems with Americans but the thing that annoys me is that we can't have any incident like JetBlue 292 on wiki. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JetBlue can only be considered notable due to the insane press coverage. The thing was broadcast live etc. Otherwise, I would advise that article's deletion, and I might add that it is only barely notable in my book. As for the helicopter crash, it meets WP:AVIATION as it involves a very notable person and I would not even nominate such an article here (although someone else might). I will go out and look for a landing gear incident from America, create it and nominate it at some point. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was, but this incident made top news all over U.K. (so really it too got insane press coverage), some parts of Europe and North America. Therefor it's just fits into notable in my books too. So to be honest I agree with Joey on this one. Zaps93 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To come back to my offer, will you agree that this American incident is comparable in notability (although somewhat different in circumstances)? If so, I will sort out an article and I very much doubt it would sirvive an AfD. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, An incident involving the nosewheel of same aircraft type, at the same airport happened last week. The article ia an important historically should there be (God forbid) a design or engineering issue. I agree with the general sentiments about American-Zionist control. Mohammed Azeem, London, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.245.29 (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, I am fascinated by the idea that the nomination of this article for deletion could be part of some 'American-Zionist' conspiracy... as arguments for keeping an article go, that's got to be one of the strangest ones I've read in a long time. :) Robofish (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. Many people fail to understand that wiki is turning to be an initial ref source for serious acadmic studies (they don't cite wiki, but they use it to research for primary sources). This incident may well be of interest for studies in aviation, transportation and even critcal social theories of media and globalization. Therefore it should stay. Oh, and I am a Zionist. There goes the American-zionist conspiracy theory down the drain...--Omrim (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Interestingness is a good essay which talks about why being of interest is not a good measure of how in need we are of an article on something, and as for its academic use, there's WP:USEFUL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your point. I didn't say it is interesting. I did say it is useful, and as per WP:USEFUL, I explained why it is useful. It is important to note such an incident, for ex, for learning patterns of nose gear failures. It is also, as some implied, important incident in distinguishing the responses of different media outlets to differne aviation incidents, and Those are just two examples. It is not just "usefull". It is important piece of information in the documentation of commercial aviation history. Therefore KEEP. --Omrim (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you: "well be of interest for studies in..." (emphasis added). However, I also brought in WP:USEFUL as I suspected that was what you meant. I would not say that you explained why before, merely noting who it would be if use instead of why, but in your last response you did. I disagree, but that's beside the point: you now have a valid argument. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Things happen every day. If you feel, or make that if notable secondary sources feel that the nosewheel of this model airplane is an issue then write an article on that. Redddogg (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Joey Boeing 777 due to the fact that incidents like this are listed on wiki, but for some reason are all American. This incident made no.1 headline in British BBC News and other news, even made American news. If it was the no.1 story therefor it should be listed down as its part of BA CityFlyer's history and LCY history to be precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaps93 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) — Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment can I just remind contributors that this page is to discuss the notability of this incident and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid point at AfD. Also note like the S-92 accident with Sun Myung Moon article which is mentioned in both his and the S-92 articles, nobody is removing it from the CityFlyer or London City article just that it is not notable in its own right to have an article. If you have concerns about other articles then please raise the appropriate AfDs. Also note we are not all Americans on Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say, i'm not saying all contributers are American because I know thats not true, but to be perfectly honest the people trying their damnest to get rid of this article are American (excluding you). So honestly whats the harm in a small article covering a 'major' incident at LCY. It involved wild news coverage, emergency response and hospitalization. Zaps93 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not American, as noted above. I'm a Brit - I come from the country it crashed in. I've never been to the Americas. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this turns into a racial discussion lets all get back to the topic. It was a major thing to happen to the U.K. Nothing like this happened often here. After reading WP:AIRCRASH I have to say I think it just squeezes into notability. Zaps93 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2009
  • Delete - there does not appear to be anything particularly notable about this accident. For contrast, see for instance British Airways Flight 38 - that article was nominated for deletion, but kept as it was the first major accident involving a 777. There doesn't seem to be anything like that we can say about this one; it was simply a flight that suffered landing gear failure, but landed without serious injury. I don't see any lasting newsworthiness here. (And, for the record, I am British.) Robofish (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered by multiple, reliable independent sources, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:Notability. Afroghost (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, says Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Wroooong. Does the word presume tell you anything? If not, then Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline will tell you: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." Afroghost (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? Today is the first time I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability in a few months. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that I have confused Wikipedia:Notability with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have said that it passes Wikipedia:Notability because is does meet the notability criteria. I already know that policies have precedence over guidelines, which is why I stated why I believe the subject passes Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as per proposer. The nationality of the aircraft is not an issue. Rcawsey (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find the notability questionable. No-one died, and only one person was slightly injured. (PS - I'm from the United Kingdom.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People dying does not make a crash notable. It is reliable, independent sources which are required, and what the article has. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Such incidents of commercial jet aircraft are not common (as they shouldn't be) and by British law will generate volumes of government investigation documentation.--Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The flight itself is not notable. If, as was mentioned in the discussion above, there is a pattern involving BA CityFlyer craft, the discussion is better handled at the BA CityFlyer article and not at flight-specific articles, since the problems would be airline-wide and not limited to a specific flight or plane. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, moreover it is good illustration of London City's steep glideslope. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think London City's steep glideslope is an important topic (and it might be) please write an article about that. Redddogg (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable about this hard landing, even if it did occur in a place where English is spoken. American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc. air incidents are no more notable than those anywhere else in the world. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor incident. If anyone can find other very minor incidents they should nominate them for deletion and discussion. Spikydan1 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "crashed slightly" "one minor injury" - this is not of the "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" required by WP:NOTNEWS. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:News articles is an essay, unlike Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is a policy, unlike Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline. Afroghost (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the coverage is announcements, sports or tabloid journalism, and it's not hard to find multiple sources which do not count as breaking news in this list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You selectively quoted from the policy. Your quote is one example of several of what not to include in Wikipedia. The policy also states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", and this requirement is not satisfied by this article as this is truly a minor, minor incident. Afroghost (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this a minor incident? It is major enough to be covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a crash, not notable in the slightest. Can think of half a dozen similar incidents over recent years, none of which are included on Wikipedia! The only difference with this incident is that it happened recently, Wikipedia is not a news service. SempreVolando (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press coverage only because of major fatal crash in immediate past. Accidents that don't happen aren't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has multiple sources so it passes Wikipedia:Notability, which also states that notability is not temporary. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has many sources therefor it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Also it may become useful information within the near future. Thanks Awkwardwalker (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and what others have already said. Afroghost (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft. My reasoning is: I share the concerns about NOT#NEWS, but I think that after this has stopped being news, it'll still be a marginally notable incident. However, I don't feel there's enough actual content to justify a separate article, and I don't feel it could be expanded to full article status because there isn't enough to say.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - merge not possible - that list has a dedicated guideline, which specifies that all entries must have existing wiki articles. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - so merge it to an alternative list. If no suitable place exists on Wikipedia, then I'll change my !vote to a reluctant keep until a suitable merge location appears or the guidelines for that list change.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the ideal place to merge it to would be the airline's article, and possibly also the article on the airport. If design is an issue, the aircraft type as well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, minor accident. If it's any consolation, I tried to write an article about the time I dinged my car fender, but the American Zionist conspiracy deleted that one too. SkipSmith (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely minor incident. Regardless of the number of newspaper articles about this topic, WP is not a newspaper, nor a news aggregator. -Atmoz (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by sources is how notability is gained. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct. If it is covered in February 2009 sources, it is news. If we think that it's notable enough that it will still be covered by sources in February 2010, or in the chapter of a book in 2019, than we say that it is notable enough for an article of its own. Subjective, sure, but that's how the consensus is determined. I'm not asking anybody to answer this question, but I think we have to ask "would this be notable ten years from now?" Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those defending this article, perhaps you could read WP:AIRCRASH and then come back and explain why this crash is notable by that standard? SkipSmith (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm inclined to disregard WP:AIRCRASH in this case. It's an essay, so I feel it has to yield to guidelines and policies.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for what it's worth, WP:AIRCRASH was built from a long term study of AfDs on aircraft incidents, which tried to incorporate all the typical arguments for and against articles of various degrees of severity. Thus, the attempt was to incorporate consensus as developed by the community in multiple AfDs. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I do understand that, but I feel we're dealing with Wikipedia: Five pillars fundamentals here. This matter received very significant coverage in multiple, reputable, independent sources, and those sources are cited. Therefore it's inappropriate to remove the content from Wikipedia. I feel that the only question that remains is where the information should be held--as a separate article or as part of a more comprehensive one? I realise WP:AIRCRASH is being cited in good faith but I don't feel it can be allowed to disrupt the process of building an encyclopaedia. -- I also feel there's some inadvertent blindness in our American friends to exactly how important this incident is to the British perspective, though I don't agree with the very strongly-put remarks at the beginning of this AfD.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there really is a problem with the landing gear then maybe this artcle should be condenced and used to create a section on BAe 146. Or if other landing gear incidents can't be found then it shoud just be a sentence or two on BA CityFlyer and BAe 146. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment I've seen lots of references to WP:AIRCRASH here, and so I thought I'd explicitly list how I think it rates against those criteria
    General criteria:
    1. I'm no expert but based on comments here seem to be suggesting that landing gear failure of this type is not unusual, but the amount of media coverage of it is
    2. Neither the article nor anybody here appears to be claiming that anyone onboard was notable, so I think it's fair to say nobody on board was.
    3. It's probably too early for air crew to be dismissed/reprimanded over this, but I've not seen any speculation that they will be. At this point it's probably fair to say that they probably wont be. It is definitely too early for maintenance staff to be in the firing line, and this will still be the case when this afd runs out of time. For now I'd say treat it as if nobody is being fired/reprimanded but revisit the issue if this changes in the future.
    Air carrier criteria:
    1. The incident did involve a scheduled carrier, but it did not result in serious injury or loss of life. This would seem then to be one mark for inclusion and one mark against.
    2. Too early to say whether this will change anything, so assume it doesn't unless and until it actually does, at which point this can be reconsidered.
    3. This was not a hijacking and did not involve any sort of military or terrorist action
    4. This does not appear to be either the first or worst accident for the airline or airliner.
    This was not a military aircraft, so the criteria for these do not apply
    General/Private aviation criteria:
    1. There doesn't appear to be any unusual circumstances involved
    2. There does not appear to have been anybody notable on board
    3. It is too early to say whether changes to the industry will result
    4. News coverage was extensive at the time, but the only thing I've seen since is a small regional news item about the airport reopening. Compare this to the continuing coverage of Continental Connection Flight 3407. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my comments above I'm !voting merge into airline, airport and (maybe) airliner articles, keep for now but re-examine in 1-2 months so questions about continued coverage and lasting impact (if any) can be properly answered. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I'd forgotten this already before you reminded me of it again... not a single teeny-weeny-iddy-biddy ounce of a death, word of dramatic landing or any pilots being given the keys to London. I would however reverse that entirely had the plane splash-landed in the Thames. Oh wait, that wouldn't be very original at all – make that Loch Ness instead. Of course that's the danger with a verdict of redirecting to re-examine later – the re-examining bit tends to not happen. ;) --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very notable...the airline was on CNN, the World Wide Web and aren't all airline accidents or incidents notable? Whenaxis (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep - "Strong delete" is a bit harsh, the accident has been on every single reputable news source, it caused a major international airport to be closed for a day, and, it highlights a dangerous design fault with the aircraft concerned. I would like to also add that if this article is nominated for deletion, I think it would be fair to also nominate JetBlue Airways Flight 292 for deletion as well, as to quote User: Candlewicke, not a single teeny-weeny-iddy-biddy ounce of a death occured on that flight either. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled? Afroghost (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, who are you may I ask? You are new here, and you are accusing me of suckpuppetry. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see quite a bit of discussion of JetBlue Flight 292 in this discussion; I don't agree with using the same standard for both articles, and here's why.
I can't say that I remember the flight number, exactly, but I sure as hell remember the JetBlue incident. Not, particularly, because of the incident itself, but because of the media coverage. I remember being convinced we were about to see a catastrophe unfold on live national television, mainly because the reporters' reaction was along the lines of "ohmigod ohmigod ohmigod OHMIGOD OHMIGOD THE PLANE IS GOING TO CRASH OHMIGOD OHMIGOD". So I find the article on the subject less interesting as a document of a fairly minor incident than as a document of the media's sensationalization of a potential accident, if you will. I've given it a cursory glance and feel that it could use some work in that regard, but that's why I'd vote to keep it.
Granted, I'm speaking from the States, but I don't recall nearly that level of sensationalism surrounding this accident. It was picked up after it had happened; once people realized how comparatively minor it was they dropped it again. There was no build-up to some horrific and spectacular finish; there was no anticipation of a fiery end. There was just a brief amount of reporting on a potentially notable story; once it was established that there was nothing sensational about it, it was dropped.
That's my two cents' worth, at any rate. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have not dropped it yet. The number of sources returned by Google News is growing (some added a few hours ago). --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Even so, I don't see that it's become sensationalized, which was my point about the other incident. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I don't think JetBlue Airways Flight 292 should have its own article either. Perhaps both articles should be merged into a longer list or article. SkipSmith (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion is noted, but that article survived two AfDs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These type of articles, when containing detailed, useful information like an aircraft FIN number, flight number and date are good for reference if an aircraft or line is a troubled ship or type. While it doesn't result in loss of life, it was an incident major enough to alter transport traffic flow of a world centre of commerce for many hours. The crash section may not apply or could be ambiguous as other ships of this type have had undercarriage issues during initial investigations of a fatal accident. While not every time the finish gets scratched should be included, if the same logic was used here, no one could use Wikipedia to see a pattern of problems with the DHC8 undercarriage which would leave mentioning of groundings seem sudden rather than something that was the result of many incidents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SirDeath (talk • contribs) — SirDeath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Icewedge (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Drive (Video game)

Sex Drive (Video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article tagged by The ed17 (talk · contribs) as being a possible hoax, no hits reported on google or on gamespot. Additionally, fails WP:N and WP:V on CRYSTAL grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION ALL USERS: The user who created this article had registered an inappropriate user name for the user account, and I subsequently blocked the guy on user name grounds after I notified the user in question of the afd. Therefore, if you see an isp address or a very new user editing this afd there is a chance it could be the article's author. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an obvious hoax. ArcAngel (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative identity disorder in fiction

Dissociative identity disorder in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure of the appropriateness of this article. While Wikipedia isn't censored, it should at least be a bit tactful. I'm not sure what encyclopedic purpose this list serves. It's an IPC article about a mental disorder. There's also a danger that some of the listed examples aren't DID but something else (most notably, Willow from Buffy: if my girlfriend got her brain sucked by the devil incarnate, I'd be pretty pissed; mind you, I never watched the show so I can't verify one way or the other). As the article notes, it is a notable concept, but that said, I don't think it's worthy of its own article. Maybe a sourced section in the DID article which discusses how the disorder has been represented in the media... but a IPC article? I don't think so. Sceptre (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Turn into a proper list. I don't think there's a civility concern especially because it is focused on fiction. If it were a list of people with the disorder there might be a debate there. Clearly there are some inclusion issues since it's a pretty common plot devise, but I don't think those issues are particularly damaging. When I look at the article now I just see a list. I'm not sure there's enough content to make it a topic itself. That's convenient though since there's not any non-list content included now anyway. So as a topic I don't think it's notable stand alone, but as a list I think it's fine. Shadowjams (talk)
    • If a subject is encyclopedic, then it's encyclopedic enough to be prose. Lists are basically an admission there are not enough sources to write a structured article. WillOakland (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right on the first count, but wrong on the second. Lists are obviously acceptable under WP policy and I don't quite understand your statement that lists indicate the absence of a structured article. There are plenty of examples of lists that have plenty of content for full articles, and yet remain useful as lists. For a good example see List_of_states. In this case the list is a sub of the parent article, Dissociative Identity Disorder. This is, as written, clearly a list. Frankly I don't know the nuance of WP:List policy, so perhaps my statement that it could be a list but not prose was incorrect. But in that case I think it's a keep as a list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lists created to organize and index prose articles are certainly allowed. That's not what this article is. WillOakland (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the original research in favor of covering the subject in the parent article. WillOakland (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how it's original research since it's a collection of objective works that appears to be relatively non-controversial. It might be better sourced, but that's not the same as original research. And while it'd be acceptable to include it in the original article, this list is pretty long and I don't see the advantage to putting it in the original. It should have a link, perhaps with some prose, in the original linking it to this list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's original research because it doesn't work from sources about DID in fiction, but directly from the fiction itself. If you thought I was saying that the list be moved back to the main article, you missed the point. WillOakland (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is impressive. However, it is really just a collection of information directly from primary sources. Not an encyclopedia about DID in fiction, with secondary sources, as WP requires -- or should require. Post it to another website, there is life outside of WP. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment to both WillOakland and Northwestgnome: Your definitions of WP:OR are too expansive. As I read through the list I don't see an interpretation of symptoms that culminate in a DID diagnosis--that would certainly be OR if there wasn't a secondary source saying as much. But in a book like Sybil, it's not original research to say the book was about someone with DID (or at least diagnosed as such...I'm not making any comments about whether DID is real as a disease). I don't readily see any "unpublished fact[], argument[], speculation, [or] ideas" here, but if there are they are a small portion of the article. In addition, there are WP:RS provided (some at the bottom) and most of the entries could probably have WP:RS found on them. The fact it's not cited now does not mean it's OR. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any problems with this article can be fixed by editing, therefore per WP:DELETION we should not delete it. JulesH (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no, we can't. "In popular culture" articles which are in list-form like this inherently violate WP:IINFO and WP:5P. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact an article can be improved through editing is not a defacto reason to keep an article. WP:DELETION does not indicate as such. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't presented any evidence that this article is any worse than many of the other 'in fiction' articles that have consenus to remain. Why is it impossible to treat a discussion of this common fictional trope encyclopedically? JulesH (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A widely used concept in fiction, not always that much related to the "real" dissociative identity disorder, therefore this list-like article is appropriate. --Cyfal (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not the real DID, it shouldn't be presented as it is. As I said, there may be room in the parent article for discussion about how it's misrepresented/confused for schizophrenia. But a list article like this is problematic for verifiability, accuracy, and encyclopedicity. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then rename it, e.g. Dissassociated identities in fiction, and add at the top of the article a note that many of the representations differ from the real condition in important ways. See: a problem with the articke that can be fixed by editing. JulesH (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - it's still synthesis. The article needs to be rewritten. At least as a stub. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (userfy). Synthesis. Plain and simple. All very well the idea of rewriting it, but we can't make up topics, just because they may be worthy/plausible/academically viable. I don't see any sources for "Dissociative Identity Disorder in Fiction". If someone can find them and show it's a notable topic, then I'll strike the delete - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of sources available. See Horvitz Literary Trauma ISBN 0791447111, Korhonen Tropes for the Past ISBN 904201718X, [14], [15], Campbell Fiction: 1900 to the 1930s American Literary Scholarship 2004 2002(1):269-307, Hayward Consuming Pleasures ISBN 081312025X, [16]. If we broaden the discussion to any form of multiple personalities, the sources don't need to be medically reliable. JulesH (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if the article is renamed. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on the subject of renaming: I should mention that this is Featured Article on medlab.org :D Or was earlier. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Claiming the right to laziness,) someone (else) needs to turn this into a workable stub if we are to keep. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the rename is a poor choice. Dissociative identity disorder is the DSM name for what is commonly called multiple personality disorder. It's a term of art, and the rephrasing of it, while grammatically correct, alters the reference and makes other claims about the content. It needs to be called a list because that's what it is, but dissassociated identities (unclear if there's any research that uses that term) it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it's OR. Basically, does anyone want to write a stub about this or a related topic? I can't see how we can keep the list, unfortunately, as it's one editor's speculative synthesis. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see discussion above about OR. Shadowjams (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple personalities that are a problem to the protaganist(s) is not the same thing as a Multiple Personality Disorder.
It is OR to state that Dr Hyde suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder, yes. Very post 19th century, in fact.
"Disorder", "Syndrome" or anything of the kind makes the list very much synthesis. There's a topic to be had, but this list with this title isn't it.
I mean, read the first paragraph of Dissociative_identity_disorder and then tell me the diagnosis of Dr Hyde is trivially true.
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sufficient number of films and other fictional works have in fact been discussed in just these terms(or the previous versions of the terminology,) by very RSs. Therefor a sourced article is easily possible. Its a little absurd to eliminate something which is a critical commonplace and the very basis of multiple well known works. Sufficient specific sources have been given above. A rename discussion belongs elsewhere--I think using the current name is better, because that will be the term used at this point in everything additional that's published, unless the next DSM changes it again a few years ahead. DGG (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean it up. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think where OR is concerned, an argument in the form of what an article might be is irrelevant, until someone actually changes it. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not according to WP:DELETION it isn't. What the article might practically become is what we should be discussing, not its state as it currently exists. JulesH (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a few observations:
    1. I'm not sure I understand the original argument to delete. Is the OP saying that an IPC article about a mental condition is inherently disrespectful?
    2. It's not unusual for movie or literary roles to be used as examples of personality disorders in intro psych classes ( i.e. borderline, histrionic, etc ), so there can be a use for this type of information.
    3. But as far as DID/MPD, it seems to be used more often as a plot device than implied in the character development, and is usually made very obvious. So I'm on the fence as far as whether this article serves a useful purpose.
    4. The argument about whether an IPC aricle on DID is inherently original synthesis is incorrect. To have original research, the article has to contain or deduce some fact or opinion that is only citable to Wikipedia. The "original research" policy doesn't have anything to do with how the data is organized.
      If you're saying that lack of scholarship dooms this article to be a list of facts, I agree that it does. To turn it into prose without sources would be original research. To keep it as a list of randomly chosen occurrences would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The conclusion is the same either way. WillOakland (talk)
    5. However, some of the individual fictions listed may be original research, if the DID is not plainly obvious in the work and we're the first to suggest it. But a sourced list is possible, WP:DEADLINE applies and see what the critics have to say. Also something like the Howdunit series may show how character development works with DID. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close to the point I was trying to make. Most of the examples of this are made plainly obvious in the works so that deducing a diagnosis is so trivial that it would be absurd to consider them OR. I don't think the nuance of the actual DSM diagnosis has any bearing here either--people know what is meant and that's the focus here. If anything that argument suggests a renaming to multiple personalities and not a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the "usefulness" of this article is not so much in commenting on the real mental disorder, but in the literary criticism field, commenting on the use of multiple personalities as a common plot device. That's the angle most if not all of the references I provided above approach the subject from. JulesH (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and clean up. Not sure OR really applies here. Vartanza (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I am unconvinced this article is unsalvagable. The original synthesis argument does not apply to lists like this, as no novel conclusion is being made. It's plain as day that characters with DID are common in fictional works, and reliable coverage of the issue is extant (see above). Nor is there any immediatist compulsion to delete here; we can afford to give time to articles pertaining to fictional topics to get it right, while the same is not true of BLPs for example. To summarize, this is a topic on which an encyclopaedic article conforming to the five pillars can be written, and there exists no strong rationale to delete. Skomorokh 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Underground Alliance

The Underground Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unremarkable myth, no relevant ghits, no refs, prod turned down -Zeus-uc 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bank puts up a statue of the inventer of the underground drilling machine. This means there must be a network of underground tunnels emanating from the bank. Move to Wikiconspiracy. Redddogg (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. If I had a network of underground tunnels I wanted to keep secret I would not put up a statue that draws attention to them. Redddogg (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a red flag move, obviously :) Delete §FreeRangeFrog 22:54, 9 February 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 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletean unimportant myth, article looks like a conspiracy theory, not an encyclopaedia entry. Rexfan2 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two of the claimed sources are searchable in Google Books, and neither makes any mention of Greathead.[17][18] That must cast doubt on the other sources presented by the same editor. And by searching in various venues I can't find any publication that mentions both Gilliant and Greathead.[19][20][21][22] I suppose this just means that the conspirators have done a good job of keeping this secret up to now - I'm sure they'll be very annoyed that a Wikipedia editor has finally given the game away after all these years. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:WHATEVER… I mean WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Tennessee (album)

Back to Tennessee (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Very little verifiable info yet, track listing can't be confirmed outside of retail sites such as Amazon. Given Lyric Street's penchant for constantly delaying album releases (just ask Sarah Buxton), and the poor performance of its leadoff single, there is more than a slight chance that this album could end up unreleased, much like Jo Dee Messina's Unmistakable. Either way, there are no sources to verify any of the information, and the Amazon description is not by a professional review and doesn't belong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - appears to have a lot of info regarding the album present. As an added note, I doubt it will be unreleased, TenLbHammer, Cyrus has put out plenty of albums with far more underperforming songs -- ie: Wanna Be Your Joe and Trail of Tears CloversMallRat (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those labels are more tolerant tho. Lyric Street is pretty strict. Josh Gracin led off his second album with a Top 20 hit and it still took him forever and a day to get the album out. Furthermore, if there's a "lot of info" where is it? CMT, GAC, etc. had nothing that amounted to anything more than "it will be released March 2009, blah blah blah yakkidy smakkidy". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ALBUM says you can use Amazon as a source of album art and that you can't use it as a source of reviews. That is the only mention I could find there.--NrDg 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it only just over a month until its release date and redirecting or deleting would just be a waste of time. I think its fine. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now - It passes WP:CRYSTAL but does not now meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. It has coverage, at least a mention at Amazon - Amazon is WP:RS for existence, track listings, planned release dates; but not reviews. The coverage is not "significant" though. However I lean towards keep as I have strong expectations that significant coverage for an album by a notable artist WILL happen and be enough to establish notability. Article is a work in progress and a reasonable expectation that notably will soon be established is, in my judgment, justification for a keep. Article has been tagged with {{notability}} and deletion should be reconsidered if a reasonable amount of time has passed without "significant coverage in independent sources" shown.--NrDg 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Only just over a month until its release date, like Speed of Light. Dennissell (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small loom

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

Basically, all it says is that "a small loom is a loom that is small." Manufacturers etc. distinguish between floor and table looms, but other than that, size is very specifically how wide a cloth can be woven. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would suggest merging it with loom, but, in this instance, it doesn't appear that there would be much here that it would be worthwhile to add to that article. Anaxial (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to loom as possible search term, and redirects are cheap. No content worth merging. -Atmoz (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we should put in large loom too? I'd rather avoid any suggestion that there is some distinct class of "small looms", when there isn't. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but no objection to redirecting to loom (If people think that this is a likely search term... if not just delete). Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 13 February 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 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it doesn't really have any useful content at all, nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect. Hut 8.5 12:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not provide any specific definition of the subject. How big is a loom that is classified as small? What is the definition of small with regard to looms? The only hint to the definition is that the article states that a small loom is designed to be portable. If that is the definition of a small loom, the article should be titled "portable loom" and then discuss the features of portable looms vs. nonportable looms. As it stands, this article provides no useful information, and also is completely unreferenced. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last request (Alfred Abbas Song)

Last request (Alfred Abbas Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Abbas Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:10, 9 February 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 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hawaii

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

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 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 04:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was bold redirect to Critical Mass. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 07:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago hold-up

Chicago hold-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little sources and original research. Does not seem notable enough for its own article Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It sounds cool. But not enough info, and no sources, for its own article. Merge to an article on bicycle protests. Redddogg (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Critical Mass I was unable to find sources to establish individual notability.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Follow-up: There is already a couple lines devoted to it in Critical Mass. Merging some content should be OK as long as it is notable and properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 February 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 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bid Waiver

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

WP:NOTDICDEF. It's already tagged for moving to Wiktionary, so by the time this AFD is over it'll be moved and even more dic-def-ish. flaminglawyer 07:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is a possible search term, so it should not be a redlink; but there doesn't appear to be enough there to make an encyclopaedic article.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:56, 9 February 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 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Meyer

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

Not PRODding because one of the re-directs had the PROD removed so I'm willing to treat this as possibly controversial and therefore not A7ing. She's held a number of n-n consulting positions, been a committee member and is "known" (5 ghits) as the Board Chair for a n-n org (deleted via PROD) and her predecessor was A7ed. Created by a promotional SPA. No evidence she's notable at all. StarM 03:57, 14 February 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) 01:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third party sources establishing notability. Scarykitty (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As themfromspace says, Quack... --Ged UK (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Margaret O'Neill Eaton. MBisanz talk 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Buchignani

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

Being the last husband of Margaret O'Neill Eaton is not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - some old newspaper coverage exists. Perhaps very minorly notable in his day. The current article offers no more than what's in the Peggy Eaton one, though.  J L G 4 1 0 4  02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Margaret O'Neill Eaton. He seems to be associated with WP:ONEEVENT, but his name is a reasonable search or link term and should take the reader to the article about his notable wife. Pburka (talk) 02:32, 9 February 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 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bannon

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

Unreferenced WP:BIO. Really should be a CSD:G4, but it seems to be a different editor than created the original deleted article. I don't see any sources that weren't there two years ago, though, since the only footnote is to the personal website. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Bannon. THF (talk) 00:33, 9 February 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 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced BLP and lack of notability outside of belonging to that band to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 10:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Themfromspace (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atkinson

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

Writes for minor, regional news publications. The refs do not establish any notability, and facebook does not verify anything. Does not meet wp:bio or wp:creative. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atkinson is the President of the Daily Free Press Alumni Association and a distinguished journalist, as named on The Daily Free Press wikipedia page. It is in my belief that Atkinson -- and his position -- warrant his inclusion. Maybe the references are poor, but I would suggest you refer to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Corporation Divison for more information about Atkinson and his worthwhile nonprofit organization.JoseMartenez (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— [[User:JoseMartenez]|JoseMartenez]]] ([[User talk:JoseMartenez]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JoseMartenez]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Subject very recently added to The Daily Free Press by an anon ip. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DELETION. Nothing in the bio or The Daily Free Press article suggests notability. The article in question makes no mention of a non-profit organization that would make him notable. The line about his bicycle being stolen last year adds to the impression I get that Atkinson or a close friend wrote the bio. Pzavon (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - First of all, this person fails WP:BIO completely. having said that, the article is worded in a way that tries to establish notability based on that single event with the firefighter and his helmet, and the "caused an uproar" claim is not supported by the provided reference. The reference seems to be incorrect anyway, since the "uproar" must have been caused by this, but even if there was an uproar it seems to have been limited to the local level [23], and it's just WP:ONEEVENT anyway. The rest of the references are also irrelevant and not WP:V at all. I'm sure he did a good job at the Daily Free Press, but that's not not enough. Given that the author maybe got confused and provided an incorrect reference, I'd invite him to update the article to try and establish that this reporter is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Failing that, I'd say delete. §FreeRangeFrog 01:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would disagree with this judgment. I believe that Mr. Atkinson's credentials speak for themselves. He has written for the Union Leader, the Columbus Dispatch and the Bangor Daily News, among other newspapers. How can those be considered small newspapers? JoseMartenez (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Atkinson wrote for the Union-Leader, which is not a minor regional newspaper, but, in fact, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire and one of the largest in New England.71.232.6.80 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) — 71.232.6.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Merely writing for a notable newspaper doesn't meet wp:creative or wp:bio. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Writing for a notable newspaper should merit notability, but it doesn't. This person apparently has done nothing notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Atkinson has broken stories that have made a national impact. His story on the Newton firefighter who painted the American flag on his helmet raised freedom of speech questions, particularly whether a public employee has the right to display symbols of patriotism even if it violates a city department's dress code.71.232.6.80 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any sources provided outside of the Boston area in the article. That isn't particularly national in terms of impact. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLIB

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

Still no references, no assertion of notability (WP:V / WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Stone (porn star)

Brad Stone (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PORNBIO -- 1. No award/nomination notability -- 2. No notable unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre -- 3. No mainstream (non-porn) media notability. Could not find any awards for actor via google search. Outsider80 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 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) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.22 Cheetah

.22 Cheetah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no references, nothing to show that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. (Speedy?) Good faith nomination, no doubt, of a terribly underreferenced stub--miracle it wasn't speedied, perhaps. But this is the best-selling wildcat cartridge in the world, more than 4,000 fps, accurate over long range...gunlovers and varmint killers all over the world spooge over this. OK, I don't care for guns, but this product is notable--as you'll see, I hope, when you have a look at the new and improved article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been adequately updated.Vulture19 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere (maybe .22, maybe List of rifle cartridges, maybe Wildcat cartridge). All mentions are passing in the article's references. Many types of ammo have separate WP pages but unless there's a special precedent here I don't see how WP:N is met nor is there enough info. at most of these pages to justify splitting for length. If no suitable rd candidate is found, I would say weak delete. JJL (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Updated, informative, precedent exists for articles covering wildcat cartridges provided they merit mention in the literature. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It doesn't seem particularly important, but it has been improved enough to avoid the chopping block. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an article such as suggested above. It does not rate its own article. --Stormbay (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Fairly well known wildcat, despite having a problem with eating barrels at a tender age. Could use some additional detail being added to the article, but the article is now a good start with cites. Yaf (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kilrathi . MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilrathi War

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

Gamecruft, written in an in-universe style like a game guide. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wing Commander (franchise), the game series article. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erk. I really don't know what to do with this one. The problem here is that one of the things that made Wing Commander notable was that it was one of the first game series to have a detailed story that unfolded as the game progressed. And there are 12 games and 10 or so novels, a film and a TV series all set in this shared universe. That makes the plot detail described here important background that's necessary for understanding all of these stories. But, that said, I haven't been able to find any sources that provide anything other than plot summary. My personal opinion is that a plot summary article like this is fine, and I would suggest WP:IAR applied here, but I know there are plenty of others who think that such articles are not acceptable, so I doubt that suggestion will fly. So I'll wait to see what others suggest, but I suggest keep for now. JulesH (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any merge or redirect is the same as delete. You couldn't preserve that information on any other article. I see nothing wrong with the article. We aren't running out of server space, and no one would stumble upon it that wasn't looking for it, so no reason not to have it. It hurts no one, and will provide reading entertainment to many. Dream Focus 16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kilrathi. The "Kilrathi War" article is currently purely plot summary, and while it's a competent plot summary its scope is too narrow to really justify having a separate article devoted to it (a fictional period of time covering only a portion of the series). The article on the Kilrathi is currently purely descriptional, and does nothing to describe the race's role in the series. Putting this plot summary there will fix both articles. Nifboy (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Kilrathi article would be then too long, and the Kilrathi War article has a lot of things involving humans in it. Dream Focus 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then make room for it. I'm amazed the Kilrathi article is so long without talking about the Kilrathi War or any of the games. Nifboy (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The only reason the nom gave for deletion that has a policy basis was "game guide". It ain't that, so no valid reason for deletion. The other comments are all reasons to clean up. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Perhaps a better term would be "plot summary". However, since it has no basis in the real world, I don't see how it deserves an article more than the plots of other large games. A merge wouldn't be out of the question as long as it stays encyclopedic.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that none of that is a reason to delete. WP:PLOT can be a reason to reduce the amount of plot or add other things, but not a reason to delete. There may be problems with WP:N, but no one has mentioned that, including the nom. So we have no policy based reason for deletion. It's hard to defend an article against charges that are true (too much plot) but not relevant to the issue (deletion). Thus the speedy keep. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or transwiki per Nifboy. SharkD (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Kilrathi looks like it goes into too much in-universe detail as is and needs to be condensed. Merging there might prove feasible once condensed to a proper size. In addition, merging those two and Terran Confederation into a Universe of Wing Commander article might be another option. Pagrashtak 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No shortage of space on the wikipedia. If something doesn't fit in the main article, have a side page for it. Also, for those who wish to merge information, please attempt to put all relevant information on just one page, and see how much you have to edit out. Wikipedia should be detailed articles, not just brief useless summaries with no way of actually explaining things properly. How about making a page for the merged content, and then seeing how it turns out. If it looks good, then you can renominate all the pages for deletion you believe are no longer needed. Too often I see pages deleted, with a vote to merge, and no one bothers to merge any of the information over at all. Dream Focus 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note- Not an issue of space so much as relevance and clutter. Sure, it can support a trillion more articles, but that would defeat the point of an encyclopedia.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of the wikipedia? The overwhelming majority of articles are for entertainment things, people just read it because they enjoy it. They have a pie chart somewhere showing what most of the wikipedia hits are far, and entertainment sections get far more hits than anything educational. So the majority of articles on the wikipedia, and the majority of the ones people go to, would never be found in a regular encyclopedia. Its here to entertain, not to impress anyone. Dream Focus 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dream Focus, it seems you have a problem with wikipedia policy, not this article's compliance with the policy. AfDs are not the place to discuss the usefulness of items like WP:PAPER and WP:IINFO. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia
Someone mentions it is clutter, then this is the place to respond to that comment. Have you never been to an AFD before? People discuss their opinions on why something should be here, or not, and the reasons why. Dream Focus 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typoglycemia

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

Delete: This article is patent nonsense, just an Internet joke email. It was previously AfD'ed as keep in 2005, but I think under current standards it should be deleted as both unecyclopedic and non-notable. RossPatterson (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question While the word may not be real, the study that's being discussed is widespread and well-known and should be covered somewhere. Do we cover it somewhere already? If not, this might need a rename and some cuts. - Mgm|(talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I'd agree about "widespread" - a Google search for "The Significance of Letter Position in Word Recognition" finds a palty 92 hits, mostly either quotes of the joke or copies of this article. There are several references to the Rawlinson 2007 article (based on his 1976 thesis), but that's a pretty poor showing for anything claiming to be an Internet meme. RossPatterson (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as memes go this one appears to have gained some traction (per gsearch) [24], [25]. JJL (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching for this article's title isn't really the best approach. As pointed out in the prior discussion, the name is not mentioned in sources, and the article would be better renamed. Ironically, when I was researching heterography and homography just recently, I came across several sources that discussed research into the mechanisms of reading, with studies done on children and on dyslexics.

    The real problem here is that we have a article by a made-up title that spends all of its time debunking a popular myth about non-existent research, rather than an article by a good title that tells readers about the real scientific research that has actually been done on these particular workings of the human brain. An informative article, possibly several, on subjects such as word recognition, phonological mediation, the dual-route hypothesis, backward recognition masking, and the like, that report the actual cognitive science would be a far better resource for debunking the myth. (We are also lacking the orthographic autonomy hypothesis and other related cognitive neuropsychoogy subjects, although we do have the word superiority effect and the missing letter effect.) This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that we are creating, after all.

    Of course, as demonstrated by heterography and homography, we don't need deletion to get from here to there. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or rename (weak keep): probably not enough for its own article, and certainly not under its current name, but perhaps it could be linked or included as an example of an Internet meme, or, as other users have suggested, move the properly researched parts to a more appropriate place. IByte (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Comment - I agree this is not encyclopedic, but it's funny and it is notable. Perhaps giving it a different name would help, as I'm sure people object to it less for being a meme and more on the grounds that the title is way too close to an existing medical condition. §FreeRangeFrog 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "I agree this is not encyclopedic, but it's funny" is not a valid argument for retention. I've deleted the first paragraph of the article, as it was a copyvio of a published book. Deor (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I just think it's cute. And it is notable. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted Deor's paragraph deletion, as it appears the book lifted the text from the article, not the other way around. That doesn't change my opinion - this article still deserves deletion. RossPatterson (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It shows something of interest, which belongs in any encyclopedia. This is clearly a real thing. If they had a proper agreed upon scientific name for this phenomenon, then of course it should be used, and the common slang redirected to it. Remember, wikipedia states the policies are just suggestions, you are to ignore them and use common sense when necessary. Dream Focus 15:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We should not be legitimizing a neologism such as this. Even if the concept has some notability, this is not a well written article and needn't be kept for fear of losing anything valuable. Powers T 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dletee But I admit it is darn funny. Tractops (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I agree the name is not ideal, but this does seem to be a notable phenomenon, which has been fairly widely circulated and referred to. It does seem like something we could have an article on; alternatively, it might be best if it were merged somewhere, into a more general article about visual perception. The name may be a neologism, but the phenomenon is real. Robofish (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. -- Longhair\talk 00:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Hornor

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

Jill Hornor Ma doesn't seem to merit her own article. This should be merged with Yo Yo Ma, if kept at all. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Steiner

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

This is a biography of one of the top author's at StoriesOnline, a site not notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it (apparenttly) and just barely in the top 15,000 most popular websites. While this article apparently established that Steiner is rather popular on that site, this really doesn't translate to Wikipedia notability, especially as there are no reliable sources about this guy, and none exist on Google News Archive, as far as I can tell. He doesn't meet WP:BIO or any other inclusion guideline. I get that people on the website like him, but there's been no coverage of him outside that website, and maybe on very closely related websites. Movingday29 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 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) 00:09, 14 February 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) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't see any outside coverage either. Nothing on Google News, which suggests that outside of the website there is not much interest in providing in-depth, third-party coverage. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, nothing particualrly notable or independant covereage of him. --Ged UK (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Lefkowitz

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

Google came up with plenty on David Lefkowitz the unrelated composer (who possibly IS notable) and David Lefkowich the operatic stage director and choreographer, but absolutely nothing on this individual. Zero sources, notability is questionable and likely does not extend beyond a very local scope (i.e. a talk show on cable access and being a personality on a college radio station.) Tagged for both these issues since May 2008 with no edits since then.

In any event, the article is an absolute mess in its current form, in addition to failing WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT, it reads like a haphazardly constructed bio or resume. Even if the verifiability issues can be corrected and coverage in non trivial secondary sources found, this article should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch because of the POV, readability, and non-encyclopedic tone issues. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:13, 9 February 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) 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm by no means confident that my search for sources has been in any fashion exhaustive. David/Dave Lefkowitz is such a common name that I think I've found at least 3 others, even restricting my search to those that are connected to New York in some way. The composer is clearly notable, and we should have an article about him. We currently don't. For the playwright/theatre critic/radio host however, I'm finding nothing except self-published sources. And the occasional trivial mention (e.g. [26] [27]). I don't agree with the nominator that if sources are found the article should be scrapped, as the issues described are easily fixed once sources become available. JulesH (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start an article David Lefkowitz (composer) (not today, its Valentine's Day in the US) and if this gets deleted via this discussion, I'll move it to David Lefkowitz. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Foster

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

WP:BIO one event. 2nd nomination after the intitial reaction wears off -Glorydays203 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:ONEEVENT says to cover the event rather than the person, but since the person's media attention is the event, it can't properly be covered without writing the biography. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hate to be the Grinch here, but WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS, and the news -- under a hundred thousand dollars in additional donations for the homeless -- is relatively trivial. If the Brenden Foster Food Drive has legs and becomes independently notable, and isn't just an ephemeral one-season event, the material in the article can be moved there then. The justifications for keeping it in the original nom were all WP:ILIKEIT. THF (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the reasoning that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, then perhaps you should consider transwikification to WikiNews. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I'm iffy on this one. The death of this individual, or the fundraiser, or the illness, or several other portions of this story (Seahawks paying for funeral, etc...) could be considered distinct events, so I'm not 100% sure that WP:ONEEVENT should apply. However, I'm not convinced the article should be about the individual rather than the response to the individual, so my support for keeping the article is merely support for the status quo. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 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) 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough diverse and noteworthy facts in the article to merit inclusion.Vulture19 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources here covering several notable events (the initial wish, the food drive, his death etc) involving this person over some weeks so one event doesnt apply. --neon white talk 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The multiple events spawning from his actions are no less numerous or notable than the first time the article was nominated. Neier (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Card Café

Photo Card Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notable: references do not constitute "significant coverage" in secondary sources. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:00, 9 February 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) 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles are in reliable sources and are specifically about the subject so i cannot see how they could not be considered significant. --neon white talk 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Era

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

non-notable social calendar; I'm not quite sure why it was contested. It was proposed on 1 January of this year, hasn't been adopted by any country/organisation/social system and stinks of WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems that you can download a calendar from www.darwinera.org, but somehow the Darwin Era has escaped the notice of the media [28]. (All those Spanish articles that include things like "Darwin era un hombre valiente" need explaining-- "era" is a past-tense of the verb "ser" and means "was". Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Undecided for now. The search term "Darwin era calendar" (in quotes) had 77 hits on Google, including a few from Wikipedia and a few to the source, darwinera.org. There were 38 hits on Yahoo. As mentioned above, no hits on Google News. So it's pretty thin on notability. Verifiable: Yes. Reliable sources: weak. This his sort of thing could become significant in the humanist community, because of their near-worship of Charles Darwin, or it may fizzle out completely and become only a dim memory like Fitzmas. (Who remembers that now?). If this article is kept, it should probably be moved to Darwin era calendar, because the article is not about a so-called Darwin era, as much as the calendar itself. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independant sources, no indication of notability. Probably could have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are thin, reliable sources are close to zero. Tavix (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Yang (writer)

Peter Yang (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Unfortunately very common name, but I couldn't readily find Gnews hits for this Peter Yang, and the article has been tagged since 2007 without any references being added. THF (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It seems it was AfD'ed before under a different name? See [29] §FreeRangeFrog 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but perhaps created by a different editor. THF (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 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) 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no reason to keep this article because (like the nomination says), it doesn't meet WP:Author or WP:Bio. Sufficient time has been given to prove notoriety in my opinion and I think it's time for it to be deleted. OlYellerTalktome 08:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call Hollow Rd.

Call Hollow Rd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established. Google maps shows it to be a small country road. wp:OR and possible advertising for the camp issues as well. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insignificant road. Not much useful information here that is not already given in the above-named article. A redirect would not seem to be very useful. I added the local name of the road to the article above per Bryan G. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless a redirect to the list would be useful). Unsourced, doesn't appear to be notable. —Snigbrook 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel (singer)

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

Despite claims that he has reached the "top of the sales chart", I can find no evidence that this is the case, the article is unreferenced, and a google search shows little more than a myspace page. Unless there are references to show that Mabel did indeed top the charts, I don't think this meets notability guidelines. Richard Hock (talk) 15:00, 9 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, there is evidence of singles charting in france (http://lescharts.com/search.asp?search=mabel&cat=s). Not top hits as suggested but nevertheless there's an argument for keeping under criteria 2 (WP:MUSIC). We need an expert to look up the other countries especially Germany, Italy and i can find hints of hits in Russia also. --neon white talk 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per lack of RS. MBisanz talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Emadi

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Mohsen Emadi is a non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Sadra2010 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering the published books and news articles (links on external links section) makes him a notable person. You can find more on Google:"Mohsen.Emadi poet" , etc. My vote's to keep the article. —BEHNAM〈☯|☮〉@20090129145745%UTC 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:39, 3 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete--the list is impressive, but I can't find anything in Google Books or News. More damningly, as far as I'm concerned, no hits in the MLA. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder: You cannot find anything in Google books about most of the Iranian famous persons. There is a couple of links to newspapers on the page, and you can find more by Google Search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long feng zhi

Long feng zhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability: No Google results except this article and an amateur website. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Job Productions

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

A non-notable incorporated association formed by an actor without an article. Was going to speedy delete this one but thought I'd bring it here for discussion in case notability exists. Longhair\talk 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that this entry should be deleted. If organisations such as 'Magnormos'and 'Melbourne Workers Theatre' are allowed to stay then so should this entry for a new organisation that has already begun making waves in the Melbourne Arts Scene and is expected in Sydney at the end of the year to co-produce with Griffin Theatre company.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/focusing-on-the-dazed-and-confused/2009/01/11/1231608516816.html http://onstagemelbourne.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-this-is-our-youth-inside-job.html http://theatrepeople.com.au/review_articles/2009/january/review_insidejob_thisisouryouth.htm http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/crazy-days-of-reaganomics/2009/01/19/1232213538242.html

Just to show a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki Shaw (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Longhair\talk 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Kiki Shaw. Theatre company with notable productions => notable theatre company. JulesH (talk) 17:43, 9 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete but persuadable: While the organization does appear to have made at least one potentially notable production, the coverage is primarily for the production itself, and not of the organization. The production might be notable based on the coverage, but I'm just not convinced the organization is notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Poorly written, but most of the wikilinks existed before this article was created, indicating that the production company was able to draw notable people. Author's only contributions, however, are directly related to this article (not necessarily this specific article), which indicates to me self promotion. Also, article was never tagged except for deletion.Vulture19 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azadeh Moaveni

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Azadeh Moaveni is a non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Sadra2010 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. Azadeh is a notable person. She is a respected journalist and published author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.178.135 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also respectfully disagree. Ms. Azadeh Moaveni has published articles in the Washington Post, served as Time Magazine Middle East correspondent, and been interviewed by Mother Jones. My family and I will happily hear the lovely Azadeh Moaveni's presentation on her perspectives of Iran on Feb. 25, 2009, at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, which hosts highly notable speakers. I vote against deletion.

DonL (talk) 17:33, 5 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil. The subject is noteworthy and appears as a topic in several sources like The Economist and The Washington Post. Majoreditor (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This article makes a better case for notability than those considered at previous AfD's but notability still is questionable at best. I think that Ged UK's comments probably are right on point. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Torres

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

WP:BIO. No RS references in article. Notability tag since September 2007. Played backup for Bill Haley a decade or so after Haley was a big hit. Currently an Adventist pastor with a website, but nothing on the website demonstrating notability. THF (talk) 16:46, 9 February 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, 14 February 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) 01:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was Bill Haley backup, but left before the tour, so fails WP:band. Every other claim is either unsourced or sourced only by non RS sources, so fails WP:BIO. --Ged UK (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William N. Shepherd

William N. Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography filled with wikipuffery, but no third-party reliable sources. The opening paragraph that chooses to highlight his e-books says all you need to know about WP:N. Has had a notability tag since 9/2007. THF (talk) 16:54, 9 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails both WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. There does not seem to be significant coverage of him in any reliable sources. Using Google it is easy to find references to his many writings, however it doesn't appear that any of these references occur in peer-reviewed publications. --Megaboz (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Rejections On Display

Literary Rejections On Display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete I don't think the one-time sensation of an author posting on it qualifies it as WP:NN -Zeus-uc 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree that the one-time sensation of an author posting would not make it notable, but a visit to the page and a search suggest that it has been covered for other reasons. The solution is to add this info, not delete the article. At a minimum, merge to Darren Strauss.Tractops (talk) 16:22, 10 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this....P&W and The Village Voice are certainly respected secondary sources, I think....I also recall there was an article about LitRej in Writers Digest a while back, but I couldn't find it....Maybe somebody more ambitious than me will try? 7triton7 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to meet WP:V and WP:N. Sources seem to check out (quick search). IMHO, link to the site ought to be added Vartanza (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTRAX EDA

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

A promo for a nonnotable piece of software created by a single nonnotable person. I failed to find any reasonable independent coverage. google gives a huge number of download links, which is not surprizing for such things. - 7-bubёn >t 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Self-promotion --Deenoe 23:50, 13 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Possible conflict of interest. The software is published by Kovac Software. The author of this article is IlijaKovacevic . •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Crowie Smith

Charles Crowie Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, the reason was nn biography. The problem with the article is with sources available, with those present I can't decide if the notability criteria is established so I leave it here for consideration. Thank you. Tone 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Given that there are only 2 copies of his autobio in the US, though I would expect some more locally in england, I do not see how his life story is considered notable. There may be more information in the various works about the Salvation Army, but I'm out of my depth in that subject. DGG (talk) 21:01, 9 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands at present, unless better references can be placed. If there are better references, I'd be happy to change my vote.--Artypants (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice and hopfully - Keep Firstly, thanks to Tone for this discussion in response to my query. I will of course accept the final concensus/decision. As the proposed deletion is mainly based on whether this is a notable autobiography or not, and this is a subjective thing, please would you take the following into account. If it's decided to keep the article I will then add references and inline citations to tidy it up into Wiki standards. 1) The 14 chapter book had 1000 copies printed in 1937. 2) One copy was received by Buckingham palace and remains there. 3) The Telegraph has run articles on Crowie Smith which I've managed to obtain in hard copy of, on April 5th 1971 and March 24th 1979. I could add these as scanned docs to an online resource. 4) I've obtained hard copy poem about him, written by J Clarke Sept 1st 1937. 5) I'm awaiting a photo of him from a family member, which I would upload.

Not all famous people have copious online references about them, which does not help in this case. Thanks for your consideration and comments.Simon777 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science (disambiguation)

Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are only two pages on this disambig. The intent of this disambig can be and has been captured in a distinguish tag on each article. The only articles linking here are its acronym as a redirect (which I will shortly redirect to the UCLA institution) and someone's userspace. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with hatnotes. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hatnotes are already added to the top of the two articles on this disambig. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid redirect with two bluelinks to two Wikipedia articles with a common title. It should be noted that if nom is basing the proposed deletion on the fact that it has only two blue links, he/she is urged to look at [34] (dab pages are in red) and feel free to nominate any and all of the 6000+ dab pages with exactly two blue links. Now, if both of the bluelinks on the nominated dab page point, in fact, to the same article, deletion would not be appropriate, but redirecting would be per precedents of "Foo (disambiguation)". 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:10, 10 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only one of the targets appears to actually be called "Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science". While a hatnote is certainly useful in order to assist people confused between the two, there is one clear subject that this page should point to - disambiguation via a separate page seems unnecessary in this case. ~ mazca t|c 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and also delete Henry Samueli School of Engineering (disambiguation), created during this AfD. With the hat notes in place this DMB is not needed since no likely search term is going to take the reader here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powder game

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

Article is about a non-notable flash game. Article reads as a game guide, and seems a bit crufty. Prod was removed weeks ago. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entire article is original research and reads like a vanity piece. --neon white talk 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I wonder how many of the people we have articles about will be remembered 1000 years from now... yandman 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanyan Shilu

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

Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:N MrShamrock (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Leader of an important people group. Just the fact we have his name 1000 years later is an indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was he? I don't see any verifiability of that anywhere MrShamrock (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you missed the four large linked boxes labeled 'Chinese Wikisource has original text related to this article' at the bottom of the article? Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 10 February 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, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As pointed out by Edward321, we know his name many centuries later, and there are four sources in Chinese. recommend that the article be tagged for expert review, possibly translation.Vulture19 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator mentions WP:N but does not cite. Looking at WP:N#General notability guidelines near the top of the page, we find: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Reading through the ZH article, there is no reason to suspect insincerity of the EN article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in agreement with Edward321. Pastor Theo (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Star Buff

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_14&oldid=270692943"