Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 26 - Knowledge

Source 📝

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 no consensus. no comment on plagarism/copyvio MBisanz 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gauge gravitation theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cut-and-paste of arXiv:gr-qc/0512115. Probably a copyvio of the journal reference obtained from ArXiV: Int.J.Geom.Methods Mod.Phys., v.3, N1 (2006) pp.v-xx. It is quite possible that the author User:Gsard is the author of this published article, but unless the author retains all copyrights, the rights would need to be licensed under the GFDL by the publisher in order to appear here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

*Comment. Closer examination reveals that only the first 21 or so words are directly lifted from the source indicated above. Still not sure what to do, especially given that there is a reasonable likelihood that the original author is also the author of the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

More examples of copy-pasting are given below. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep this article, although it will need work. By presenting the historical and current attempts to describe gravity as a guage field it balances Kaluza–Klein theory, which attempts to describe gauge fields as part of gravity with higher dimensions. It's a well established research program and deserves an article. We might also consider a merge and/or partial inclusion with MacDowell-Mansouri action. Scientryst (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The sentence "The first gauge model of gravity was suggested by R. Utiyama in 1956 just two years after birth of the gauge theory itself." appears word-for-word on the first page of the linked article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The sentence "At the same time, given a linear frame ϑ a {\displaystyle \vartheta _{a}} , the decomposition θ = ϑ a ⊗ ϑ a {\displaystyle \theta =\vartheta ^{a}\otimes \vartheta _{a}} motivates many authors to treat a coframe ϑ a {\displaystyle \vartheta ^{a}} as a translation gauge field." appears word-for-word on page 4 of the ArXiV article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This would not appear sufficient to rise to the level of copyright violation. By the way, the ArXiV publication is not an article but the preface to a special journal issue on gauge gravitation theory. It addresses the geometry underlying these theories. The article under discussion here presents an introductory overview of these theories in general, not just from a geometric pov--although the latter appears in the last paragraph. If the editor is the author of that preface (Gennadi A. Sardanashvily), his participation on Knowledge should be encouraged. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The quotes are unattributed. Is there some rule governing the number of words that can be copied directly from a copyrighted source under which the plagiarism is not considered a copyright violation? I fail to see what the rest of your post has to do with the substance of my objection to this article. Also, I have provided two examples of ostensible word-for-word copying. It is difficult to find these, and I have no doubt that there are more of them in the article. How many more words are necessary to establish copyright violation? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Two more sentences are substantially identical: "General covariant transformations are sufficient in order to restart Einstein's General Relativity and metric-affine gravitation theory as the gauge ones." and "These sections are treated as classical Higgs fields." A few more sentences, although reworded, show a strong commonality. I am not an intellectual-property lawyer, but considering the factors mentioned under Fair use#Fair use under United States laws, I am convinced this is all well on the safe side. If not, it should be easy enough to tweak the wording of these three sentences; in any case, AfD is not the best process for dealing with this. If the authors were different persons, this might be considered plagiarism--an entirely different issue--but apparently they are not. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
if the sentences are of particularly important wording, we would normally quote them, & that would be fair use. They do not seem to be, so the obvious course is to rewrite them somewhat--they are in legal terms fair use, but we usually none the less avoid it. As for plagiarism, even if one is quoting from one's own previously published works, they must be attributed. There have been some other instances of this, where people have republished their textbooks or papers on WP--sometimes where no copyright is involved, because the books have been PD or GFDL-equivalent. Usually the writing style for a scientific paper -- or for a textbook--is not really appropriate herein any case. DGG (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Your !vote of keep fails to address the substance of the reason for nomination, which is that the article was copied substantially from another source in likely violation of the copyright owner. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • More copyvios. Portions of the article are also copied from G. Sardanashvily, "Classical gauge theory of gravity," Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 132(2): 1163-1171 (2002). The paragraph:
"The idea of the pseudo-Riemannian metric as a Higgs field appeared while constructing non-linear (induced) representations of the general linear group G L ( 4 , R ) {\displaystyle GL(4,\mathbb {R} )} , of which the Lorentz group is a Cartan subgroup. The geometric equivalence principle postulating the existence of a reference frame in which Lorentz invariants are defined on the whole world manifold is the theoretical justification of that the structure group G L ( 4 , R ) {\displaystyle GL(4,\mathbb {R} )} of the linear frame bundle F X {\displaystyle FX} is reduced to the Lorentz group."
Is identical, apart from some trivial changes, to a paragraph appearing on p. 1164 of the above referenced article. Before the next keep vote, could someone please answer the question posed above: How many words can be directly copy-pasted into a new article, without attribution or fair-use rationale, before that article is fair game for deletion? So far we have four sentences copied from one source, and an entire paragraph from another. I thought that such blatant copyright infringement was grounds for speedy deletion (WP:CSG#G12). If not, I would ask that someone please point me to the place in policy that indicates that it is acceptable for a new article to contain wholesale unattributed cut-pastes from previously published resources. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
the rule of thumb for plagarism is seven consecutive words without quotation marks or attribution. I don't know of a hard and fast rule for copyright violations at the 'length of text' level. Knowledge's rule for "copyvio" deletions (ones which go to {{Db-g12}}) is that the text be copied almost in whole, in one edit and there doesn't exists a 'clean' revision to return the page to. For less clear violations (such as this one), Knowledge:Copyright_problems is a good venue. AfD works as well, but copyright problems has some dedicated editors. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. If notable at all then purely passing notability, a one event. Unusual? Quite 23:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Which means the event was far too minor to be worth an article--which given that's all the subject is known for, doesn't exactly help your case.
  • Delete on humanitarian grounds as well as maintaining the standards of the place. Probably created as an act of attempted vandalism. The creator is probably laughing his socks off at this serious discussion resulting from his actions. (Deliberate wording there?) Peridon (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Dumbledore. There's at least 2 reliable sources and while giving the whole incident an article of its own, putting it in perspective, would explain more about the effects of JKR's announcement about Dumbledore. - Mgm| 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Question?: People have voted delete here to avoid harm to the subject of the article but is it really all that bad to add a sentence or two in the Dumbledore article about this incident and point the subjects name to Dumbledore? Consider that the subject already willingly went to the press on his own I can't see it all that bad for the subject. - RhadamanthNemesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by RhadamanthNemesis (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deleteas BLP violation. The true essence of ONEEVENT--repeating trivialities that do not reflect well on anyone from the worst levels of the UK tabloid press. As a general rule, any article where the most reliable of the sources is the Sun is probable unsuitable for Knowledge. In any case, i removed a sentence with the names of his children, as an application of Do no harm. I am not happy with the way we often employ our BLP policy, which I think we often misuse to remove information about matters that are of significance, but we do need BLP, and this article show why. I invite some other admin to concur with me and speedy delete. I would think exactly the same of this content if added to any other WP article. DGG (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nemesis (Sri Lankan band). MBisanz 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cannibaloki 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW, editing has addressed the nom's concerns. Mgm| 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article on an underground magazine which lacks a single independent source and has not been fixed despite being tagged for improvement since July 2007. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable. Google search reveals no immediate information, same for news search. Award listed appears to be a local non-notable competition. LH (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See also the Martial arts project essay on notability --Nate1481 10:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Standard Triple-N: Non-notable neologism. Also, Knowledge is not a dictionary, let alone of the aforementioned. Vianello (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Clear Brook High School. — Aitias // discussion 23:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Clear Brook Wolverines football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN local highschool football team. Would be okay with merging into the article for the relevant school. roux  21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Esteghlal Scorers in 2008-09 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary list. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I feel a list of 2008-2009 season scorers is completely unnecessary. Scapler (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

First of all, I'm not sure if this even belongs at AFD. I couldn't find anything as far as policies or guidelines go about nominating disambiguation pages for deletion, and was on the fence about whether to list here or on MFD, but since dab pages technically live in mainspace, I placed it here.

That said, I nominate this article for deletion because it is unnecessary. There are currently two "Blair House" articles - one for Washington DC, which takes the primary topic, and one in Montgomery, Ohio that takes a parenthetical in its title. The main topic has a direct link to the other as a hatnote, and the second topic is already unambiguous. Thus this dab page is quite unnecessary, and ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Does not meet wp:PORN BIO - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep She is notable. I intended to work on this article later, and, before this AfD was started, I left a note stating this on the talk page of the article's creator. Japanese erotic cinema is a notoriously difficult area in which to work, and this article was created today. AfDing this within hours of its creation without first putting templates of concern over notability/sourcing is an abuse of AfD process. Dekkappai (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep for the same reasons as above. Makitomoda (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Question: And the subject meets wp:PORN BIO in what way? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment:wp:PORN BIO are not criteria that have to be met - they are additional criteria for adding someone - I quote from that section: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Notability should be gauged against peers in the subject area, the DMM website (http://dmm.co.jp) lists more than 20,000 Japanese AV actresses, Akasaka is definitely notable among this group. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Her notability is shown by her extensive career and filmography while working for major Japanese AV studios. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Cherryblossom1982
  • Question The nominator began attempting to delete this article-- in a subject area in which he has up until now shown no interest or knowledge that I am aware of-- within two minutes of its creation. After Prodding it and AfDing it, now he puts a "Notability" tag on it. Here's my question: Huh? Dekkappai (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: The notability tag was placed on after examining WP:BEFORE. Ideally I would've put in on beforehand, but I figure now is better than never. Also I did not know you had to be an subject matter expert to edit a Knowledge article. In addition I'm still wondering how this meets wp:PORN BIO. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I guess it's just a weakness of mine. I don't like to barge into areas on subjects, in languages, and in cultures in which I have not edited, am apparently totally unfamiliar, and start saying, "This goes, this stays," before asking those who have some experience in the area. But that's me-- I'm here to contribute, not gain status by deleting. An increasingly minority attitude here. Dekkappai (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've added a little to the article which shows that this actress is a performer in the jukujo (熟女) "mature woman" genre who has broken out of that niche to appear in at least one mainstream theatrical release, and the mainstream men's entertainment magazine Weekly Playboy. Dekkappai (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment These are Additional criteria FOR including someone, NOT rules for exclusion. Notability is not strictly defined by a set of rules and no failure to meet one rule or another should be grounds for exclusion.Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is a huge problem with Knowledge's notability criteria which I hope will be realized and adressed some day. In direct contradiction to article-editing policies requiring reliable, secondary sources, our definition of "notability" is a purely home-made, Original Research mess. This is why they are constantly changing, this is why they so miserably fail to address any subject which is outside the interest of the average Wikipedian editor demographic, and this is why applying them literally to any and all cases-- regardless of country, culture, time period, genre, etc.-- results in bias. As the discussion to create WP:PORNBIO shows, these "notability" criteria are created by pure Original Research with no regard to reliable sources in the subject. One editor comes in with hand raised, "Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea, let's say they're notable if..." other editors chip in with personal opinions, and all the biases that may include and the policy is set. So, how about we follow Knowledge editing requirements, and look at what the reliable, secondary sources say about Japanese erotic entertainment? First: Erotic entertainers such as Akasaka have a much higher profile (i.e., are more "notable") within Japanese society than are there U.S. counterparts. In The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, Rosemary Iwamura wrote, "In Japan there is not the same line drawn between pornography and family entertainment that there is in the West. Here in Japan, a more liberated view about sex blurs that line." Second, to determine what a "notable" Japanese AV actress is, let's see what a reliable, secondary source defines an "average" Japanese AV actress. In the Tokyo Journal, author and Japan-correspondent, Kjell Fornander wrote, that the average AV career lasts one year, and produces between five and ten videos. So, has Akasaka appeared in mainstream Japanese media? Almost certainly. However the policy of the Japanese media of constantly removing good sources from the web, and blocking their archiving, makes this extremely difficult to prove. (see: Mainichi_Shimbun#WaiWai_controversy_and_cancellation for one high-profile example of this-- "tabloid" includes not only the sensationalist drivel which offended the readers, but also occasional reliable interviews and articles on subjects in the field of erotic entertainment.) Nevertheless, we see that Akasaka-- a niche-genre performer-- has appeared in mainstream media such as pink film, V-cinema and Weekly Playboy. Also, she clearly exceeds the "average" AV actress career in length of career-- exceeding the outside limit (one year) by at least three time), and by number of starring videos (the outside being 10) by over six times. Clearly, when judged against the average Japanese AV actress, she is notable. Dekkappai (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sure Runa is flattered that she's elicited so much passion, but isn't your argument for another page? It doesn't seem right to fault/debate other editors for following guidelines, confessed deletionist or not. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see the "passion" in the argument, and I've only recently worked on this article. I don't want notable subjects deleted, and if you cared about the good of Knowledge, neither would you. I simply quoted from a definition of notability from reliable secondary sources on the subject of Japanese erotic entertainment, and compared this subject to them. The only "passion" I see is in the blind loyalty to a group of rules set up by pure original research, given a false stamp of legitimacy through a "consensus" based in personal opinion. Dekkappai (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1994 Hindi movie songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable orphaned article with little content. JaGa 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Buhdumtsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Notability, spam, etc. Trying not to be sarcastic here, but a whole application that contains a single audio file, plays it and quits... that's it? Granted the article was written by the author of the application, but how has this article managed to last for over a month? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Jewish American actors in television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was PRODed and removed for irrelevant reason. This is a three-way intersection of trivial and unsubstantiated (for two years) factoids. There are, and never were, any predecessors to lists like this List of Christian actors in television, list of Irish American actors in television, etc... To say "then source it" is not an argument for keeping. Time has proven that this list is either unsourcable or of no interest to anyone to source - either way, it's not a list that would be on wikipedia. JJPennyson (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)— JJPennyson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. Probably a bad faith nomination.  LinguistAtLarge  22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. I think the list can be reliably sourced in one way, shape, or form. I also smell something from a sock drawer, as new users normally do not come on here knowing how to nominate and participate in AFDs. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Accusing people of sockpuppetry does not distract from the basic problems here. The article is thoroughly lacking in references, which is a major turnoff. It is sloppily researched and missing major names (no mention of Milton Berle, Bud Abbott, Buddy Hackett, Jack Benny, George Burns, Jerry Lewis, Sammy Davis Jr. and other prominent TV stars of the 1950s and 1960s). To have a seriously encyclopedic overhaul would require intensive research with confirmation that the people on the list are active members of the Jewish faith. This article, however, doesn't make the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. In an age where people still remark, "I didn't know he was Jewish!", the list serves as a good counterpart to the (yawn) category. It reminds me of Adam Sandler's line, "You can spin the dreidel with Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, both Jewish!" Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
But Eco is right that this needs a source (voice of Jerry Stiller: "It would kill you to tell how you know this?"). Mandsford (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- As the remover of the prod, I hardly think my reasoning was "irrelevant". As I stated, the problem with the article is that it was unsourced, not that it is unsourceable. Any problems with an article that CAN be sourced, and ISN'T, is not a problem for AFD. Now, whether or not you think the list is worthy of keeping, that's another discussion. I personally, think its worth keeping, since I feel it meets the criteria set forth by the appropriate policy. I won't shed a tear if the final vote is delete however. That said, I also deleted the prod because, last i checked, prod's were for deletions that the prodder thinks won't be disputed. As shown by the fact that there are other keep votes, its obvious that I was right in thinking that. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I mean, seriously. However, please people, WP:AGF????? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A notable intersection, per common sense and a knowledge of the role of jewish American actors in television, and the abundant available sourcing. The reason for the "in television" intersection is the extensive nature of the material. If there's enough for Irish ... and Italian... I'd do just the same for them. DGG (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per MuZemike and then burn the sock drawer. JBsupreme (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per withdrawal. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyer 22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable cobbler. The one RS from the Dallas Star does not meet the criteria for multiple third-party sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)WITHDRAWN: Yep, the improvements to RS satisfy notability requirements, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy close "Confusing" is not a reason to delete and no other reason was given. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Stub article that is very difficult to understand by the general audience of Knowledge and the general public. Therefore Delete. Andy (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is not a reason to delete, unless it gets so confusing that nobody can even tell what the article is about, which is not the case here. Tagged with a {{confusing}} template. -- Blanchardb -- timed 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for that Blancharb. The tag has been put on the article. Andy (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 03:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross and flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The United Methodist Church is clearly notable, and has its own article. However, there is no suggestion that its Cross and flame logo is notable in its own right. Have any reliable, third party sources written about it in detail? Papa November (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything wrong with United Methodist sources here. No one else is likely to write something on the topic. But that doesn't make it non-notable. You can see one in almost any American town. I voted to delete because it would be an interesting addition to the main article and would never be much on its own, not because it's not notable.Northwestgnome (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 03:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable. No significant, independent, reliable coverage cited in article. In the six months since this article's original nomination, none of the WP:RSes whose existence were asserted in that first AfD have eventuated. Although he is apparently the president of the Unification Church of the United States (although the cited source only says "Moon's top church official in North America"), his notability in that position is apparently so slight that (as of time of nomination) he is not even mentioned in that article. HrafnStalk 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Gene93k, I would suggest that you read WP:DEADLINE more closely. It also states a view that: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." This would seem to work against this article existing at this point. And I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect that, if any purported RSes that were raised in an AfD had any significance, and were going to be added into the article, that this would have occured well before six months were up. As to your 'keep' vote in the first AfD, it was simply WP:GOOGLEHITS. HrafnStalk 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim to notablity and no sources to prove otherside. Tgreach (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to vote on the article about a personal friend. However Mike has, and does play an important role, and yes it is in part a PR role, in the process which moved the Unification Church to more normal relations with mainstream American society. However the story has not been written up yet, even by church sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Unification Church of the United States and mention Jenkins in the Unification Church#Future church leadership section. His job is a pretty notable one, but I don't see any media coverage right now of what he's done in his job (as Steve Dufour says, it hasn't been written up yet in any good sources) so there's not much to make an article out of, but he's notable enough that his name should at least exist as a redirect. —Politizer /contribs 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:GOOGLEHITS is inapplicable; the argument is regarding the quality of the Google news sources, not simply the number of hits. I've added a couple of the freely accessible ones and essentially doubled the article's coverage. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As was mentioned above Mr. Jenkins is not the leader of the American Unification Church. He doesn't make decisions or tell people what to do.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD, with reason given that it should be discussed at WP:AFD. My original reason for deletion remains the same: there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N or allow a full, neutral biography to be written about this individual. The sole provided reference is not about Berubé at all, but about an organization that preserved some of the information that he compiled (if my understanding of this is correct). If there is anything verifiable, then perhaps it could be merged into Stazi, but even that might be a stretch. I am aware that, as a member of a secret organization, I shouldn't expect volumes of information, but if he was a notable figure, then he should have received at least some non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Cheers, CP 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep per WP:KEEP / WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) flaminglawyer 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Detroit Lions Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable group of broadcasters that a football team syndicates stuff to. This can easily be covered in the main article.

And no, I am not nominating this because the Lions did horrible this year, I just see no notability. ViperSnake151 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Very strong keep This article is even more notable since several Lions game have been blacked out this season and loyal fans who can't afford to go to the game must listen on the radio.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a page is useful is not an good argument for keeping the page. ViperSnake151 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
you had your say Viper, now let other people have theirs and don't argue with people.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep Sports-teams affiliated media networks is well established, absent any specific guidelines for establishing notability of a media network I see nothing in WP:N that would support a delete. Raitchison (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:KEEP / WP:SNOW. flaminglawyer 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Detroit Lions Television Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable group of broadcasters that a football team syndicates stuff to. This can easily be covered in the main article. And no, I am not nominating this because the Lions did horrible this year, I just see no notability. ViperSnake151 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. article has significantly changed during the AFD rendering some of the comments inapplicable, there consensus cannot be determined. MBisanz 03:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. No source attesting that the first sentence of the article, which says "commonly referred to" is true. At best, it is a term whose use is marginal. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Change to redirect. An article by the name of Generation Jones already covers this generation. NoVomit (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A. Generation Jones Does not cover this topic in the least. Redirect would negate the entire purpose of article and said definition which needs correction in the first place. Generation Jones only discusses years up to 1965 and covers social , economoic and politcal areas without relation to etymology and birth rates. It does not even attempt to cover birth rates, which are at the academic fundamental core of the Baby Boom by literal definition. Further, the term, "Generation Jones" is not widely used. This article does not relate to the Tweener Generation as these years of birth rate drops from 1964 - 1968 are not covered nor is the American use terminology or definition.


  • Delete This article certainly should be deleted, the term "Tweener" is a term commonly used to refer to those who are between childhood and adolescence, and is almost never used to describe those between Boomers and Xers. The only real basis for this mistaken claim is that there was one article (in USAToday) in 1996 using this term, but it never caught on at all. Claiming current common usage for a term because it was used once 12 years ago is laughable, and a slap in the face of Knowledge. Its very rare usage in this context now certainly doesn not warrent a an article in this or any encyclopedia. There is a term which did catch on to describe those "between" the Boomers and Xers--Generation Jones, which is absolutely commonly used now. Of course the Generation Jones article covers this topic. Birth rates have nothing to do with generations. The only generation ever defined by birth rates was the original flawed defintion of the Baby Boom Generation. The reason that so many generational experts no longer use that orignial flawed definition of the Boomer generation was specifically because of this realization that demographic boom in births included two distinct generations. Generations are about formative experiences, not birth rates. This completely misinformed Tweener article should be deleted or re-directed to Generation Jones page.TreadingWater (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, read original archive from USA TODAY - see link below and abstract.

Title: Stuck between generations Not boomers, not Xers, they are Tweeners USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext) - McLean, Va. Author: Andrea Stone Date: Mar 22, 1996 Start Page: 01.A Section: NEWS Text Word Count: 1333 Abstract (Document Summary)

Baby boomers were born from 1946 through 1964. But the spotlight has always seemed focused on older boomers, those 40 to 50 now. In the mid-'90s, they're starting to fret about retirement and aging. Tweeners, a few of whom even have parents who are boomers, just can't relate.

Despite such differences, the more than 20 million Tweeners aren't recognized as a separate generation. They are counted among the 75 million baby boomers. Yet many are closer in age to Generation Xers who were born from 1965 through 1976. But that designation doesn't feel right, either.

Like the oldest boomers, Tweeners ``are a transitional group, Smith says. Those born in the late 1940s share a sense of duty and community with the G.I. generation. But, like other boomers, they also stress individuality. That combination of values leaves many older boomers torn about balancing family and career, even though their generation launched the women's movement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission

LINK for USA TODAY Archive for March 22, 1996: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/16394756.html?dids=16394756:16394756&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+22%2C+1996&author=Andrea+Stone&pub=USA+TODAY+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=01.A&desc=Stuck+between+generationsNot+boomers%2C+not+Xers%2C+they+are+Tweeners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

archiemartinArchie Martin (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've heard of the term "tweener" before but only as a marketing demographic, not as a generation. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename (maybe to Tweener (age group)). The article needs major cleanup, but I believe it meets inclusion requirements. The article contains material that deserve to be in its own article rather than the Preteen one, since this article can focus specifically on the term "tweener" as opposed to the group in general. The current name is not appropriate because, as Jason Quinn points out, tweeners are an age group, not a single generation—you can remain a "baby boomer" or a "gen-Xer" for your whole life, but you can only be a tweener for a couple years. I think the article needs to be cleaned up, renamed, and given a prominent link (either a hatnote, or a link in the first sentence, such as "Tweener is a term used to refer to children in the preadolescent stage of development]]" or whatever. —Politizer /contribs 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Further, this article was written with bad faith and isn't even close to meeting Knowledge's inclusion requirements. The article was written trying to claim that

1) this is a commonly used term for those between Boomers and Xers (truth: almost no one uses this term that way) 2) the term is used to describe those born 1964-1968 (truth: I couldn't find one such use ever anywhere on Google) 3) that this cohort is also called "Genex-Boomers" (truth: not one reference to Genex-Boomers anywhere ever on Google) In other words, this was written by someone who had his own unusual ideas about a use of a term that he'd like to see, so he writes a Knowledge article pretending that the term is used that way, and fills it with clearly false information and claims. Bad faith. If you want to start using a term this way, go ahead and use it this way; for example, find a small blog who will repeat your views. But don't undermine the credibility of a great resource like Knowledge with this nonsense. I resent people who exploit Knowledge's open editing approach by trying to introduce a new usage of a term by pretending it already is used that way. The best answer to bad faith efforts like this is to delete such articles promptly.TreadingWater (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge/delete/whatever: this AfD is a mess. Prior to the start of this AfD, this article was about a purported generation between the baby boom generation and generation X, for which there are a few links (although as indicated above, the article Generation Jones would already seem substantially to cover that). Now the article is about an age group between childhood and adolescence. Of course, the new makeover is no longer about the "Tweener generation" which is the subject of this AfD. The current content should be merged to preadolescence, and the old content should (if sourcing supports this) be mentioned in Generation Jones. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I agree . . . the AfD was about a different article from the one that now exists. Someone who disagreed with the facts as presented on the initial page and came behind and edited it to suit his/her whims, but calling adolescents a "generation" seems odd to me. As it stands now, it seems it deserves a vote of delete as I don't see many sources for the initial claims. NoVomit (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with editing the article? It seems that AfD initial claims are not longer valid, because the article is different.--Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with editing the article, except for the fact that this debate is now essentially about a different article than now exists. There seems little relationship between those born in the 1950s and a group of tweens. NoVomit (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, now the article should be deleted because the topic it addresses doesn't match the topic of the article (Tweener Generation). The existing content, that sometimes someone of such an age is called a "tweener" can be merged to preadolescence. Otherwise the article is little more than a dicdef, and certainly is not notable (even amid the confusion of this particular AfD). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Keats McFarland & Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only reason that this firm would be notable is because they (supposedly) assisted Yahoo! in a clickfraud lawsuit. That wouldn't have been very notable for that anyway. But even further than that, the only reference(s) they had for that were a forum and a blog (and the blog said nothing of the firm). So, non-notability is the thing here. flaminglawyer 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-admin closure, the result was snowball keep. —Politizer /contribs 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Software with no assertion of notability. PROD contested in June.  Sandstein  16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability, no mention of anything other than role as as producer of a single show, and no mention of what she has done in that role. No sources (I found this and this which mention her a tiny bit, and might help, although I still don't believe those sources are enough to assuage notability concerns). —Politizer /contribs 15:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

With the official site being in Arabic and no references to English-language sources it seems this may not meet notability requirements, at least among English Knowledge's audience. No assertion of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge (to whatever "list of extensions," or something like that, would would be appropriate); agree that notability has not established, found very few non-Knowledge hits on Google. —Politizer /contribs 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This page has lingered for six months at WP:PNT's cleanup section. It is nothing but a list of bus routes in a suburb of Taipei, and probably not up-to-date either. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 15:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas. MBisanz 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lock, Shock, and Barrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable characters from The Nightmare Before Christmas. A basic Google search for "Lock, Shock, and Barrel" mostly just returns things like fan artwork, fan fiction, merchandise, and plot summaries of TNBC. A Google News search returns only two results, both of which contain only trivial mentions of these characters. A Google Books search returns only trivial mentions in larger works, mostly on subject such as TNBC and Tim Burton. As such, no reliable, published sources have been found, and this article fails the general Notability guideline, as well as the proposed Notability guideline for fiction. Unscented (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas, and do major cleanup and condensing. I think the question mostly hingest on the fact that they appeared in the Kingdom Hearts video game, and whether or not that makes them more deserving of their own article; but after looking at that section in this article and seeing that it's mostly useless plot summary, I think the whole thing could be condensed to a single sentence (along the lines of "they have also appeared in the Kingdom Hearts video game series" or whatever) at the end of the usual description they would get in the List of... article. —Politizer /contribs 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced, Google doesn't unearth anything and the article is slanted and clearly there to promote a particular position. Since this doesn't appear to have generated any press coverage this clearly isn't notable. Spartaz 14:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't even tell what the article is trying to say. If someone can do the needed cleanup quickly then I might change my mind (as far as I can tell, it's impossible to even start thinking about the subject's notability and stuff until the article is put into a legible and comprehensible form) but otherwise I would agree with nom. —Politizer /contribs 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I will take nom's word that Google hits do not exist. Then the article is probably a hoax. If this person were real he would seem to be notable by what the article says. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Possible hoax / exaggerated article. I am unable to verify claims of playing for Australian national and domestic soccer teams. This link (a school newsletter) indicates he maybe a school-boy player representing in age group competition, but that's all I can find. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdrawn. Issues can be addressed by editing. Mgm| 19:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII: Illness and death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Initial proposal for deletion removed and denoted an "objection." Reasons for initial proposal were given as: "The subject of any notable person's "illness and death" should be covered in a biographical article on the person. If there is something significant about the illness and death of a public figure-- significant enough that it merits extended discussion on its own (e.g., the Kennedy assassination), then that should be made clear. Otherwise, a separate page is unwarranted." Objector states that the article is fine because "its cited and there are many others like it." These are not sufficient conditions to warrant addition of this article. The objector also jumped straight to removing the proposal for deletion, for which reasons were given, to removing the tag without providing an adequate response. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if the author has stated that there are many other articles like this, this level of detail about the last days of any historical figure is unnecessary. Pope Pius XII was over 80 years old when he passed away and there seems to be no controversy over his death from natural causes. There are numerous, readily accessible biographies of him , any of which can be linked, that deal with this aspect of his life. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an appropriate daughter article, created to include well-referenced information that would otherwise create undo emphasis in the main article given article size targets. I might suggest that the illness and death of a religious figure is slightly more notable than most; for example, the manner of death of a pope may implicate his cause for canonization and the following papal conclave. As the objector, I removed the template because prod should not be used for contested deletions, which this is. Savidan 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I do not buy the "this level of detail about the last days of any historical figure is unnecessary" argument. What prompts the deletion of facts here? Lack of disk space on Knowledge servers? Many talk pages on Knowledge take more space than this article and if one were to refer to books in libraries, what is the use of "online" material. Hence I do not agree with the unnecessary assessment at all. No one is forcing anyone to read this link, but as a matter of historical fact, it enriches Knowledge. In fact, given the combination of the rare photo and the detailed facts, this is the type of article that elevates Knowledge to the level of a serious encyclopedia. I think Britannica etc. simply do not have this level of depth of information within them. But, this article should not be merged into the Pius XII article itself because that article is already pretty large. So this article should stay, i.e. let it be. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the precedent that it sets for other persons who wish to venerate their heroes by writing articles the person's illnesses. I suppose one could write an article about the final brave days of Gerald Ford or Mother Teresa or Mickey Mantle, but to what end? Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I would be very interested in reading about the final days of Mother Teresa. If you know someone who can write it, please suggest it. That is the strength of online, hyper-text info: someone will find it interesting and it does not get in the way by getting the physical encyclopedia too heavy to carry around. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The main article, despite numerous other sub-articles, is extremely long, and this seems an appropriate sub-article per the policy; the nom does not address the length issue. That the nominator thinks there is something wrong with the removal of the prod suggests he may not be too familiar with policy & procedure in this area. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, I am new. I'm the nominator but am now persuaded by the "keep" arguments above. The article in question is problematic, in my view, probably more because it seems like an overly-detailed story that suffers from an informal style. But that was already addressed. I do see the point of the one "delete" argument above, and to some extent agree with it. But ultimately, I think it's probably better to let things improve rather than go around recommending deletions without very good reason. My Knowledge philosophy is only just developing as I read through the "About" docs, and at the moment I see no need to hold my ground. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And that sounds like "nomination withdrawn". Looks like I need to move along-- I see a snowball rolling down the hill toward me! :) Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries, it is not a snowball moving towards you, it is just a friendly discussion about improving a page. And all participants wn or lose nothing, so no big deal. But I suggest that we declare this issue closed. Cheers History2007 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced dictionary definition full of original research. Reason given for contesting prod was: "It's Christmas Day". Songs of ts steiner (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

HUNGRY KIDS OF HUNGARY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN band: Unsourced, limited google depth. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 10:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 05:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Y2J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The band has won a singing competition and has signed up for a music label. It does not meet the notiability guidelines --Lawe (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Along with the deletion of this page are articles for the two singers Jane Huang and Yuming Lai. The notibility of these band members is limited to being in this musical act which does not meet the notibility guidelines. Therefore I am also nominating the following related pages because they refer to the members of this act:

Jane Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yuming Lai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Well, Yuming was the only one who won, so going by that guideline, only he would fit notability standards. Jane Huang, who placed seventh, would not. To say placing seventh counts as "placing" by those guidelines is too much of a stretch. Pandacomics (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:KEEP / WP:SNOW. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyer 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTDICDEF, fails WP:RS GateKeeper @ 08:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • delete weak keep - How can such an article even be expanded in an encyclopedic way? There doesn't appear to be much more to say besides the definition, therefore the article fails . I suppose you could list examples of sucker punches but that is not worthwhile content. I don't think there are any medical statistics regarding injuries from sucker punches and even if there were, I still don't think it would justify an article. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you read the article before Colonel Warden's complete rewrite and addition of reliable sources?  LinguistAtLarge  16:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I only now saw the update. It's better but still a border line call, in my opinion. The street fighting section I guess is worthwhile. I will change my vote to weak keep. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Singer with very little notability; ghits point mainly to blogs/MySpace/social networking sites. Gnews has one mention in a listing of performances. Doesn't seem to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Class of '05 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable problem. At most, deserves 2-3 lines of text in Iraqi insurgency. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Delete/Merge. Buckshot06(prof) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G4 - word for word recreation of previous article deleted at AFD under a different capitalisation. See Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Christopher Gutierrez (2nd nomination) Nancy 07:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Author, but nothing he's published appears on Amazon, except for one book which is listed as self-published ; written like a long PR blurb, not a biographical article. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable website/software/forum. All sources are to the website. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated below, the above assertion is untrue.Jezhotwells (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, where? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1 "WineHQ - SimSig 2.103". Wine HQ. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=7495. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.

2 a b c "Dazrah's SimSig page". britishrailwaysboard.co.uk. http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/simsig/. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.

3 Raymond Keattch (18 April 2007). "SimSig Training". http://www.drivershed.com/UK-Drivers.s13.html. (Web link). Retrieved on 27 December 2008.

4 RSN Associates and Risk Solutions (February 2003), "Rail education framework for secondary schools (S1 – S2) in Scotland - Guidance for Teachers" (PDF), Development of rail safety material for teachers and schools, RSSB, pp. 103 http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/Research/Development%20of%20rail%20safety%20material%20for%20teachers%20and%20schools.pdf

5 Marshall, Alan (September, 2006). "Dipping a toe into Signalling" (PDF). North London Society of Model Engineers Newsletter (London: NLSME) (673): 21. http://www.nlsme.co.uk/Newsletters/NLSME-September-2006.pdf. Retrieved on 27 December 2008.

6 "Signalling Simulations". District Dave. http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave/html/signalling_simulations.html. Retrieved on 2008-12-27.

7 "Sundry Strategy Titles". TRANSPORT SIMULATION UK. http://www.transportsim.co.uk/sundrystrat.html. Retrieved on 2008-12-27.

8 "The Language of Electronics - Dictionary and Research Guide". 123Explore!. http://www.123exp-technology.com/t/03881298238/. Retrieved on 2008-12-27.

9 "SimSig". Clive Feather. http://www.davros.org/rail/simsig/. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.

I have removed those referring to the SimSig website or forum. I request that fallacious and untrue assertions are removed from this debate. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A cursory seacrh of Google or Google News produces no hits for Zombie Nation (video game), so I don't really see that as a revelant argument. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from stalking on my contributions. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because other crap exists doesn't mean an article should be kept. So MuZemike's argument has relevance. Unusual? Quite 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—I've cleaned up the article to try to see what's going on. The nominator is correct that the sources used in the article do not prove notability. Please note that in Knowledge, the "External links" section of the article by definition contains links that were not used as sources for the article. If some of those links will help to establish notability, please work them into the article as sources. The text of the article makes it sound like this might be notable, so I'm not saying keep or delete at the moment. I'll willing to give the authors some time to convince me that this product is notable by providing reliable secondary sources. Pagrashtak 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think some of your concerns have been addressed. I would welcome input on the talk page.Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Your new sources have raised additional concerns. I've listed some on the talk page. Pagrashtak 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope that I have answered them adeqautely there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete—I have to switch to delete after the discussion at the article talk page. While the article sounds like it holds the promise for notability, the sources turned up so far are personal websites, self-published material, and forum posts. It appears that we simply don't have the reliable secondary sources needed to construct an article here. If SimSig grows in popularity and begins receiving coverage in reliable secondary sources, this article can be undeleted or recreated. There may be other wikis for which this article is suitable. If so, this article can be transwikied. Pagrashtak 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I cannot believe that this article has been marked for deletion. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with it, the links are all correct, maybe the wording maybe slightly wrong, but that can easily be changed, the pictures are accurate as well as picture descriptions, the simulations and website are made by Geoff Mayo. I say KEEP. manadude2 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is that Knowledge has a notability guideline, and the nominator has a concern that SimSig does not meet it. It has nothing to do with incorrect links or wording, but the subject matter itself. Pagrashtak 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a notable simulation of UK railway signalling. I agree, however, that it would be helpful if better references can be found. Dtaylor1984 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may be a notable simulation of signaling, but it doesn't meet the overall WP:N guideline for Knowledge notability. As can be seen from the, presumably, best references (i.e., those listed in the article) all the references are to personal pages and forums which are not reliable sources. I can't find anything else that is more reliable. Personally I feel it is time to look again at the standards for web sites, shareware and freeware because they are very rarely WP notable even when they are widely known in the on-line community. But an AfD isn't the place to discuss that. Unusual? Quite 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- MuZemike (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The program is _notable_ because it was an amateur piece of freeware that was adopted by Railtrack to train their signalmen with, because they didn't have a simulator. If it fails WP:N, it's _solely_ because WP:RS is fifteen - nay, twenty - years behind the times. However, I agree that one AfD isn't the right place for this debate; if this article _is_ deleted, though, it might provide an incentive to change our policies... Tevildo (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    Or it might goad people who claim that it's notable to provide reliable sources, which so far do not exist. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment.

reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.

This is the nub of it. In relation to the page for a quite well known video game SimCity in fact there are no working links in the references that are not fan sites or forums. This is likely as the original game is long out of production and is supported by a volunteer user community. The end implication of this is that only articles about commercial software produced by companies who can buy advertising space in major magazines and periodicals will ever have pages in Knowledge. The key words in the quote above are How reliable a source is depends on context. Do a thousand comments made on volunteer fan sites and user forums equal one paragraph in a newspaper of repute? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of SimCity has no bearing on the discussion of this article, however seems like a reliable source that isn't a fan site or a user forum. It could be argued that is also reliable. As is this. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to establish what is meant by reliable sources - two of the three examples quoted by you are in fact references to later versions of the game and the NY Times article disappered off screen after a moment as I am not a registered user of that site. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
and the recommendation in a report of the use of SimSig in schools by the body charged with rail safety in the UK (RSSB)? I would say that confirms notability. As does the reference from the North London Society of Model Engineers. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I would consider that enough to have this software mentioned in the RSSB article. To me, there doesn't seem to be enough significant commentry from sources outside the industry. Marasmusine (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
'Disclaimer author here again. RSSB to the UK is similar to the FRA is the US. Those in the railway industry would know the considerable significance of that link.
  • Disclaimer author yet again. Do either of these two facts indicate any notability? (a) The SimSig website contains its own Wiki which contains a large number of articles on terminology specific to railways which is not listed in Knowledge articles; (b) Direct references to simsig.co.uk by forums, links, references, recommendations, and otherwise total over 2000 in Google. Whilst (b) are not notable references, surely the sheer number of them count (sorry!) for something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.255.199 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
See Knowledge:GOOGLEHITS. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In addition, notability is separate from popularity. One of the reasons we have a notability guideline is to ensure that we have the raw materials (reliable secondary sources) we need to construct an article. The number of unsuitable sources have no relevance. If you hired a carpenter to build a house, but provided playing cards instead of lumber, the carpenter would refuse. Having thousands or even millions of playing cards wouldn't change things in the slightest—that type of material just isn't any good for making a house. It's the same thing here, we simply can't build an article out of unreliable sources no matter how many such sources can be found. Pagrashtak 03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough verifiable info yet. All we know so far is that it will exist in a year. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 06:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete From a cursory google search, most possible sources are from 2006 and it was due to air in 2007. Where the 2009 date comes from is an odd mystery but for now it looks like a failed series pilot which never got produced. treelo radda 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One source, dated February 16, 2006, consists of two paragraphs, can be boiled down to Drymon has been given approval to pilot a new series. Another source is Kaz's website, which mentions nothing about this show, nor is there any clear indication how Kaz is even involved. Derek Drymons article already mentions something. As with Treelo, a not-cursory search doesn't really turn up much, and what is found, while certainly not in agreement with WP:RS, could be boiled down to Drymon has been given approval to pilot a new series. See the trend? Either a case of WP:CRYSTAL for which nothing is known, or a project which had it's approval pulled, for which nothing is known. Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Kyle B. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't verify the notability claims; that the director's film "Mort" won any awards (IMDB doesn't list any , and I didn't see any ghits), or that he was the youngest director of a budget film in 2005. If his film didn't win any awards, I think he fails WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to deaths in 2008. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyer 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebrities died in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of celebrities who died in 2008. We already have a more comprehensive list, Deaths in 2008; propose we Delete and redirect to Deaths in 2008. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Another NN per WP:MUSIC. roux  05:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cumberland House, Birmingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability for the building. roux  04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was deleted as recreation of something that was deleted as a result of a discussion. Non-admin closure. Ouro (blah blah) 13:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Pure plot summary for a video-game character. Not the slightest suggestion of notice outside of the game universe, nor any non-game sources that I can find. CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: this has been nominated--and deleted--before, but I don't know whether is qualifies for speedy deletion under {{db-repost}}. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Previous version deleted via AfD didn't have the WOW inline cites, but that's about the only substantial difference.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 17:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Duplicate of Hispanic, should condense and merge the text --Sallicio 02:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Complete hoax. There is no way a 8 or 9 year old could have graduated from the University of Oxford, much less create most of Sega's major franchises or co-found TMS Entertainment (which was created before this person was even born!). All in all, complete balls. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 02:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable. This article is not about the indigenous people of Chile, but Indians from India in Chile. I never heard about Indians in Chile, and they are not prominent in Chilean society. This article looks like original research, and it lack sources. The article claims there is a "tiny minority", but does not have any numbers on the population. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • , an interview with the president of an India Indian community association conducted by Chile's National Congressional Library; he claims there's 1,400 India Indians in Chile
  • , a report by India's Ministry of External Affairs which has about 2 paragraphs about their nationals in Chile (claiming that a few went in the 1920s)
  • There's also an unreliable source which claims that a Sindhi named Bhai Haroomal was the first India Indian to reach Chile, in 1905
Despite the fact that they might be a larger group than Russians in Chile, I don't see that there's enough information about them to write an article. This is a perfect example of WP:BIGNUMBER: numbers are not notability. I don't recommend merge/redirect because the title is a neologism and the article contains no sourced content to merge. Maybe later, someone can use the above sources to add a brief comment in Non-Resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin. Or if someone knows of another source beyond the above, I might be convinced this topic is worth having an article. cab (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, and questionable. The template states that there are 650 persons from India in Chile and that Iquique, Santiago, and Punta Arenas have significant populations, a level of detail that, not sourced, may have been made up. I'd expect that a nation of more than 1 billion people would have had more residents in Chile. The approach seems to have been to create a template, then to create stubs to fill the template. It should be the other way around: create a decent article, then update the template. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Demographics of Chile. Scaldi (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Indigenous peoples in Chile. The article has no merit as an encyclopedia article but the title would be marginally useful as a redirect. Reyk YO! 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Why merge it to the Indigenous article, this is about Indians from India. India's Indians are not indigenous Chileans. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
But what he's saying (and I'd agree) is that people would be more likely to type in "Indian Chilean" when looking for the the original inhabitants of the territory (i.e. Chilean Indian tribes, like the Aymara), than they would in looking for people from India. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There are no sources, everything seems original research. There is even no number on how many Russian-Chileans are there, it just says "Tiny Minority". Lehoiberri (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Sid Sackson. MBisanz 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The No Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable game that appeared as one game in a book of games. Stephen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: There was a couple of other games bundled with this AfD, but I decided to split them as the games don't really have that much in common and deserve to receive different deletion discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 00:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Like Nike, article is an indiscriminate list with no clear criterion or standard for inclusion. While the sourcing is somewhat better than the Nike listicle, it still suffers from the same problems - a vast, near infinite list with an incredibly wide scope that editors couldn't hope to maintain in good condition even if they bothered. Mosmof (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

List of ice rinks in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Directory of non-notable places. BJ 17:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment For fairly obvious reasons there aren't a lot of ice rinks in Australia, and this may be a complete list of the rinks which are currently operating. I suspect that deletion is in order for notability reasons though. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Granted, ice skating in Australia may be not much more popular than surfing in Canada, but it's not unknown, as evidenced by the Australian Figure Skating Championships. However, the rule against directories would apply to a list of skating rinks anywhere. I would add that there's a difference in notability between sports arenas that can host an ice event, and places where the general public can go skating for a few hours. Even in the Big Banana, the ice-skating is only part of a much larger amusement park. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
If that were true, however, then this wouldn't be the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion guidelines have no bearing on the ability of people to edit Knowledge - Mgm| 17:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per some comments above. --Knowzilla 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article contains useful information for a small but relevent portion of the readership. It is not "too broad", it's just a list of facilities. If at some point in the future Australia builds many more rinks and the article becomes ridiculously long, it could be split up into states. As long as the material is verified, I support inclusion. A list of venues for ice skating, all of which are by definition quite expensive facilities, is certainly "worthy of note".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:N is more than being "worthy of note". For a subject to be included on wikipedia per WP:N, the topic has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Try to find significant coverage in reliable sources of the topic "ice rinks in Austrailia". If it hasn't been talked about, it isn't notable. Themfromspace (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been talked about. The Ice Skating Australia page talks about it. I'm not from Australia, but here in Virginia I've heard of friends and colleagues talking about what rinks there are in the area, I have no doubt similar conversations happen down under. This is a useful resource for someone looking for information, why does it not belong? Coastalsteve984 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What purpose would that be? Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to encyclopedia. MBisanz 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article was nommed for deletion before, but speedily kept because the tag was placed by a banned user. Nominating again, as article hasn't improved and even redirecting isn't going to be much help (see WP:NOTDIC). Expanding a dictionary definition doesn't make an article. Mostly unsourced OR. Graymornings(talk) 07:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that the 'hasn't improved' is essentially bad-faith, since it's literally a couple of days since the last call for delete.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's a dictionary article, can you give me a dictionary that defines it? I'm doubting that there is one.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 07:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's only a stub. The question is whether the topic is notable or not. I think if you consider this not to be notable, then other topics such as article (publishing) would also need to be deleted. Note that a lack of references is not nearly sufficient to delete something, you have to look at where, in the long run the article would end up.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete But not per nom. The problem here is that this is really a how-to on how to write one. The information on encyclopedia articles should be given in encyclopedia.Redddogg (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a how-to, because it only describes an encyclopedia article not the writing of. A how-to would describe the actual mechanics of how to pick a good topic and give guidelines of what is good to write and so forth. While you can sometimes do something from a description of something, there's a big difference between a how-to and a description.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to encyclopedia. There is information here that isn't already in that article, e.g. the use of objective style, coverage of debates rather than entering into argument. It's not much, but it is worth covering there, I feel. JulesH (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep merging with Encyclopedia would be acceptable, but Encyclopedia is already over the 30k limit. There's also things here that are much clearer. The article is short on sources, but it seems to me that, as with all the other articles such as essay etc. etc. it has independent notability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect. encyclopedia already covers the topic adequately. - Mgm| 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Careful here, contrary to what you would reasonably expect without (carefully) reading that article; an encyclopedia article is never, ever defined or described anywhere in Encyclopedia, it's much more circumoluctory, it mentions it, but that's all. And it's completely unclear to me that Encyclopedia should define it in any way precisely. And note that definition and description of something is what a specific article does. Given that, a redirect seems to be a very reasonable call here, but incorrect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nominator do not merge or collect $200. JBsupreme (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can see Wolfkeeper is keen to keep it, but quite frankly this is pretty much a nothing of an article. An encyclopedia article is not notable or interesting. It is encyclopedias that have notability. This is a bit like having an article for "rung" independently of "ladder" that says a rung is something that makes up a ladder. Unusual? Quite 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, in practice, we nearly always do have articles on components of things. I can't imagine that rung would ever be needed, because a rung is quite a simple thing, much more so than what an encyclopedia article is, but we have entries like Headword which seem to be far more obscure than encyclopedia articles, but presumably would survive AFD.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I mean, isn't this AFD and every other one a good example of how hard it is to truly define what an encyclopedia article is? But they clearly exist, and we spend hours arguing over them here. And the argument is that they're not notable or interesting in and of themselves???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm going to stand behind Unusual? Quite on this one. In my opinion, the purpose of Knowledge is to provide information to users based on a community consensus of what is notable, and useful. I don't see the point in creating pages which essentially state, "this is my personal opinion of what an encyclopedia page should contain." Additionally, the source for this article is not sufficient to provide a world view, since it is a submission guideline to a US-Latin American Relations reference book, which doesn't appear to even be completed: ...The Encyclopedia is planned as a two-volume work containing approximately 800 entries. Entries will be organized alphabetically by headword for general ease of access, and there will be cross-references to other entries of interest on the same subject (see section 5). Since this is a submission guideline for one particular reference tool, rather than even remotely being a general standard, at the very least, this article should be withdrawn by the author and sourced properly. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That's not the point of the article. The point of the article is to acrete information on this particular topic. For example, I just went looking for hard sources on this topic, and I found and . And yeah, I know, they're a blog. But they make points that I haven't seen anybody else except me make about encyclopedia articles, (specifically that encyclopedia articles don't have a thesis or argument) and they seem to have come from an encyclopedia publisher, who would be notable if we could get a direct quote. That's what this article is for, it's to collect the hard-to-find information on this topic. You're supposed to take an eventualistic attitude in AFDs, but I feel everyone is assuming that these kinds of sources cannot be found. That's just wrong; your arguments for deletion are entirely on the current state of the article. That's not right. I'm certain that there are dead tree sources on this that we haven't found yet that would make the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I mean, if the wikipedia were ever complete, are you saying that there would be no article on this topic? It boggles my mind that that would be so. That's the only justification for really deleting an article like this one.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Circular logic. You don't write an article and then look for sources to back it up. You write an article based on reliable sources.--OliverTwisted (Talk) 02:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
              • That's not very eventualist. We don't delete articles because they are hard to source. From the AFD process: "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.", I've given what I believe to be reasonable evidence that they are likely to.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
                • To shake things up, let me start by agreeing with you. You are correct that blog entries are not reliable. Also, from the article you referenced: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it.--OliverTwisted (Talk) 02:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • I quoted from AFD, you're quoting from verifiability. And we do actually have a source, and I believe it meets the standards of verifiability. The article could really do with more than one source, but nevertheless the article cannot be characterised as unsourced.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • No proof that the source has been published. Non existent sources are by definition unreliable. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC) added Okay, I've been way too flippant with you, and I apologize. Let me try to restate my point. The source which the article is based upon is not notable, reliable, or verifiable because it is actually an online submission guideline to a very specific reference tool, mostly unrelated to the article, which seems to not have been published yet. Without this as a reference, the article is unsourced, unverifiable, and non notable. I'm going to stop posting to this conversation, and allow other editors to make contributions. I don't believe this argument serves any further constructive purpose. Best wishes, and I hope we kept this as an intellectual debate. No hard feelings? Feel free to continue this on my talk page. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 03:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
                      • I honestly believe that this is actually an important article that is difficult to reference, but even if it had no references that isn't grounds for deletion anyway. People above have stated that they learnt from reading the article things that are not in the Encyclopedia article. The material that is here at this article is unlikely to be included in the Encyclopedia article which is about general features of encyclopedias. I'm quite frankly amazed at the nature and level of the arguments being made here, and I do not believe them to be inline with any policies related to the AFD process.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
                        • You have policy exactly backwards. Your subjective judgement of importance has no basis in policy whatsoever, and indeed such subjective judgements have been repeatedly and resoundingly rejected as policy proposals. Whereas the arguments that there are no reliable sources and so a subject cannot be written about are firmly rooted in Knowledge:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and/orRedirect to Encyclopedia. I don't need to restate what I said in the original nomination, (which actually was improperly closed, as if a nomination was made by a banned user, but has been elaborated on by normal users, nominations should stay open per policy). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It wasn't just improperly opened, it was improperly run, there were no tags on the article page. Unless you happened to stumble across it on the AFD page then you would never have known it was happening.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore it to its original state which was as a redirect to encyclopedia. Zuiver jo (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to encyclopedia because the topic does not merit its own separate article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Article seems to exist because someone wanted to start an article. All of this is already in encyclopedia, and no-one is going to put "encyclopedia article" in the search bar, they'd just type encyclopedia itself. Sticky Parkin 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You'd think that this material would be already covered, but that doesn't seem to be the case in fact. Note that people don't have to type in a name to reach an article, the article is linked from several other articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
      • The reason that it isn't covered is that no reliable sources document this subject. And the reason for that is that the fixed, external, definition of an encyclopaedia article that you assume exists actually does not. Most of what you've written about encyclopaedia articles isn't actually true. It's only true for Knowledge articles. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
        • So, it is true, since at least one major encyclopedia uses it in this particular way. And all you're really saying, I think, is that this article needs to grow to describe the other things and styles of encyclopedia articles that there are; they are all within the scope of the article; and I would agree with that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm still certain that in some print source somewhere or other there will be reliable sources that cover this topic; and I challenge anyone to deny this point. The trouble is encyclopedias predate the internet, and nobody has recently thought it that important to write about it precisely and put it online.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pistons-Celtics rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An NBA rivalry which is unnotable besides meeting a couple of times in the playoffs in the '80s. That aside, the article is basically a WP:COATRACK of stats and opens the door for literally thousands of articles if every team has an article about its rivalry with the other 29 teams. All information needed to present about the rivalry is already at Rivalries of the NBA. Tavix (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Tavix (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply Can you prove this? They aren't in the same division, and almost the entire article is a coatrack of stats. Remove that, and you got a paragraph or two. "It's not the most notable of the Celtic's rivalries." Exactly my point. Even if they are "notable" as you say, we shouldn't have a full article for all the teams and their 15 or so "rivals". Tavix (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you look at the external links, ESPN does a brief chronicle of the rivalry that spans nearly 50 years. Seeing how as ESPN doesn't make up rivalries between teams that have gone on for 50 years, it's sufficient enough to say from that proof that this rivalry has notability. And yes, I did say it wasn't the most notable Celtics rivalry, but you neglected to include the rest of my quote where I explicitly say it's still notable. Knowledge policy doesn't dictate one rivalry per team. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep NBA league website acknowledges the rivalry. The existence of the rivalry seems to be established by various websites and while it is true the page looks like a collection of stats now, it could be improved to be more encyclopedia like to describe the rivalry rather than just the stats involved. Ryanminier (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Like Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships, article is an indiscriminate list with no clear criterion or standard for inclusion, and completely unsourced despite tagged as being so since May. Absent any sort of standard, this list is impossible to maintain up to Knowledge standards, even if anyone bothered to try. Mosmof (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article is an indiscriminate list with no clear criterion or standard for inclusion, and completely unsourced despite tagged as being so since May. Absent any sort of standard, and because Nike sponsors so many athletes and teams in virtually every competitive sport and at practically all levels, this list is impossible to maintain up to Knowledge standards, even if anyone bothered to try. Mosmof (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think a category would be sufficient in this case. Putting individuals and teams, etc. in the same category would offer less explanation than this list, sorted by sports. matt91486 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • keep and improve. notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think they have a very obvious criteria for inclusion, so I'm not sure how you can argue that they are indiscriminate. And maintenance efforts are also not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Is the criteria for inclusion a particularly notable one? Nike sponsors thousands of teams, athletes and organizations. No, maintenance efforts are not a valid reason for deletion, but it is part of why we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LAUNDRY. This seems like a rather clear case of laundry lists that we try to avoid. Mosmof (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Sports company sponsorhips are a significant topic in the athletics world. Differentiation between sponsors between and within leagues can provide valuable insight into the sports business world. The only real flaw with these lists is that they aren't extended to cover some of the other important shoe sponsorship companies, which would help to form a more comprehensive coverage on the subject. They have a defined criteria, subjects on both ends are notable, and it is an important grouping of information. matt91486 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is certainly not worthy of deletion. Nike's influence on sports, especially basketball is of sure significance. I disagree totally that this should be deleted. --Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Not to belabor the point but, I am still struggling to understand how this massive list helps us understand Nike's influence on sports, beyond trying to shock and awe the reader. Couldn't the point be made better by citing an expert in sports marketing saying, "Nike wields influence in sports, particularly basketball, by outfitting athletes and teams" or something to that extent? It seems both you and Matt91486 seem to be extrapolating value from these listicles that aren't actually there. We don't need a list of players who wear high tops to make a point about the importance of ankle support in basketball. Likewise, I don't see how this big list of Nike-wearing people and organizations helps us understand anything about sponsorships. Mosmof (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I really believe that's a manner of personal preference. I think a visual representation of the breadth and range is helpful. Really, though, the lists are discriminate, so there still isn't a policy reason you have suggested for deletion. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. matt91486 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Is it really discriminate? These sponsorships seem rather discriminate - even Non-League football clubs and semi-pro athletes can get kit and footwear sponsorship. --Mosmof (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Likely neologism largely sourced to one author's work. Declined speedy and sent here for the community's consideration Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism that is apparently used only by the author who coined it. The term isn't notable but the book presenting the coinage has been widely reviewed. Therefore, much of the information in this article should be moved to a new article, The Gort Cloud, which would begin:

The Gort Cloud is a 2008 book by Richard Seireeni. According to the author, the book describes "a vast, largely invisible and growing (environmentally-aware) 'community' that sieves, measures and exchanges information on green products and services...."

JamesMLane t c 04:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The subject appears to fail WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. Sharveet (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to The Sisters of Mercy. The Keep arguments arguing inherent notability and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not as convincing as the Delete arguments centered on lack of notability in reliable sources. MBisanz 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Notability in question. It's essentially a nickname given to the drum machines for a band which is notable, but not a band so exceptionally notable to the extent that a seperate article is required for what is essentially fancruft. No third party sources whatsoever. Doesn't deserve a seperate article, no sources, cruft. Would be better as a redirect to the band where this can be mentioned briefly in the main article. J. F. Mam J. Jason Dee (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge. not that notable. Empire3131 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Unlike other bands using drum machines, Doktor Avalanche has been presented just like "he" is another band member. If past and present band members are notable enough for their own articles, why not the good Doktor? 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronaut (talk • contribs) on 14:01, 27 December 2008
  • Merge and redirect. This is an entry on how the band uses drum machines rather than an article on a band member. It may be worth keeping in the main article, but there's insufficient reason to have a separate entry.-= Mgm| 18:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: insufficient notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Astronaut. The name and "band member" mythology was provided by the band itself back in 1981. This makes the subject notable IMHO, although the present state of the article doesn't reflect that (hence, the article needs improving, not deleting). Compare the individual entries for Gorillaz "band members" on WP: here, here, here and and here. If we are deleting or merge/redirecting Doktor Avalanche, then the same should automatically apply to these four fictional band member articles, which also currently fail to demonstrate notability outside of the band context. But merging these back into the main Gorillaz article would cause a big mess in that article - and six months from now, the individual articles would be broken out again by editors attempting to tidy things up. Same would apply here, if you tried to merge this into the Sisters of Mercy article. IMO, for the sake of consistency, all five articles should remain on WP, but all should be improved. --DaveG12345 (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The band itself is a notable one, globally known, so band members would deserve a page anyway. But Dr avalanche is not simply a member, but a unique rock band member, as he is not a human, nut is treated as one, eg listed on the CD as a member. This article is informative, as it is about a non-living band member, which is quite unusual. I know quite number of SOM fans, we all know about the "dok", as the band and fans call this special member. "He" is treated like a human member, so I think the page should be kept, for double reason: member of a famous band; a machine treated by band and fans as a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.119.29 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, complete bollocks. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

2020 in music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:CRYSTAL Narutolovehinata5 01:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was withdrawn. –Juliancolton 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

A fairly complex assertion, but no sources to establish notability. Questionable notability as defined in: WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND.OliverTwisted (Talk) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) *Delete Non-notable band, search for "The Beau Hunks" turns up none for this band, only (a few) for an orchestra, the other is for the film they are named after. Narutolovehinata5 03:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Keep They are notable, article just needs to be improved. Narutolovehinata5 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So, this should be closed, then just fix the article? Narutolovehinata5 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There seems to be plenty of stuff about this band. Just needs to be worked into the article. — Twinzor 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The article provides no evidence to show that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO criteria. Sharveet (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No notability asserted, no sources found. No major roles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Previously nominated and deleted; now still doesn't show how it passes the notability guideline for music because of no external sources or charted hits. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I recommend against speedy deletion. From what I can see the new article is sufficiently different from the original to be considered a different entry, thus ineligible for G4. - Mgm| 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The nominator has already specified how this subject remains to be non-notable and thus the spirit of G4 still applies. Otherwise those looking to disruptively re-create this article get a free pass by just having to change the new text ever so slightly. I think admins are smart enough not allow for such silly loopholes. JBsupreme (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The article provides no evidence to show the subjects passes WP:PORNBIO criteria. Sharveet (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyer 03:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

K-hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article that appears to be written by people who have experienced this sensation. Knowledge is not a place for neologisms. Unless this article can be drastically altered and sourced, it is not the kind of entry that would appear in an encyclopedia. LukehWaffles (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep -- adequately described in peer-reviewed reliable sources: see . John254 22:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per John254 or merge into Ketamine. If kept, should be cleaned up and expanded using some of that scholarly literature. If merged, the physiological effects and cultural references should be separated and put into the appropriate places in the Ketamine article. TheFeds 02:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it's another similar article with unencyclopaedic content, uncited original research about Ketamine:

Ket Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sticky Parkin 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. discussion to merge should take place at talk page –Juliancolton 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

A non-notable game that appeared as one game in a book of games. Stephen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

*Note: Splitting game from a bundled discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. M. Leclerk, The Higgs sector of gravitational gauge theories, Annals of Physics 321 (2006) 708.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑