Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 4

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< December 3	December 5 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was A7 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragon and tiger (webcomic)

This webcomic is lacking any notability, at least no sources are given in the article. Its posted on Blogspot and receives less than 5 comments per new strip. Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A7 Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:59, 4 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 result was merge to Championship Gaming Series. MBisanz 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Salvo

AfDs for this article:

This article (as well as several others like it) was previously AfDed with a result of "merge". The merge never happened. The article has little coherent content and gets a lot of IP vandalism. As the banner says "If this merge is not completed promptly this article my be re-nominated for deletion". So here we are. DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge or keep. I see no reason to delete; there are articles about this team that make at least most of the article verifiable. JulesH (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Additional sources that could be useful: JulesH (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The latter of those two articles suggests the team has notability distinct from Championship Gaming Series as this was a different contest that they won. JulesH (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge - Independent references are required; The first provided by JulesH is just a press release, whilst the Birmingham Post is more useful. As a short article in a local paper, I don't think this is significant enough to warrant a seperate article. I'd like to see the merge proposed previously to be completed. Although table-heavy, I'm sure they can be presented concisely, I'll be happy to have a crack at it. Marasmusine (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge as a compromise. As Maramusine pointed out, only one source does anything for notability, and even that is pretty questionable. But there was a merge tag here, so let's give that a shot instead of deletion. Randomran (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: That merge tag has been there since August and nobody even started the merge. I have no objection to the merge but it has to happen this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The best way to ensure that it is done is to do it yourself. None of the volunteer editors here is obliged to do anything just because someone demands that it "has to happen". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view the whole walled garden of articles on Professional Gaming teams and players is mostly WP:Complete bollocks. I have just been exploring some of it and quickly became despondent as it seems to be a vast sprawl of vanity articles. Even the articles with references seem to rely on a small number of websites which are questionable for WP:RS. I would have voted "delete" in the first AfD and I remain more than happy for the result to be delete this time. As such, I am probably not the best person to do a merge. That said, if we do decide to merge here, and nobody else does it, I will just concatenate all the articles together. I would prefer it if somebody else, who actually knows and cares about the subject did it instead of me. They are much more likely to do a good job of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus, which defaults to keep. The "vote count" was close, but the cases' notability has been prima facie established. However, that is subject to refutation, and these articles, or any of them, may expect to be nominated again within the next few months if not improved. On a procedural note, Shlensky v. Wrigley has been speedied as a copyvio by Orangemike. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart

Contested prods. The author originally posted several articles linked to Harvard business school cases, all apparently copyvios of material from Harvard business school. He's now removed what he says is the copyvio material leaving unreferenced essays. Fails WP:VER, WP:OR and WP:NOT#HOWTO - "The purpose of Knowledge is to present facts, not to teach subject matter" andy (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete - The context of these articles is a little unclear to me, but regardless, or in addition, - Original Research and WP:NOT#HOWTO --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete All - material is how-to/homework-esque essays. Doc StrangeLogbook 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete All No references to show that these were notable cases, plus analysis looks like OR unless it can be referenced. gnfnrf (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. References for the first case's notability: . References for the second case's notability: , Angela Schneeman The Law of Corporations and Other Business Organizations ISBN 0766831981 pp274-276, John Adamson Law for Personal and Business Use ISBN 0538440511 p486. I dare say similar references could be found for the remaining cases, but I feel I have made my point that the nominator has not even considered whether or not these cases are notable, and only looked at the history of the page. Content issues can be fixed. Deletion is a last resort for those that cannot be. JulesH (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The key issue is that these are presented as textbook articles, not encyclopedia articles. Knowledge is not a textbook so it has no place for this kind of thing. andy (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is a very fine one, particularly when it comes to legal cases. We're talking about a historical event that can have significant influence on the present. I think it's fair to say that any case that is referenced in textbooks should have an article. I also believe it's fair to say that it's easier to work from a textbook-style article to a more appropriate one than it is to start from nothing. JulesH (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the distinction isn't a fine one as far as WP is concerned. These articles are completely inappropriate as they stand and the author hasn't fixed them, so unless someone else does so within the next couple of days they should be deleted per Knowledge:NOTHOWTO#HOWTO and other policies. We don't keep bad articles in the hope that they'll somehow get better - we either fix them promptly or delete them. andy (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy you are referring to states:

Textbooks and annotated texts. Knowledge is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Knowledge is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Knowledge article.

This is the only section of the policy in question that I see could be even remotely applicable to (to pick an example) Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart. And I don't really see how it applies... what, in that article, is "teach subject matter" rather than presenting facts about it? There are no leading questions or problem solutions, etc., so the rest of the policy doesn't apply. Besides, WP:DELETION says:

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.

I see no reason to believe that any problem with this article (and at least most of the others) cannot be solved through editing. Certainly it is possible to have an encyclopedia article on a notable legal case, and this one would certainly seem to fit the bill. JulesH (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with JulesH, there is a fine line between historical events and a textbook-style article, and in my mind Knowledge should err on the side of inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Take something like Nucleophilic_substitution, which is probably as text-book a description as you're likely to get (almost straight out of a textbook). I would still prefer to have that page included in Knowledge than not. Khidhir (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also the issue that these articles are unreferenced and for the most part are presented as opinions, not facts. As they stand they're eminently deletable under several key WP policies such as WP:VER. If you want to keep them, how about fixing them so they don't violate WP policies? andy (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep The subjects are possible for articles. But the notability has to be shown . HBS uses hundreds of cases, and there needs to be some evidence that these are important and widely used elsewhere. The ones that are law cases should be presented as such, with the interpretive part sourced and presented separately. That they are important law cases has to be shown by other than HBS--leading cases widely quoted are suitable for articles. The general use of HBS cases is also fit for an article as a major teaching method akin to a textbook, but it needs 3rd party sources. Given the importance of the method, this should not be difficult. DGG (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. At least two of these articles (Shlensky v. Wrigley and Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc.) probably originated in business law readings published by Georgia Tech. It's worth noting that GA Tech has been sued for copyright violations in student reading material, and in fact I notice that Shlensky v. Wrigley is very similar to copyright material on www.audiocasefiles.com/home. andy (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I would keep Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc. as a notable case. The other ones, I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Muffin. MBisanz 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pumpkin muffins

Delete Par wp:not, manual Excirial 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikicookbook if such a thing is created before this AfD expires. Otherwise, Delete. Rklear (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I second the WP:NOT reference. ~~Put it in a sentence in the muffin article,~~ It's already in the muffin article as a possible muffin type.LH (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Muffin. There's nothing distinctive about a pumpkin muffin. It's simply an ingredient variation of the muffin. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Quarry Oaks

Non-notable golf course article. Grovermj 23:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I'd hold out against this one, as Google shows up 97, 600 results. Most of them appear to be respectable, so a net NEUTRAl. Cheers. Imperat§ r 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of those are related to a different golf course in Nebraska. Smile a While (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete; I am not seeing a solid claim to notability. The designer is not a notable person, there is no evidence that a major championship has been played here and the news links are sparse. Smile a While (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Ghits in this case does not mean much. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jithendra Shenoy

Non-notable racing driver; no indication that he has done anything other than race karts at a university level in India. Not in the comprehensive driver database website, and a Google search provides only the article and its reference before generic links take over. --Diniz (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable local-level driver (or at least not national level). I could see speedy criteria applying here, but there's no harm in a full discussion. Royal broil 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Can't see anything notable about this driver. The article actually slightly misrepresents its source as well - he's not on a driver development programme (which would suggest a potential for future notability) as the article implies, he "organizes racing development programs and runs promotional events for young, upcoming racing talents." He's 26 and racing karts for fun - he's not ever going to make it to a notable level (sorry mate!) 4u1e (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Nothing in the article suggests a level of notability high enough for Knowledge. Readro (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - his racing is not at the highest level for his sport so he does not pass WP:ATHLETE. And there isn't coverage about him in reliable sources to establish notability through the general guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Erand Hoxha

Article is unsourced and there is no assertion of notability. Additionally, the article fails WP:ATHLETE as the person has not played in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment here is a prior AfD for a similar article that resulted in delete: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ndriçim Shtubina. Jogurney (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If I read this site correctly, he has played with his club in the 2007-08 UEFA Cup (eliminated in the second qualifying round) and in the 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup (eliminated in the second round). Aecis·(away) 23:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as doesn't appear to have played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE - cup apperances for clubs not in fully pro leagues do not count towards it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are you sure he doesn't pass as he competed at the highest amateur level in footy in Albania? He may not be noteworthy to you, but he could be a household name in Albania! Govvy (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only sources I found on this player indicate he played in qualifiers for the 2007-08 UEFA Cup and the 2008 Intertoto Cup for KS Besa. He gets two hits on the Tirana Observer website (). He's played roughly 50 league matches for KS Besa and doesn't seem like a household name yet. Jogurney (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE states that this applies to "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." The highest level for this player would therefore be playing for Albania, which he hasn't done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In a good number of countries you can only play footy at armature level because those leagues are not rich enough to be fully-pro. But saying it's not the highest level of football in that country sounds wrong. I am referring to league only here, not the international game. That is a different level all together. At what point do you ask an English or American what a household name is in Albania. We can't represent that from this point of view. On evidence there is a clear indication that he does play at the highest level in Albania if you forget the country team. Does this either mean there is a miss-representation of what he qualifies under or is there a bias to delete because no-one outside Albania knows him? Govvy (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if football were popular enough in Albania for the league to be fully professional, then he would be a household name. Or perhaps if he were good enough, he would play for Albania, or have earned a move to a professional league. But it isn't and he hasn't, and therefore he doesn't pass the WP:ATHLETE criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Govvy makes a valid point. Hoxha's club apparently is good enough to qualify for the UEFA Cup. With the UEFA coefficients rankings, this means that they finished second or third in the Albanian Superliga. So should Hoxha be denied an article because clubs ten places lower in the rankings don't pay all of their players? Aecis·(away) 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If KS Besa were a fully professional club (perhaps it is), I think WP:FOOTYN would support the idea of keeping this article. However, no one has shown that KS Besa is fully professional and the article doesn't even pass WP:N as it is unsourced. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 02:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Plays in highest level of Albanian football, including international competitions. Nfitz (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Albanian football is weak and not in the scope of WP:ATHLETE. Punkmorten (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Jak II, snowball closure. Marasmusine (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Metal Heads

Seems only relevance is in game universe, cites no sources. Delete? Speedily even? Neuro√Logic 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

speedy redirect to the PlayStation game Jak II, which contains much more information than does this article. Even if this were better, it still wouldnt';t be worth a sparate article. DGG (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes)

AfDs for this article:

Indiscriminate list of calvin's "alter egos", listing everything he's ever pretended to be. Concepts like Spaceman Spiff and Stupendous Man are already in the main article on Calvin, while the rest should be jettisoned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I created this article around 16 or so months ago by simply copy/pasting content from the article about Calvin himself. I then severely cut down the section about Calvin's alter-egos in the article about Calvin himself. While I will not object if this article is deleted, all the content in this article was in the article about Calvin before I split it into a new article due to its length. If I had not done this, it seems unlikely that this discussion would be taking place. J.delanoy _adds 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - Spinning off sub-articles on topics that are too large to fit in one page is standard summary style article editing. There are notability concerns -- just how notable is "Adult Calvin" anyway? -- but in keeping with summary style, I don't see a need to delete this. --Good Damon 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
How do you consider this to be indiscriminate? There are very clear boundaries to this list - which indiscriminate lists don't have. - Mgm| 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it lists every freaking single alter eago, including one shots. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that including all of them is a problem, if you think it is , just remove the superfluous ones. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. J.delanoy _adds 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to call WP an Encyclopedia, then yes, we should include every alter-ego my favorite little problem child has. Exit2DOS2000 12:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge - I think the whole thing should be merged into the main Calvin article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 5, 2008 @ 01:05

Merge-As J.delonay said above, the article will become severely damaged without this page. Merge it, and the information will be retained. Cheers. Imperat§ r 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

semi-Strong Keep - any Merge would bloat the Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) into unreadability. And if the "superfluous" alter-ego's were deleted/trimmed out, then surely the Article would end up with a permanent Template:Incomplete on it, which is the opposite of what any encyclopedia is attempting to do. Does just fine as a spin-out Article. Exit2DOS2000 06:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I like the page and I don't think there's anything wrong with providing a list of characters for Calvin as a separate page for clarity. Khidhir (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers, –Juliancolton 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as it is well-written on a subject of sufficient notability. I would agree some of the one-offs can be removed without hurting the article, and perhaps even helping it, but let's not delete the entire thing because of that small problem. Frank | talk 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- Congratulations to J.delanoy for spinning off this article. I have just read it for the first time, and I completely agree that it seems like a good candidate for a spin-off. Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Amo, amas, amat

I don't believe this article belongs to Knowledge; the article says a) that "Amo, amas, amat" are three forms of the Latin verb "to love" (which isn't an encyclopedic topic, and surely Wiktionary already has the word), and b) that the words were a title of a book of Latin phrases (which I don't think has anything special about it). I don't see any potential for expansion in an article either about the words (though there's a fair amount of Google hits) or about the book. (Speedy deletion - probably rightfully - challenged by creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Considerably expandable. Traditional grammatical phrase, and most of the latin most people know. Used for effect in various works; I recall Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (the article is in need of considerable expansion), where this is taught to the hero upon his return to society--with the predictable consequences. Of course we could also have "amo amas amat in popular culture." but there may not be enough for two articles. DGG (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- We already have Latin conjugation#The first conjugation and Latin mnemonics, and Wiktionary already has amo#Latin and Appendix:Latin first conjugation#Active indicative. What do you suggest that we put under this title? Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggest redirect to Latin conjugation. This is typically one of the first model First Conjugation verbs encountered by Latin students, and is remembered widely. There are other bits of Latin grammar that might so qualify; I think Jacques Brel wrote a song about the declension of rosa, rosae ("rose") but that probably wouldn't support the article rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosā, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to Latin conjugation. If Knowledge is WP:NOT a dictionary, then it is also not a Latin dictionary or listing of conjugations. If we have an article about the conjugation of this Latin verb, should we then have articles about the conjugation of every verb in every known language? The fact that someone "has heard of it" does not prove notability. Edison (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep I agree Knowledge is not a dictionary or a source for grammar but the page refers to a Latin phrase (which also happens to be a common grammatical conjugation, but so is "he said, she said" and surely this phrase means more than the basic conjugation) and there are many wiki pages that explain Latin phrases, such as the page for Ad_litem. Also, after searching around there is a wiki page for Latin phrases: List of Latin phrases And on this page there are separate wiki links to phrases that have their own special meaning. Maybe we can keep this page and make a link off the Latin phrases page to it? I also agree the original page can be expanded. Khidhir (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a Latin phrase. It has no meaning. It is simply the first, second, and third person singular simple present indicative active of "amare", as you can see by reading amo#Latin, which was already linked-to above. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a famous epigram; it is just the basic conjugation of a basic verb. It belongs in the Latin wiktionary, not here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. There are atleast two books that have this phrase in the title:
- Amo, Amas, Amat... and All That: How to Become a Latin Lover http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amo-Amas-Amat-All-That/dp/1904977545
- Amos, Amas, Amat and More: How to. Use Latin to Your Own Advantage http://www.amazon.com/Amo-amas-amat-more-astonishment/dp/0061812498
So, I don't think that its usage is just a simple conjugation of the verb. It wouldn't be in the title of the book. For instance, in English, which perhaps is more familiar, it would be common to see a title of a book "He Said, She Said" because this phrase means something beyond the simple conjugation of the verb "to say". However, it would not be common to see a title such as "He Communicated, She Communicated", because there really is nothing more than the conjugation to this phrase (and incidentally these two titles literally mean the same thing, but really convey two different things)
The phrase also appears on serveral blogs, a New York Time crossword puzzle (the ultimate arbiter of phraseness!), and the title of a play by Tucki Bailey (haven't read it):
http://www.oneglobepublishing.com/yso/music.shtml
And I'm not even searching hard :) Khidhir (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're also not reading what your searches find. The book titles are irrelevant. They don't denote the actual book subjects (which are, in fact, simply the Latin language). This phrase does not mean anything, in Latin or in English. It doesn't denote a subject. It's just the (partial) conjugation of one Latin verb.
  You are arguing that this is a phrase. That's an argument suitable for Wiktionary. Here at Knowledge we have a Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary policy, and article titles must denote something. Neither you nor DGG have provided a single thing for it to denote, other than Latin conjugation#The first conjugation, which is what it is, and which at best it should simply redirect to. And a crossword puzzle is not a source.
  By the way, this is not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, why have any Latin phrases in Knowledge? There are hundreds of wiki pages for phrases, such as ad litum, quod erat demonstradum, even et cetera. Would you suggest all these pages be moved to the Wikitionary? Khidhir (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Those are all meaningful phrases with a long and encyclopedia-worthy history of usage, not just repetitions of a single word in different verb forms. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge with List of Latin phrases (A-B). Latin phrases which enjoy some popularity in English (or other languages for that matter) are of some interest in the field of language study, and some of the most common phrases deserve separate articles. However, I have not seen evidence that this phrase is extremely popular, and the article is little more than a definition. Coverage in the main list seems like a reasonable solution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - famous epigram, title of famous book. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not an epecially famous phrase, about as useful as an article on do, did, done, an equally non-encyclopedially important example of an irregular verb in English. Knowledge is not a grammar book. Kusma (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rockwell Collins Ugly Sweater Day

This is not a notable holiday. It is specific to only one location of Rockwell Collins, and has no notability, and no reliable sources are or will ever be available. Scapler (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

True, this is specific to one location of Rockwell Collins, but that does not make the holiday any less notable or worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia archive. It has lasted three years and that alone should make it worthy of being included. I don't know why the holiday's perceived notablity by you has any say in its inclusion. If it is notable to the people who do it, shouldn't that be enough? nels0398 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh......................no. Esradekan Gibb 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment, That logic makes no sense. Should every company's Christmas Party be included because it has been happening for years, or should the ten year traditions of every high school band be included? As far as it being important to those involved, my girlfriend, my pets, and my house are important, but they also have no mention by notable sources, and should not have their own articles either (until my dog saves the world, that is) Scapler (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The link goes to WP:Notability, where they talk about things like significant coverage, reliable sources, and the distinction of "notability" from "popularity". So my answer to nells0398 "it is notable to the people who do it, shouldn't that be enough" of no stands. Esradekan Gibb 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I mean seriously, if it is important enough, similar to an office christmas party, that people would be looking for information for it. And it is correctly titled so people know what company it is without having to read through the article and be upset that it isn't for them. Then why can't that be an article. It is titled with the company in the title so you would have to look for Rockwell Collins to find it, it has people who want to know about it and be informed about it, so they could look up its history, and it is an event that is unique within the company. Now as for like a 10 year band tradition, why shouldn't that be on here. Looking back at it wouldn't you like to know who started that tradition and why? That is something that could be useful and this is the perfect place to hold that wealth of knowledge.nels0398 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Further comment, Unfortunately, you do not make the pedia guidelines. WP:Notability (I suggest you read it this time) states that an article must have receive significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and must not contain the original research your article is based on. This is an encyclopedia, and by definition not a first party resource, EVER. Scapler (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails to establish any sort of notability per WP:notability. It's not even mentioned on the companies own website. Esradekan Gibb 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:Notability, because it is not mentioned in any third party-sources. Scapler (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
consider merge If this is truly a notable company event, maybe there are corporate publications that mention it. That might be the basis of a merge with the corporate article. While it seems like this is a delete article, maybe the editor can find references for a merge. Chergles (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no significant coverage anywhere. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dahiwad

Unremarkable, No Cited Sources, Speedy? Neuro√Logic 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep a village or town in India, large enough to have a high school. Location specified. Needs expansion, but all inhabited settlements are notable, by consistent decisions here. Every one of them. I suggest the nominator read some of the policies and guidelines for what is usually deleted, and ourtr policies about improving articles and looking for references (and what qualifies for speedy) DGG (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep pending sources I don't know where to look for sources, so I can't add any; but the reason we grant that populated places are notable is that they have sources, so we need some here to prove that it's not a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A simple Google search finds sources that confirm that the place exists, which is enough for this article to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio. Reso lute 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Allied High Schools

Seems WP:SPAMish. I've put it up for deletion to see what the community thinks. Neuro√Logic 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep certainly needs major improvement including references, but if it is real, it is probably as notable as any other secondary school. "Spammish" is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- It sure is; that is what G11 is for; however, I do not think that is the case. MuZemike (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G12) — copyvio of and . MuZemike (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. So Why 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tympaki Airport

~~Non notable place, and little to no content.~~ Neuro√Logic 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was this AfD'd within only six hours of its creation and not simply tagged for improvements? --Oakshade (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Not only are airports generally considered notable as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES (I've only seen the smallest of unpaved airstrips get deleted), but it's an air force base. To my knowledge we've never deleted an American or British air force base, past or present, and deleting non-American/British ones might appear as a case of systemic bias. It's also Greece's most southerly airfield. This is very significant as it's the closest to Egypt and Lybia (countries that haven't been the most friendly to Greece) and its relative proximity to Cyprus, an island of extremely contentious sovereignty disputes between Greece and Turkey.--Oakshade (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep major military installations of all countries are notable. As are all significant airports. DGG (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep and expand. Air force bases are pretty much inherently notable. Also trout the nom for nominating this page within 6 hours of creation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw Nom - Sorry guys, smacked it with a template during New Page Patrol. I was actually un-aware all airforce bases are inherently notable, that's news. Thanks for letting me know. Neuro√Logic 22:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete (G3) by Thingg. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dogskills Mountains

Its 99% this is hoax, I cant find anything related to this at google. Influensed by Catskill Mountains? The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Agree 99% - Could find no information on my searches. You would figure at least one hit, at a minimum on Google as shown here , not even taking into account Google news or Google Scholar. ShoesssS 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Skyroof

Knowledge is not a directory list of the millions of trademarks out there. This product has no evidence of notability. Also, note that the account User:SunroofGuy, which seems to have been created solely to protect the article Skyroof, has spammed users with nonsensical accusations of trademark infringement.. —Lowellian (reply) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete- the nominator sums it up well. Knowledge is not a directory of trademarks and commercial products. Reyk _YO! 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Blatant use of Knowledge for promotional purposes, even if not spam in the classic sense of the term. RayAYang (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete The sooner the better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Agree, delete quickly. Luinfana (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete After talking to the user about it after he contested the prod by email to me, I advised him to read over some of our core policies and guidelines and make the article meet the inclusion criteria a bit more. Since then, the article has become unbelievably spammy - beyond repair. Also, I don't feel the subject is notable enough to be given an article. Stwalkerster 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: The opening of this AfD coincided with the closing of a Redirects for Discussion entry in which the relevance of redirecting Skyroof to Sunroof was being discussed. The RfD was closed on the grounds that the page had been redirected over the article we are discussing here. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, Delete as spam. Let the guy earn his vexatious litigant tag. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge with sunroof per above; no significant sources can be found per WP:V and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. 19:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Barker

A scientist/academic who doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines - there's a couple of textbooks which Barnes and Noble rank at 90-odd thousandth in their sales rankings, but nothing that seems to meet WP:BIO. More importantly, the article is nearly two years old and in that time there have been no attempts to reference any of it. Delete; fails WP:N and WP:V. Ros0709 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable author, to be judged most appropriately as the author of two textbooks for graduate students, published by the most important molecular biology laboratory of all, Cold Spring Harbor Press, At the bench : a laboratory navigator, 1998 and the later At the helm : a laboratory navigator, 2002 , each of them held in essentially all university libraries according to WorldCat. B&N sales ratings are not significant--of course textbooks aimed at graduate students do not compete with novels as best sellers, or even textbooks aimed at beginning undergraduates. The standard is not unreferenced, but unreferenceable, and there is no time limit for improving Knowledge. Agreed, we need to add the reviews. DGG (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with DGG. According to WorldCat her two most widely held books in libraries - At the bench: a laboratory navigator, and At the helm: a laboratory navigator – are held by 304 and 265 libraries worldwide. Also, these books seem to be widely used as textbooks, which qualifies her under WP:PROF criterion #4.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Just to add to what DGG said - it does not make much sense to look at Amazon rankings for textbooks or scholarly books. Textbooks are most often sold via university bookstores, not through Amazon. The market for scholarly books is primarily university libraries, which do not often buy their books through Amazon either. Amazon rankings are okay for novels, self-help books, and other publications that are purchased directly by readers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per DGG and Eric Yurken. A textbook that sells a few thousand copies is big, for a novel that would be minor. --Crusio (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy the Ride (song)

Here in order to prevent an edit war over a redirect. This song has charted only in the Bulgarian Top 40, a chart which is listed in WP:BADCHARTS. Since that chart is not valid, the song has effectively not charted at all, making it fail WP:NSONGS. I've redirected and merged it twice, only to be accused of vandalism. —Kww(talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Hasn't charted on an official chart, sources barely mention the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, while I can find tons of reliable sources that the album has done well, I can find nada on this song. I'm gonna go with a fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs; hasn't charted, no awards, no notable covers. Delete rather than redirect as a non-plausible search term too. Esradekan Gibb 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hand-rubbing

nonsensical article with little hope of citation; was created to supply link to Villain article. - Arcayne () 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Very weak keep Agree absolutely with the nomination, and yet the article does seem to fit comfortably into the gestures category of which it is part. Ros0709 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete since the article is a mess--it barely exists. This is one of those cases where perhaps a source could be found, but that is a very tedious business which, IMO, should have been taken care of by the writer. Once sources appear, once that book on hand-rubbing is published (it's not in my library yet), we can re-create--provided, of course, that that hand-rubbing is NOT for medical purposes, a meaning Google has plenty of references to. So really, for now, as far is I can see, this is OR. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ as unsourced and notability not asserted. Bwahahahaha (/rubshands). I would have no problem with it if it has some sourcing. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Keep. I have no problem with the article in its current form. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ps. Do you think we could have an article on that thing that Howie does when he says "Open the case"? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

only if we can do one with Spock's (or McCoy's, for that matter) eyebrow lift, or Fonzie's thumbs up sign. Ayyyyyy! :D - Arcayne () 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

update - I think UncleG is trying to fix the citational issue. I guess we will see in a few days how much success he has. I've removed it from the Villain article yet again, though; no connecting citation exists between hand-rubbing and villainy - any more between another kind of rubbing and hairy palms ;). - Arcayne () 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I am very impressed with Uncle G's work--if he can make this article work, he should even be able to wash the blood off of the hands of Orlac. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And the award for Obscure Movie References goes to... ;) - Arcayne () 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep The sourcing issues seem now to be in the process of being addressed, making it a worthwhile article. I checked two of the seven sources the article presently contains, and they were bona fide and correctly cited. Jayen 466 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't diametrically opposed to the article staying, but it needed citation, and I didn't see how it was going to happen. I also thought the connection to villain was ephemeral. If UncleG's progress continues unabated, I will withdraw the deletion nom (tho' I am not sure how to do that). - Arcayne () 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw the nom, you could bring it up here and, if no-one objects within say 24 hours, just close it as keep. Or just let the AfD run its course. That is just my two cents. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the same mind as Arcayne--I also didn't quite see how this could be sourced, but the master showed us. If UncleG's progress continues unabated, we'll all be out of a job. I'll gladly change my vote (even if this isn't a vote...) to keep. UncleG, well done, now on to Spock's eyebrows, my lad. And Arcayne, your Star Trek references are totally obscure to me--it's a cultural thing, I guess... ;) Drmies (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep non verbal communication is an active subject of academic and poplar concern, and I'm not the least surprised it was sourced. Likely there will be considerably more. DGG (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A substantive and reasonably referenced article. GregorB (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - hand imagery is almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- this is a clear keep. Possibly there have been great changes in the article since it was nominated -- in which case I would encourage the nominator to demonstrate their good faith and drop their nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Close one, but the lack of rebuttal to Jayen666 concern about reliable sources makes it a delete. I checked the two sources itself, the sources doesn't talk about the drill in passing mention, and there doesn't seem to be any other sources for the article. Without enough reliable sources for the topic, a article can't not be created or merged. Secret 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Patter drill

Absolutely non-notable content fork. I cannot find anything on "patter drill" in Google Scholar or Google Books and it seems that the only secondary mention is incidental, i.e. some Scientologist got in a fight with the Church over "patter drills" and was excommunicated. He could as well have been thrown out over a fight about the color the walls were being painted. The newspaper article is simply about the fate of some ex-communicated Scientologists, not about "patter drills". Whatever can be salvaged from this belongs in Scientology beliefs and practices Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The AfD nominator neglected to notify the article creator of this discussion. I have taken the initiative and placed a notice on the talk page for Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think F451 has, in the past, asked that I not post on his talk page. I posted this AFD on the Scientology project page where anyone interested in the subject can find it. I see below that F451 did not miss an opportunity to insult me. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

- Comment: Thanks for doing that Cirt. Wonder if that was a Fair Game action.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Scientology beliefs and practices. And also merge some material into Suppressive Person, as secondary sources focus more on that aspect in particular. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the nominator endulges in wild speculations about the motives of the subject in the article cited. Nowhere is "excommunicated" stated in the article, yet the nominator, Justanother, states that the subject was excommunicated. It appears that the subject in the article disputed that the said "patter drills" were issued by L. Ron Hubbard and there was retaliation against the subject by the scientology corporation. I think this article is somewhat notable and properly cited. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, F451, shouldn't you proclaim your conflict of interest in this article under the Disclosure term of the COFS arbitration? Don't you have some "allegiance" here (to put it mildly)? Either declare your COI or refactor your !vote to a comment. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote stands. What allegiance are you falsely implying I have? What is your conflict of interest?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a COI, my only interest regarding Scientology here is a fair and balanced representation. Do you really want me to spell out yours? I can if you want me to (start here). I would rather not and would rather just leave it up to your judgment as to whether you have a COI in this specific instance. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Justanother, I begin to wonder if you have a COI here. Are you practicing Fair Game?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I asked you to recluse yourself. You declined. I am willing to bow out on the topic as it is nonproductive and, in my view, bad manners, to continue. You however, don't seem to want to let it die. Tell you what, let it die now, you can even remove this thread if you are at all uncomfortable with it. I will not respond further on the topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In specific response to your issue, F451, you know as well as I do that "excommunicated" is a good non-jargon substitute for the term "declared a suppressive person" (see). I did not want to use Scientology jargon in my nomination if it could be avoided. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No citation listed. I think that you are attempting to mislead, Justanother. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete The present sourcing is most odd indeed. The first source cited states that a Scientologist "repeatedly challenged the validity of a "patter drill" in which he was instructed to read passages of a course to a wall. Smith insisted the drill was not based on Hubbard teachings." Our article turns this into: "Patter drills are a drilling method used in courses in the Church of Scientology which were added to many Church courses in mid-1996, by David Miscavige as part of the Golden Age of Tech development. In order to perform patter drills, students are instructed to read sections of course material to a wall." How de wo know this? It's just not in the source. The source describes an occurrence where "a patter drill" (i.e. one particular occurrence of an otherwise undefined practice) involved someone reading something to a wall. It's quite a leap of confidence to go from there to describing patter drills in the way the article does. The section on the "History of patter drills" is entirely unsourced. "Church reaction to objector" is not about patter drills at all. To sum up, there is at present no source that establishes the notability of "patter drills" or, indeed, explains what they are, when they are applied, to whom they are applied, and what forms they can take. I am willing to change my opinion if someone finds a reliable source addressing this topic in detail. Jayen 466 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete regardless of the title, this violates BLP policy, which is legitimately used to keep out material like this. The non BLP material is unsourced. That does not mean a useful article could not be written, but the first step is to remove this one. DGG (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What part is in violation of BLP? That would be easy enough to correct.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect per Cirt. DigitalC (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Merge I can't see how this is BLP, and the nominator seems to have taken this as a chance to level a personal attack against the article creator. Article is short, but can be improved IMHO, but at the least content should be merged into other articles. As for User:Fahrenheit451, I don't know of any COI, but User:Justallofthem has been sanctioned in the past as having a COI previously in this Subject. Let's keep the accusations out of this article debate. This is about the article, not the editors. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cautioning a user with a COI that they have a COI is not "a personal attack against the article creator". The fact that you do not know of the COI bears little on whether he has one that he and I are well aware of. I asked him to recuse and he declined. I am willing to leave it at that for now. Is there any particular reason that you neglected to mention his more obvious attacks on me, repeatedly asking if I was practicing Fair Game, an offensive term to a Scientologist? You might not know it is offensive but I clearly indicate above that I consider it an insult. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Justanother, you accused me of having a COI, rather than ask me. Your approach was adversarial. Because of your adversarial approach and allegiance to the cofs, I questioned if you were practicing Fair Game. Unfortunately, you took that personally as an insult and it was not. It was a question. You answered to the negative and I dropped the matter. Now, you bring it up again.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rome SDS

Seems like a respectable company, and undoubtedly real, but how is it notable? I considered speedying the article as blatant advertising — without a doubt it's primarily advertising — but I'm not going to speedy an article with a two-year-old history, at least without the opinion of other editors. Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I found nothing but sellers and blogs for this company, and a notice that they sponsored some event. If those awards turn out to be the equivalent of a Pulitzer, I might change my mind--but I doubt they are, since I didn't see that covered either. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hardly any real third party coverage as per Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Josephite '08

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Josephite '08

A single year of a yearbook for a single school with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in the article. In the spirit of not nipping, I changed it to a redirect to St._Joseph_Higher_Secondary_School_(Dhaka)#Year_Book (even though it's an unlikely redirect), but the original author has reverted back without discussion. I also question the copyvio status of the "message from the principal" section. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It's not written like an article and feels more like an advertisement to me. TopGearFreak 17:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable and promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete Copied straight from the yearbook I bet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Knowledge is not your own webhost. MuZemike (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't really an article. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Terence Rudolph

Non-notable scientist Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete no physicist by this name listed in arXiv. DGG (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is a hoax. There is a 2008 article in Nature by him which identifies him as a physics professor at the Imperial College. The college's website confirms this. He may be one of the older professors who has not written much in a while which would explain the absence of papers in arXiv. Nsk92 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I did a search of the WebOfScience and found only five papers, that appear to be by him, dated 1995, 1998, 1998, 1999 and 2008 (the last is the article in Nature mentioned above), with citation hits of 19, 6, 11, 1, 0. No significant citability here and no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Change to Neutral for the moment, per Scog's comments below. Indeed, there was a problem with the spelling of the name (in fact, my WoS search was for "Rudolph T G", including his middle initial, as a seach for "Rudolph T*" produces a bit of a phonebook there, with lots of false positives; WoS does not allow for actual first name search but only for initials). When I searched WoS for individual publications, some highly cited papers do come up, such a 2005 paper in Nature "Experimental one-way quantum computing" (218 hits) and a 2005 papers in Physical Review Letters "Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation". Basically, I think that, together with Scog's search results below, this does make him pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF. However, his webpage at Imperial makes it unclear if his position there is permanent. In his "Acdemic bio" he says the following about his position at Imperial College since 2003:"Thanks to an Advanced Fellowship from the EPSRC, I am now a member of the physics faculty at Imperial College, London. (Yep, I now have my own graduate students to try and make miserable...)" Not sure what this means exactly. In general, I also think that the current state of the article is too unsatisfactory, so as to almost look hoaxy. If someone a little bit familiar with physics can expland it to a more satisfactory stub, it would probably deserve to be kept. Otherwise I am not sure that it isn't doing more harm than good in its current shape. Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Week keep: a bit of Googling turned up his homepage and academic bio , which suggests that he generally publishes as Terry Rudolph, so the previous searches for Terence Rudolph missed a lot of publications. Searching for Terry Rudolph on ADS gives 87 abstracts , with a total of ~1000 citations, including a couple of 100+ citation papers, although his h-index is only 15. For me, this puts him on the borderline of notability under WP:PROF, point #1, and so if pushed I'd probably err on the side of keeping the article. Scog (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: Commenters should also take into account that not all publications have been fully digitized yet, and that relying solely on internet database searches for someone who published before the internet era is likely to miss a lot of hits. - Mgm| 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as it turns out, this is a fairly young researcher (PhD 1998) and all of his publications are 1998 or later, so very much in the internet era. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Article needs improvement. My weak keep recommendation is for the reasons presented by Scog, plus the fact that the News and Views paper in Nature seems to be a groundbreaking new look at a known phenomenon. It seems to have attracted quite a lot of attention. On the other hand, this Nature paper seems to be a commentary on a study that was not performed by him.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete He's not the lead author on most of "his" articles, because he's not the lead researcher on most of "his" articles, because he's a young scientist in a field that demands a lot of depth for notability. The article is not a good source of information on him, because there is not much to say, except that he probably will be researching in a hot area of physics. When he does that, and writes it up as the lead researcher, there will be plenty of information to use to write a good article about a notable (on other than his own web page) scientist. --69.225.11.246 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep -- Getting an article published in Nature (which is the leading scientific journal dealing with new discoveries, implies that his discovery is notable. I would suggest that indicates that the discoverer is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless the article presents an evidence of scientific notability or proves that Terry Rudolph and Terrence Rudolph or whatever are one and the same person. Twri (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, unverified. TopGearFreak 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - one article in Nature is not enough to pass WP:PROF.--Boffob (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mouth (band)

Article restored as contested prod. It doesn't appear notable to me, though, and I cannot find anything on it. Wizardman 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find anything on them either, and they're not notable. TopGearFreak 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. I looked, but did not find either. Esradekan Gibb 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete I also tried to establish notability for this one...no luck! --Stormbay (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of high schools in Los Angeles County, California . MBisanz 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

St. Matthew High School (Los Angeles, California)

Fails WP:NOTE as it lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. This was prodded but the prod was removed. No significant discussion in news sources, zero mention in book sources, a one-line mention in a search of scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete. They did have one hit on Google, but it's not really enough to establish notabilty. TopGearFreak 17:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to List of high schools in Los Angeles County, California until a fuller page can be written. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is sourced, therefore nothing should be merged. "St. Matthew High School (Los Angeles, California)" is an unlikely search term, so no purpose in redirecting. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the article is non-contentious and factual and can be sourced (a reliable primary source is fine for a merge). Lack of notability is no bar to a merge. We merge and redirect thousands of school articles and they are rarely if ever recreated. This is normal practice and could have been done without an AfD. It is fine as a search term the way that the search box now works. 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)TerriersFan (talk)

Keep All high schools when adequately worked on prove to have sources for notability, and therefore if it seems that it is an established school, the practice for man months has uniformly been to keep. The criterion for deletion in unsourcable, not currently unsourced. Not finding things in google news does not mean no information exists. Elementary schools are the ones that get merged. DGG (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See also below comment by RJHall (talk · contribs). All the more reason to require verifiability. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment—I'm not convinced that this school actually exists. There is a St. Matthew High School in San Mateo, CA, but I couldn't find one in Los Angeles. I can't support a keep.—RJH (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete and remove from St. Matthew High School disambig as non-existing school. The only St. Matthews in California should be in San Mateo and Orange County or the St. Matthews Parish School in Pacific Palisades, CA and none of them appear to be high schools. I can't find any evidence that this school exists. Also note that the Google book search result is referring to St. Matthew High School in Melrose, Louisiana--Jh12 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - it appears to meet my standards for high schools, but I would like to see some sources. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not found a lot at Google, though. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this page was moved today to Grace Baptist School, Portland, Maine without leaving a redirect. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Grace Baptist School

Fails WP:NOTE as it lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Tagged as non-notable for months. Was prodded but prod removed with "Try an AfD". No significant discussion in news sources, zero mention in book sources, zero mention in scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Portland, Maine#Education. Small, private school. TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article is unsourced and non-notable and therefore should not be merged. As it is non-notable and not a likely search term and if deleted not likely to be recreated due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article, it should not be a redirect. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the article is non-contentious and factual and can be sourced (a reliable primary source is fine for a merge). It is an entirely likely search term. Lack of notability is no bar to a merge. We merge and redirect thousands of school articles and they are rarely if ever recreated. This is normal practice and could have been done without an AfD. 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)TerriersFan (talk)

Keep A comprehensive primary and secondary school, and we have for months realized that all secondary schools can be adequately shown to be notable if enough work is done, and are kept on that basis,whether or not the sources are presently in the articles. And even primary schools are always redirected or merged to the school district or the city or diocese. It astounds me that one might think the name of a school not useful search term--considering the amount of nonsense that gets added to many of these articles by the students, they are searched for very frequently. :) The challenge to our practie here ignore the practical consensus of the last year. I'd hate to revert to the older practice of trying to balance their notability one at a time. DGG (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Having thought about this again, and having had a better look around, I see that there are sufficient sources to allow expansion and compliance with WP:Org. TerriersFan (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"I see that there are sufficient sources to allow expansion" - Please back up this statement. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was merge to Lupe Fiasco. MBisanz 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

LupEND

Unless this can be officially confirmed it is just speculation/crystal balling. As such non notable. Mfield (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge anything that isn't yet in the artist article, and redirect the album name as a likely search term until the album is released. The idea can be verified, but nothing else is known about the album. EW.com, Pitchfork, Sixshot and Paste Magazine - —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 December 2008
Merge Atlantic is declining to comment on these reports, and there's no certainty of anything even down to the album title at this stage. 86.44.24.212 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge Confirmed that there is an album called LupEND, but there is little information available to carry the article (except for the fact that it's a triple album). --Taylor Karras (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge I was at this concert and he did make this announcement. While at this current moment this is all we know, deleting it dose not make sense since this page will have to be recreated once offical word is relesased from Atlantic (Jay-Z23 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

List of notable people who dedicated works to the public domain

Article is particularly indiscriminate - if we list every single person that has ever released works to the public domain that has a Knowledge... well, that is a massively indiscriminate proportion. Think about the number of people that have ever released a PD photograph, a PD text... ~~something else to think about is that anyone born before a certain period in time will have their works in the public domain anyway, so this list would have to include all of them.~~ — neuro 16:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Hopelessly indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete The nomination isn't entirely sound. The article specifically says it's about notable people (not all people) and ones who dedicated/released their work to the PD (not ones who had their copyright expire). It's still to indiscriminate though. - Mgm| 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - You're right, removed from nom. — neuro 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think this list is worthy because there are so few notable people who dedicate their work to the public domain on purpose. Can you name any from the top of your head? Why would this list be indiscriminate but the List of self-sufficient webcomics would not?. -jorel314 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - badly fails WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Unmaintainable listcruft. Fails WP:LIST. Trusilver 00:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- I agree with Jorel, and support the retention of this article so long as every entry is cited to a verifiable authoritative source. Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Albuquerque Evening High School

Fails WP:NOTE as it lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. This was prodded, then merged into Albuquerque High School but that was inappropriate because literally all of the material merged was wholly unsourced. Only one-line brief mentions in news sources, zero mentions in book sources, zero mentions in scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close as out of process and revert to this version. The nominator first of all nominated a redirect then has created an article from the redirect here. If he was unhappy with the redirect he should have taken it to WP:RFD. TerriersFan (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2008
- No, what was "out of process" was to merge completely unsourced material into another article. That was inappropriate and should not have been done. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - You created a nn article and then asked for it to be deleted! Redirected topics need not meet WP:N so most of the nomination is not relevant. The merged material is non-contentious and sourceable. If not happy with the merge then take it to the target talk page; if not happy with the redirect then take it to WP:RFD. TerriersFan (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Not happy with either. You should never have merged completely unsourced material into another article. This page is not notable and should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - actually delete is not possible at the moment; since content has been merged that would breach GFDL. I appreciate that the response by Cirt is likely to be that the content should not have been merged. A valid viewpoint but one that needs to be sorted on the target talk page, first. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep all secondary schools are considered notable. DGG (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment many secondary school articles are merged/redirected to suburb articles etc. They are not always notable enough for stand alone articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am not aware of them. If you would post some examples I will have a look at them. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not even a "secondary school". It is an "Evening High School". Cirt (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that lessons take place in the evening makes this no less of a secondary school - it educates in grades 10-12; ages 15-18. What it is is an alternative high school with an innovative approach to a widespread problem. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not convinced that all high schools are notable, but this one surely passes all tests. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Albuquerque Public Schools. Since the page currently contains basic statements of fact about the school, the material can be placed in the school district article. In any case, I do not think it would be good to delete a useful redirect. --Jh12 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment On a side note, I am unconvinced that a Google search is reliable for article notability on Knowledge. For research on one school article, I have had to use for several years Google News, Google Books, Yahoo!, MSN, LexisNexis, JSTOR, New York Times, and countless other archives for international, national, and local libraries, universities, newspapers, and magazines that often require university subscription. Google by itself doesn't even come close to covering information about a school. --Jh12 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - actually, I agree with Jh12 that the district would have been a better merge target. However, though I still think that we should not have been here, now we are here I see no reason not to keep the page. We can then discuss the question of merging, as an editorial matter, later. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - easily passes my standards for high schools. Has been around a long time, well-known in New Mexico, plenty of

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IPv6 CARE

Non-notable software product. Article had been PROD'ed, but that was removed (by the author). So, here we are at AfD. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this software could be useful for many people. It is currently being used by a very large european research project, called Enabling Grids for E-SciencE. WikiDan61, I understood that you think this project is a "non-notable software product", but can you tell why? User talk:EDUBLE —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
- The general guideline on WP:notability requires significant, independent third party coverage in a reliable source. I was not able to find any such sources referencing this software. EDUBLE's estimation that the software "could be useful for many people" (which may be a biased estimation, as he is the product's author) is not really relevant. "Could be useful" is not the criterion for notability; significant third party coverage (in a trade journal, perhaps) is required. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt that software of this kind is useful in the conversion and debugging of legacy IPv4 software in the new IPv6 world. However, WP notability requirements demand more and the author is encouraged to seek independent coverage of this software in the trade press, starting perhaps with a feature article on the EGEE project site that another publication can point to. I have examined the software package and its current state of software packaging appears in rather early stage of development as well (just a tarball of only source files), but had no problem compiling it. The manual is actually more detailed than for many other free software projects, but not bundled with the software directly. Kbrose (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The EGEE document at https://edms.cern.ch/file/980424/1/EGEE-III-SA2-TEC-980424-ZSI_IPv6_Compliance_Test-v1.1.pdf includes references to the tool, but I don't know if it is relevant since I wrote it also. Actually my first idea was that currently no other tool could do what this tool does, so being an Encyclopedia, Knowledge could refer to it. But maybe this is not the right place for this since the tool is very new. EDUBLE 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable - A small mention in a document doesn't constitute significant independent coverage. It doesn't matter how important or useful the software might be, the threshold for inclusion on Knowledge is Notability and this is demonstrated by coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see this software being of interest to any but a small group of professional programmers. Any reviews are likely to circulate only in trade publications or trade websites, and that sort of specialist material doesn't make a good case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reviews in specialist journals and trade publications would denote notability for specialist software. But in this case, there's no coverage of it in general publications or specialist publications so Delete. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am OK about deleting it until it gets notability. What's the next step? EDUBLE 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply - There is no need to do anything. An administrator will decide on the outcome at the end of 5 days of discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You and I (t.A.T.u. song)

Non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - could not find any evidence that this song passes WP:NSONGS.--Boffob (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. It hasn't charted, no awards, no notable covers. Esradekan Gibb 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Confirmed unverifiable hoax Mgm| 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama: The Caucasian Conspiracy

This article appears to be a hoax. American Spectator has NO such article listed in its June 2008 archives; the publisher of the supposed book does not even exist; and the reference to Kennedy's and Obama's shared ailment pointed to an article having nothing to do with either. In all this appears to be a quack's attempt to introduce a conspiracy theory with the guise of credibilty. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article as the author of the above-mentioned hoax book:

Speedy Delete. Has no mention on Google and does appear to be a hoax. TopGearFreak 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Claims to be a book but there seem to be no reference of it online, no ISDN number, (maybe because it has not been released yet?), The link given to the book returns a 404 page and the Barack Obama does not even mention it. The external link also does not really seem to have much to do with the subject, (apart from conspiracies in general). FFMG (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete both, the first as unverifiable crystalballery, and second for lack of reliable sources establishing notability. I wish I could know what the second reference says, but it is a dead link; the first source says nothing about Warner Slocum, Caucasians, or any sort of "conspiracy." MuZemike (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious coatrack for racist conspiracy theory nonsense. Arguably speedy for BLP problems - it is arguably an attack page. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
KEEPSIES You guys r being TOTALLY MEAN! BLT problems, crystal balls, wizards, whatever! Forget you guys. My dad's biggr than ur dad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefishhook (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Clear hoax. No sources provided (none that mention the topic, that is), none found. I like a good nut-job conspiracy as much as anyone else, but this is weak. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- - Comment - And, when we're done here, someone want to tag that account for creatind hoaxes? -

SummerPhD (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep as clearly, plainly, reasonably notable, in a well-sourced article. Ghits will not work with a person dead so long. Borderline bad-faith nomination. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

George Benson (Quaker)

Non notable person. He aided Prudence Crandall but that was it. The books only mention him in passing reference. They are not directly about him. The article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. The only hits I can find on Google link to other encyclopedias. TopGearFreak 16:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep The number of Google hits is a poor proxy for notability and would end up promoting Knowledge's already unhealthy lean towards coverage of modern-day pop-culture trivia over useful encyclopedic subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorlock (talk • contribs)
Keep The books have far more than passing references to him. He is mentioned by name on 30 pages of The Communitarian Moment: The Radical Challenge of the Northampton Association, much of the book concerns him and his activities as one of the most prominent of the 11 founders of the Northhampton Association, a New England industrial/abolitionist group. Benson's association with Crandall (described in Some Recollections of Our Antislavery Conflict By Samuel Joseph May is a minor part of his notability. He was a prominent abolitionist who introduced Sojourner Truth, who worked for him for a time, to abolitionism. The article could easily be greatly expanded. Easily passes WP:BIO based on refs already in article, which should be consulted before nomination. The commonness of his name is a major obstacle to googling.John Z (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If it were only Prudence Crandall, or only founding the Northampton association, or only employing Sojourner Truth, or only his association with William Lloyd Garrison, I would suggest a merge per WP:BIO1E, but he seems to have played an influential role himself at the nexus of these abolitionists. It's a little difficult to search for him individually, but the number of hits in google books for both him and Sojourner Truth, for instance, is not small, and this book about the Northampton Association has much nontrivial material about him beginning on p.18. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep His notability within the abolotionist movement's history does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep This article so far is only a stub. That is no reason for not seeking more sources on his life to expand the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep as major historical figure, adequately sourced for a start. DGG (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per most everyone. While the article needs expansion and inline sourcing, there are several sources and other editors have pointed out more sources that can be used. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bujutsu Kodosokukai

Unremarkable Martial Arts studio, but some stuff possibly may justify some notability. Pedro : Chat 15:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Promotional article, no reliable sources provided, none found. Organization does not appear to meet the relevant guideline. TN‑X-Man 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete clearly fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Energy and American Society: Thirteen Myths

Non-notable book Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. There are scholarly reviews for this book here and here. Notable contributors such as Amory Lovins and Joseph Romm have written chapters in this book. Johnfos (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Johnfos, I would have added these reviews (nicely found, thanks) to the article with a quote or two, but my library does not subscribe to EconPapers and won't get that issue of the Annals until next year (electronically). If you have such access, could you add a quote or an evaluation? I'll update the bibliography right now. (BTW, this is a Keep remark...) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, Unfortunately I don't have access either, but I thank you for your interest in this article. Johnfos (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Oh, I think it is a notable book. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep notable topic, well written and well sourced article. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Multiple independent reviews that can be used to flesh out the article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in Serbia and Montenegro

This is a highly unlikely title for a user to type into the search bar. No articles link here. This disambiguation page serves no discernable purpose. Neelix (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - it is a genuine disambiguation page.--Avala (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - According to guidelines, Disambiguation in Knowledge is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. "List of television stations in Serbia and Montenegro" is not a single term, nor is it the natural title for any article, let alone multiple articles. Neelix (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: some of the TV stations broadcast in both countries.--Avala (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Serbia and Montenegro was at some point in the past one single state, so having "Serbia and Montenegro" as a country in a "list of tv stations in"-list seems perfectly reasonable. It might not be used often, but it's not entirely out of the question. - Mgm| 20:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Although it's an abnormal disambiguation page, it's because of the abnormal state of the country/countries. Of course, we don't need a similar list for Poland-Lithuania, because that union ended a long time ago; but because S-and-M dissolved just a few years ago, it's not unlikely that someone who was looking for lists of TV stations in former countries would type this in. We really should have something at this page (would it make sense to confuse the reader?) to prevent confusion, and a disambiguation page is the best way to accomplish this. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the above, but I think that rather than be a disambiguation page this should list the TV stations that broadcast in the country of Serbia and Montenegro while it existed, with "see also" links to the lists for the present-day countries. Anyway, that's a content issue for editing and/or talk page discussion, not for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Alright, let's ask ourselves a few questions to figure out how absurd this whole thing really is: A) Will any articles actually link to this respective page? B) Is there a purpose of having these two joined together when one can be resolved and the other found easily. It's as if we created a page for United States and Mexico just to link to United States and Mexico. This is absurd. Yanksox (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There was never a country called "United States and Mexico", but there was one called "Serbia and Montenegro", so that that analogy does not make this article absurd. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- What the nominator failed to point out to other readers -- what the nominator may have over-looked -- is that this article was started in 2004 and PREDATES when Montenegro and Serbia split by two years. The earliest versions of this article describe the television station of "Serbia and Montenegro" in the years prior to the split. Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- Even if no articles link here NOW this article should be preserved both for historical reasons, and because it is necessary to preserve it in order to honour the GFDL rights of everyone who contributed to the original article, and then had their contributions ported to history of Television in Serbia and Television in Montenegro when the two countries split in 2006. Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - How the article came into existence is irrelevant. What matters is its current contribution to the project. This article contributes nothing as a disambiguation page but a reminder that Serbia and Montenegro were once one country, a reminder which is better suited to the Serbia and Montenegro article. I do, however, like the idea of using this space to list the television stations which existed between 2003 and 2006 in that former union. This article should not be kept in its current state; it should either be deleted or completely rewritten. Neelix (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. _Gb 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Elemental Fury (band)

Cannot verify the existence of this band or any of its albums. The entire page, and its related albums pages, may be a hoax. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following pages as albums or songs by the aforementioned questionable band:

Delete all--someone had too much time on their hands. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
G3 all Clear cut hoaxes. A search on Billboard turns up none of the chart positions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. without any prejudice to recreation Secret 13:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Elliots

This article appears to be part of a school assignment as there have been other articles recently on the same short story. The articles are full of original research and unreferenced opinion and analysis. I have added the other articles that I can find today below. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only find one other at the moment:

Just found that User:NawlinWiki deleted another version of The Elliots earlier, but I don't know how to see if the author is the same as either of these - but I suspect not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete This is a personal essay, not an article. Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete--right, this is what passes for a researched paper these days. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep for The Hemingway story "Mr. and Mrs. Elliot,” which has sufficient criticism that it should be notable. 75 hits in GScholar , of which about half are criticism. Several of the items there are academic articles specifically devoted to the story. Obviously the article must be improved, butt he references show that it is possible . Why did none of the people above even think to look for references? DGG (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have to look in a database to know that a Hemingway story is notable. The article is still a personal essay. While I probably don't know as much about Knowledge policy as I should, you don't have to assume that a. I needed to look and b. I didn't. Fault me for lack of WP knowledge, but not for common sense, please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have no problem with an article on this short story and if I thought either article was salvagable I would have tagged them as such and not brought them to AfD. However, neither of these essays are the article we need. Also, if the short story was not notable I would have PRODed them before bringing to AfD. What I was picking up was a series of essays on this short story. I'm sure there have been others, but I can't now find them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. While the short story is definitely notable and worthy of an article, this is definitely a personal essay, one which has no possibility of being salvaged as an article. No prejudice here should someone want to write an article on the story. Redfarmer (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Agreed; this is not an article. Luinfana (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment -- Nominator says he or she nominated similar articles for deletion. So, where are the discussion for those deletions. As DGG points out deletion should be based on the merits of the topic -- not the current state of the article. As DGG points out the topic of Hemingway's story merits inclusion. If a series of weak articles about the story were created, under a bunch of different names, why didn't the nominator recognize that the topic itself merited inclusion? Why didn't the nominator initiate one discussion? Why didn't the nominator consider merging those articles, salvaging what was useful, and trimming any original research portions?
Keep -- definite keep for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply 1. The process for nominating multiple articles for deletion for the same reason is to generate a single discussion page and list the articles (see WP:BUNDLE). This means that there are not and will not be separate discussions on articles that are basically the same thing. 2. I did initiate one discussion. 3. I could not merge the articles because a) I have never read the short story in question and b) removing the original research portions would have left nothing. 4. The curse (or blessing) of a photographic memory is knowing that one has read material before, but not usually knowing where. This problem is exacerbated by the ever-changing nature of Knowledge. I did a thorough search for the other articles I know I read on this short story, but was unable to find them. I realise that this means that they have probably been deleted and I searched for them in the deleted articles area as well. 5. I reiterate that I have no problem with a well-written, reliably sourced article on this short story. However, these essays are none of the three. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

James Casbolt

Seems to be pretty much just a bloke-with-a-website, and a pretty odd site at that. All the current content is also sourced simply to that website, and totally unverified (and probably unverifiable). Googling his name gets quite a few hits, but mostly on other conspiracy theory sites and message boards - there does not appear to be anything in the way of serious, third party coverage in any WP:RS. Non-notable. Nickhh (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete--no sources indeed that I can find, nor any sense of reality. This looks awfully familiar--I don't recognize the name, but I remember another AfD (a few months ago, maybe?) about a similar bloke, some sort of secret agent for hire. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 05:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 05:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep: But needs greatly updaying with good references. Some references are that he was interviewed by Jack Blood, Daniel Ott on The Edge, interview with John Kuhles, interviewed at the 2007 Cornwall UFO Conference. His father was also with MI6: Peter Casbolt, was also MI6 and worked with the CIA. His father’s brother was a MI-5 officer in Logistics, his name is Brian Casbolt. His grandfather was also a high-ranking freemason and the whole family were Mormons. My Grandfather was involved in naval intelligence in the Second World War. His name was James Casbolt. He was also a high-ranking member of the Sindlesham Grand Masonic lodge in Berkshire. He was a Zionist Jew and also heavily involved with Rupert Murdoch and ran his own printing company after the war. His stepfather, Neil Pettet, was a high level executive of an aluminium metal company called Hi-Mets (now called Service Metals). He also has a relation called Charles Casbolt. Charles had so many kills during dogfights in the RAF during the time of the Second World War, there is a war hero website dedicated to him on the internet. Google “Charles Casbolt” to see this.

Comment: The problem is that even if all this were true and properly sourced, it doesn't make for notability. He's been interviewed in a few fringe sources and at fringe events? Other members of his family had jobs, were members of churches and organisations and did some things? Apologies, I am not intending to come across as sarcastic, but we need to show that this person has genuine notability, per WP rules. --Nickhh (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Nickhh. But i'll research this and update rather than put things for deletion and potentially lose something that could be good. It may not be and well be deleted, far enough. But rather than put it upfor deletion we should be researching and sourcing these things. Arguinig for keeps and deleted takes time away from making a good Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk • contribs) 19:53, December 5, 2008

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NoPlaceToHide

I tried speedy delete this article, but a very experienced administrator considered notable (?). Fails WP: MUSICBIO. Canniba loki 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment The admin who declined the speedy didn't say the band was notable. What he said was the article "asserts notability" which really means "asserts importance or significance". This is all an article needs to escape CSD A7. I would have declined the speedy too. (there's a big discussion on WT:CSD wrt "notability vs. IoS" for those interested) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete--there seems to be nothing but Myspace and Metal Archives, and no record deal or major tour to attain notability that way. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was Already deleted as copyvio by Fuhghettaboutit --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Watkins Books Ltd

I originally requested a speedy for this as I felt the subject wasn't notable enough, but was declined due to some notability being asserted in the article, although with no sources provided. A quick Google search throws up page after page of directory listings, which obviously isn't enough to fulfill WP:N requirements. The only claim to notability is (in their own words) "After 100 years of continuous service to the public we (in all probability), have to be the oldest surviving bookshop in the world specifically specialising in the Occult & the Mystical". Bettia (rawr!) 12:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Though I believe the store is notable, it is a cut and paste from this site , which is a copyright violation. You may want to go back and tag as CSD:G12 - copyright violation. ShoesssS 13:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - never mind. I tagged. However, I did pick-up a new project and will resubmit after rewrite :-)ShoesssS 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was merge to Death metal. MBisanz 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blackened death metal

AfDs for this article:

Note: Completing AfD notice for another (IP) editor that added this to the talk page: "I have nominated for AfD as this is basically an unsourced, made up genre. Someone presumably having a laugh. 90.214.234.45 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)" Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Obvious keep as recognised, though maybe minor, genre. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge to parent genre. A previous AFD referred to an NYT article that mentioned the genre, but there's not enough references to support a separate article. - Mgm| 13:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment But which parent genre? The article's title is somewhat misleading, I feel. I personally have come across "black/death metal" and "death/black metal" more commonly than "blackened death metal" but they essentially mean the same thing... a fusion style with elements of both. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect as per Mgm. The parent article is Death metal. --Pmedema (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious neo/genre invention. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem, how can a neologism get 106k Google hits (including 2330 hits when searching only Polish-language pages)? This term had been picked up long ago. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Slightly playing Devil's advocate here, but can you point to any of those that are reliable sources that provide significant coverage? I tried a similar search excluding blogs, Amazon, Last.fm and the like and the number dropped to a tenth of that, and everything in the first seven or so pages was either trivial or non-reliable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment, yes I can. Encyclopaedia Metallum, a. k. a. The Metal Archives, uses the term, as can be seen here and here. The term can also be found on Discogs as can be seen here. I'd call these two sites reliable, they both have their articles on en.wiki. I remember another site but cannot find it right now. What do you think? --Ouro (blah blah) 21:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      - Comment Neither is a reliable source. Discogs.com and Metal Archives are both user-edited. Before someone says it, I know that the genres are moderated on MA but not by any professional or commercial body; just the creators of the site. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        Question by someone who seeks guidance: what kind of (I quote humbly) professional body exists anywhere to tell anyone whether this or that is a proper or legimitate music genre? --Ouro (blah blah) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        Comment A commercially published print source is always a good bet. For something like this a Terrorizer or Metal Maniacs article on "blackened death metal" would be fine (in fact, there may well be one in Terrorizer; I shall look). Also there are plenty of books kicking around that cover death and black metal, although a Google Books search came up with nothing for the term. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        Okay, agree on that. I did a (quick) search and just found out that Terrorizer called Vital Remains a blackened death metal band, which would have never entered my mind by the way, to me they're always gonna play death metal. Anyway, if you want I can look further. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Reply I get 491 unique Non-wikipedia sites by my count...a bit less than 106k. -Verdatum (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge with parent article(s), presumably black metal or death metal. While it does exist as a sub-genre of sorts, it's a minor one, and we have far too many of these articles. After all, if Metal is a genre, that makes black metal a subgenre. Which makes this one a sub-sub-genre. Such a thing really doesn't warrant it's own article in most circumstances. As an additional comment, google hits really don't mean anything (the large number of Polish language ones actually work against it: I'm betting they're all for the band Behemoth, and as such show just how many pages/hits a single band can generate). MA is, to be honest, very reliable on metal genres -but- that is A) not what's up for debate here, and B) not relevant, because they wouldn't necessarily put it forward as a big genre worthy of an article. Prophaniti (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DEATHGRUNT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - this is a widely recognized style within the extreme metal community. However, reliable sources might be hard to find, particularly since it's known by different names - blackened death metal, black/death, death/black etc. ~Asarlaí 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge what can be salvaged to one or other parent genre. The term is definitely in use, but is far from a distinct genre. At present the article consists of an OR characteristics paragraph and an ever-growing list of bands; this doesn't make an article. I think the problem is that all that can be said of the "genre" is that there are a number of bands that mix elements of black metal and death metal. What else is there to say? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Irish people in World War II

This list is too all encompassing to provide any real value. Given the selection criteria (a connection with Ireland), the list could contain thousands of WWII soldiers and thus those listed are an arbitrary selection of the available data set - Delete Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but I think Ireland wasn't directly involved in the war, which would severely limit the amount of soldiers involved (only those that were in the British army would count) and there's already a limit on people notable enough for an article of their own. I think this isn't as wide as you think it is. - Mgm| 11:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of people from the Republic of Ireland served with the UK in World War II. Also, the article makes no distinction between Northern Ireland, part of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Considerable numbers of second generation Irish lived in the UK, commonwealth and the US. The scope here is considerable Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

On numbers: "In January 1942 it was found that in the whole of the British Army 23,549 men were born in Éire and 28,287 in Northern Ireland ... n 1944 the Éire figure had increased to 27,840 and that for Northern Ireland had reduced to 26,579." Also seen a mention of a total of 200,000 individuals. However, not all of these would have been notable - except to their families. BTW, the Republic was not declared until after the war. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How many of these military were notable? The title really means List of notable Irish people in World War II, but the notable bit is implied. -Mgm| 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep but there are several on the list who were either only of Irish descent or whose main claim to fame has nought to do with WWII. VC recipients and field officiers make sense, and that would make this a manageable list for sure. As all of those listed were born well before the Republic was established, indeed before the Irish Free State was established, I suspect trying to use any articifial boundaries are ill-aimed. Collect (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As the culprit who set this up, let me explain. I found it of interest that several highly prominent servicemen had Irish connections and it contradicts the perception that Irish people remained entirely outside WWII. Notability, of course, is assumed, either thru military service (VC or high command, etc) or in civilian life and this is stated in the intro. For example, Gerry Fitt's service was neither military (merchant seaman) nor notable (although he would trot it out in arguments with certain Unionists), but in later life, he was notable. If it turned out that a significant wartime technological advance was made by a Irish civilian, that would, IMO, qualify. Born elsewhere of Irish parents is not that tenuous, for its time, since Irish soldiers were stationed elsewhere in Britain or abroad, in the same way as other British servicemen, without dilution of their Irishness. I doubt that this list will contain "thousands", by its nature. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you define notable?, only notable people can be included in Knowledge. There are potentially hundreds already categorised, mainly from Northern Ireland, one small example: Michael Torrens-Spence. The whole thing seems like a trivial intersection - we might as well have Scandinavians in World War II. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that the "thousands" have reduced to "hundreds"! It depends on the criteria for this list; IMO, Dill, Fegen, Cunningham, Fitt & VC holders are all worthy of note. Torrens-Spence is marginal, IMO, although his part in the crippling of the Pola was highly significant in the Med campaign and he had important public service before he died. Are there really hundreds of others like this? BTW, don't knock the Scandinavian contribution - they're probably bigger than you and they made a significant contribution. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The list also allows those not born in Ireland, but born of Irish parents. That opens the door to untold thousands of Irish-Americans. Admittedly, not all of them are notable, but the list is still pretty wide open. If you can narrow the list to those Irish nationals who specifically sought out service with a foreign military in order to serve the cause of the war, you might be able to make a point, but the list as it is defined now seems somewhat pointless. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As above: are there really "untold thousands" of Irish-Americans (with an immediate parental link) who became generals, admirals, Medal of Honor winners, personally decided outcomes? Also, define "Irish national": all northern Irish were/are eligible, but most would not have wished to be so; AFAIK, children of Irish citizens are entitled to Irish citizenship as are people born in Ireland. That would include Cunningham, Dill, Fegen, O'Connor etc. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Only 18 Irish people were involved in WW2? I don't think so. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The list is clearly incomplete. If that is the only objection, then expand the list or add an "incomplete" tag. If incompleteness was a criterion for deletion, then most of Wiki would be removed. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Indiscriminate list. This is one of those "List of people of nationality X in time period Y" lists, where X is a large nation, and Y is a global event. Literally millions of people qualify, of whom thousands would pass our criteria for notability. RayAYang (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete A category makes more sense than a list. Edison (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with Edison that a category makes more sense than a list given the potentially large number of people who could be included. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - There has been a rash of these lists lately. This is useless listcruft that is difficult to maintain at best and will never be complete. Personally... I'm holding out for List of left-handed people in World War II. Trusilver 00:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was merge to List of Kinnikuman characters. MBisanz 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Junkman (Kinnikuman)

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Jay32183 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. The List of Kinnikuman characters doesn't mention him yet and at least the name of the voice actor for this character is verifiable and warrants inclusion. - Mgm| 10:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't require a merge. We don't need to maintain anything here to add to the list "this guy exists and was played by some actor." You haven't present a reason why any of the unsourced content should be kept. It shouldn't, it's unsourced. Jay32183 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Seventh studio album (Xzibit album)

WP:NOT for crystal balling. XZibit will probably make a new album. That's all we know now. It hasn't got a title, a tracklist, a release date, names of collaborators or producers (even though it has according to the infobox supposedly been recorded in 2007-2008 already), ... All there is, are some vague plans which can be summed up in one line in the XZibit article, but don't need a separate article. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Per nominator, Knowledge is not a crystal ball. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If the rapper himself doesn't know any details, there's no point in having an article. It would be speculation. Let's wait until the album is actually named before discussing this again. - Mgm| 10:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete All information would be speculation at the moment. Knowledge is not a crystal ball Mattie 11:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Stong delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It's hammer time. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Smash it with the crystal hammer! MuZemike (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. Absolutely nothing is known yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's been confirmed that Xzibit is indeed working on a new album even though no release date nor tracks were confirmed. A tag saying this is an upcoming album and details can change should be added in place of the deletion tag.Jeremy706 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - That's understood. However, our notability guidelines specifically call for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Anything Xzibit, their label or management has to say about a new album does not move the subject into the relm of the notable. Please review the appropriate guideline (WP:NALBUMS) and the essay that we've essentially based that on (WP:HAMMER). Note especially 10# Hammer's bit about "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Knowledge. Pages of this sort usually take the naming convention ''s studio album'." Once there is more confirmed information about the album (title, tracks, release date) or substantial coverage, the article may certainly be recreated. Until then, reliably sourced info can go in the band's article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken Electric Records

Not notable. Blatant advertisment. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb 12:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, until those artist/discography entries can be made blue links (that don't get deleted). --fvw * 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: With the addition of web links to sites where the songs/albums can be purchased, it is crystal-clear that this article is nothing more than an advertisement. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Taurus Education

This article, while wikified, is about a company which does not appear to be notable and includes no external links. A Google search doesn't reveal much beyond the companies own websites. FlyingToaster 07:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use Taurus' Chinese name (拓思教育) in a Google search, you'll find that the company comes up a lot more. Remember that the company is based in China and does business there as well. Naturally, the name is better known in Chinese circles. In the external links, there are currently only links to articles in English. The reason there are only English links in the Knowledge entry is that it is presumed that most readers will only be able to read English. However, the company's audience has both Chinese and English members. Feel free to try a search on a popular Chinese search engine (such as Baidu). Also, remember that Chinese has both simplified and traditional characters (the Chinese name above is written in Simplified), so a search using simplified characters may exclude some hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamplighter30 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Another note: Taurus is a legitimate company that has worked with representatives of major U.S. colleges and universities in China. More information about this can be found on Taurus' website. Taurus also puts on information sessions for high school students in China and has served as the only source of information (other than the Internet) for many students. Taurus' name is well-known in the Chinese high school community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamplighter30 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no proofs of notability per WP:CORP. Links to its own website is not reliable, facebook is even more unreliable, and bbs is the most unreliable sources (see WP:RS. Dekisugi (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Dekisugi. --Matt's talk 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Tikiwont (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Brinton-Lindqvist relationship theory

Appears to be an attempt on the part of Lindqvist to get a date with Brinton. Deletion seems appropriate, since empirical evidence shows that Lindqvist should really move on. It's not going to happen. Just to be formal, zero hits on Google. Steamroller Assault (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete pretty obviously a fabrication; "Brinton-Lindqvist" is mentioned literally nowhere on the internet. Brinton does play hard to get, though. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete someone's inside-joke article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It's cute, but it's also something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as vandalism. This article should not have been given the dignity of an AfD debate. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7 Never asserts notability. Doc StrangeLogbook 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Darren Oderinde

The subject of this article does verifiably exist, but does not appear to be particularly notable. Opening for discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete no major roles in notable productions. Insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Icewedge (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete doesn't fulfill any part of WP:ENTERTAINER. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: No notability. No indication that the single role he held was in anything more than a local community theater. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco packaging warning messages

Listcruft. I really hope I don't have to explain how trivial it is. Remurmur (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Calification AFD really makes me lose faith in Knowledge sometimes...

Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
It's basically the same messages over and over again translated into different languages. Having a list of every possible variation of the phrase "smoking is bad for you" is not encyclopedic, nor is it particularly informative.
Original research, nearly impossible to verify everything, and I'm sure some countries don't require specific wording to be used.
Any actual information on tobacco packaging warning messages itself should be incorporated into Tobacco advertising.
Alcohol packaging warning messages, Toy packaging warning messages, Microsoft Windows warning messages...

--Remurmur (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Unfortunately, I think you will have to explain how trivial this is. In my view, it's a fascinating insight into evolving worldwide tobacco policies. This is precisely the type of area in which Knowledge shines; it's a topic of interest to a great number of people (smoking advocates, anti-smoking advocates, smokers, travelers, health advocacy professionals, graphic designers, etc, etc, etc) and the information contained in the article is not readily available elsewhere. There's a clear verifiability issue, but this strikes me as an ignore all rules scenario (it is, theoretically, possible to source each of the cigarette pack warnings, but I doubt anyone will ever get around to it). --Fullobeans (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep There is a long and storied history of tobacco package warning messages in Canada, starting from simple text warnings to the point where now, full-colour graphic warnings take up 50% of the package, as exemplified here. The nominated article has great potential for growth. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I also see the potential for expansion, and it is a topic where users from all over the world can contribute. Let's not become over-scientific. (If you want a formal reason: it is notable, in world-wide use, and every newspaper, big or small, has covered the topic at some point in time) --Pgallert (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge. The nominator makes a good point about the non-need for translation, but there's several snippets of information in the article that mention when those messages became law and such things. At the very least there's mergeable content in here. I think there's enough material there that could be salvaged through editing rather than deletion. - Mgm| 08:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I agree, I think the article needs a bit of work, but unlike the other examples you give, (Alcohol packaging warning messages, Toy packaging warning messages, ... ), the Tobacco warnings have evolved over the years and have become quite prominent in our society, (and a bit of talking point). It shows the various health departments attempts at dealing with the problem of smoking/diseases/cancer. FFMG (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've actually found myself reading this. It's rather informative on how it's evolved, especially recently, into a full scale debate. Especially now as more countrys are going to be introducing graphical warnings also this could be important for the future. Mattie 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep This list is NOT simply a translation of the same information into a bunch of different languages. It is an insight into the varying attitudes about smoking around the world. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - while there's a definite need for cleanup to be up to standards, subject is notable and has been covered by various reliable sources. There has also been scientific research (example) on the effect of tobacco packaging warning messages on smoking rates. So the subject definitely passes the notability and verifiability guidelines and is not trivial.--Boffob (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Cigarette makers are usually required to vilify their products on their packaging by law — they probably wouldn't do so on their own. The several required messages are notable and easily documentable, even if the European Union requires uniformity so that the messages are simply translations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A lot/all of the translated warning messages should go, but the information on packaging standards in different countries is useful. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The subject certainly not trivial, being literally a matter of life and death, and I really hope I don't have to explain how notable it is. The suggestion to cover this in tobacco advertising doesn't have any merit - these messages are the antithesis of advertising. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The content of this article is far from trivial and is most certainly encyclopaedic. It is not simply a page of translations, but a page referencing actual legislation regarding tobacco package warnings. Jamesnp (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 01:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gindling Hilltop Camp

Although this is a long article, it doesn't have a single source. But that's not for lack of trying. In addition to placing tags on the article and posting reqeusts on the talk page, I've also tried to contact individual editors and emailed the directors. But even after all of that there's still nothing. The camp seems to regard the article as their private repository for camp lore and traditions, though I've suggested repeatedly that they move the content to their own website. In the Google world, I can't find anything more than passing mentions in listings of summer camps. The only thing that's verifiable is its existence and address. How can it be notable if it's unverifiable? I give up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep but cut out everything that can't be sourced, not the ideal solution but the camp does appear notable and something needs to be done about the issues raised by Will Beback (talk · contribs). I found some coverage: a few paragraphs in this article, this article (Pay per view though), this (somewhat short) article and many more minor mentions, see Google News. Icewedge (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I tried cutting it down once, but it was immediatwly reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article survives the AfD (which I suspect it will) I will help with the trimming of the article. Icewedge (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep There are, as Icewedge mentions, quite a few Google News results, and a seemingly self-published pamphlet from 1975 which may or may not be useful. The camp appears to be notable. The persistent reverts by presumed camp affiliates are, of course, problematic, but that can (hopefully) be addressed by calling the attention of more editors to the article, rather than deleting the article completely.--Fullobeans (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep The camp appears notable enough, most likely due to its location among the well-to-do Southern California community and the inherent notability derived from high-profile members and supporters. The article will have to be monitored to keep the campers from "owning" the article. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese people in France

The subject of this article has no merit. It is neither unique nor especially relevant. There are foreign nationals residing in all countries, and this article shall set a presedent for all permutations to exist. DRosenbach 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as yet another example of non-notable "Fooian Barian" ethnic groups. RayAYang (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Use discussion before proposing for deletion - This seems like a notable population but the article is not very good yet. That doesn't mean we should instantly begin trying to delete a given article before consulting with the original author and attempting to source and improve it rather than instantly obliterating it and all possibility of improving it. A confrontational approach isn't always the best manner to proceed in such cases. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Topic has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; see here for a partial list. I will expand the article and remove the unverifiable content sometime in the next few days. Also, nominating for deletion a 21-minute old article by a 23-minute old user, without making any effort to look for sources or otherwise help the user understand how to meet Knowledge's standards for inclusion, goes against the spirit of WP:BITE.

Finally, the nominator's argument that "this article shall set a presedent for all permutations to exist" is just an extension of the usual WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS/WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST fallacy. Any human migration articles created in the future stand or fall based on the general notability guideline, not on the basis of this article. cab (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - though the article needs work, we're talking here about a substantial community (28 000, enough to populate a small town, not just a few hundred individuals), so one should look for more sources before nominating for deletion.--Boffob (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Concur with other keeps, this appears to be a notable minority and has enough sources with which one could write an article. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Japanese people in France has a lot of sources? There are reliable sources available for dozens of ethnic groups existing in dozens of foreign countries -- the dispute is whether this is encyclopedic. We can start an article with reliable sources entitled Police forces in America. I can find many articles that discuss the presence of police forces in various US cities, and using these sources to substantiate this article would be absurd. The same would be for Jewish people in Australia, Black people in Manitoba or Homosexuals in Haiti. Sources do not necessarily support encyclopedability. DRosenbach 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Vague appeals to your own sense of "unencyclopedability" are unconvincing. Quite a few specialist encyclopedias from reputable publishers see fit to cover the topic of "Fooians in Barland" for a wide variety of values of Foo and Bar. To give a small sample:

Pan, Lynn, ed. (1995), The Encyclopedia of the Chinese Overseas, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0674252202
Inouye, Daniel K., ed. (2002), Encyclopedia of Japanese Descendants in the Americas: An Illustrated History of the Nikkei, Rowman Altamira, ISBN 978-0-75910149-4
Ember, Marvin; Ember, Carol R.; Haggard, Martin, eds. (2005), Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Overviews and Topics, Springer, ISBN 978-0306483219
Magocsi, Paul R., ed. (1998), Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 0802029388
Jupp, James, ed. (2001), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-52180789-0

Regards, cab (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Those all look like potentially notable subject for articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am very leery of keeping an article based on sources which are almost entirely in a foreign language; this complicates questions of determining notability, verifiability, etc., to say the least. Furthermore, I would note that while I cannot read Japanese (and thus run the very real risk of mischaracterizing the sources), the English descriptions of the sources undercut the case for the subject's notability. It appears that the sources are, in order, a pamphlet from the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs (such as one might find for every country, giving only basic statistics and almost no narrative description, almost like a page out of a census), a short one to two-paragraph article in a Japanese newspaper, a single article testifying to the "invisibility" of the Japanese in France (hardly convincing evidence of notability), and three academic journal articles, which cannot be considered secondary sources for the general reader by any stretch. RayAYang (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is very clear that sources do not need to be in English, if they are available only in other languages. Just as notability does not decay with time, language is not a barrier to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Um. Apologies; are we reading the same policy? All I see is a remark to the effect that English language sources are to be preferred over non-English ones, and it certainly doesn't extend to questions of notability. RayAYang (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. What you see is that, for verifiability, English language sources are to be preferred over non-English ones "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". If such English sources are not available then foreign language ones are fine. As far as notability goes there is nothing in the guidelines about the language of sources because notability doesn't depend on the language. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. It doesn't say anything about foreign language sources being as good as English language sources for notability purposes, in either direction, and is more or less agnostic on the question of verifiability. After reflection, I conclude that I stand by my original comment, including the parts on the quality of the existing sources, which, IMO amount to less than substantial coverage. RayAYang (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Perfect example of very good article topic. Article quality is not a reason for deletion. - Darwinek (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per arguments already made. ···日本穣 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Although consensus seems to favor keeping this article, I think it's probably useful for me to argue for deletion based on the following:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Japanese Guyanese

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Japanese Jamaican

I will change my "vote" if someone can help me understand how and why this article is distinguished from the others? My "vote" is partly informed by the following:

According to fr:Groupes ethniques de France#Anthropologie culturelle basée sur la communauté historique (Ethnic groups in France#Cultural anthropology based on the history of the ethnic community) a non-governmental source is cited in support of the claimed 11,000+ Japanese in France, without distinguishing between Japanese nationals (expatriates) and French citizens having some degree of Japanese ancestry; however, when I clicked on the Joshua Project web page cited, the information line in the chart was blank.
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) does not include specific numbers of Japanese expatriates in Japan and Japanese-French at MOFA France-Japan Relations, in contrast with similar pages for other countries.

For me, this subject is not an easy one to parse. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By the fact that this has actual sources which discuss the topic non-trivially. Please read and understand WP:N. cab (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I will review WP:N later today. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good and Broken (song)

A next one that fails WP:Music (Moon) and (Sunrise) 04:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Very low charting, fails notability for songs, unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep A charted song. FelixtheCatHM (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. WP:MUSIC says charted songs are notable. It is not to us to create arbitrary cut-off points within the charts.- Mgm| 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. A separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Esradekan Gibb 12:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - falls short of WP:NSONGS to warrant its own article as User:Esradekan points out.--Boffob (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. JamesBurns (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Miley Cyrus song)

Fails WP:Music (Moon) and (Sunrise) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Very low charting, fails notability for songs, unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I don't know if it's the same song, but Cyndi Lauper had a song by the same title more than 20 years ago. •Life of Riley (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep A charted song. FelixtheCatHM (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles is not a reliable chart, but the others are. And according to WP:MUSIC charted songs are notable, regardless of their actual ranking. - Mgm| 08:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MUSIC says charted songs are probably notable, not automatically notable. Since this wasn't even an official single, Delete or Merge to Girls Just Want to Have Fun (assuming it's a cover). TJ Spyke 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Girls Just Want to Have Fun. That article needs a bit of a re-write, to separate out bona fide covers, such as this one and Emilie Autumn's, from random appearances of the original or the 'Hey Now' version in other media such as films. Currently they're all just listed in a 'popular culture' list. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. A separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Esradekan Gibb 12:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non plausible search term. Besides, I do believe it is a cover of the original, because it's already mentioned in Girls Just Want To Have Fun#Other cover versions .--Boffob (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. JamesBurns (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was merge to Dhangar . MBisanz 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dhangar Scheduled tribe issue

I'm not sure this is notable enough to be its own article. This also falls under Knowledge is not a soapbox. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect - to Dhangar under controversy. It appears to be a legitimate claim. ShoesssS 05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing controversial issue which has serious effects and outcomes. Please do not delete. The article states undisputed facts and is neutral. TheShepherds (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article, it gives vital information and has serious constitutional consequences.BACLA (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Most of the votes are for a merge, which means that the contents would instead be incorporated into the larger Dhangers article, not deleted. However, all the supporters are not being helpful when they are including sections like "Ex-Minister of Maharashtra Shri. Anna Dange gets his forehead injured by hitting it on the walls of the Collector office at Sangli so that the Government would seriously look into the matter. Thousands of people protest at Sangli." as relevant information. Those who are serious about this subject need to take it seriously and police themselves as well. Things like that take away from your credibility as to the significance of the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Hello Ricky81682, I think you are misconstruing Keep - merge/redirect - delete and heavily editing the piece. When I posted my Merge/redirect opinion, I am saying that the title is legitimate and a encylodic topic. Therefore not subject to delete, because it could be expected that an individual may have a reasonable expectation to search for additional information for on this site. However the topic has not gained enough notability to stand on its own and would be best served as part of a larger genre that explains the whole situation involved. This does not mean the article should not be heavily edited either before or after the merge. I agree that there are POV involved with this piece, but that can be fixed. Hope this helps in explaining the reasoning behind my merge/redirect. ShoesssS 15:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Dhangar. Falls under WP: SOAP. --Redtigerxyz 05:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. G11. article is a link farm with no real information. Mgm| 08:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Simplx

Spam. BJ 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Probably under Speedy G11 for spam. ShoesssS 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G11/A3) — definitely spam, but I would also argue lack of content, as it is virtually nothing but a linkfarm. MuZemike (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I probably should have just deleted it. I just ran across it while reading and wasn't really paying attention. BJ 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans and Franco-Prussian War

This one you have to read to believe. Indeed, you cannot judge an article by its title! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This might fall under WP:IINFO, though I'm not sure. (Almost comically, the confusion doesn't lie in inexperience, but I'm really confused by this article.) The creator should be asked to help out on Edgar Degas. 76.115.39.183 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Oh, but this is *funny*. Next up, George Washington and the First Emperor of China. RayAYang (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete I agree that this new editor could make some great contributions about Degas. Short version of the article: Degas was in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, Degas was in New Orleans in 1871. In the exhibit of Knowledge's artists, this might be described as impressionism rather than realism. Mandsford (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete' - LOL - “A” for creativity and personally I love Degas. Any possibility of a merge/redirect? ShoesssS 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Huhhh? MuZemike (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)

Delete The author of this article is adding many, each of which seem to be bullet points about one aspect of Degas' life. The editor is new and I think he does not quite understand how to create an article. FlyingToaster 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave Flores

Contested prod. I don't feel this article meets any notability requirments, and has no reliable sources to back it up. For a " semi-retired pro wrestler", the article doesn't mention a lot about his career in pro wrestling (i.e. not a thing), and so fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:ENTERTAINER, depending on which one you'd like to class him as. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no independent coverage. Two Google searches (1 and 2) prove the non-nobility of this person. Nikki♥311 00:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete - semi-retired or semi-pro? No WP:N, WP:V, nor WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. aye matthew ✡ 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicola Squitti

Removed Prod with reasoning that I should find the sources however, its up the the creator to prove the notability not me. The article claims he was an Italian senator. However, none of the sources provided show that this is the person that they are taking about and a google search shows no evidence that this is actually the Senator Squitti. And infact the article seems to be more about something his father (who has twice fallen to afd) did than he did. Djsasso (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - I believe the article does contain enough verifiable references to establish that he is a “Italian Senator/Baron” . Given that fact, yes notability is established. However, with regards to the Scranton, PA cite, I agree there is no way to connect the two, other than educated assumptions. Man you picked a tough one here. Lets go back and debate Zach :-) ShoesssS 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, wouldn't have stumbled into it if the author hadn't recently recreated a few articles that were previously killed by afd. The Zach afd has actually been closed already. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep Senator Squitti was a former legislator of Italy and named senator by the king for his service in diplomatic service I think that is a good idea to have a wikipedia article for him.(User talk:Lucifero4
Keep Even when reduced to the actual information about the Senator, its enough to show he's notable as a stub. American senators are notable, and that goes for the members of all other legislatures as well. I suggested when I deprodded it that the thing to do is to look for Italian sources-- given the age, probably in print. DGG (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A Google Books search finds several sources that confirm that the subject was ambassador to Montenegro and to Serbia, and this one confirms that he was a senator, passing WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. MBisanz 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellifain

No sources as defined by WP:N to signify that this character is notable outside of the game universe to which it is attached. All sources listed are primary. — Dæ dαlus /_Improve 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect: to ~~Drizzt Do'Urden~~List of Forgotten Realms characters. I'm a big fan of R.A. Salvatore, but even I don't think that this warrants its own article. Since Ellifain's character is mainly involved in Drizzt's fictional backstory, a mention or two there should cover the topic just fine. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep or merge and redirect to either List of Forgotten Realms characters or to Drizzt Do'Urden as per Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to a relevant character list. If there's issues with referencing, the merged material can be limited to the bare minimum.- Mgm| 08:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge: to wherever this needs to go. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect i concur. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect AfD should not be used when a merge discussion could have easily resolved this issue. shadzar-talk 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to all of you voting to merge or redirect - This article has previously been redirected, but it had continuously been re-created by various people. If this AfD ends in a merge or redirect, at least we will have consensus to do it this time, and it can be referred back if anyone tries to re-create it again.— Dæ dαlus 00:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There you go. BOZ (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Insufficient direct non-trivial coverage by secondary sources. Split-outs do not inherit notability from parents. No prejudice on a post-deletion redir. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge and redirect as per Drilnoth. Laurent paris (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

HEI Hospitality

The original nomination for speedy deletion was turned down as "not quite" - see history for precise wording. Nonetheless this is a blatant advert. The references are to its own website (one link is valid, I agree) and to some form of "list my hotel" club that is not reliable as a source. Sufficient time has elapsed form the originator's talk page response stating that much press is available, but it is not forthcoming as a reference. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep - it is a little bit spammy. However, we should have an article on this company. They operate 30 hotels under five-star brand names. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It's not notable enough, and the issue boxes at the top make up 60% of the whole article. TopGearFreak 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete I didn't detect any notability beneath the spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - “…the nation's fastest growing private owner/operators of hotel real estate” as outlined in the first Google News cite from a independent - verifiable - creditable 3rd party source, as shown here . In addition to several dozen other references as noted by the above link. Believe it satisfies our requirements for inclusion under Notability for companies. Thanks. ShoesssS 02:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- If your link wasn't to a reprint of the company's press release (see full text here), I'd almost share in your enthusiasm. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  - I believe there were 52 other articles shown in that link - None of them were to your liking?ShoesssS 02:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Eight of the first 10 hits are reprints of press releases. The other two (full text ), are from an actual trade publication. But those are just bulletins of transaction descriptions submitted to the publication by various companies (sort of like wedding announcements). No good. OK, how about you check the next 10 hits. DGG can take numbers 21-30, and hey before you know it maybe we'll find something. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep A major company with major hotels, and adequate sourcing to show notability.DGG (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the two non-independent sources currently in the article do you consider adequate? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Another case of something notable masquerading as a shitty article. If kept, probably needs renaming to HEI Hotels & Resorts. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Premier cricket league

Non-notable amateur corporate cricket league. Jpeeling (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable cricket competition. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 20 November 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) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Since no arguments have been put forward for deletion, I vote keep on the basis that the tournament is being televised: http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/june/june252.php Juzhong (talk) 00:18, 4 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 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep By deafault. Articles shouldn't keep getting re-listed until someone replies. If no interest is generated by the 2nd relisting, it should be closed as keep. Lugnuts (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability provided whatsoever. The argument above sounds a bit strange. The subject attracts little attention, so it should be kept? Hmmm. -- Mattinbgn\ 01:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where wikipedia gets these people from. Being televised is "no evidence whatsoever"? Juzhong (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, only source provided is official website, which is not enough to establish notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If people can't read, I don't think their votes should be counted. Juzhong (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I can read perfectly well thank you. There is only one reference in the article, and that's the official site. Or maybe I'm going a bit blind, so perhaps you could point out the third party reference in the article. Thanks in advance. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK like one of the three wise monkeys, you can read but you choose not to. I still don't think your vote should be counted. Juzhong (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I've looked again and still can't see a reference beyond the official site. Please by all means either point a third party reference out to me, or add one, and I will be quite happy to change my vote. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This one: http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/june/june252.php .On the other hand, if you felt that more than one 3rd party source was required, you might not be able to find anything but press releases. Juzhong (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a tenuous one, but if that was in the article, I'd be quite happy to change my vote. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I'm inclined to let this one go as I'm not sure there's anything else out there. Juzhong (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Trisha Campbell

Non-notable adult model. See WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources to verify notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom, doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete and plausible redirect to Tisha Campbell-Martin; no sources for this actress. Nate • (chatter) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I think I learned more about Ms. Campell than I really needed to know reading the article. However, on to why to delete! Could find no coverage in several searches via plain old google - Google News (my standard for inclusion) or Yahoo. Without at least minimal secondary sources, sorry to say, does not met the necessary standards, as outlined in WP:Notability. ShoesssS 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sounds as if it was written by a fan boy. Yanksox (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Davidson (politician)

Mr. Davidson did not win his race for national chair of a college student group. He is currently running a PAC. Neither of these facts are notable.

There are thousands of invitation only PACs in the country and their officers are not notable. There are even more national student groups, and the winners of their elections are not notable, let alone the losers....

Raised by NuklearScientist, I'm just fixing the report Unusual? Quite 00:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete I don't believe the media coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion per WP:POLITICIAN. Further, being an officer of the College Republicans is to be a officer of a private club, not a political officeholder. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN Narutolovehinata5 00:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Of course, someone can fail the politician criteria and still be notable (Alexander Graham Bell, to pick a random example, obviously fails the politician criteria but is notable for other reasons), but the few sources given for Davidson don't establish his notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the subject of this article is purportedly a politician, as evidenced by the article title, for starters. No one considers Bell to be a politician; he would be judged by a more appropriate criterion. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To be sure :-) but a failed candidate for office, even if attempting to be known primarily as a politician, can still be notable. My point was that we can't consider only the politicians criteria. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Temasek Secondary School

Article is non-notable and unsourced, with nonsensical content (school mottos are "We still care/We also care"?). No viable third-party references; only school-related sites on Google. It also reads like an advertisement, as it is informal and mainly written in first-person ("our" and "we"). Tagged since December 2007 but no action has been taken to repair it since. sixtynine 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep - important high school. Unusually for Singapore schools some web refs are available and can be added. There are likely to be many more local sources available. The page sure needs a spring clean but we don't delete because of the need for improvement. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep, provided that Terriersfan includes the sources they found. - Mgm| 12:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep as for all high schools, which are almost invariably found to meet the notability criteria if worked on sufficiently. We always include the school motto, by the way, trite as they usually are. DGG (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Thanks to TerriersFan et. al. for finding the sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Jack and Jill School. MBisanz 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Randy Mengullo

Procedural AfD. This was originally submitted as a CSD, but I find enough ambiguity about the subject to be uncomfortable with speedy deletion. The sources that I have read have checked out good, but the subject himself does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. I suppose that in his case WP:ACADEMICS may apply as well, but I don't see him passing this notability requirement either. Trusilver 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The subject is non-notable and written by people affiliated with him (just look at the discussion page). The amount of reliable sources are also pretty thin.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Short / Fails the Notability...
- JJS Karate Dojo,JJS Karate Kids, front page of Sunstar newspaper, 2006
- JJS Karatedo rules NOPSSCEA events, Viasayan Daily Star, 2008
- POF-Visayas Qualifying Games,NOKAF standouts shine, Visayan Daily Star September 17, 2007 edition
- Mayor's Cup,Daily Star, November 28, 2006
- POF Karatedo National Winners,2nd Philippine Olympic Festival, 2007 National Championship in Manila
- JJS karatedo team overall champ,Viasayan Daily Star, October 4, 2005
- Way of the Kids By NONOY ESPINA,, November 2005 Edition
- Official Training Center,, Summer of 2005 and 2006
- Lessons learned in our Karate Class, , September 2, 2002 Edition
- Jins gather for a showdown,Karatedo by Randy Mengullo, Sunstar, Febraury 10, 2005

Jack & Jill School recognized dojo and Randy Mengullo is a member of Philippine Karatedo Federation, the governing body of karate in the country. Jjskarate (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The challenge you have is that those articles aren't about the subject of this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to let others to know that Randy Mengullo is the official karate instructor of Jack & Jill School and in the newspaper articles that I have included as references cearly state that he is achieving as a coach/trainer for the reason that his players/team won different competitions up to the national level. Jjskarate (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If only someone will read the latest championship title that the karatedo team of sensei Randy Mengullo had achieved somehow you will find it victorious because it's a celebrated moment of this year's NOPSSCEA (Negros Occidental Private Schools Sports Cultural Educational Association) event where prominent institutions in the negros island is looking forward every year. NOPSSCEA is the local or the province version of NCAA where all private school in the island meet and match.

Please read and view:
- JJS Karatedo rules NOPSSCEA events, The Randy Mengullo-mentored karatedo team, Visayan Daily Star 2008
- TEAM JJS Championship Fight trained by sensei Randy Mengullo
- JJS Karatekas highlighted 2008 NOPSSCEA Opening Ceremony at University of St. La Salle

This are just few celebrated events mentored by sensei Randy Mengullo.

THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Jjskarate (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to the school; not notable, WP:COI. JJL (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible that karate in school like Jack & Jill School propagates without the effort of Mr. Randy Mengullo?

Probably not, without Mr. Mengullo the sports program in JJS will not prosper and will come this far. His players may not have international exposure but given a chance he can garner medals as what his team always does in the national level competition. Sensei Mengullo is a respected martial artist and award winning trainer in his community you can see that in many press releases and news reports of his references. Jjskarate (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

With his contribution to the martial arts world in general to propagate karate as a sport in school and with his 14 years experience of teaching elementary and high school students added with his involvement in his community it is just formal that sensei Randy Mengullo deserves a place here. Jjskarate (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures speak a thousand words
- JJS karate Photo,Playground demonstration
- JJS karate photo,Karate on stage
- JJS karate photo,I love this place

Jjskarate (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I applaud his teaching efforts and accomplishments. Whether he is included here or not, is largely a policy issue and based on established guidelines. So I hope you won't take anyone's opinion as an attack or disrespect to his many accomplishments and good works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that open minded opinion ChildofMidnight, I do understand your good point. But somehow I'm just trying to inform others rather simply not doing at all. Jjskarate (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

Teaching professional athletes is very challenging but teaching children is very inspiring and fulfiling. The reward of teaching adult players are honor, fame and money but involving kids in their colorful childhood lives is priceless.

Only few has the determination and patience to teach little children esp. in karate and sensei Randy Mengullo has proven his worth in this crap. Jjskarate (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. National level karate instructor/coach in the Philippines, have joined many competitions in the country. Mmaasia (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note User:Mmaasia is a single purpose account that has made no edits other than this AfD. Trusilver 07:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note Mr. Mengullo is an award winning coach in the country particularly in the kumite children's division.POF Karatedo National Winners,2nd Philippine Olympic Festival, 2007 National Championship in Manila</ref> Mmaasia (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete and don't redirect Non-notable karate instructor who fails WP:BIO. A Google search returns results which are mostly from Wordpress (a blogging site), YouTube, Flickr, and other sites that do not provide reliable sources. Several exceptions are these three news articles which mention him only in passing. A Google News Archive search also returns very few results. The first result is a duplicate of a news article I mentioned above. The second news article also mentions this instructor in passing. All four news articles from the Sun Star newspaper or the Visayan Daily Star (two newspapers based in Bacolod City), are local news articles about the local Bacolod City karate school. None of the articles profile this karate instructor, so the information in this article is largely unverifiable. This article is very well-illustrated and very informative, but none of the references give significant biographical information this person. A lot of care was put into writing this article so I recommend Jjskarate (talk · contribs) to post it on his/her website so that the information won't be lost. Also, don't redirect this article since it is a very unlikely, even implausible search term, for a person who almost qualifies for {{db-bio}}. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The information written by Jjskarate (talk · contribs) is very extensive, but the lack of sources about this individual, along with how knowledgeable this editor is about this topic, leads me to believe that Jjs has a conflict of interest with this karate instructor and with this karate school. See Knowledge:Articles for deletion/JJS Karate Dojo, particularly this edit for evidence. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Im just a beginner and still learning... you're a far genious than I am but somehow I know my mistakes and learning from it... It's just a matter of time, isn't it? Jjskarate (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for your datailed and crytal clear explanations. It works!!! Jjskarate (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. It is just normal that in the sports news the winning players/team are being the center of the news with blow by blow accounts and the trainer/coach are just secondary or less important. The news reports there are all about winnings and not a feature story of the trainer. Jjskarate (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Jack and Jill School, info is possibly too detailed & I he fails to meet the notability guide for athletes but much of the info is sourced so I don't' see a problem in including an abbreviated version of these parts there. --Nate 14 81 09:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I agree the redirect is not needed in this case as the search will hit otherwise.

Delete I'd say delete based on possible WP:COI reasons. Shrumster (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete no demonstration of notability has been made. There are many thousands of martial artists worldwide with similar claims of significance, yet they do not merit articles either. Clear conflict of interest problems. — BillC 15:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Jack and Jill School, the school is notable and the trainer may not establish notability but still active in many competitions in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.11.158 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Added government site to include national competition as reference Philippine Olympic website,National Championship: Team Negros Occidental Jjskarate (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

*Keep. Accomplished instructor in the Philippines. Play hard in martial arts not with the man.Mmaasia (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC). Repeated vote; see comment by Trusilver above. JJL (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to the school, not notable.

Comment: I think it's important to note that in parts of the Philippines, the infrastructure of the Internet is not as developed as one may be used to in a more modern country. It can sometimes be very difficult to find information on prominant individuals in highly populated areas simply due to the fact that much of the population is lucky to have electricity, running water, or a toilet in their house.

My gut feeling tells me this IS a notable individual but the lack of development in technology is making reliable references difficult to attain. Let us not strike out an article based on failure to affect more developed parts of the world. Such actions will have a detrimental impact overall on contributions from poorer societies to Knowledge and on the ability of more modern parts of the world to learn from these cultures. User5802 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What in the article makes you think the subject is notable?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. The article has not proven itself to be notable. The individual has not been proven to be notable. However, I am curious if this individual has had a significant effect on Bacolod City or the province of Negros Occidental. I also am interested in the total amount of individuals this person has been and is currently instructing in a school that has 1,500 students per year. User5802 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got a nice point and you hit the target. Philippines belongs to the 3rd world contries that is why they're far behind in technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.198.94 (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius Files

Extremely short article (two sentences), no useful information Luinfana (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete This can be mentioned as a section in Anna Sui. Mandsford (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The article does not even say what the so-called Genius Files are! •Life of Riley (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mattie 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Possible A1. Has no assertion or indication of notability of article subject. Sleaves _talk 01:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Googling Anna Sui and Genius Files together found http://www.annasuibeauty.com/site/about_anna_genius.htm which to me means it's not an A1 candidate: there is enough context to find something more about what it is. But if her own site's supposed history of this clipping file is so minimal, how can it possibly be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Myg0t

AfDs for this article:

Only relevance is covered at Half-Life 2#Source code leak already. Magazine coverage is limited to one esentence blurbs, most other sources are primary, unreliable or trivial. Also orphaned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:V, and all the reasons it was deleted the first two times. A redirect to Half-Life_2#Source_code_leak might also make some sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete All information here is likely to be original research with no notable references. Only really notable thing is, as said, the Half Life 2 Source code leak. Merge this information together. Otherwise delete per nom. Mattie 11:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Hardly anyone has heard about this site. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL, see comments below. -- The Anome (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cakerolling

Non-notable video. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not even a non-notable video, but a non-notable term for linking to a particular non-notable video. Essentially a copycat would-be meme that totally failed to take off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind, or consider speedying as non-notable web content. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: A non-notable video per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, speedy delete No assertation of notability, and this is clearly a WP:SNOW case. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete: I agree with Ten Pound Hammer: this is an article about a web phenomenon with no sources given, speedy-deletable under the WP:WEB criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete per A7 hbdragon88 (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cooking By The Book" A Lil' Bigger Mix

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Cooking By The Book" A Lil' Bigger Mix

Non-notable video. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, maybe even speedy deleted per CSD A7. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. A1, lack of context to adequately describe the subject. Mgm| 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maxxor

This creature may not be notable enough for inclusion. The article is unsourced. I am taking this to AfD because I do not fully understand what the article is about. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. There is not enough information to merge into a list of creatures from the particular trading card game this is from and the assertion "third best" is original research. Trading cards are made so each creature has strengths and weaknesses in different areas. Third best is something that cannot be determined, without that there's no context - or content for that matter so in my opinion the deletion could be speedy. - Mgm| 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N, or possibly Merge to Chaotic Trading Card Game (which in itself could use a rename). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete--and I would support a speedy. There's nothing in this article that would add anything of value to Chaotic Trading Card Game. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe Shmoe

This is an article about an unnotable, unreferenced fictional name that basically talks about the shm- prefix. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. I'm not sure it's a keeper, though, because better than half, as the nom points out, talks about Shm-reduplication - so you remove that, and it just explains, in brief, what boils down to a metasyntactic name. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Could we perhaps turn this into a list of similar names around the world and redirect there or something? - Mgm| 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Already done at John Doe. Tavix (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. This article might help a non-native speaker of American English who encounters this name and does not realize its meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.81.93 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep--while I can find some linguistic stuff on Schmoe, I can't really find Joe. But see article for a few sources I added. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki - Over to Wikitionary. By the way, they would welcome this phrase (No article yet). It clearly is a Idiom, as shown here by Google Scholar . If and when someone finds the time an patience to fully research and cite and expand, bring it back. I do believe there may be an article here. ShoesssS 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Someone's added three references to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that same someone (moi) took the liberty of restoring the unreferenced-tag you removed: my references only attest to the existence of the word and some of its semantic and especially phonological qualities. They have nothing to say about the real use of the phrase. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I truthfully believe that everyone realizes the phrase is Notable as a Idiom, including the nominator, and probably should have just transferred the piece over to Wikitionary at this point, given its present state. That is what I recommend. That way, none of the research, already done on the piece, is lost - Wiktionary gains a legitimate entry and the original author and or other editors still have the opportunity to expand on the article and bring it up to at least stub status and than institute a article back here. Win-Win situation for all parties. ShoesssS 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge to John Doe or Average Joe (with preference to the latter). I think it would be a good section in one of these articles.--Lenticel 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep sufficient references for notability, and I think when less formal sources are searched , there will be many more. Notable idioms are notable, and there's no reason to move it out of Knowledge. DGG (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not the greatest article, but supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PEN Oakland/Josephine Miles Literary Award

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PEN Oakland/Josephine Miles Literary Award

This self-sourced article provides no indication of this award's notability. Rklawton (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - A quick Google News Archive search comes up with 48 sources . The article itself could use some expansion and more direct info on winners for each year but the subject of the article clearly passes the notability requirements of WP:N. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thoughts an award with only 48 mentions on Google pretty much defines "non-notable". Also keep in mind that the article is entirely self-sourced. Can you find a source about this award rather than just a mention of the award? I doubt it. So now we've got an award that a few people have mention and apparently no one has thought enough of to actually write about. And that's why I've nominated this one as non-notable. If it's notable, it should at least be the subject of an few articles. Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment, Note that I said Google News not Google, a search on the standard google search engine brings back 6040. , I did not bring this up since I do not believe that ghits, i.e. standard google search engine is a method to determine notability. Google News is slightly different as the majority of these are much more reliable than standard google hits. These two articles ,, would appear to be about the award but are subscription. In addition this award is mentioned in over 300 books on google books . This level of referencing along with all of the google news sources allow the subject to pass WP:N.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    - Thoughts Google news also includes numerous blogs and PR services. Non-notable publishing houses will take any opportunity to hype their books. What we need for notability is not mere mentions or ghits. What we need are articles from reliable sources about the award. If it's notable, surely someone must have written about it. Rklawton (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen newspapers discuss the background of literary awards in detail with all the information in one place? I haven't. If the material can be verified, I would decide notability on its relationship with notable authors and writing organizations. Awards are one thing that inherit their notability from who gives them (so I don't believe the idea "notability is not inherited" flies here) An award given by your high school is not notable no matter much it is covered, an award by a the Screen Actor's Guild is. - Mgm| 01:13, 4 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) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Since the award was initiated by a notable author and affiliated with a notable international writers' organization, I'm wondering why notability is even in question... - Mgm| 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good point but the "notable" author who founded the award has an article with only one source that isn't his own, and that source consists only of a two page bio in a five volume encyclopedia dedicated specifically to multi-ethnic American Literature. Most of the claims made in the subject's article are not supported by inline references. In short, we likely have another candidate for deletion. And the organizational affiliation noted above is so weak that this award isn't mentioned in the organization's article at all, nor is this affiliation sourced. In fact, the article under consideration has absolutely no sources whatsoever – except for what is published on its own website. Our standards are higher than this. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - - I don't see how the amount of coverage in the encyclopedia matters. They're mentioned in an encyclopedia, which makes the figure de-facto notable even if the article about the person isn't perfect.- Mgm| 08:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment - If you would like some reliable sources to prove the notability of Josephine Miles here you go:
    - Steinman, Lisa M. "Putting On Knowledge With Power: The Poetry of Josephine Miles." Chicago Review 37.1 (Winter90 1990): 130-131. Abstract: Discusses the poetry of American writer Josephine Miles.
    - Cooksey, Thomas L. "MILES, Josephine ." Continuum Encyclopedia of American Literature (14 Jan. 2003): 765-766. Abstract: The article provides biographical information on American poet Josephine Miles.
    - "Josephine Miles Dies; A Poet and Professor." New York Times (17 May 1985): 20.
    - Corn, Alfred. "The Lenore Marshall Prize." Nation 239.12 (20 Oct. 1984): 388-389. Abstract: Reports that the 1984 Lenore Marshall /Nation Poetry Prize has been awarded to Josephine Miles for her book 'Collected Poems, 1930-83.'
    - "Josephine Miles." Academy of American Poets -- Biographies of American Poets (Jan. 2006): 429-429.
    - "Miles, Josephine ." Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia (Oct. 1996): 683-683.
    - The EBSCO database I found these in has at least 20 more reliable source reviews of her books and works. The current state of her article just means that no one has spent the time or energy to write a decent referenced article, it does not mean that she is not notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I concede. Please add the above references to the related articles. Rklawton (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Hale

Somewhere between or including WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Person is not notable except for their murder. A search of newspapers turns up several very local hits with one or two mentions in other papers, but all about the death. If he were notable for anything else, or if his death were responsible for legislation or other was in other ways newsworthy, I would not put this up for AfD, but this article is pretty much a poster for WP:ONEEVENT. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Knowledge:BLP1E and Knowledge:NOTNEWS Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:59, 3 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) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS especially. The hate crime angle aside, this is an ordinary crime story, tragic but with little evidence of sustained RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Hilton

No significant reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 30 November 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) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete This is basically nothing more then a porn page. Full of links to porn sites etc. etc. Not notable even in porn probably. This isn't encyclopedic at all! Pstanton 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

According to our own page on porn: "Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." The article itself is not porn and the links to porn sites are not surprising since the article is about a porn actress. Porn actors can be encyclopedic. - Mgm| 08:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Epbr123. Tabercil (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete meets none of the entertainer or WP:PORNBIO standards. - Mgm| 08:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yukiko Kimura

No independent reliable sources to establish notability outside of Naked News. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Subject doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 November 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) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of meeting WP:N. ···日本穣 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

UserJoy Technology

Unsourced article about non-notable gaming company Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Might just be bad translation. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm painfully conscious of the various linguistic and cultural biases in this project, that doesn't constitute a free pass to say, "If you knew about them, you'd see they're famous." --Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said keep. I'm inclined to let the 5 days pass, and see if anyone will attempt to address the notability issue, if not, then I agree with deletion. Possibly send a copy to the author's sandbox/create one.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. The article claims it one an award three years running, however it doesn't look like the award is very notable. It also co-published Angels Online, but notability isn't contagious. The article is also severely lacking in third-party sources, making the whole article read as one big ad. —BradV 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep Minorly notable. They've produced several MMORPGs besides just Angels Online. Google search reveals 197,000 hits outside of the company website. No specific coverage that I can find in major newspapers, mostly just minor mentions in gaming websites. The Chinese references that I can find don't seem to be much better, either, although on balance I think this could be remedied with time. However, I've removed one section as a copyright violation, so it may be that other sections are also copyvios, although I couldn't find the sources.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:29, 30 November 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) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think that the article needs work, not deletion. Also, just because an article doesn't demonstrate its notability doesn't mean that the subject is non-notable. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Smith (football player)

From what I have been able to find on Daniel Smith, he does not meet the notability requirements for athletes. He never competed at the fully professional level of football. While the NFL lists him as a player they have no stats to indicate he ever played a game with any professional team. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete, does not meet wp:athlete. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —A new name 2008 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 November 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) 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, does not meet wp:athlete. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, may I know the reason, based on which you have decided to keep this article. With do all respect, I believe the users were still debating about the idea of deleting this page. ThanksSalman (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pledge of the Tree

I strongly believe that this article should be deleted from Knowledge, because no such incident ever took place in the history of Islam, where the Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) asked his Sahabahs to pledge him to avenge anyone’s murder. I have searched his issue on internet also, nothing came up. I suggest that this is an act of vandalism. The writer has also posted a verse from the Quran, which talks about the Pledge of Aqaba. I would say that this is surely a case of spreading misconceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salman01 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 November 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) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Medium Keep It seems notable and reasonably well-written. I'd say it just needs some citation. Of course if it DOES turn out to be a hoax, it should be deleted as such.

Strong delete Non-notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

- Dear contributors, there is no reliable reference or source which proves the validity of this article. Like I said, the Quranic verse which is provided doesn’t even refer to this unknown incident, but it was regarding the Pledge of Aqaba. The article is even disagreeing with what the author of the book (the book which is written by William Muir), according to the article, Prophet Muhammad (SAWW), placed his hand at the bottom of his Sahabas, and than at the top of everyone else, for Hazrat Uthman. But according to the book, Hazrat Muhammad (SAWW) placed his hand at the bottom and after everyone placed their hands on his hand, he than placed his second hand (on behalf of his one and only son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib) on top. Do you see how even the article is disagreeing with the book. I am not trying to say that an incident as such as this, ever took place in the history of Islam. According to my knowledge, nothing like this ever happened. Therefore, it should be deleted. Thanks Salman (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep from 1894 (William Muir) and others seem to give it historical credence. 1891. And a large number of other print references (the web is not the sole repository of information). Collect (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep References are missing right now, but I found a number of indications from poking through the web that this is indeed a real event in Islamic history. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not only about the references and sources, Clay Collier, no such incident ever took place in the history of Islam. This article is even disagreeing from the book (whom link has been provided). Thanks Salman (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Question Forgive my ignorance, but is this a case of an event that is accepted by one branch of Islam but not another? --Finngall 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there are three branches in Islam: Shi’as, Sunnis, and Wahabies. I am a Shi’a and I can definitely say that my branch doesn’t believe in this. I have never read any book or article in which Wahabies have mentioned anything like this being occurred. I have studied Sunni Hadith books and therefore, I can say that I never even read it in their? This is why I am advocating for this article to be removed, because it is “giving-birth” and spreading misconceptions. Thanks Salman (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep References seem to exist, so if it is a misconception, it's a notable misconception. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward321, the sources which have been provided are not reliable sources. The sources or references have to satisfy the reference policy of Knowledge. If a reference doesn’t suit the policy of Knowledge then it can’t be considered as a reliable or accurate source of information. Thanks Salman (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment There has been a claim that references exist for this article, yet where are these references from reliable sources? Presently, there are none. Also, there has never been a clear claim as to why this topic should be percieved as notable. This subject may exist, but that is no claim to notability. As is, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Exogenic Records

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb 22:14, 1 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) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete The company is a local label representing a few minor artists. No significant news results to establish notability. Sleaves _talk 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Salim Waheed

This article should be deleted because notability is not inherited. Being the child of a vice president does not confer automatic notability: even two of Al Gore's children lack articles here. We mention him in his father's biography, and that's enough. If his NGO is notable, then it deserves an article, but not, as far as I can see, its founder. (By the way, I also question the notability of this man's mother: ~~Wife of Vice President of Maldives -- in any case, shouldn't the article, if kept, be called~~ Ilham Hussain.*?) Biruitorul 02:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
*Ah, I see that too exists. Strange.

Redirect. As you mention we usually mention relative in the article of notable family members, but people need to be able to find said info. I therefore suggest redirecting to the material there. Mgm| - 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This article should be not be deleted as notability does apply. Dr. Waheed and his family were made famous during their campaign when ruling parties attempted to discredit him and his family. His son was particularly made a target and is under the public eye, whereas Al Gore's children did not help Al Gore win (or lose) a national election. Dr. Waheed's son is seen to represent the liberal youth in the country, and is seen to have played a significant role in deposing a 30 year dictatorship. Unfortunately, much of the discourse about them is published in their native language and not English - therefore, this might mean it is unsuitable for Knowledge. Here is an Example Gaumee 03:31, 3 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) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete He is clearly non-notable. The son of the vice-president of a rather small nation isn't particularly notable. Also I doubt that unofficial recognition as a liberal youth leader is really encyclopedic.
Delete — It is not the relationship between two people which makes them notable, but rather what they have done elsewhere which was noted in independant, reliable sources which makes them notable. This is not the case here, this son hasn't done anything other than what is stated by the above user. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Not the slightest hint of ntability. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Take Me to the Hospital

Not even released its first record, this record label may be reposted if and when it is notable. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The label is notable enough for a wikipedia page. The single "Invaders Must Die" has been released by the label. And the album "Invaders Must Die" is soon to be released.--Jkneon (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Purely crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. JdeJ (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 1 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) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. –Juliancolton 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Altaic peoples

The whole page is original research, as can be seen by the complete absence of even a single reference. There is a hypothesis for the existance of a language family, Altaic languages and although the majority of linguists these days reject the hypothesis, there's no denying it and that article fully merits its place on Knowledge. This article, Altaic peoples, is another matter. Nobody, not even those suggesting a relationship between Altaic languages has ever suggested an ethnic group such as Altaic people. Including ethnic groups as differen as Turks, Azeris, Mongolians, Koreans, Japanese and many others into the same ethnic group begs belief. While the article is fairly long, all it consists of is a short intro claiming that this ethnic group exists and then a long lists of people supposedly included in it, togheter with a lot of pictures taken from the different people pages. That not even a single source is presented in the whole article is rather telling but not very surprising, as nobody has ever put forward such an ethnic group. The page is original research from the beginning to the end JdeJ (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 1 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) 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete Absolutely no source, and the author went nuts with pictures.

Comment. Indeed, nobody has suggested an ethnic group such as Altaic people, and neither does this article. The title is not "Altaic people" but "Altaic peoples": some peoples are Altaic. In that sense this is very comparable to Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, Iranian peoples, and Turkic peoples – there is no ethnic group such as Turkic people, but there are many ethnic groups that happen to be Turkic. --Lambiam 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as OR, possibly Redirect to Altaic languages. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Sorry to disagree here, but it seems that Google Scholar found quite a few references - cites and more than a few complete scholarly books dedicated to this Genre, as shown here . Likewise, did anyone bother to check the history of this article? ShoesssS 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The fact that you've found such evidence, yet neither the proposing editor nor "delete" voters did so, is more than a little troubling. Badagnani (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep or merge - I've seen no convincing evidence that this substantial page should be deleted, nor evidence that the proposing editor or "delete" voters have researched the issue thoroughly. I'd like to see "Discussion" used before such a proposal is made. Badagnani (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep with the suggestion that editors should try to find references if they are in doubt about deleting something. If there are readily found references, the whole premise of the AfD fails. Collect (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep per comment by Shoessss, references for Altaic people can clearly be found, the article itself just needs some. It should just be tagged {{references}} rather than being AFD'd Pahari Sahib 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep As Shoessss shows, ample sources exist and the nimonation is based on an incorrect premise. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Warrington (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

John Ainsworth

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and he has only had one role. Schuym1 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many links to the article so I thought it would be useful even as a stub.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- But the actor isn't notable. Schuym1 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. RayAYang (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:12, 29 November 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) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete one role and no evidence of independent coverage. --skew-t (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lo Salt

Notability is in question, so let's put it under scrutiny: it is a brand of salt. That's all it is. Not notable. Boshinoi (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not any different from salt substitutes, except perhaps the fact it's not entirely substitute. (Not to mention the fact that our body is susceptible to changes in our potassium levels much more than a change in sodium level)... - Mgm| 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notable product, discussed in many places: are just a few examples found in seconds of looking on Google. JulesH (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Spammy. No good references in article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Note that this AFD was started by a banned user (Jarlaxle/Grawp or an imitator). NawlinWiki (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Even so, regardless of the banned user's intentions, now that I've looked at the article, and have done some research, I have issues with notability based on the content. Geoff (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non notable. A Google search turns up numerous bagel-chips recipes, numerous generic "lo salt" references and ad pages for the product. Geoff (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The poor sources you cite are irrelevant. What matters are the good sources such as those cited by Jules H above. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:45, 2 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) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Close and delist AfD brought by banned user. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that instead of relisting if there weren't 3 good faith "delete" arguments. When this is closed, the reviewing admin will simply ignore the nomination statement which is also "just a !vote" (sic). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I brought that up in a recent AFD that I closed as a speedy keep (see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Britain's Josef Fritzl and corresponding ANI thread. I was reverted due to a combination of already-established consensus to delete, ignoring the rules, and, the one I strongly disagree with, that banned users' edits should stay if they are constructive to the encyclopedia. MuZemike (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, banned nominator notwithstanding this just doesn't seem to have enough reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep/merge There are plenty more sources out there but the article, being slight, might be best merged to Salt substitute. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - A brand named product that captures 84% of a country’s market share, as shown here by reliable - independent sources is pretty notable to me and falls within our notability guidelines. Likewise, as Colonel Warden pointed out, there are “…plenty more sources out there”, as noted above. Worst case scenario should be an article created for Klinge Foods, the manufacturer and only manufacturer in the UK specialized producer of potassium chloride, as noted here and this peice be redirected there. ShoesssS 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. It does assert notability, I've heard the name plenty of times before. TopGearFreak 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Per Shoessss. — neuro 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep It seems like a nice little article that could use some copy editing. Yanksox (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)