Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election#James Ronson (Lanark—Carleton). JForget 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Failed political candidate. Not otherwise notable and does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Recommend redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a very clear precedent for failed political candidates who are otherwise non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Failed political candidate, classic WP:POLITICIAN fail. No objection to redirect following deletion. Ray 07:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect per nominator. CJCurrie (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unsuccessful politician --Saalstin (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. There is indeed a clear precedent for failed political candidates who are otherwise non-notable — but redirection to a candidates list, not outright deletion, is that precedent. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The creator contested the prod. I can't find any sources that show that this album is notable. There is info mixed in the searches about Shena's previous album of the same name. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  14:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, another needless "upcoming" page, little more than a test page. Hairhorn (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete And ugh, we should get a speedy criterion for album articles that aren't more than a description, atemplate, a track listing, and an external link or two. This is less than that. Ray 07:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tan | 39 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - Maybe, just maybe, they might squeak by for being just notable enough per WP:COMPOSER, but it's hard to tell. Determining whether the sources that come up on on a news search are reliable/third-party is difficult for me at least (I don't understand Swedish). The only English-language sites seem to promote their appearance at a seminar for music production software. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO - significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. I couldn't find that in Gnews. Most coverage in English was incidental. Ray 07:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 13 days is enough DGG (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No evidence of reliable source coverage provide or found; news searches for "Jackson Fall"+LivingDigitally & "Jackson Fall"+TeenCasts.tv both came up empty ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unable to find anything, Jackson's fall attracts a lot of coverage skewing any Gnews numbers, and so does Dr Jackson from Fall river!. The website he created doesn't provide any info on these interviews either. -SpacemanSpiff 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- Per the already mentioned lack of coverage and sources. Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria on WP:BIO, and seems more promotional than anything. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Love (2008 Indonesian film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable WP:NF Ronweezlee (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country" as per WP:NF and received a long review in The Jakarta Post. Appears to have been made by notable filmmakers and actors. By the rationale in note 7 to WP:NF, should be kept and improved. I'm placing a reference on W:WikiProject_Indonesia. Zachlipton (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Some notability. Probably worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. getting snowballed here JForget 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable football player, fails WP:ATHLETE and lacking poor notability. ApprenticeFan 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Insufficient notability in my opinion to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Uncertain whether he ever met WP:ATHLETE. Given how lenient that guideline is, uncertainty there is reason enough for me to delete. Ray 07:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep International footballer for Macedonia and therefore easily passes WP:ATHLETE. Did anyone even do a google search before nominating to delete? Borgarde (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What sources with substantial coverage did you find to establish notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Has played in a senior international, as confirmed by the source in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to the international game in the link from the article, this seems to indicate he played for two teams in the top level Yugoslavian league of the time. If online English references are difficult to find, it is hardly surprising for a player outside the major English speaking leagues from the 1980s. Camw (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep passes ATHLETE, represented country internationally. Evidence provided via FIFA records that he played in a WC qualifier, possibly played other games besides.--ClubOranje 01:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - He is one of the all-time top scorers for Macedonia and easily passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; now that it's been expanded with sources, it meets WP:ATHLETE with flying colours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Passes WP:ATHLETE as previously stated Spiderone (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - an international footballer with sources to back it up? Clearly passes WP:ATHLETE - what a weak, lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 09:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: international player easily passes ATHLETE. BigDom 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. After sourcing and reformatting by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) all later participants in the discussion concur that the problems raised by the nominator have been rectified and notability sufficiently demonstrated. ~ mazca 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Company doesn't meet notability requirements, unless it should not consider as verifiability. ApprenticeFan 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Periodicals are difficult to find substantial coverage of because publications dont' often write about one another. I think there are indications of notability and it's enough to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- reads more like an ad than anything else.keystoneridin! (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is periodical-cum-magazine, regularly published for last 7 years. It has its own repute. It had published series of articles on World's best 50 management guru. It also published articles on world's best management books and India's best managers . Who's who writes for the magazine. It carries signifance for business, management, indian industry, etc. Its design layout is very different and diligent. It is also sold out of India in various foreign currency denominations. The magazine regularly features in search results.
I recomnend the article on wiki. Recommend not to be deleted.--Su_hit (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Tie up with CNBC, Launch on Indian Express, Contest coverage on Hindu Business Line, quoted by Hindu Business Line as first in the country to write about the concept of 'Best practices for family businesses', article reprinted in Hindu Business Line, Times of India, profile of the founder, Guardian UK writes about the company, quoted in Financial Express etc. Given that other news outlets consider then reliable and notable enough to quote and republish, or notable enough to write about, it passes our notability criteria. -SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have edited, referenced and stubbed the article. It should pass our notability guideline. -SpacemanSpiff 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per the Spiffster. Priyanath  00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep more than a few sources, as per SpacemanSpiff's post above. JRA_WestyQld2 08:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Placing second in the Chicago Rock Cafe's Rock Idol contest seems insufficient to confer notability. -- Mufka 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It's nice that his buddy decided to write an article for him, but he fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Only coverage is local and notability is insufficient to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1 (nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions registered). No prejudice against renomination when the AGT situation becomes clearer. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Subject fails notability requirements for musicians. No albums released, no affiliation with a major label or indie. Info can't be verified. Appears that's she's mainly known as a child prodigy who sings the national anthem a lot, but that's not enough. This article has had lots of issues since its creation in November but has not improved. Delete it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm of mixed opinions about this. The girl is currently competing in the current season of America's Got Talent, and my personal opinion is that she has a chance to go far in it. If this AFD results in a Delete, I would like to see it be a delete without prejudice against possible recreation if she ends up going far in AGT. From past experience, acts that make the finals of AGT have generally survived AFD. Acts that do not make the finals of a season generally do not (barring notability beyond AGT). My personal bar for notability from AGT would be a bit higher than that, but that's just one editor's opinion. Anyway, while we do not know at this point how far she will go in AGT, I would really not like to see a delete result from this AFD prevent recreation if she does end up going far in the competition. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Reply: I didn't realize that she was a contestant because the article doesn't mention it. The only mention is a category at the bottom, which frankly I forgot to look for. Moreover, there's no apparent reference to substantiate this. If someone can provide a ref, I will support holding this in abeyance until she finishes on AGT. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the episode summary for her preliminary round episode, and here is her preliminary round performance from the NBC website. That's all that has aired so far, though the second round airs tomorrow and Wednesday. The second round will cull out over 3/4 of the remaining acts, so there is a good chance my concerns will be moot after Wednesday. It's purely my opinion/speculation that she is likely to go further.

As for the mention, it was there at one point, but in the in and out of the wall of crap that has been added and removed several times from the rest of the article, it got lost. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then lets see how she does this week, and go from there. Admins: Please put a hold on this discussion until Wednesday, July 29. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Last night she made it through to the Top 40. So she's still in the competition. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How's about I withdraw this without prejudice, meaning it could be submitted for AfD again if she does not progress very far? Then we can revisit the issue until the outcome is determined. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As I said above, my personal opinion of how far advancement in AGT is needed to confer notability is at odds with the AFD history. IMHO making it to the top 10 or so should be enough. But historically, acts that have made it to the top 10, but not the finals, have not survived AFDs. But that aside, we can revisit the issue later if she does not get far in the competition. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  01:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a note that the original lister has basically withdrawn this AFD in the conversation above. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

A one-off event that was cancelled. Doesn't pass WP:notability, patent cruft Trident13 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Looks like fancruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not about the news, particularly news events that never were and will not be. Ray 07:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

contested prod which was removed without improvement to the article. Lacks 3rd party sources. Not clear how this person meets WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER RadioFan (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nada on Gnews, nada on Gscholar. For me, this one is pretty close to borderline A7 (assuming one doesn't consider "defense analyst" for a TV station to be a claim of importance, which I don't). Ray 07:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton |  22:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Normally, I'd suggest a merge. However, there is no article for the book and the author's notability is questionable, there are no independant links. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Purely in-universe. Already exists on a wiki devoted to UFOs and the paranormal. Let it stay there. Ray 07:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wipeout PS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The few sources for the article (all nearly three years old) apparently describe an early version of the game Wipeout HD, which was released for the PlayStation 3 in 2008. There are no references indicating that "Wipeout PS3" is a separate product from Wipeout HD. As there is already an article for Wipeout HD, I'm nominating Wipeout PS3 for deletion. T. H. McAllister (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Might be useful to keep a small section in the article detailing the early development stages of the game. GraYoshi2x► 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no reason for merging. Most Wipeout PS3's information is either present on Wipeout HD or falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I also oppose redirecting since Wipeout PS3 appears to be a misnomer that has never been a used as a proper codename for Wipeout HD. The official announcement clearly states "WipEout for the PS3", not "Wipeout PS3". — Rankiri (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. All the sources do seem to describe the development of Wipeout HD , which is the PS3 version of Wipeout, so there is no reason for this article to exist.--TaerkastUA (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wipeout HD as it's a likely search term. --Jimbo 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is this this particular combination of a game's title and its platform is in any way more notable than any other? If it's not, according to this logic, we should have tens of thousands of similar redirects like The Sims 3 PC, Crysis PC, Fallout 3 Xbox 360, Final Fantasy NES, Final Fantasy PSP, etc. — Rankiri (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirects are cheap. No point in creating them for the such above examples as you mention, but if they're already there then it's easy. --Jimbo 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• With all due respect, it's not a very sound argument. I can argue, for example, that Google returns 34,700,000 results for "The Sims 3 PC", 289,000 results for "Fallout 3 Xbox 360", and only 59,300 results for "Wipeout PS3" (cf. 732,000 for "Wipeout HD"). Do WP:RCAT and WP:NAME support your position? — Rankiri (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep as it reminds me of the article on Gran Turismo Mobile for psp, the game was announced in 2004 as a launch title for psp and as been in development hell ever since. it has barely been given a slated release date and if that article can last that long without being nominated for deletion, i believe this one should be as well. Str8cash (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment All this article does is describe WipEout HD during it's early development stages, and all the sources points to it as well. Unlike Gran Turismo Mobile (now Gran Turismo PSP), which seems to have been revived and has much more sources in that article, explaining the development history etc., there is no firm basis for this article to exist. All the relevant information in this article can be found in Wipeout HD.--TaerkastUA (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete this useless, redundant, confusing, and misleading article. --Slac (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as too specific. Or merge if there is anything useful cited that should be covered in the Wipeout HD article.YobMod 09:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect it. Did you look at the IGN UK site? The images shows that they are from Wipeout HD (or Wipeout HD Fury), so this should be redirected from Wipeout PS3 to Wipeout HD. If you think redirecting it is not a good idea, then delete either way. JMBZ-12 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is IGN's page for Wipeout HD. There is not a single mention of "Wipeout PS3" on it. — Rankiri (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look hard. Read its description and it's main title that reads "WipEout Confirmed for PS3". It did'nt said anything about "Wipeout HD". The entire description was written 2 years ago. JMBZ-12 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails Notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ: The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate this passes any general or specialty notability guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral. Between the prod - I deprodded as it had been deprodded in 2007 - and the AfD nomination, I found and added links to reliable sources that do at least mention the video, including a piece on NPR that discusses the fair use issue of using "I Will Survive" with the video's creator. So there aren't no reliable sources anymore. Whether the coverage amounts to enough to save the article I will leave to the judgement of others. Fences&Windows 22:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The proffered sources look to be brief to passing mentions of the work in the context of broader topics. I'm not sure about the reliability of a couple of them either. Still doesn't seem to be enough to support an article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - numerous mentions in highly notable sources. Thanks for the research Fences and windows. While most of the sources are mentions, as opposed to detailed discussions of the piece itself, the sheer number of sources gives a good case for notability. Even successful internet comedy videos generally don't get much in the way of press, so when one comes up in this many sources, I think we have to take that as our cue. Zachlipton (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage means "sources address the subject directly in detail....Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." One sentence or two in various longer articles about things other than this video do not meet the definition. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but in many of these articles, discussion related to the video gets more than just a sentence or two. Rather, the video is a much more central part of a number of these sources. The mentions are generally more than trivial and the sheer number of articles in reliable third-party sources has to stand for something in balancing the prongs of the Notability test. Zachlipton (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Some people think it's funny, and I don't like it - so what? It is sourced. Springnuts (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – per Springnuts' comments. –Turian 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The media mentions seem very tangential and fleeting. NBeale (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep is a well known internet videoMark E (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete - this product doesn't appear to be notable and the page seems meant to cover a single study. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I couldn't care less about the outcome of this Afd, some of the information probably shouldn't go to waste.--_{Sky Attacker} 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It already cites a news story by a major media group, and there are three journal articles at PubMed (PMID 19384424, PMID 19056485, PMID 16413416): it appears to meet the standard rules for notability quite easily. I'm not exactly happy that Knowledge (XXG) has an article about this product, but we don't hold AltMed stuff to a higher standard than any other product. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Clear keep If there are proper trials and journal articles, it's notable. (This is an encyclopaedia, not a medical textbook.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete - If this article was not about a commercial product, I'd be very much on the Keep side, as it is, I wonder if much of this content shouldn't be moved to a page about the active ingredients. Unfortunately, I can't decypher the article enough to work that out. It should also be noted that there are other pages being set up by competing products, see SOD/CAT. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep I do not see what being a commercial product has to do with the notability. It is a reason to be careful to not use promotional language. I don't see how to move a complex preparation into articles on individual ingredients. BTW, I've been working on SOD/CAT, which is also notable but needs a good deal of editing. DGG (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per VsevolodKrolikov. Str8cash (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there are multiple supporting papers on PubMed, and the article seems to meet all the inclusion criteria at WP:GNG. ---kilbad (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The intention of the article is not covering a single study. The single study just happens to be the most meaningful validation that is available at this time. Admittedly, this product needs further validation. However, it represents a meaningful, albeit, controversial new direction in antioxidant therapy. There is some reason to believe that further studies will be done. Results of the human study are also corroborated by a number of studies of animal and in vitro models. The conceptual basis of the product has context and precedence in the field of antioxidant therapy as described in peer-review medical and scientific literature. (Entropy7 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

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

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

The result was redirect to Slum Village. Whether there is content worth merging is an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

DELETE fails WP:MUSIC and is a non-notable musician/person (or was, as the case may be). JBsupreme (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• What about the option of merging to the group's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• delete per nom Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect and protect. Redirect to Slum Village and fully protect. Due to the news of his death, Baatin is definitely a plausible search term. — Σxplicit 06:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect. Per Explicit. --SquishyVic 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Baatin was one of the original members of Slum Village, a trio with J Dilla, and arguably its most respected and visible rapper. He had a profound affect on rapping. Cosprings (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is helpful to provide sources when making such ridiculous claims. JBsupreme (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - he wasn't notable enough for anyone to create a page while he was still alive, his death doesn't change that. - fchd (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Slum Village --Melly42 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Slum Village. I don't see any advantage to a stand-alone article as what notability there is relates to his involvement in the band. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Slum Village. He is a plausible search item due to his death but unlikely to be so relevant to deserve a page. If nobody considered him worth of a stand-alone article while he was alive he shouldn't have one just because he died. McMarcoP (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep With 38,000 google hits and a death notice in the LA Times the guy sounds notable to me. In compliance with the WP Policy Dead Footballer I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.213.165 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Slum Village because article doesn't demonstrate that Baatin meets this criteria in notability: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Northland Village Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, small non-notable mall, no significant media or any other coverage. I see nothing notable about this mall Kyle1278 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It is a regional mall per ISCA standards (see Shopping Mall) with 510,000 square feet of Gross leasable area. Per a list of past AFD results for malls at the essay Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (shopping centers)#AFD results in table form for easy viewing we have deleted many article about malls of this size. Malls below the "superregiinal size (800,000 square feet) have generally needed something more than mere existence to get kept in AFD. Edison (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep they are the winner of a recipient of a 1998 MAXI Award, the highest award given in the industry that I know of. Exit2DOS 04:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question is the "MAXI Award" truly a notable distinction? If so then I guess keep it. The article really needs work either way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  If the ISCA is notable enough to determine how we classify malls, I'd say their awards are notable enough to convey notability.--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Award appears notable.--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ricky Martin Video Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - no indication that this video release has any independent notability. PROD removed under some "well there might be" rationale. Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Stong Keep: The RIAA database confirms this album as certified platinum in its first week. I do not see what's the big deal over getting it deleted- notable, globally successful artist and official discography. Imperatore (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: My deprod was pretty clear ("appears to be a notable video collection - add sourced claim of notability") not sure what the "well there might be" is in reference too. I then added the ref to Platinum certification, which is a pretty big deal and indicates clear notability. That should be plenty, but just to make notability crystal clear, it is the subject of 9 reliable source news stories: --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Per TB. Joe Chill (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article creator nom for deletion: I first created this article many months ago by merging Fire Nation, Air Nomads, Earth Kingdom, Water Tribe, and Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender. This was kind of in my early days of article editing; I didn't really understand the notability criteria. While the article of Avatar: The Last Airbender is quite notable, because there are many reliable sources that report in detail on it, the same cannot be said for this article, which is entirely in universe by nature. It does not have any reliable sources that are not mentioned in either the main article or the character list, and so the article simply does not meet the general notability criteria. NW (Talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: For such an elaborate work on a notable show, it would be brutal to delete outright. However, certain innocuous details can be deleted to condense the article. Begin with removing the unreliable sources, since you know the page best.Imperatore (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To remove the unreliable, in-universe material would end up with an article looking like this. Which is a carbon copy of this. There is literally nothing else useful within the article. NW (Talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete: Since you created this by the merge as you claim, then of course you know best about the material. I commend your conviction to have it deleted now that you are an editor more aware of notability issues. Imperatore (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as it is the universe of a popular show, just as the star wars universe. I'm not too familiar with the show but i have heard of it and think it has enough evidence to be kept. Str8cash (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If the subject is notable, as you say, then just improve the article. AfD is not for cleanup. We shouldn't discard potentially adequate articles because we are for whatever reason reluctant to do them right. DGG (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• The nominator actually suggested that the list is not notable. –Juliancolton |  03:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator: The article cannot possibly be improved from the current state. Even if it were cleaned up and the prose, flow, etc. was made perfect, the article would still have to be deleted, as it is a content fork whose scope is too "in-universey" to merit writing about. I am familiar with the subject, and have researched it for related articles' FA/FL drives. There is literally no secondary reliable sources that apply to this article. NW (Talk) 04:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It is quite reasonable to have information on a notable series in a universe article. Dream Focus 10:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Excessive plot and OR that would not be part of the series article, so it is not an acceptable spin-out. No significant coverage on the topic of the "universe" of Avatar in any reliable, third-party sources. Kudos to the nominator for learning the notability guidelines better and taking steps to correct things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I understand as the page's creator wishes to be deleted, but before I give an actual opinion, note that Universe of Kingdom Hearts is a GA - wouldn't it be possible to do something similar in this case? The Flash 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, as there are no third party sources discussing it. Kingdom Hearts is a more unique situation as its "universe" draws on numerous famous locations and fictional characters. However, I'd seriously question that article being a "good article" considering how much of it is unsourced. I suspect it will be delisted when it is revaluated in a GAR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see any missing citations on that page... The Flash 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nominator's request. The Flash 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: The article does have good information, and I'm sure with the movie coming out there are more sources to be found. Most of this information could be backed up by citing the episodes. Liquidluck (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Alexf 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Irbisgreif (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a non-notable hoax. And before someone cries "it doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria" (and it should) please remember WP:IAR for the good of the project. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a hoax speedy tag now. I have added it to the article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:N JForget 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lincolnshire basketball association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unremarkable local basketball league, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero google news hits RadioFan (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, no different from any other small sports group without coverage. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely not notable and lack of coverage. Imperatore (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, coverage in local newspapers. http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/ --Zakmaples47 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment still not enough for the "significant" coverage required by WP:N--RadioFan (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Only covered in local news. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

little more than a definition. Relies upon a single source. Recommendation to copy to wiktionary contested. RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, ETA that we have Relationship between religion and science. The idea that "religious scientists" is an encyclopedic concept is a silly one. john k (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, agree that this won't go past a definition. I'm assuming that we have a religion and science article to which the single source could be merged. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, it can eventually accommodate renowned people from the field and expand on their work. Imperatore (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Could you improve the article to demonstrate the kind of "renowned people" you are referring to?--RadioFan (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Ill-defined, feels like POV-pushing (certainly content-forking).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Come to think of it, marrying religion with science, isn't that an oxymoron somehow? I might just change end up changing my opinion to delete. Imperatore (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Spiritual firemen, Deistic bureaucrats and Pious truck drivers. Useless definition, non-encyclopedic classification. See Relationship between religion and science#The attitudes of scientists towards religion. — Rankiri (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a dicdef and the sort of pov-magnet that would attract pushers from either side of the argument without doing much to improve this encyclopedia. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - should we have non-religious scientists too? I removed a transwiki tag, because this is even less a dictionary entry than it is an encyclopedic entry. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The definition offered isn't even correct. Being "religious" and believing that god exists are wildly different things. Hairhorn (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Relationship between religion and science. While this is a valid AfD, as it is currently unsourced and has little or no content, I strongly disagree with the comments which seem to dismiss the idea that religious scientists exist. They do. See Galileo, Issac Newton, etc, and studies such as here and here. Such an article could exist if properly sourced and its notability substantiated; it's certainly not any more POV than List of atheists (science and technology). If in the future a List of religious scientists or a List of scientists who believe in God crops up, it may have to redirect there. -RunningOnBrains 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. While I don't see any comments suggesting that religious scientists don't exist, I'd be fine with the redirect that you suggested, as it is a plausible search term. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Wong Kiew Kit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shaolin Wahnam Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article's only sources are online self-references (a single URL belonging to the site of the organization) and the article is filled with nonsense. The article rambles on incoherently about kung fu and Zen, without the relevance being very clear and with some obviously incorrect facts. One major inaccuracy includes the claim that Bodhidharma invented kung fu. Knowledge (XXG)'s article on Kung fu notes that this is false. But this article claims that he created "Cosmos Chi Kung" and "Sinew Metamorphosis". The article also says, "Chi Kung practiced at the mind level cures any disease, including diseases considered by some as incurable, such as cancer, diabetes, ulcers and cardiovascular disorders." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Cut out the nonsense and merge with Wong Kiew Kit. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about this institute apart the notability of its founder.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• merge, agree with Vsevolod. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody removed much of the nonsense, which was basically the entire article. I'm not sure what's left now that could be merged (what isn't already present in Wong Kiew Kit). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• redirect to Wong Kiew Kit. No content worth merging at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• agree.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. While the article needs cleanup, the subject is notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

This looks like blatant advertising to me - and I can't see an obvious way to salvage it. However, I'm sparing it from {{db-spam}} and bringing it over for discussion, as it looks like there is potentially a notable topic buried here - possibly more so for the architecture of the building than for the company itself. I'm not sure how anything longer than a one-paragraph stub could be extracted from the current article, though, and can't see an obvious way to expand on it.  – iridescent 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Metropolis Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Metropolis Mastering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – iridescent 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - A quick search through Google news brings up many articles about the work this company has done and profiles on the company itself. The article needs a clean-up but the company is definitely notable. Panyd 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Panyd. Don't even know why Iridescent nominated this.--_{Sky Attacker} 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Highly promotional vanity article. Needs serious editing, starting with removing all the equipment lists. That's just advertising. Hairhorn (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem i think, this AfD is flawed because all three articles nominated for deletion: Metropolis Group, Metropolis Studios & Metropolis Mastering are linked together. Shouldn't they have been each nominated separately?? If so, then this AfD is not valid. If this issue is not going to be considered then KEEP because Metropolis is a genuine, legitimate and reputable studio. That said, I believe that the user named AndreBski is this company's meat puppet. I came to this conclusion when I caught him posting spam to the Audio_mastering article with a video made by Metropolis mastering engineers. He is also the author of all three articles about Metropolis. Clearly, this user didn't come to contribute but to promote and he does appear to be an employee of this company. So, I would merge all three into one and delete the other two. Jrod2 (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability. Google, etc. reveal nothing substantive. (Though you should be careful to not confuse this person with "Jürgen Schröder." --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to check the source „who is who“ from 1981/82 in Google books and couldn't find the name in any spelling (schröder, schroder, schroeder, Schrodër). In connection with „stevedoring“ (excluding Knowledge (XXG)) there is absolutely nothing. It's not even clear how the person is spelled correctly. I'm not a very active contributor here, so I won't vote, but I don't think he is notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). --elya (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Unable to find anything that asserts notability for this individual. Panyd 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps a hoax — German doesn't use "ë". Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the references provided are a "personal interview" (OR?), and Who's Who, a work whose entries are generally written by their subjects. That's assuming that the claim is true in the first place, which it may not be. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans National Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article had promise several years back, but the topic -a proposed supertall skyscraper in Boston, Massachusetts- does not appear to even be proposed at the moment. The last news sources are more than a year old. Their are no plans to even begin preparing a building site, and the current building on the proposed site is a city parking garage which is still open, without plans to close or demolish it. The proposal (as well as this article) date back to a period when financing was still readily available for projects like this, and the likelihood this building would be fully developed was high and justified the article. With the economic crash, this plan is effectively shelved indefinitely, and no longer warrants an article. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that I am the original editor who created the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be notable, and if something was once notable, it's still notable. I can't find any other problems with the article to make it deserve deletion, either. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: As Nyttend says, notability is not temporary. Neither WP:N nor WP:CRYSTAL requires that something happen for certain to warrant an article, and that the current economic climate has this project on hold doesn't change that it hits WP:V. A great many articles are about plans or projects that never came to fruition, but as long as they fulfill the requirements of WP:V, they don't need to have done so.  RGTraynor  22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Nyttend and RGTraynor. While Emporis indicates this is still an active proposal, if the building's construction is canceled, it will still be notable; when the project was active it received significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Cheers, Rai•me 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Merging can be dealt with elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Death of Corazon Aquino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I don't quite understand why we have a "Death of" article here. There's nothing particularly notable about the death - not murder, not assassination, known or suspected. The death appears totally natural. It easily fits into the main article. merge any useful information into the main article and then delete. Tim Song (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete a normal death with nothing to warrant its own article. Davidelit (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: does not warrant separate article rest of the information can be merged to main article. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not the news, and Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. As with the recent Resignation of Sarah Palin, this is an excuse for a large section called "reaction to ______". I'm sure there's going to be someone who says, "The article about __________ will become way too big if we put all this in." Not an excuse. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• merge anything of use to the article on Corazon Aquino. I'm assuming of course, that there's information here that isn't already in the main article. if not, then a delete will be fine. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge useful content into Corazon Aquino. Notability of her death has not been established. (i.e. She is obviously notable, but this event boils down to an elderly person dying from natural causes. ) Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. APK that's not my name 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand - Considerably coverage has been given to her death particularly in the Philippines and the event itself has strong emotional impact with a lot of people. While it did not happen like a bang for instance an assassination, it still has a lot of relevance due to the coverage given to related preceding events such as her cancer. I suggest an expansion of the article and a rename to Health and death of Corazon Aquino which will give background to the event as well as everything surrounding it.--122.53.110.189 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. Her death is not a "normal" death since it received coverage prior to the event itself.--122.53.110.189 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content into Corazon Aquino. Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper or a memorial site. Edison (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or as a second choice merge per nom. I would like to express my gratitude that this article has not yet been filled with dozens of "international reactions" which are all substantially identical to each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. While I agree that her death has had a very strong emotional resonance here in the Philippines, where the media coverage remains wall-to-wall, I also think the death by itself is not notable. I think the best model to look at here is Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, where the totality of events from death to funeral justified the article on the death from natural causes of an old man. I would delete/merge for now, and reassess after her funeral on Wednesday if someone creates a new article similar to that of Reagan, and if the events justify it. Strong keep, per Sky Harbor, Starczamora, Shrumster and candlewicke. Enough sources out there to approximate the massive impact in the Philippines of the death rites by itself. The funeral procession alone was 8 hours long and involved estimates of several hundred thousand people. --Anyo Niminus --Anyo Niminus (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe it is too early to tell whether the event is notable in itself or not. The event is still currently ongoing and further information would still occur so deletion would be premature.--122.53.98.48 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• • • Additionally, the article could be written like the Death of Mozart.--122.53.98.48 (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now - then merge later - We must keep for now because it is a current event. If the article doesn't improve, the useful information in this article should be merged with its main article Corazon Aquino. Estudyante (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is in current event mode, we'll merge it later if there are no significant things on the article that would make it inherently notable.--JL 09 14:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll change my comment, but still strong keep. Besides it gave deep and solemn gratitude towards the Filipino. Remember that Cory Aquino is a well-known democratic icon in Asian history, perhaps her initiated People Power Revolution resonated across oceans and caused, somehow, modeled into different countries like Nepal, Germany and some Communist states to do the same peaceful revolution. (Plus her role being the first Filipino and Asian woman to hold highest government position.) Say, her funeral procession, according to the Philippine National Police, by around 5:30 pm Philippine time, was attended by more than 300,000 crowd (and now it's 7:30 Philippine time now, and I guess it's growing) and that was a remarkable funeral ever recorded in Philippine history (first was being the assasination of her husband Ninoy Aquino, but I guess Ninoy's death in 1983 deserves an article at least especially that 26 years after, the gunmen and mastermind was not yet surfacing, his death initiated the People Power, and it was attended by 2 million crowd). Therefore, we must go hand-in-hand by expanding the article further. I agree to previous posts, Cory Aquino's death was due to natural death, but we have Gerald Ford's death which deals with natural death too, Ronald Reagan' death, Gabon's Omar Bongo (who had colorectal cancer as what Aquino had), and Canada's Pierre Trudeau, all of which had natural deaths: if this so, what is special about their deaths? (Noting that there are no much significant historical roles asserted to them) If these things deserve an article, why not for an important history icon? (Note that death section goes too long, and the whole article itself is now 63 kb long, and this is subjected for division per WP:SPLIT.)--JL 09 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect article into Corazon Aquino. ---kilbad (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Corazon Aquino. There is plenty of coverage surrounding her death that would make good content in that article, but the death itself is not notable in terms of having its own article. --Nick—/_Contribs 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge. Complete the article here and put it into the main article as a subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglestorm (talk • contribs)
• Merge to Corazon Aquino. Most of the data in here is already present in the subsection of her death. we can just expand on that one to accomodate new data. the reactions can also be condensed into a smaller section, since the reactions of various leaders are unanimous Flamerounin (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, we can just distribute all the other details that will appear later to other sections, such as legacy or achievements. This will make it easier for readers. Flamerounin (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Merge. Easier for readers is the most important thing. Unless size contraints force splitting (a la Michael Jackson), then it is better for readers to find this information all on the page of the person. The death of every higly notable person will have many many reliable sources covering it with todays media, but that is not a reason to split all deaths into separate articles.YobMod 09:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Expasnsion. This requires expansion because the cause is not thorougly explained and other facts should be added, too. Ryomaandres 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as per some comments above. Unlike Michael Jackson's death, there's nothing controversial about the circumstances surrounding her death, so I think there's nothing else onto which one goes deeper. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- I believe that there is enough information out there for the article to stick unfortunately most of it is restricted to the Filipino audience so unless a devoted Filipino Wikipedian is willing to contribute that information may be stuck there in space. Anyway state funerals of heads of state usually get their own articles so why shouldn't hers count?--122.53.98.48 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• Delete A "typical" death (unlike Assassination of Benazir Bhutto) that does not warrant a spinout article. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A president of the Philippines was 'not' welcomed to the funeral and a State Funeral was refused. This is notable. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If you insist that the article about the head of state of an Asian coutnry be deleted, then I might as well nominate all the articles on the death of former US presidents deleted as well, since they also contain the same information that you think should make this article deletable. Having said that, I propose that all information about the circumstances surrounding her death and all other information relating to the funeral plans---including the masses of over 100,000 people who witnessed the transfer of her remains to the Manila Cathedral (not every deceased US president can boast of having commanded a crowd that many on their funerals)---be included on this article as well, as this has received a very significant amount of coverage, even from the international media. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge to the death section, although some foreign leaders expressing Aquino's death by some news channels. ApprenticeFan 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rename and refocus to an article that covers the wake and funeral. The death is not really notable, but the wake and funeral seems to be quite notable. --seav (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm...now that makes more sense. A rename/move would be more like it. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino a la Death and funeral of Ronald Reagan, et al. Originally, as I was looking through the article, I was about to vote for its deletion as it is true that cardiopulmonary death as a result of colon cancer is indeed not notable. However, the fact that people have gone to her wake in droves, the subsequent controversy over Aquino refusing a state burial and the impending funeral (which is tomorrow) is enough motivation to allow this article to stand. In this case, the funeral is most certainly notable, and the article should be renamed to reflect the current state of affairs. --Sky Harbor 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing that can't be covered in the main article. TheCoffee (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rename and keep this article as per Sky Harbor, speedy delete this one. In fact, the "Death" section is getting long in the Corazon Aquino article, yet the info on that section is not in the spinoff article. –Howard the Duck 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to Death and Tribute to Corazon Aquino as per title by 23prootie.---122.53.98.48 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• Comment - The outline of the article should follow that of tl:Ang Pagpanaw at Parangal kay Corazon Aquino in the Tagalog Knowledge (XXG) based on the Death of Mozart.--122.53.98.48 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing remarkable about the manner of her death, eg not an assassination. Her death should just be a coda in the main article. The "international reaction" is just cruft, such comments follow any leader's death. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename: As per Sky Harbour, in fairness with the article Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, whose death can be considered just as "(not) remarkable" as Aquino's. However, the importance of her death for "uniting the Filipino nation once more" can be prominent in future years, depending on its actual impact on the attitude of the Philippine government towards corruption and progress. Truflip99 (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename: Agree with what Truflip99 said, the article is important like Reagan, John Paul II and even Michael Jackson. Not to be bias, the article is a historical event. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename into Death and Funeral of Corazon Aquino. With the deluge of coverage that is being held in the Philippines, we can say that it is notable enough. We can also include how different media outlets delivered the coverage, such as the live web streaming by GMA Network (which was incorporated on Facebook a la CNN.com, a first in local media). We can also include the flaks that happened during that period, like what the dimwit Willie Revillame did over Wowowee. Starczamora (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While the death itself may not be that notable, the wake and funeral events definitely were. Massive crowds, crazy media coverage, a bit of controversy all boil down into an interesting and quite encyclopedic story. Shrumster (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Sky Harbor. I agree that this at worst has had a similar impact to other death articles mentioned (and certainly more so than Reagan and possibly Omar Bongo too) and there is enough information available to merit this article. --candle•wicke 17:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As per previous comments re: "Death and funeral" articles. However the current name (with the addition of "tribute") seems a bit much, while that is technically what is going on. User:Mav-TGIF 03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.243.96 (talk)
• Strong Keep - The length of this discussion is an obvious proof of the notability of the event. - User:23prootie 11:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.110.189 (talk)
• Keep after rename. I am now persuaded that the new developments following the initial nomination justified a keep. I disagree, however, that the length of the AfD discussion can somehow be a proxy for notability. Tim Song (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Request closure Seeing as now even the nominator has supported retention, I think it's right to finally close this AfD. --Sky Harbor 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested CSD. Article covers a student. Asserted basis for notability includes (1) an incident with an archbishop. Verified, but his role is not substantial; (2) forming the "Vietnam Academic Network". No WP:RS found; refs given are only to primary sources (press releases, &c.). (3) receiving an allegedly prestigious fellowship and studying under a well-known professor. Hardly basis for notability. GNews returned a few hits, most arising from the archbishop incident. Tim Song (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• You seem to have verified the incident and the news coverage, shouldn't then perhaps the article just focus on him for that reason alone? I would say of course his role is substantial in that incident, look at the way it was reported. The incident was also covered by the tv media in the UK. The coverage focuses on three individuals and matthew tye is one of whom they quote substantially.

I had a look at the primary source material but they seem to confirm the existence of such a network.

Agree with you on 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.57 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E seems to control w/r/t to 1, as the archbishop incident does not appear to be that important. As to 2, I don't doubt the VAN's existence, but it does not appear to be notable. The founder of a nonnotable organization is not notable. Tim Song (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I saw this guy on Royal Holloway News for setting up VAN, so there's no doubt about its existence: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Messages/press/message.asp?ref_no=1905 Rhul243 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE User:Rhul243 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. I am striking the comments. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could we have more administrators views on this please? One admin in the discussion page said it VAN could be secondary verified then it should stay. I certainly agree that the founder of a nonnotable organization is not notable, but in this case it would seem this person has not just come to fame for setting it up but the other mainly archbishop incidnet

Not sure why the archbishop incident is not that important because it was reported by the main mmedia agencies —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the AXA fellowship 'alledgly 'prestigious'? I checked out the AXA resrach fund and it returned thousands of hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are talking about my comment. Regrettably, I'm no admin. :( The archbishop incident is not that important as to justify ignoring the general WP:BLP1E rule. Normally a single event is insufficient to justify a whole article on a participant. This is not on par with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, the example given in the policy where a standalone article is appropriate. I said 'allegedly' because there's no secondary source cited in the article concerning how prestigious the award is. Every award would like to label itself as prestigious, that does not mean it is actually prestigious. Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've read the Background section and see he's got the Churchill award. Isn't that significant enough - young people particualry don't get that kind of thing. Reading the reports looks like he was the youngest one to get it.

Yes perphaps this article is not all there, but somehow I think we'll see seeing and hearing a lot more from this guy in the future, thenWiki might consider doing a page!--77.98.27.57 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--77.98.27.57 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the Churchill award, the cited sources came from him or his school. That's not very reliable. That he might be notable in the future is insufficient to justify inclusion. WP:CRYSTAL.Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I checked it out on the organisations website and he's listed - with a report. It's also been reported by The Times Newspaper although those links were not cited.

Seems like nothing he's done is worth anything - or the archbishop incident. Should a section be created under Vincent nichols --77.98.27.57 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)the archbishop) then??

• What about someone upload a photo? And get all the links sorted out - they are out there so someone just needs to put them in.--77.98.27.57 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Given that the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce has about 27,000 fellows, I don't think this counts as being "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" under WP:PROF #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see David Eppstein try for a Fellowship at age 21 - when the Society has a policy to only award them to those over 25 years of age. This kid has done something remarkable and he has been righly awarded this fellowship. Get your facts right too - there are 27,000 fellows around the world and this includes all those who are alive

Who becomes a Fellow?

Fellows have typically achieved or show the potential to achieve against the following criteria:

• • made a practical contribution to civil society through voluntary, social or community organisations
  • challenged current thinking; shown bravery or innovation in their actions; or pioneered positive change
  • used their expertise and enthusiasm to participate in RSA projects or wider work
  • demonstrated participation in communities and networks, and shown a generosity in sharing ideas and resources
  • reached a high level of accomplishment or expertise and demonstrated leadership in their field
  • worked to raise awareness or increase participation in issues of political priority, cultural importance, or scientific merit
  • held a position of seniority or influence in their sphere or have the capacity to engage and inspire others
  • been recognised or commended in industry awards, voluntary schemes or national honours aligned to the RSA's aims

--77.98.27.57 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--77.98.27.57 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Insufficient notability to this point to meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article was promotional at points and did not rely on the best available sources, but I think it's in better shape now. The subject has received some independent attention (and it turns out he was also a local celebrity in Birmingham as a teenager). We can certainly verify a series of small awards and other achievements over the last decade, and I think it adds up to a reasonable basis for an article, even if no individual detail would make us want to write one about him. EALacey (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be a clear consensus against my opinion (perhaps I have too much investment after partially rewriting and resourcing the article), so I think it's about time this discussion was closed. Also, I would like to disassociate myself from the personal attacks that appear below against some users favouring deletion. EALacey (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Except for the incident in the dinner, thoroughly non-notable, and that one is a classic BLP One Event. RSA Fellows are sometimes notable, but not always--as this article shows. DGG (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It's in better shape now and has received better edits. It reads like a proper WIKI page. He has had considerable success over the years and the article shows this and has been involved in countless celebrity incidents as well as an outstanding academic record at his aage. --77.98.27.57 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 77.98.27.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think everyone is missing the point about RSA fellow - their standard regulations means now-one can become a fellow before the age of 25, but this guy has achieved it aged 21. That's something - and they have elected him for the reasons the article outline.

Dispute the incident with the Archbishop - because it reached the international press - we are not talking just about he UK media

Someone shoudl add the Turkish link please; --77.98.27.57 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly fails on all WP:Prof criteria that are applied on these pages. Being a local celebrity in Birmingham as a teenager and being involved in what the Oxford police describe as a private incident in the presence of an archbishop, but in which the archbishop was not himself involved, do not yet make for notability on general grounds. 77.98.27.57 has done 26 out of his 32 edits on the subject of Matthew Tye? Would he care to tell us if he has any relationship to the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

No - I have no relation to the subject. If you check carefully, those were minor edits like changing a word or two. The article has been drastically revised by someone not connected to the subject EALacey. I think you need to read again about the archbishop incident and understand what it was all about. There is nothing dubious at all. Anyway - this guy has a long track record. How can wiki justify having others on its pages that meet no criteria at all - like a swimmer for instance whose won no medals etc etc and this guy whos long track record goes back you don't like? Tell me what have you got against his achievements, notability and constant occurance in the media??? Please justify yoursefl 77.98.27.57 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that my question was replied to by EALacey and not by 77.98.27.57, a UK IP. Are EALacey and 77.98.27.57 one and the same? Xxanthippe (talk).

Actually, it was 77.98.27.57 who replied to your question. See this diff. I presume you were misled by the fact (s)he wrote a two-paragraph reply, ending the first paragraph with my username. (I've taken the liberty of combining the two paragraphs.) I am not 77.98.27.57 and I disagree with most of what (s)he has said. EALacey (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

• Weak delete. There's a lot of sourced detail in this article but nothing that really stands out as justifying its existence: he got a couple of student fellowships, he joined a society for the promotion of the arts, he had an argument with a cleric. The closest, for me, is the award and press for his teen community organizer work, but I don't think that's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. According to me, AXA award is extremely hard to achieve. Only 14 people in Europe, so it quite stands out. Especially he's the only one from Oxford/Cambridge as I saw in the list 123.26.38.242 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — 123.26.38.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep

Nothing that justify's its existence - why have you just contradicted yourself by saying there is a lot of sourced material???

The page now has been edited to include his track record - in the media and out! He didn't join a society for the arts (FSA) - he was 'elected' after being recommended by the Churchill trustees. This is not some guy who goes around seeking fame (unlike some).

Your fact is also wrong that he had an argument with a cleric. Instead this was a major national religious controversy - see the news archives for that, with Turkisk and Chinese press doind articles to. That alone is justification for it to be kept.

His teen work is notable but you 'don't think it's quite enough'. How about do nothing - don't do anything for the community and laze around all day. I think you treat this guy with contempt. It is apparent from checking on the wiki history that the user david eppstein has been involved in a number of spurious and off the cuff attempts to get pages deleted without good reasons. If this article was rubbish then it should be deleted - but clearly not and he has done a lot. Why knock him back for that kind of notability - in the press, in the academic field and in the community??? At one point the article was just about the peter jennings controversy but wiki users have independently reshaped the whole thing. good on them--BirminghamAV (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I dissociate myself from the above comments. David Eppstein is an energetic and productive editor on these pages with formidable qualifications himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. As pointed-out in various entries above, the subject clearly made significant achievements as an undergrad, probably much more than average. I don't see that there's any dispute about this and I'm sure the commentators here would see this as quite commendable. However, this does not permit us to side-step the salient question: whether any/all of these achievements clear the notability hurdle as codified by WP:PROF, in particular #3. (The religious controversy appears to be WP:BLP1E.) I concur with others above that they do not. Specifically, in my view, the strongest claim would be the fellowship. If this fellowship were independently notable, i.e. having its own well-established WP page, the case for the subject here might be much stronger (though not necessarily a slam-dunk, see below). I do not dispute that there is some level of prestige attached to this award, but it is unclear how it would be distinguished from numerous other prestigious awards. One of the commentators above wants to give increased weight to the fact that the subject was awarded this fellowship before he was formally eligible (according to fellowship by-laws), but this does not change the status of the award itself. Even if the fellowship were notable, his award would not necessarily qualify him. In particular, consensus holds that undergrad or early-in-career awards alone do not qualify one because they are not necessarily given for achievements that are "notable enough" for WP notability. One needs only to check, for example, the list of Putnam Fellows (an award that is undoubtedly much more prestigious than the RSA award) to see that most of the recipients do not have their own WP page. That said, it is quite possible that the subject will be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL says his page will have to wait until then. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC).
• Delete - receiving a fellowship, even a prestigious one, and even under unusual circumstances, is not enough to satisfy encyclopedic notability. I'm sure his mother is very proud, but it doesn't cut it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the comments everyone. It would seem that somebody included his name in the list to be deleted of academics in addition to the normal nomination. Check cafeully, and you will see that originally the article was about a national religious controversy that he was involved in. His academic background i what made the event so significant and this has been drawn out as shown above. It's great to see so many people taking pro-active steps to edit the article and in the end its up to the administrators to decide if they is anything (or more) that justifys keeping it.

I don't think he is claiming academic notability - and the waters seem unclear now as to wether the article falls under - academics, news, celebrity or other.--77.98.27.57 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes the 'basic' criteria. Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Article should be removed from list of academic to be deleted discussions as the subject is not claiming academic notability--BirminghamAV (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have struck out your keep comment because you already had a keep earlier. Although AfDs are not a vote, you should still include at most one boldfaced "keep" or "delete". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

   * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
   * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

• Note - WikiKing has been indef blocked as a sock puppet of BirminghamAV. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The awards themselves are not being contested, so sourcing is not the relevant issue. It is the notability that these awards would help to confer upon the subject that is being challenged, quite successfully I would say. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

• Delete I was not aware that enduring historical notability is conferred by organizing trash sweeps, or winning student fellowships, or getting into an argument with an archbishop. Ray 02:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not even as notable as that. The archbishop was only present during the course of the argument with somebody else. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

If that is the case then a section should be merged onto th archbishops page - as all the independent news coverage is verified and from reliable main-stream sources.

I would still contest that the awards are not notable. There is one 'local'award, the rest are national and international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.57 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop incident - notable enough to make mainstream media headlines. Nobdoy has nominated him for historical notability. Again there seem to be some contemptous views on here about what a young person can can't can be recognised for. --BirminghamAV (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NOTNEWS? Tim Song (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" - this justified both an article on the Archbishop incident and another separate one on the subject.

Perhaps you will now stop harassing this article and its subject whom you have no relation to. If you can justify why this article should be deleted then sensibly say so, if not, stop wasting peoples time with patheticness--BirminghamAV (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If anybody cares to carefully check out the nominator for deletion - Tim Song, he has been involved in countless attempts for speedy deletion. These have been declined as the material has been verified.

I should also note that he has a subjective interest against the subject re the archbishop incident. He tried to establish a St Ann's page but this was declined. I sujest if people cannot remain neutral and hold their religious views to one side then they should not be commenting. Wiki's policy is that some material may offend others (e.g. sexual) but this is no justification for its removal--BirminghamAV (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While we are engaged in detective work I note that BirminghamAV created the Matthew Tye page and has made no edits outside that subject. Matthew Tye lives in Birmingham. Is there a connection? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

• Delete There is no doubt that the subject fails WP:PROF so keeping the article depends on finding some other criterion to judge the subject as notable. The information about his mother, schooling and community work is commendable but not relevant for WP:GNG, and the academic achievements fail WP:PROF. Being insulted at a dinner where an archbishop is present is trivia unless secondary sources have an analysis that the "national religious controversy" is somehow significant. Likewise, co-founding VAN-UK is only significant if sources verify the significance. That leaves the awards: "youngest recipient of a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship" and the "Max Cary Memorial Award for a photographic project" and the "AXA Doctoral Research Fellowship". There is no verification that these awards are sufficiently notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The preceding entry by Johnuniq seems to be the most accurate and concise description of this case. The closing admin should please read it carefully. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

The 'closing admin'??????? - you're so dead set against this article that you've already decided that it should be deleted. Well let me tell you this, the article meets numerous criteria. It has not claimed academic notability but basic notability. The very fact that this extensive discussion has gone on has shown how contenious the subject is. --77.98.27.57 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, "the closing admin". This individual will read this whole debate, evaluating all the points, and make a closing decision. And, yes, you restate the obvious in "you've already decided that it should be deleted" – I said so above in no uncertain terms and gave what I feel are pretty good supporting arguments. With all due respect, the emotional tone of some of the "keep" votes here and WP:SPA nature of some the accounts suggests that these commentators are ignorant of the way the AfD process actually works. I'm afraid emotion does not typically carry much weight. The merits and supporting facts, cold and unemotional as they may be, will hold far more sway. Again, with all due respect, comments that ratchet-up the emotional, combative tone of the debate are very likely to only hurt your cause. The fact of the matter is that the subject of the article is a student and, while his early accomplishments are impressive within the context of being a student, they do not rise above what a very long and established consensus here on WP considers to be notable without the constraints of such context. I'm sorry that this position does not accord with some of the views here, but my experience with these sorts of AfDs indicates this one will very likely end in a "delete". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

The AfD process was initiated by an individual who has subjective interests against the subject. He has failed to disasociate himself. The fact of the matter is the subject is a student - correct, but also a celebrity, and also a person involved in constsitently in the media headline and also an exceptional track record. If this article ends in a delete then there are a zillion (yes - zillion) other non-notable articles that need to be taken off the site. At the end of the day, if people want to be bitter that is their problem, wiki editors should be proactively doing constructive engagements with the site. --BirminghamAV (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would humbly suggest that as WP currently has less than 3m articles, it would probably be very difficult to remove "a zillion"--Saalstin (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - would appear to be an accomplished student, but not a notable person. User:Johnuniq makes the arguments most eloquently --Saalstin (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per Johnuniq. No evidence of meeting Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Readers of this page will note that the creator of the Matthew Tye article {{subst:spaBirminghamAV}}has been ] for 72 hours. His three sockpuppets {{subst:spaRhul243}}, {{subst:spaWikiKing2012}} and {{subst:spa77.98.27.57}} have been blocked permanently. If the block expires before the termination of the AfD I would appreciate a reply to the question that I asked earlier.

A note on the Archbishop's dinner: The story I get from the media references in the Matthew Tye article is that at a Catholic Church dinner in the presence of an archbishop a church worker verbally abused Tye, allegedly calling him "a worthless s****". The church worker claims that he had been goaded into responding when Tye had been telling people at the dinner that the worker had been sacked from a previous job. Tye denies saying that. Tye then complained to the archbishop, the worker and the police, who declined to act. It is not known who leaked the scandal to the media. Tye's letter to the archbishop was also leaked to the media. There is clearly more than one side to the story but the Matthew Tye article paints Tye as the blameless victim. This is another deficiency of the article but, as it is likely to be deleted soon, I will leave it alone. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

• Comment: I agree with Johnuniq. I write to note that BriminghamAV's accusations are completely without basis and downright preposterous. First, most if not all of my CSD tagging comes from patrolling new pages. And in the vast majority of them the reviewing admin agreed with my assessment. Second, the claim that I created/contributed to St. Anne's Society is so ridiculous that I actually laughed out loud when I saw it. All that I did (page history here) was tagging it for CSD G11 and then removing the tag when the author contested it and I reflected further on the subject. Tim Song (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Johnuniq - he sums it up well. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus leans towards deletion, but various solutions have been suggested that would rectify the problems raised here without wholesale deletion of the article - possibly involving cutting it down and merging info elsewhere. There is sufficient argument in favour of this path that I do not think a consensus to delete has yet been established. I would recommend a renomination of this article in the intermediate future if the unmaintainability and navigability problems remain unsolved. ~ mazca 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of defunct United States railroads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In short, this single list is too unmaintanable, and has been replaced by lists by state.

It has about 2000 railroads listed. I just finished redoing the pages listed on Template:US railroad lists for all 50 states and D.C., listing all defunct railroads I could find; the total number is over 10,000 railroads. In addition, about half of the companies on list of defunct United States railroads didn't actually build or operate anything; they were just chartered and left to die, and should not be listed. (I checked each one that was on that list but not on one of the state lists, and got under 20 that needed to be added to the state lists.)

This has also been discussed a bit at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 4#List of defunct United States railroads.

In other words, the state lists are much easier to maintain and have better information. NE2 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• It's also been posted to WT:TWP. --NE2 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. You say there are state lists. Rather than deleting this article, wouldn't it be more practical to make it a dab or index for those articles (or alternatively to create such a dab or index at another title then redirect this page there)? AndyJones (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep as an index to state lists. The information is worthy of inclusion, but as you say the state lists are better and have superseded this list. The title is useful and has lots of incoming links, so it should be reconstructed as an index to the state lists. There is no need to remove the edit history and so deletion is not a necessary (or even valuable) precursor to doing this and consensus could easily have been sought on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are actually only 2015 incoming links that aren't through transclusion of {{US railroad lists}}. Out of those:
    • 6 are "easter egg" links such as ]
    • 9 are in the "see also" section or a template such as {{see}}
    • 5 are just plain horrible links such as ] just fixed these
  • The only ones I could justify keeping if I were editing the article are a few of the "see also" links, in which case it might make more sense to insert {{US railroad lists}}. If the concern is about links from offsite, a redirect to that template might make sense after all links are removed. --NE2 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- a list of this size is too vast to be useful: split into lists by State; categorise those lists (thus providing a link between them), and only then delete this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Already done, if you read the nomination. --NE2 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a state-level directory — the National Register of Historic Places wikiproject has split many lists into pieces, but always retains the statewide list article as a directory; see National Register of Historic Places listings in Wyoming for an example. Why wouldn't such a practice be useful with railroads? Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For example: I expect that there's a way that you determine whether a railroad belongs on any of these lists. If there is, this page could include a list of railroads per state (like a number of sites per county on the Wyoming list), list of railroads that crossed state lines, and perhaps more. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a way to determine (if it built anything, even unfinished grading, or was consolidated into one that build anything), but there's no way to be sure that we have them all, especially when it comes to minor street railways and the like. In fact, I'd guess that all states but Delaware and southern New England have at least one steam common carrier missing. --NE2 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can't have a complete list, the page would still be useful as a directory. However, you could always say "this may be an incomplete list" in the list-by-states section, and add newly-discovered railroads when you discover them. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The state lists do say that they're incomplete. What would you put on list of defunct United States railroads that's not in Category:Defunct railroad companies of the United States? --NE2 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, an approximate list? I'm assuming that you've not missed many railroads, and it would likely be useful to show that this state had a larger number than that state, etc. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've missed enough that a number would be meaningless, especially if you include electric railways. --NE2 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, and per my own comments in the previous linked discussion. Mackensen (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A state-by-state breakdown is far less unwieldly, and easier to navigate. Keeping the current article as a link list is uneeded, as there are few enough links to it that they can be easily replaced. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and everyone else. JBsupreme (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Commennt myself and Nyttend !voted to keep prior to your comment and Mjroots has done so subsequently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion  : I'm not sure what the point of this is, not commenting one way or other, but I have often wanted a list of "defunct public companies" or companies that had public stock ( and presumably some really seductive stories ) and then went under. Obviously you think about the dot com bubble, but these recurr in biotech quite often and of course many companies did well for a while but nothing lasts forever. The purpose of this is to have failures to analyze and get more prespective on companies and invesmtents. Bubbles and hype have been a huge problem lately. While I personally think much of this is intentional as responsibility for money has been delegated to people with various incentive conflicts ( I have constantly defended the FDA on similar issues but they are often accused of financial conflicts too), negative controls may make investors more prudent in the future. I'm not trying to moralize but just suggesting that there are a many researchers who could benefit and the same sources ( primary and secondary ) that would have been annoying hype prior to the company's failures make a good entry after the case is closed on the company. Just something to consider. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand. The information is there in the state lists like list of Utah railroads#Defunct railroads. List of defunct United States railroads is simply a greatly incomplete version that would be huge were it complete. --NE2 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Peripheral Issue: fwiw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Suggestion: Make this list into a master list (like List of windmills. Then create lists by first letter for each of the letters of the alphabet (these can be split if necessary) - see {{Empire A ships}} where the various lists are split that way. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Those would be just as unmaintainable as this list. --NE2 11:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: NE2 certainly makes a valid case for deletion, and I applaud his work on fixing many of the state-specific defunct railroad chapters. However I like Nyttend's suggestion. They should all lead to the defunct RR chapters for each state and territory. ----DanTD (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

It is unclear what, exactly, this is a list of. I also suspect that, if this is suitable for an article, it should be on another language's Knowledge (XXG). Trivialist (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 18:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Good catch. I looked at it for a while and am as confused as nominator is. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I think this fits WP:CSD G1 and so tagged. Snow, anyway. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• It doesn't appear to be patent nonsense, as it is a list of how to make company logos in Unicode. However, delete as a complete unsourced mess. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• comment- this seems to be a useful, badly-written guide for how to create company logos in unicode. I'm not sure such a guide belongs here, but it is interesting, assuming it's correct. None of the symbols seem to be right on my system, but that could be a font issue. I don't actually know if wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for "guides" as such - but if it is, I would suggest it not be SPEEDY deleted, as someone else may come across it and clean it up. Luminifer (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. To me it's a paragraph of gibberish followed by a list of......what? But since that's not patent nonsense, I respectfully suggest that the article be nonetheless deleted due to inclement weather. Tim Song (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as "how to" guide. Hairhorn (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Eklipse (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. SNOW closure. Enigma 05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Subspace trip mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a gear on the game Roblox], but it has bad grammar, and it's short. This article wouldn't be good to merge into the Roblox article, because it's 1 of thousands of items. Jeremjay24 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. No real point on having articles for every item in every videogame, I see no Banana (Mario Kart) article. -- RUL3R 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:A7 as web content.--Gordonrox24 |  17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - shouldn't even be an argument. suprised no-one caught this on Recent Changes Patrol Seb az86556 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Or even new pages patrol. I have no clue how we missed this unless it is still in the backlog.--Gordonrox24 |  17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the person who looks thought the Subspace trip mine was a 'mine Nasa invented to destroy the 2029 meteor to save the earth.' Jeremjay24 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - As RUL3R said, we can't have an article on every single item in every single game. It's ridiculous. —LedgendGamer 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment to All I was thinking about 1 page that lists every single one of Roblox's items. What do you guys think? Jeremjay24 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the game is sourced, but only satisfactorily. None of these warrant an article, they belong in the private wiki.--Gordonrox24 |  02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable gear in a game. Joe Chill (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I am not relisting because Blackbirdz's recommendation has stayed for 5 days without a change from the original "keep" !voters, so a relist is unlikely to help. There will be no prejudice against merging to the author's article, provided that there is sufficient consensus to do so at the article's talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Salvation, Texas (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I created this article from material that had been inserted in an article about a completely different topic, Salvation, Texas. However, this is a book by an author who lacks a WP article herself, and one blog review and a couple of user-submitted reviews do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BK. The material should be deleted as nonnotable. Deor (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as acceptable split for positively reviewed book concerning titular setting in actually two different Romance novels. Support creating article about author as well, as author has written multiple books for which additional reviews exist. Thus, at worst we would merge and redirect to an article on the author per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, as deletion is an extreme last resort and in this case, we know it i not libelous or a hoax and that not all other possibilities have been considered. Best, --A Nobody 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The only reason this author doesn't have an article yet, is that most people that read Romances novels don't edit the wikipedia. We need to check places that actually review romance novels, since most don't take them seriously or bother with them, to find mention of her and her books. Dream Focus 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have added a citation. Seems notable enough for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets book criteria for notability Panyd 20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Is a notable article as stated above. Don't see any reason to delete whatsoever. Airplaneman 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Reader reviews do not make a book notable. There is a reliable source for reviews of this genre, which is LibraryJournal, which regularly features them. I haven't checked for this author though. DGG (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BK 1) Article's sources are blogs, rather than multiple significant reliable sources, 2) Lists no major literary awards, 3) has not made a significant contribution to a film or political movement etc. 4) No sign that it is the topic of instruction at educational institutions, and 5) No sign this author is of major histrorical significance. Exhaustive search of my library and its databases shows no sign that this book meets WP:BK, and while I see the claim above that this does meet WP:BK, I see no explanation of how. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how any book from a romance publisher is going to be notable enough to pass muster around here. Hairhorn (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

there are several hundred that are, see Category:Romance novels--and this is really IDONTLIKEIT as applied to an entire genre. I despise soap operas, but i don't try to say the entire body of articles on them should be removed--though it would admittedly solve some problems :) DGG (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. That the award-winning author does not yet have an article is a reason to write one... but not a valid reason to otherwise deny the notability of the author or the author's work. That the author and book can meet WP:GNG is enough to allow both the article and the project to be improved through normal editing. A sampling of sources (Not blogs) addressing the work or the author: Abilene Reporter-News, The Eagle, RT Book Reviews, Dallas News, Dallas Morning News, Library Journal, Beaumont Enterprise. AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Your sources prove notability for the author, not the novel - and in fact more than half the sources don't even mention the novel in question. Alan16 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is probably enough reason to try an article on the author. DGG (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• An article on the author appears worthwhile. While MichaelQSchmidt suggests this book itself meets WP:GNG, he however does not provide evidence that this book has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So, I'll redirect to the author if no one objects. Blackbirdz (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable and verifiable to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I would tend to merge borderline notable books into their author's article, but as this doesn't have such a target, it should be kept.YobMod 09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does have such a target -- Jeffrey McClanahan -- which is what I was referring to in my comment above yours. So, yeah, let's redirect this to the author article. Blackbirdz (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. This novel does not seem notable in itself. The author probably is - the phrase "award wining" seems to be bandied about a lot - so what really needs done is to create an article for her and merge this there. That makes this difficult at the moment. The options are to delete, or move to somebodies user space until an article is created. Alan16 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Top and bottom. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Flip-flop (sex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This term, even if not totally a neologism, is still just not notable enough to sustain a full encyclopedia article. It is a dictionary entry at best. Powers 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NONSENSE, WP:DICTIONARY, WP:NPOV. The article even tries to masculinize gay sex: "Especially very masculine men allow themselves to be penetrated anally only after they have penetrated their partner and therefore have proven their masculinity." WTF?! I don't hold a grudge against homosexuality, but this steps out of the line. -- RUL3R 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:MADEUP the term seems to be coined by someone on an online dictionary. (note: unable to verify non-linked sources) --BsayUSDCSU 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete:WP:MADEUP until we can find a decent reference for it.--Gordonrox24 |  17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Snow delete per above. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• This term has NOT been made up, but instead it is in use since at least 1976. Some examples: The term is used even in the she-male scene: . One of the most famous flip flop flicks is Family Values, directed by Jerry Douglas in 1997. But there are also lots of films carrying the idea of versatility already in their title. Here just three examples: Flip Flop Fuckers, Fuck me, Fuck you, Flip Flop Fuck 2. A pre-condom classic from 1983 is William Higgins' Frat House Memories - "If you find versatile flip flips arousing, this movie provides a bonanza of entertainment.".--Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Top and bottom#Switch or versatile as a synonym of "switch" or "versatile" --Alynna (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Alas, pretty notable indeed. In that case merge and redirect per above. Otherwise we should cleanup with sulphuric acid. -- RUL3R 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Honestly I don't like the text in Top and bottom#Switch or versatile at all. It speaks about BDSM and self-bondage, and: "The act of "switching" may also refer to a spontanaeous reversal of roles, initiated by the bottom, who then takes control." This is nonsense. Pretty often it's the top, who decides that he wants to get penetrated - i.e. a huge muscle stud riding on a twinks penis. The concept of flip-flop is a life style represented in sexual encounters between equals and has a lot to do with masculinity. In a flfl both partners want to prove their maleness and their virility, but they are also willing to surrender to another macho male - mostly if he is credible and strong. Contrary to the stereotypes very few gay and bisexual men are feminine, but unfortunately the queens and the dykes dominate the image of GLBT culture on parades and in the media.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Then you can WP:BOLD and WP:IAR (with WP:V) the article. Just remember to WP:CHILL. -- RUL3R 20:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you really are a scientologist, you are pretty cool. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This may not be a made-up term, it may have been around for some time, but even in the GLBT community I have never heard this phrase being used. Nor can I find any references to it which are strong enough to support having an article dedicated to it. Panyd 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep it. There are some ignorants everywhere - even in the LGBT community. I've been flip-flopping for 13 yrs by now, even if you still don't know the proper expression. --Sissy's Horseman (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• — Sissy's Horseman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dems on the move (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pretty crude - aren't u? --Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable term with a long history of use. At most, move to wikidictionary. Zazaban (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as dickdef. --Ezeu (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I see what you did there. For the record, I'd be okay with a merge, but I didn't suggest it because there didn't seem to be enough here to be worth it. Powers 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Top and bottom which also should cover versatile and other related terms. -- Banjeboi 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Top and bottom per above. It is a widely used phrase and should not be deleted. –Turian 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Top and bottom. Edison (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef or redirect to Top and bottom per above. Hairhorn (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Somehow it looks like the BDSM-Community is much more efficient in creating new articles. They have it all:
  • BDSM
  • Sadomasochism
  • Top (BDSM)
  • Bottom (BDSM)
  • Switch (BDSM)
  • Female dominance
  • Female submission
  • Patriarchy
  • Male dominance (BDSM)
  • Male submission
  • Domination & submission (BDSM)
  • Top and bottom in sex and BDSM
  • Play party (BDSM)
  • fetish club
  • fetish fashion
  • bondage (BDSM)

In my eyes it's okay that also a minority gets the space - but please let's not neglect the mainstream. There is not even an article on being versatile in bed and about Versatility as the corner stone of man-to-man-relationships.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• weak merge to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM, as an alternative term. Weak as i've never heard this used seriously as an alternative to versatile etc, but it may be a common BDSM term.YobMod 09:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a common BDSM term either although beach-goers seem to know it well. -- Banjeboi 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Top and bottom. As per above, WP:DICDEF is most applicable, but suffice to say an article that boils down to "changing positions during sex" isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia - we might as well include terms for changing one's drink mid-meal. Take it to Wiktionary, it doesn't belong being defined here. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

An article on this topic was deleted via AfD about 2½ months ago, and the only apparent change in the situation is that the product has since garnered a few sentences of mention in a BBC News piece (linked in the "External links" section of the article). I doubt that this puts the product, which according to the BBC is available only at 20 local pubs, over the notability hump and suggest that the article be deleted again, with a copy being provided in the creator's user space. When he has written an article that clearly establishes the product's notability, he can seek a consensus for recreation at DRV per the usual procedure. (And let's try to avoid here the festival of sockpuppetry that the previous AfD became.) Deor (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I'll accept the good-faith assertion that the BBC coverage is enough to warrant recreation instead of sending this to DRV. However, the article is still short of the general notability guidelines, and I'm not sure its single award warrants specific notability as a product. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• G4 Speedy delete or just delete for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think that national coverage, and 2 international medals is quite good going for a microdistillery (or a regular distillery even...). If you compare them with Sipsmith (the other London microdistillery) it would seem that there is indeed something happening in this corner of the drinks industry. Why haven't new distilleries cropped up on a more regular basis, I wonder? There is also a microdistillery in Wales (Welsh Whisky), Norfolk (English Whisky) and Herefordshire. But that is about it - the rest are in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterS2009 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Words of Great Wisdom from our Leader. "Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today. Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do. That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum. The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times." --User:Jimbo Wales(dated November 7, 2003) PeterS2009 (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The single article from the BBC is not sufficient to establish notability on its own. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily Closed, and a note that I will be mentioning this in a neutral statement at WP:AN because of concerns raised given the prior behaviour of TTN. Hiding T 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Grail (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a single AfD for just this topic. Unlike that Salvation, Texas mess of an article, this one did not gain anything relevant to the real world in the AfD. It only has a mention that it is actually in the series, and the other source doesn't even mention the topic in any way. It is still just a minor plot point that it already aptly described within a few sentences in the main article. TTN (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Only in-universe details that has no real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion, especially when the article contains out of universe details demonstrating real world significance.

• Note that he also expanded upon "per nom", so you have absolutely no reason to spam that link. Also, your reference does not address this topic at all, only the comic in general, so it does not even assert real world significance. TTN (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is mentioned in article written by someone in the real world as an example of fictional use of something perceived as historical. Because it may not be important to you does not mean it is not to those who read the series or who study fictional organizations, particularly religious ones. Best, --A Nobody 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, the article mentions that the comic focuses on the lore of the whole thing, not this specific fictional group, Grail. It would have to mention something like "the comic uses a group called Grail..." in order to be relevant. TTN (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as disruptive re-nomination a mere day later, but mostly per GFDL, i.e. part of article has been merged and as such attribution history must remain public. Moreover, per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, there is no reason whatsoever why at worst we would not redirect this verifiable aspect of a notable comic series. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I did attempt to redirect it, and that failed. Nothing has been merged to the article. You added a link and direct quote, neither of which actually originated in this article. And if anything is disruptive, it would be you attempting to force us to keep articles by "merging" information into them. TTN (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Afd closed calling for editors to discuss merges on talk pages, not immediately try again with AfDs. If your attempt to redirect failed, then apparently the community disagrees with that and you should not just dismiss them by repeatedly thinking you must be right and the article must be deleted. As for as merging goes, well, our policies and guideliens of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE assert that we use deletion as a last resort and try to do what we can with content as best as possible. There is no pressing need to redlink here and if you were okay with a redirect, then instead of a day later renominating should have started a merge and/or redirect discussion on the talk page per the actual close of the AfD. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion would not work. There is nothing to merge, and either way, nobody would respond to such a discussion anyway. Even then, like before, some user or anon would dig it up again, which is why I nominated this in the first place. There is no proper forum for discussing a redirect, so that is also not possible. Please stop quoting those as if they are the only way to handle information. With the amount of articles that are deleted all of the time, constantly quoting them is rather silly. TTN (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just because you do not think there is anything to merge does not make it so. That is why we have discussions so those who created and worked on the article can opine. After someone undid your redirect, did you try discussing with him on his talk page first to see why he undid it and to attempt to persuade him of your opinion? Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Disruptive renomination contrary to deletion policy by an editor who already been sanctioned for disruptive nominations. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Multiple nominations that spiral into confusion are often renominated separately afterward. This is not disruptive in the least. TTN (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The matter seems quite clear to me. If you are confused then it would be better to let it rest. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The only thing that is clear is the obvious gathering of the league of inclusionists. If only something like the "Article Deletion Squadron" would actually work out. The other AfD was mainly focused on the other article, and then the closer just took the easy way out instead of even marking this one to be merged or deleted. TTN (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• You must be quite familiar with the correct process. This isn't it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you can point some out to me, but I have never seen a case where attempting to get an article merged, redirected, or deleted through DRV actually stay open for more than ten minutes. If such a thing actually worked, I would have brought most of the my failed AfDs there already. TTN (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's because AFD and DRV, as their names indicate, are processes for deletion. Any other content editing, such as merger, is dealt with elsewhere or by local consensus. If you find that there is no consensus for the edits you wish to make then you should move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Both articles in the previous nomination were discussed thoroughly and worked on. There were only two, not a dozen, so its not like people didn't have time to consider both of them. Dream Focus 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close, as I TRIED to do earlier. Opening a new afd the DAY AFTER a previous one closed is a pure case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Re-nominated a day after the previous AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, obvious hoax. Author blocked as a vandalism/hoax-only account (he'd been using an IP to promote this hoax as well). Blueboy96 15:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Cannot find any sources to support the claims in this article. Ppssible hoax. Author made some dodgy edits after my initial cleanup, which rings alarm bells. The JPS 12:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Information seems entirely made up. I made some searches with nothing coming of them. Also, shouldn't User:Weaverrd be notifed? –Turian 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as pure vandalism or attack page. Crafty (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pocket guide on first aid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is a guide, and therefore is a vio of WP:NOTGUIDE. Also, unreferenced. PROD declined, hasn't been improved since Kingpin (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE/nom; also, could be perceived as medical advice. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDICAL. Also, seems a bit like WP:OR and the author is intending to credit himself. -- RUL3R 13:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Knowledge (XXG) is not for how to articles. Joe Chill (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this how-to guide. Cliff smith 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some of the content that seems to have needed a more hasty deletion regardless of whether or not the entire article will be deleted 7 days from now (or when this snowball finally arrives in Hell). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It's SNOWing already. JBsupreme (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Snow delete Come on people, it's pretty clear what the outcome is.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It's being hit by enchanted snowballs. Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOTGUIDE. ---kilbad (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. It is reasonably clear that Kiang fails WP:PROF. However, he may pass WP:BIO, which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." The coverage is not trivial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeap Wai Kiang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ACADEMIC, nothing to raise him above the bar of a normal academic, yes he's written some papers. but fails WP:BIO as well due to lack of third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, Malaysia's largest circulation newspaper The Star has an in-depth article, therefore meets WP:N. XLerate (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1 article? we need wide coverage. If you can produce more, I'll reconsider LibStar (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:N, "multiple sources are generally preferred", but wide coverage isn't a criteria. One reference meeting the WP:N criteria is ok, more is better. XLerate (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen articles with 5 references get deleted. if we create articles for everyone with 1 article about them...where do we stop? LibStar (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, five trivial mentions on blogs doesn't meet the notability criteria, highlighting the issue looking at quantity over quality. This article on the other hand has a reference which meets all the criteria. XLerate (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as the profile in The Star satisfies the basic criteria of WP:BIO: he "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It goes on to say "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", but here the depth of coverage is substantial. His citation count doesn't look bad either: top articles cited 90 and 79 times according to Google Scholar, but this is not my field so i'm unsure of typical citation patterns. Qwfp (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. GS above gives top cites of 90, 79, 24, 20, 9, 8 , 8, 6, 6, 5 so h index = 7. On this basis notability WP:Prof is not yet attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC).
• Weak delete. I concur with Xxanthippe that for someone in AI with a Ph.D. as long ago as 1984, his citation numbers are not stellar and not enough to pass WP:PROF. To get a better sense of calibration I tried looking up the first five people in Category:Artificial intelligence researchers; four of them are clearly more well-cited than Yeap, and the fifth (Victor Allis) has a very similar citation record to Yeap's but left academia immediately after grad school — the much longer period Yeap has had to make an impact implies to me that he should have made a much bigger splash, and he hasn't. The article about Yeap in The Star goes some way towards a pass of WP:BIO, bypassing WP:PROF, but it's only one source; we need more than one to achieve notability that way, and I couldn't find others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't fulfill WP:N. One article in a massive newspaper isn't enough to label someone's nobility. –Turian 12:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: agreed. Doesn't meet WP:N.--Gordonrox24 |  16:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N the coverage received just doesn't cut it. --BsayUSDCSU 16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep There's an extensive list of published work on google books . The news story cited in the article is quite substantial coverage. He holds a directorship at a major institution. I don't see how deleting this article improves the encyclopedia. He seems to be a significant figure in spatial information theory. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The "books" referred to above consist mostly of short articles or are published by the subject's institution. They have garnered few, if any, cites. A search of WoS for "Yeap WK" gives top cites of 44, 29, 6, 2, 1..... with h index = 3. This is way below what is needed for the high standards of WP:Prof#1 where h indices of 10-15 are borderline. The institution at which he holds a Directorship is very far from major and will not satisfy WP:Prof#6. My recommendation to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
  • See WP:PROF footnote #5: a report from a consortium of computer science departments states explicitly and emphatically that WoS should not be used to evaluate computer science citation records. Its numbers are too badly distorted by its omission of most of the important computer science publication venues (conferences). That said, the Google scholar numbers (which I trust much more for this area) are not any more impressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• weak delete I am usually in close agreement with David E in the analysis of these records, but I think he is using an irrelevant criterion here. If a person has highly cited papers, it doesn't matter at what age he had them, or if he has done relatively little since. It's the doing of notable work as proven by the citations. Doing some really important work is notable,even if not a long notable career. And comparing with others in the category already is not valid either, whether used in a positive or negative way--it could be that we have a greatly insufficient number of people included in WP--or too many--it's a version of OTHER STUFF. Another editor above used raw h index alone as a criterion --this is always wrong--if a person had 7 papers with 7 citations each, the h value would be 7, if a person had 6 with 300 and one with 7, the value would also be 7. However,citation counts based on Google Scholar are relatively worthless, as they include citations from all sort of non-peer-reviewed sources as well. The usual conversion is to divide by two, so those citation counts are very borderline. DGG (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If citation counts from Google scholar are worthless, then all citation counts in computer science are worthless, as the other sources of data are even worse than GS. Actually I am leaning towards the idea that citation counts (in the absence of knowledgeable analysis for why citations are high or low) are generally not very meaningful. My comment tried to address by at least looking at the numbers relative to peers in the same field rather than as absolutes, but GIGO. Sadly I don't have a suggestion for an alternative method for us to measure impact with any reliability across disciplines... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The entry does not make a case for notability, and cursory searches turn up nothing particularly different from thousands of other academics. The bar is being set too low for academics lately.Hairhorn (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comment above. Would you be able to indicate when you think it was that the bar became to be set too low? Do you think the WP:Prof criteria need to be changed or that the current ones are not being applied properly? Can you give examples of particular AfDs that you feel were not dealt with appropriately? My own feeling at present is that standards for academic notability are very high. We require hundreds of independent citations rather than the dozen or less required in other subjects. I would be interested in your views. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

• My issue is not with the notability criteria, but with too many entries scraping by (or arguably not qualifying at all). There are several recent examples, the first one that comes to mind is Warsame Ali (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Warsame Ali). Hairhorn (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with three keeps and four deletes (including the nom) it was judged a 'no consensus'. I am sure you noted my own edits on the subject. It should have been relisted for further discussion. My own impression (without counting) is that in the last month or so the delete rate on these pages has been highish, say around 75%. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. An article on two characters from a soap opera, who both appear to have their own separate articles anyway (John Paul McQueen, Craig Dean). The article appears to be excessive plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT) and, due to the unsourced mention of internet forums in the lead, I smell fanboy-ism (WP:FANCRUFT). However, the section on reception shows some notability (WP:N) as the show won a Stonewall Award due to these characters, but that does not justify the need for this duplicate article and the rest of that section appears to be trivial (WP:TRIVIA) quotes from the cast. DJ 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also nominated a range of "supercouple" articles for deletion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples". DJ 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

*I agree Delete. It may be a "major storyline" but it all the information is on Craig and John Paul's pages. I removed the timeline not long ago because it was far too long but still the page isn't relevant. Whoniverse93 talk? 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment. We both agreed to remove the timeline because it was in-universe. The rest of the article, disregarding the plot summary, however, is not. The article is certainly relevant. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. I have taken time to rethink my first answer and I've decided to back the article, so yeah keep! Whoniverse93 talk? 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice for recreation if written with real-world context (reception, production, etc.). As it stands, this is only excessive plot detail. The JPS 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) This actually does now have some decent real-world context, that I must have missed on first viewing. Much better than some of the other crap that exists on here. Sorry for my original vote. The JPS 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is written with real-world context. The only thing that is not is the plot summary, which is typical (as is with film articles). Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Many other popular soap couples have their own articles as well. --Silvestris (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DJ 06:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think the nominator must have been looking at a different article, this certainly isn't just a plot summary. Jeni 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is clearly established within the article; the nominator even points this out. The article is not excessive plot summary, is not fanboy-ism, WP:FANCRUFT, or WP:TRIVIA. Nor is most of this stuff in either of their individual articles. Their individual articles are what are mostly plot. Flyer22 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep seems well referenced notability appears to be established. AniMate 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Multiple editors assert that this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted as such. Others assert that it is not, and contains sufficient information to warrant an encyclopedia article and should be kept and expanded as a stand-alone article. Others still believe this information would be best suited merged elsewhere and should be merged. There is no solid consensus in particular here to do any of these three things. ~ mazca 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Article has no realistic hope of expansion, more suitable as a Wiktionary definition Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note first nomination made vai Twinkle did not list correctly. 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination offers no evidence to support its dubious contention. Peremptory deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Exercise addiction, a topic which desperately needs an article, and expand. A Google books search for "fitness fanatic" reveals that the term generally refers to an unhealthy exercise-centered lifestyle, in other words, exercise addiction. There are 1,082 Google Books hits for exercise addict and 927 Google Books hits for fitness fanatic. Abductive (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The two are not necessarily the same. For example, Theodore Roosevelt and Bernard Montgomery seem to have been fanatical about fitness for good reasons - personal health and military efficiency - without having been personally addicted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that, but nearly everything has fans, hobbyists or people who choose it as a lifestyle. That is what irritated people into nominating this article for deletion. But an article on exercise addition can certainly point out that not all fitness fanatics are exercise addicts. Abductive (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Information can be moved to Exercise#Excessive_exercise as a sub-section. There is not enough info to substantiate this as an article. –Turian 12:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your proposal would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how: moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new). The information should be moved to a different article. –Turian 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Moves are not performed by means of deletion. If you delete content then you take its edit history with it. If you then reuse that content elsewhere, you will be breaking the copyright of the original contributor per our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Then what is the pont of WP:OWN? –Turian 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's a different matter. As that page explains, "This page is about control over an article's text. For the ownership of copyright in an article, see Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights.". What this means is that you can freely change a text to your own words but you can't freely copy the text written by another editor - you must give them credit. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I presume that is fair; however stating "move sourced and encyclopedic content to another article" is misleading. I still say we delete the article, though. –Turian 14:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - merge and delete isn't an option and your insistence on arguing for it against policy is rather disturbing. It you merge material, you must leave behind a redirect (and take certain other steps) to comply with our licensing terms. please see WP:MERGE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• delete as dicdef. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete we're not a dictionary, damnit. JBsupreme (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The suggestion that this is a dictionary entry seems mistaken as it contains neither pronounciation, etymology or other dictionary content. And neither the OED nor Wiktionary contain the phrase fitness fanatic so it doesn't seem that they accept this as a dictionary entry. Please provide some rationale or explanation which conforms with our policy WP:DICDEF. Note especially the advice of this policy regarding the perennial confusion between stubs or short articles and dictionary content. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into overtraining. -- The Anome (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - the material is notable and the entry goes well beyond a dictionary definition. The potential for expansion is fairly extensive, so I don't believe merging is needed, but I wouldn't object to it either. (I do think there is probably a better way to describe someone who is really into exercise than "fitness fanatic" though, so perhaps a rename is in order if a I better title can be thought up.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into overtraining: merely a dictionary-definition 'supported' by some brief sections that are only tangentially related to the stated topic (making the construction of the article, overall, a case of WP:Synthesis). This tangential material might be relevant to overtraining, but even that's not clear. Hrafn_Stalk 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. It is true that GNG can supersede ATHLETE, but it has not been shown that he passes GNG either. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Troy Brown (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, fails WP:ATHLETE as has made no professional appearances for any club and may not for many months, years etc The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable youth player. It also should be "footballer" instead of "soccer" since it's not American. Spiderone (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above comments. –Turian 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - subject just signed with a fully professional team and was placed on the first team roster. It would be pointless process to delete at this point. Additionally, the failing ATHLETE doesn't mean a subject can't be included - anyone can still be included if they meet the GNG which this player clearly does. (There is an American football player by the same name, so you have to add qualifiers like "ipswich" "fulhum" "welsh" etc to your search to find info about the correct player.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. What if he gets injured and retires from football? Spiderone (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Then he'll still meet the GNG. Again, ATHLETE is not an exlusionary guideline, only an inclusionary one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the article can very easily be recreated once he has made professional appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the regular season begin a week from tomorrow? If it's the former, this will be a moot point by the time this is decided. Still, not sure why it has to be nominated today. Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:Athlete since he hasn't played in a fully professional league. Clubs have loads of players on their books who don't make the grade. If we keep this article and, for example, he has a career-ending injury before he plays we are stuck with a page on a nn person. TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Mandsford is just wrong. JBsupreme (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did say "Correct me if I'm wrong." Thanks :) Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. TerriersFan (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - this player fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. GiantSnowman 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I' 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mycroft Holmes (computer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly a redundant plot regurgitation of the novel in which the character plays a major part. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per redundant vomiting of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. All unique information can be added to the characters section of that article. –Turian 12:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your proposal is contrary to our editing and licensing policies which require that we recognise our contributors, rather than plagiarising their work, and strive to keep the work rather than deleting it in the hope that it will be recreated elsewhere.Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• How? "All unique information can be added" sounds like PRESERVE, and if the article is deleted, we can always rewrite the version on this page. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable recurring character in the works of a major author. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 15:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — Iconic "character" with widespread impact beyond the book. Article does need some work; I know a fan I'll put on it after his vacation ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge acceptable ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep One of the the most real descriptions of an emergent strong AI and notable characters. (Someone please add him to the category fictional artificial intelligences, most of whom he predates) htom (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• merge Turian's delete proposal, however poorly worded, is actually for a merge--so really there's nothing to be doing here at afd in the first place-- I don't think this is sufficiently iconic--either the character or the book-- to be worth a separate article--the main article on the book can handle it adequately. Ultimately, it's more a matter of writing style than deletion/inclusion. The important thing is that the information be included. Perhaps that's what inclusionism should mean. DGG (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent set for such notable elements.,, , , etc. Expand and further source. This particular plot element has received significant coverage and critical commentary, showing real-world impact. The article will improve Knowledge (XXG) by remaining. Google Scholar, Google Books, Heise Online. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The character is notable enough to be mentioned in various other books. Dream Focus 10:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Material should be merged back to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and referenced from other books as needed, per DGG. I'm not seeing a standalone article here, although happy to be proven wrong. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be NN comedian, performed a couple of shows, no indication still working or any sort of media hits, nothing much in google SimonLyall (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient evidence of “notability”. —SlamDiego_←T 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: No indication of notability Stephenb (Talk) 14:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsourced autobiography. dramatic (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• "'keep"': Saw him last night in Edinburgh, he has a big future ahead. i work for Chortle.co.uk and we tip him as one for the future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaliepenn (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. Also, your removal of the AfD tag was unconstructive. —SlamDiego_←T 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:ENT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

F. C. New Britain United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not receive significant coverage. Promotional. Not notable Cptnono (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Breaks WP:POV and adds nothing substantial. –Turian 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Just self-promotion. Strongest possible delete. Spiderone (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable team; the article serves no purpose other than self-promotion. GiantSnowman 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No external sources or discernible value. The concept is only used within one school identified by the article, due to this, it seems heavily biased. If anywhere, it belongs as a sub category on the Highland Tech High article, however, with it's bias and lack of proper sourcing, it violates the Wikipedian Guidelines for articles. Xaldibik (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - as clearly not encyclopedic. Speedy perhaps? Crafty (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no speedy criteria for this. Joe Chill (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well there should be. Crafty (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Fails to assert the reason for notability and does not provide WP:RS references. -- RUL3R 13:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

why football related discussions?--ClubOranje 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: A non-notable concept. Joe Chill (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial non-notable concept under WP:N guidelines, and per WP:NOT#dictionary. Incidentally, called vocation day or job experience day or any of a multitude of other things at other schools, and while it may get shut down at that school, it has been going on for donkeys years around the world.--ClubOranje 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro–Ukraine relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

neither country has a resident embassy, and a state visit or a meeting of deputy leaders doesn't make for notable relations. lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, quite a few multilateral mentions. . agreeing to cooperate on money laundering is very common between any states who want to trade . LibStar (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Knowledge (XXG) is not database of X-Y relation type of articles. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek and the nom. JBsupreme (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Some independent sources have been added to the article that comment on aspects of this new relationship and establish notability. I don't follow the "not a database" argument. Knowledge (XXG) is a repository of information about all sorts of things, including notable relations between countries. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Inadequately researched nomination as proven by Aymatth2's substantial improvements to the article. concerns about notability have been addressed. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, no significant third party coverage in its 21 year history of the organisation. . LibStar (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Some additional references, and thus third party coverage, provided. Maias (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to know what the text in those books mentions, is it a short paragraph on the society, or is it a entire chapter discussing what the societies significance is. A books search shows a little, and I found some stuff about cloning a cow but not much else. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• What is mentioned is the Society's involvement in, and support for, the expeditions referred to. Maias (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, a quick search of the New Zealand Herald found a couple of references, one of them appears distinct from the work already referenced in the article. See Philippa Stevenson: Herd saved from oblivion DoC cull gets animal lover's goat.-gadfium 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Fair enough per Maias book sources. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Eight hits at the NatLib Index NZ. One hit at The Press since 1993. They don't appear to be getting a lot of press coverage but they have a passable notability. I cannot check the sources but they may not meet the definition of significant at WP:NN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Farmer, 17 Feb 1988; v.110 n.6:p.13 has article that describes the society. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. A couple of hundred years of isolation has led to a number of rare breeds on the outlying islands of NZ. This is of interest to biology and there are people who want to save these species. This all needs documenting. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Breeds. Save these breeds. Not species. Damn nuisance these societies are too, interfering with saving genuine New Zealand species. But insofar as they do make life difficult for biologists they are notable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oops. Yeah, breeds. Yep, I agree that NZ species have a far greater importance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merge and delete is not possible. The page will be moved to New Zealand Police Negotiation Team, with redirect suppressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Police Negotiation Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

the information can be merged to New Zealand Police but the article should be deleted. the term "Police Negotiation Team" is used for 100s of police forces worldwide. . LibStar (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete or Move to a title which includes 'New Zealand'. dramatic (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Move to a title which includes 'New Zealand' Xiaan77 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Young footballer that have no appearances in a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Rettetast (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. GiantSnowman 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Recreate if and when he makes an appearance Spiderone (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is that the article falls under WP:IINFO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. presidential faux-pas, gaffes, and unfortunate incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a dumping ground for whatever news articles made the paper. All significant events have been moved to their own article, and the rest is useless trivia. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete completely subjective unencyclopaedic topic. candidate for WP:FREAKY. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've removed a couple of unsourced paragraphs about George H. W. Bush per WP:BLP. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did you really delete the Bush puke story? That's well documented, one of the most hilarious moments of his presidency. Hairhorn (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• If it's documented by all means feel free to restore it (not that the article looks set to survive much longer anyway). In other contexts I might have discussed first, but policy is pretty clear on this. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Q : And what exactly are the encyclopedic criteria for inclusion? The topic is inherently subjective unless you confine members to incidents in which many sources characterize the event with these words. Trying to spend your wait out of bankruptcy seems on the order of consulting a national astrologer but presumably your belief system changes the meaning of "gaffe." Stuff happens. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If "Bush attempted to exit a room in China, but it was locked and so he was unable to leave the room, much to the amusement of the world's press" and "While attempting to enter the Oval Office, Barack Obama mistook a window for the door several feet away" don't fall under WP:IINFO, I don't know what does. — Rankiri (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA. -- RUL3R 13:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it'd be impossible to maintain as well as being complete WP:OR. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: We're neither a forum nor a gossip-magazine. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It would be difficult to make this type of article work under any circumstances, even it were well-written. I like that it's sourced, but it's pure trivia, something discouraged by Knowledge (XXG). If gaffes were anything other than entertainment, the NBC show "World's Most Embarrassing Moments" would be hosted by Brian Williams. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:IINFO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:IINFO and as almost inherently pov. It is times like this that I miss WP:BJAODN. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per both WP:IINFO and, if we were to liberally extend the guidelines for sections to articles, WP:TRIVIA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for vague inclusion criteria, POV and leaving out Bush drinking. Hairhorn (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep WP:IINFO is currently disputed. It rightly should be for a number of reasons, one is that it is one of the most misued quoted guidelines in deletion debates. There are 4 sections of WP:IINFO:

  Plot-only description of fictional works

  Lyrics databases.

  Excessive listing of statistics

  News reports. Which one does this article fall under? Many of these arguments are WP:IDONTLIKE arguments. WP:FREAKY is a humorous essay. I agree with User:Mandsford, it is a sourced article, but I feel it should be kept. Ikip (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should have read the last sentence: "The above list, like all lists of examples here, is not exhaustive, merely illustrative." — Rankiri (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which is why editors are currently arguing how this policy is misused:Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:IINFO, editors have repeatedly expanded WP:IINFO in Afds to include anything and everything. This list up for deletion is not even remotely close to any of the four examples listed above.

In fact, the last sentence was added a mere 8 days ago. Ikip (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But the question here is not what policy should be used in an argumet for/against deleting the article. The question here is: Is this article encyclopedic? Is this list worthy of inclusion? Has any of the items on this list been notable enough to guarantee a mention, but not to have an article of it's own? Most of this have a proper article for their own, either due to notability or controversy. Perhaps a more neutral, stable approach would be to move this article to List of U.S. presidential controversies, remove whatever doesn't fit WP:OR, WP:IINFO and whatever other policy in dispute here. I am actually surprised to see a redlink for that article. -- RUL3R 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but frankly, I still think "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information" describes the page quite well. If we're going to pay meticulous attention to accepted wording, here's also WP:TRIVIA's "avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information", WP:OR's "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", WP:POV's "each Knowledge (XXG) article...must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias", WP:STAND's "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value", and WP:NOTDIR's "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." — Rankiri (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

'Comment. My point is that a list for presidential controversies in the US might work as an article, and a couple of items from here can be taken. Like the Lewinsky scandal, the Five minutes speech, even the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Throw in Nixon's Watergate and other scandals (sorry, I am not an American Citizen, I am not completely lectured on their history), and we can have a working article with relevant information. -- RUL3R 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - It's an important topic, and obviously notable. Doesn't have anything to do with IINFO. Could use some work, but what couldn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why? How? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As a list of useless trivia, and coatrack for political partisans.YobMod 09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia lists of non-notable anecdotes do not make the cut. Collect (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - They may be notable, but not every thing they do is. If any thing caused a impact upon specific events, mention it in the Article about the event. Exit2DOS 08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:IINFO as noted above. –Juliancolton |  13:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Project Alexander (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced, unpublished, apparently not even completed Beach drifter (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Cliff smith 15:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominated. WP:CRYSTAL perhaps? Crafty (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: unpublished, unfinished, self-published doujinshi with no third-party coverage (reliable or otherwise) anticipating its release = fails WP:BK by a mile. (WP:BK is the relevant notability guideline if you're generous and call an OEL manga an actual manga and not a graphic novel.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete add to un-xxx list unproved existence & unverifiable. The only contributed article of one user & one IP. The IP added a link to a facebook profile. It smells hoax or extreme amateurism. --KrebMarkt 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I had a good chuckle reading this one, delete for WP:CRYSTAL and other clear reasons. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day. Either it is a hoax or WP:Vanispamcruftisement. --Farix (Talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is about as NON notable as they come. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Autograph-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NFF "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Bazj (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete withou prejudice, as the article is premature per WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, film not confirmed. If so, the start is more than a year away. Universal Hero (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Jayron32 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reality Killed The Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• article displays almost no notability of a band.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rewrite nomination please. This article is not about a band, and trying to say that Robbie Williams is not notable makes no sense. I think its something like WP:CRYSTAL you are looking for, but I cannot tell. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  Crystal ball only applies on speculation. We have many articles on future products (video games for example). The provided source narrows it down to the month. I'm not sure where the 30th comes from.--Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep how anyone could doubt the notability or Robbie Williams when it is linked is beyond me. Very few, if any, album articles would contain the "notability of a band" that is left for the band/singer's article. There is a reliable source which puts the release in October 2009 (not sure where the 30th came from), but it is sourced and clearly notable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability is not inherited. The article makes no independent assertion of notability, lacks sources for even the date, which is questioned by an editor voting 'keep', and doesn't even have any 'during production' information, interviews, critics saying they await it... it's got nothing but a possible totle and release date. Not enough, per WP:CRYSTAL. ThuranX (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  MTV with the date of 23 October , Focus (German) , Gala , Radio7 , there are 58 google news results in the last month. Someone would have to lok at the non-english versions to see exactly what they say about it and if they're all reliable sources, but that is a lot of entertainment sources that google considers news worth talking about the album.--Crossmr (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The German "Focus" source says that Williams will make his comeback with this album in October. Focus is a German news magazine, similar to Newsweek. Radio7 mostly talks about how the new album is better than Rudebox and confirms Trevor Horn's work on it but does not mention a release date. Regards SoWhy 09:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like that would satisfy WP:N.--Crossmr (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Juliuscaesar100-44 (talk · contribs) mainly, the article now has 9 reliable sources and is at DYK length. I have asked the nominator to withdraw the AFD (and ThuranX whether he still believes it delete-worthy), if they do, we can bring it to DYK. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw Nomination - article has expanded since this nomination, and thus does not require the action of this panel.keystoneridin! (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator My error, I looked at the wrong charts. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A series of non-notable compilation albums created by a clothing company. While individual songs on some of them may be notable and some of the artists may be notable, the compilation album is not. It never charted, nor does it pass WP:ALBUMS in any way I can see. There is a lack of distinct lack of coverage about the album by multiple reliable third party sources. Any mentions really discuss the songs, which were just thrown together into this album, not recorded for this album.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, WP:ALBUMS:

Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Atticus:_...Dragging_the_Lake,_Vol._3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Niteshift36 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Volume 4 has its own AfD:WP:Articles for deletion/Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fat free lean index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• article is a computerized listing from a skewed reference.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As the creator of the article, I'm not putting up a fight -- I'm creating articles for lots of entries in a public-domain glossary of agricultural terms, and this is one of the more inferior entries. However, could you please enlighten me as to what these terms mean? ("a computerized listing from a skewed reference") Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• weak keep OK, in response to the AfD and a private communication by keystoneridin!, I added more content (i.e. the "history" section). I think this is enough to survive AfD now, but as a law student in New York I don't really have strong feelings towards articles on pork ;) Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook