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 speedily deleted by Smashville (talk · contribs) at author's request (non-admin closure). — Σxplicit 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Obama Joker" poster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knowledge (XXG) is not WP:NEWS. The article fails notability and in two weeks time this poster will be long forgotten. Finally, we cannot have a seperate article for every single artistic depiction of Obama. Please also note, that the editor who started this article is currently under a topic ban for articles involving U.S. politics Yes, thats right, this user has created such gems as Barack Obama fly swatting incident, Michelle Obama's arms and Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, all of which got deleted SPLETTE :] 16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, the article got deleted while I was filing this report. Can someone close the case please? SPLETTE :] 16:42, 19 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 IDG. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content not of wide interest BwB (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - (87269) 2000 OO67 is also not of wide interest. What is the reason for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Caution: WP:WAX. Not that the nom's rationale is any better... --Cybercobra (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with IDG. The publication in question comes from the Norwegian branch of the enormous publishing house IDG, but it looks like a specialist magazine for a very narrow readership, even by Norwegian standards. Perhaps IDG Norway deserves a separate section or even an article since this national branch has been covered in reliable sources , and in that case "IT-bransjen" may deserve a mention as one of several things they publish. I cannot see that there has been wide coverage or interest of this particular publication however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN. --Lithorien (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect - Why propose for a deletion when a merge/redirect to IDG would be more fitting in this circumstance. Thanks ShoesssS 02:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with IDG. Not notable itself anyway — vvv 09:20, 22 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 The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfinished debate that, as usual, nobody could EVER be arsed to fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 12:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, thanks for the fix. I tried to nominate using the Twinkle tab but apparently I messed it up. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I do not think this fictional character is notable enough for his own article. The series he appears in has a long article The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest (TLDR in fact; thank goodness for Edit/Find) and he has only one brief mention there, and none in Jonny Quest. I suppose a redirect to the series article could be considered. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - As noted the main article is too long already. However a character article doesn't exist yet. Thus the best solution is probably to split the existing characters section off the main article & merge this into the newly created article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to a character list. The article on the show actually follows WP:FICT, which was refreshing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know if anybody noticed, but there are no other character pages. I'd split it off and close the AfD, but I can't; I don't watch the show, so I have no idea where to start with creating a character page. There's a character page for the old incarnation of the show, which I'm guessing was different than the more recent one... Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:50, 28 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. Not only is there no consensus here, but there is no consensus here either. Please hash it out there before flooding AfD with every such list. NW (Talk) 13:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2006 Australian network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod was contested in December 2008. Television schedules do not belong in an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Same response as the one given for "2007 Australian network television schedule" directly above. These probably could have been put in the same nomination; although if they had been, someone else would probably have complained about that as well. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If television schedules are so important why not create television schedule instead of making a directory of old TV Guides? Even an old TV Guide has no historical significance. What you guys are saying is that old TV Guides from 2008 and below are historically significant without explaining how it is. Whenever anyone posts links, it always shows notability for television and not the individual old TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Husband: I'm going to throw away last years TV Guide.
• Wife: Don't! Copy it onto Knowledge (XXG)!
• Husband: Why?
• Wife: The TV Guide is historically significant now that it's a year after.
• Husband: Okay. I'll type this up on Knowledge (XXG).
• Wife: Get my mom's old TV Guides from the attic and type those up also! Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Keeping such articles about the schedule (as opposed to daily programming) is consistent with WP:NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory which says "..historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." The networks schedule should not be trivialized and misrepresented as mere "TV Guide," which says what the program's episode will be on a particular day. In a given country, the network TV schedules have typically been discussed in more depth in books, magazines, and newspaper media columns, than mere listings of the days programming. The scheduling choices, and their effects on the ratings of programs, are part of the subject matter of college courses in broadcasting and media. The schedule is a strategic choice of what program leads into a given program, and what the competition is in a time slot. They are not random. Edison (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments I and others gave at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules. Zagalejo^^^ 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Major media form and of permanent historical interest. We cannot copy old TV guides into here or Wikisource, because they are all of them still under copyright--and they contain much advertising material that is not encyclopedic, The schedule itself is what's proper material. We should probably add Harry and Louise to the list of irrelevant AfD arguments. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOTDIR applies. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please read what NOTDIR actually says about TV schedules. Zagalejo^^^ 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete; not encyclopedic. It also happens to be unsourced. This schedule implies that the same pograms were shown at the same time throughout the year; in fact variations did occur. Consequently the page is also misleading. Smile a While (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination rests on incorrect reading of WP:NOTDIR; see generally my comments at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE but is also unsourced and not isn't encyclopaedic for Knowledge (XXG). It would be best suited on a Television history Wiki then here. Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How does WP: INDISCRIMINATE apply? I understand the sourcing concerns but not this. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as this schedule does not provide any commentary from reliable secondary sources that would indicate that the schedule is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep - As has been stated WP:NOTDIR allows television schedules. The real problem is the sourcing. I believe reliable sources exist but are not properly cited in the article. Assuming reliable sources can be found the article should stay. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 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. NW (Talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't meet the Wiki:Notability, as the rank is not anything but below a Joint Secretary of British Bureaucracy. There are hundreds of Additional Inspector Generals of Police in Pakistan. In any case it is not something which shouldn't be hinted. Recommended for Strong Deletion --LineofWisdom (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The article subject has not been the subject of secondary published material, only trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Purely looks like a vanity insertion either by himself or by his relatives. Also doesn't meet the Wiki notability Policies. There are several hundreds of police officers of this rank in Pakistan only, what to say of the rest of the world. Knowledge (XXG) can not have separate pages for each of them. He would have been worthy of inclusion had he been martyred in a suicide bomb while showing some gallantry.-- MARWAT  13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not Deleted.Kindly refer to Cabinet Secratariat Notification as of Sept. 2001 in which the rank of Addl.IGP has been placed eqv. to that of Major General of Army, Addl. Secretary to the Federal Govt.Establishment Division notification of June 6,1993 says Addl.IGP shall wear ranks as that of a Major General. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayofwisom (talk • contribs)
  • Sockblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete So what if he is even a plus, Lieutenant General, then Major General? An article could be created, when he would reach the rank of Interior Minister or holder of any othe Public Representative Office (PRO). The same user has also created article about his cousin Dil Jan Khan, which clearly proofs this as a vanity insertion either by himself or by any of his relatives. --203.99.182.114 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Admin - The AFD discussion header was missing causing it to be easily overlooked in going through the AFD lists. The duration of the AFD likely should be extended. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't see where he is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Should not be Deleted.If this article is deleted that all articles on Police Officers should be deleted. Or it will be bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.5.111 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete There are Millions of Police Officers around the world. Atleast Hundred thousands would be in same rank of his or muc senior to him. It is strange that why the deletion process isn't taking place and the discussion is prolonged? --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not to be Deleted. I agree if a senior Pakistani officer does not find place on this page, then all police officers around the world who have been placed on wikipedia, their articles must be deleted. Otherwise, it is racial discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayofwisom (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Stuck vote by blocked sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• To be Deleted> Knowledge (XXG) has Articles for several Pakistani police officers, who are notable and worthy to be given place here. When a position, which is somewhat low-rank and also not notable, even have no special contribution of gallantry or martyred, why should it be given a separate article? This totally seems a family member's insertion, as you could see the same user Rayofwisom is using different User Name as previously he remakred from same IP 119.73.5.111. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LineofWisdom (talk • contribs)
• Keep Essentially, head of the police of one of the most difficult areas to police in the world, and formerly head of police of a major city, peshawar, population 2 million. That alone would have been sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is part of his duty to work out here, Thousand of officers like him are working there at NWFP. Th position is not distinguished from, any other of its class. It is a low rank position, which just deals with the local police, not with the National Police. In world there are numerous cities with 10 Million poppulation but there police head's rank is not something special. It is just an officer who is to perform duty, wther in a city, at one or another province. In any case it doesn't fulfill the criteria of Knowledge (XXG):Notability. If it does, I would be happy, as then I would be able to create more than 1000 Articles for such-ranked officer only in Pakistan. --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not strike out !votes from good-faith users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Nor someone notable, neither any achievement or chivalry. --Marwat786 (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Marwat786 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note to Closing Admin Please look into this fact that this user account Marwat786 was created today solely for voting on this article as well as another one by the name of Dil Jan Khan. It appears to be a sock of user LineofWisdom who nominated this article for Deletion. It might be a tactic to increase his voting tally. Kindly investigate. -- MARWAT  12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Closing Admin Note to Nyttend I not only respect your comments but of each individual here. I am surfing Knowledge (XXG) since 2008, atleast once in fortnight. I recently created this I.D when it felt that being a native and Marwat myself, I must not keep quite on the issues relating to my tribe and its elder. I don't know how Marwatt is so confidant that I am Sock of other user who is much criticised for none. Now, when he has challenged my indetity, it is his moral duty to prove that I am using sock. Actually, he cannot see someone voting against him. He neverwants someone else than him, espcially from Marwat tribe, to speak and have freedom of writing here. If I am uneligible to vote on the very first day - my aim for making this I.D is cleared above - then my vote be declared null and void. But I request you administrators to track the previous record (from 2006 to date) of this user Marwatt to know his state of mind on article Marwat. It wonders me that he never talks regarding the deletion or whatever the subject is, but always challenges the Users' authority to defend any of the Articles that he wants to be here, wether of a Notable or obscure personality. In the end, is it fair to talk about users at Article for Deletions, rather debating and addressing the issues? Is there no administrator to stop his such notorious writings? --Marwat786 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This AFD has been mentioned at Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly ethnic-related disputes on Pakistani issues. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  There is no dispute on this article. Even User:Marwatt has voted against it and commented. So please, remove it from the Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly ethnic-related disputes on Pakistani issues and conclude it. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You know what user LineofWisdom , I am sick and tired of your unnecessary edits in articles related to Marwat’s. since I have a fair idea about your identity so I am going to tell you that I won’t let you delete the names of rival clans from the parent article of Marwat. Their separate entries/articles may be deleted as per Knowledge (XXG) Policies (just like this one on which even I myself voted a Strong Delete) but it was agreed by consensus earlier (record available on the discussion page of the parent article of Marwat) that nobody would start another edit war upon the insertion of notable names in Marwat. You on the other hand has once gain initiated that edit war and my experience with Knowledge (XXG) tells me that its not going to stop unless someone (an admin ) knocks a little rationality in the head of that particular person who starts that edit war. So be a rational person and do recognize those people from our soil Marwat and leave alone the article Marwat. All your constructive edits are welcome though. -- MARWAT  05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right forum I condemn the allegations you have charged upon me which has nothing to do with me but to provoke administrators, who, I am sure are quite intellect selections of Knowledge (XXG). I just want to ask, is this the right forum to curse, accuse or blame anyone for anything? Here you should discuss the deletion or keeping of the article not to curse someone who have opposing opinion to yours. --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete He may be doing great work in a difficult job, but his rank is too low to be notable. Opening the doors for any police person of this rank (assuming no separate notability) is not a good idea.YobMod 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

*Keep I think it should be kept. I went through different articles on wikipedia about serving Police Officers. many police officers whose rank was junior to this have been given a place and thus it gives the notion that they fulfill the criterion of WP notable person. To my knowledge being a retired mid-level Police Officer, Additional IGP is the second senior most rank in police. The jurisdiction of the office currently occupied by the officer is whole of province of NWFP. (Begukhan (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC))— Begukhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This user is a checkuser  Confirmed sock of Rayofwisom (talk · contribs). J.delanoy_adds 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep being the top cop in Peshawar seems clearly notable. Knowledge (XXG) needs these types of articles as they do much to counter systemic bias to American topics and popkult stuff. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note to Admin I read many articles about Police Officer in WP whose rank is eqv. to DIG of Pakistan's Police. still there articles are here. Addl. IGP is a second senior most rank in Pakistan's police. (Begukhan (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST. (read this as, "See above") J.delanoy_adds 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: There is severe sockpuppetry going on in this discussion. Therefore, I am relisting it again along with semi-protecting the page for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and because it seems like the AfD was brought forth in bad faith by the nominator, judging from some of the comments in this AfD. Lithorien (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Both local and international coverage, as shown here . I believe that meets our standards for inclusion here at Knowledge (XXG). ShoesssS 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Smells a lot like a Vanity Page. (Actually what it really resembles is a resume.) TruthGal (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: Nothing out of the ordinary here as there is no gallantry nor some locally or nationally recognized leadership displayed by him. He is just performing a common routine bureaucratic cop job. 100% vanity page inserted either by himself or his kids. There are hundreds of Civil Servants like him in Pakistan alone, what to say of the rest of the world and Knowledge (XXG) can not afford to have pages for such bureaucrats. Yes he would have merited a place here if he had displayed even a little bit of personal heroism and leadership as was displayed by one of his junior cop Malik Saad who has become a local legend.-- MARWAT  07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Conclude As the consensus on Deletion of article is chiefly there, I would like to request to administrator and operator to Delete the page as per policy. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - An administrator has relisted this AFD for one week (see above) due to sockpuppetry muddling everything. So there is no clear concensus. There is no need to rush. an amdinistrator will evaluate the discussion at the end of teh reslisting period and take appropriate action. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Chief of Police for a large city is a significant position. There is evidence for local coverage in English, and I suspect more in non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it should be kept . (Abbasmaj (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Okay... why? TruthGal (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability has not been established for the subject. The sources are quotes he has said as police chief and none deal with him personally as the subject. Fails WP:BIO, as has been already stated. If someone could produce reliable sources dealing with the subject of the article then notability could be established and the article could be kept. Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Whpq another article Sarfaraz Khan Marwat had the same problem but it was conclude in due time, result of which was Deletion. Attention the Abbasmaj is the same one who have created this article. So he will for sure vote in favour. But the article fails to meet criteria of Knowledge (XXG):Notability and Knowledge (XXG):Bio. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per User:DGG, User:Lithorien Internal differences between editors should not be the reason for nominating an AFD --Notedgrant (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Matter? If there is even any internal difference, it shouldn't be the reason to keep un-notable article. Infact, what is the notability of a police office which is for every city of Pakistan and of many coutnries of teh world? --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)at
• Delete Abdul Majeed Marwat was my class-fellow, at University of Peshawar in late 70s. He is a thorough gentleman, I just spoke to him on telephone about helping me out in registering an F.I.R (First Information Report). But he is just a cop / police officer like uncountable over the globe. By the way he is also transfered from the position and would soon take charge as D.I.G (deputy Inspector General) at Hazara division. --WikipedianBug (talk) 19:29, 27 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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:RS.. South Bay (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG - yeah, needs sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NF. Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 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. — Jake Wartenberg 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding references to backup claims of charting in Billboard. Not familiar with the "Independent Sales Chart". Article lacks 3rd party references and I'm having problems finding any myself probably due to the relatively common name. RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence that the band has appeared in notable charts; author admits that they haven't had airplay. No evidence for coverage in press; Google search for "alternative press magazine" braintree "important indie bands" yields nothing other than the article. Article fails to provide any verification for claims made, and although is clearly not an A7, fails WP:BAND. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Billboard.com specifically states that the band's albums the self titled debut album, Smoke and Mirrors, Tsicavo and Fabricate have not charted nor are there any album reviews available there.--RadioFan (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The "importance" section would have been enough for deletion under CSD G11, with all sorts of aggrandized claims made in the first-person. In any case, the article has not a source to its name, barely anything that asserts importance under WP:BAND--the article reads more like a magazine article about the band or a promotional writing about the band rather than something in an encyclopedia.

I'd also like to comment on something not directly related with this AfD: surely a band with the chart success the article claims would have better listings on Last.fm. TheLetterM (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless reliable sources satisfying WP:BAND can be found. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. I'm unable to find sourcing to cover this band, and thus can't see it meeting the requirements of WP:BAND. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:57, 28 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. speedied as G11 Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Vintage Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable company created by a single purpose account to advertise on wikipedia. SPLETTE :] 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nominated should be speedy deleted (picked the wrong template, sorry) SPLETTE :] 23:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The intention is not to advertise on this site, but to present information about the company. I welcome any suggestions that would make it seem less like an advertisement. Thank you. Lgoodnight83 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, but any article on wikipedia needs to fulfill WP:N. sorry SPLETTE :] 23:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - In this case, G11 would work fine. Intelligentsium 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree, this could probably have been speedied as either spam or a non-notable corporation, but it never hurts to give things thorough consideration. In this case there is plenty to demonstrate that the company exists, but nothing to demonstrate that it is in any way notable. The strong overtones of advertising don't help either. My brief Google search seemed to reveal less information than is present in the article, which indicates to me the possibility of a conflict of interest and/or a copyright violation. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Spam and copyvio of http://www.vintage-vre.com/profile.php and http://www.vintage-vre.com/acquisition.php. No discussion needed. Maybe someone else can tag it as copyvio, I am already hassling this guy about his other posts. Hairhorn (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag added SPLETTE :] 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment. Quite right on the copyvio, thanks for noticing that -- I tend not to look at the organization's own website when I Google. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:11, 21 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) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was tagged as {{db-spam}} but that criterion does not apply. However, I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this camp, so I have brought it to AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I found a source that discusses this camp in passing, but no reliable sources that discuss the camp enough to establish notability. --A new name 2008 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• added links to offcial Burning Man page describing camp Jojofroyo (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Burning Man or a subarticle about Burning Man camps. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete view - the fact that it is not even mentioned in the Burning Man page speaks volumes for its notability. I oppose the merge because there is no sourced content to merge. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:10, 28 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. Well supported, unanimous decision; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0  01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable hotel. The Bosphorus, Riyadh, Boston and Jackson Hole hotels in this group have already been deleted. A few hotels in the chain are notable in their own right and I have not included these. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also are completely non-notable Jezhotwells (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC):

Four Seasons Hotel Damascus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Withdraw: OK, I accept that my opinion on this nomination is not shared by others, so I withdraw this nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Passes the notability guidelines. Here is an article from Atlanta Business Chronicle, which covers this hotel holding a drive to fund cancer research. Furthermore, The Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta is one of only two hotels in Georgia that have earned five star ratings from Mobil. Also, this hotel has received some coverage in The New York Times. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to speedy keep all without prejudice to a renomination with all the articles getting their own AfD debates. As I demonstrated above with Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta, it is notable. This is likely the case with most of the articles included in this bundled-up AfD.

  I placed my above "keep" before Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) decided to mass nominate all these hotels. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes it takes a little time to add all of the details. I look forward to editors providing proof of notability beyond Pr fluff of the type cited by Cunard which is actually about another hotel chain. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - note that the Four Seasons Hotel Miami is the tallest building in the state of Florida, so it is definitely notable. These buildings should be nominated individually, as clearly some meet notability guidelines. Cheers, Rai•me 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, the building may be notable on heightist grounds, but the hotel is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the article is "The Four Seasons Hotel Miami, also known as the Four Seasons Tower, is a skyscraper in Miami, Florida." The article is clearly more about the skyscraper, and as the tallest building in Florida and the 51st tallest building in the US the structure is certainly notable. I don't know about the notability of all of these hotels, but the fact that this tower was lumped in as "completely non-notable" makes me think that individual AfDs would be better. -- Rai•me 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep at least the one I am familiar with, the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai has a notable ancient settlement site with petroglyphs that have been studied, and they have worked hard to preserve it and provide public access. Also perhaps because they have a private airline, the Kona Shuttle for their guests and the neighboring Hotel. Maybe perhaps remove the advertising speak and rename the article to be about the ancient site named Kaʻupulehu, with one paragraph on the Hotel. I have been meaning to do this, but do not have the time this week.

Keep Not only is this the tallest building in the state of Florida, but it is often the site Miami socialite activity and its existence is evidence of the gentrification of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.112.148 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep The two in Chicago are the only five-star hotels in the Midwest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all if there are any non-notable ones, nominate them separately--even for a chain as well-known as this, some of the locations might not be notable. .But the combined nomination here was poorly chosen--for example, among the ones on the list was the NYC one--which is apparently the flagship of the chain. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, I concur with DGG. You have not demonstrated that all of the articles you have nominated are non-notable. Individual deletion discussions for those that you can show are would be more advisable. +Hexagon1 12:05, 26 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) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chad Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shadow Dancer: The Life and Crimes of Geoffrey Marcus Lindman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These have been marked as hoaxes; they are not that, but they are all fictional elements in the works of Larry Mike Garmon, whose own article is at AfD here with notability in doubt. That article has been in Knowledge (XXG) since 2005, but on 10 August Lmgswain (talk · contribs), who from the initials presumably is, or is connected to, Mr Garmon, created a string of articles about his pen-name Edwin A. Dark, one of his books Shadows (novella), and these three articles about fictional elements in his books.

• The "Junebug Times" is a newspaper in the fictional town of Junebug;
• "Chad Chapman" is its editor and publisher; and
• "Shadow Dancer: The Life and Crimes of Geoffrey Marcus Lindman" is a fictional book by the fictional character Chad Chapman.

Whether or not Mr Garmon, his nom-de-plume or his book are notable, these fictional elements of his books certainly are not: see for instance this Google search which shows only WP and a mirror. Moreover, it seems Knowledge (XXG) is being used for a marketing campaign. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom, no independent refs to establish notability. --Muchness (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - there is no evidence for independent notability of each of these fictional elements. -- Whpq (talk) 22:09, 24 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 by WereSpielChequers A new name 2008 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nik A Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), as Ramli has not the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." My Google/Google News search gave very few (if any) reliable sources, though there may have been some kind of error with my search. Theleftorium 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, seems to be a fair bit of press on him, but the "current" version is a copyvio so it has to go. Could be a plausible topic for an article though. Lankiveil 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Yes, I saw that. I searched for this "press" on Google, but found nothing. Can you take a look too? Theleftorium 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It has already been deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 21 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) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Kingsley (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

? notability - no independent reliable sources - seems to be based on individuals own website/blog. ? promotional article — Rod 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. The JPS 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete on grounds of non-notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 21 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. Article also renamed to Morgenstern's thirteen problems NW (Talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an original research. Lacks sources since August 2006 (my attempt to find any using Google failed), I've also found some criticism of this article here and here — vvv 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my request. The original research was removed from the article, and it contains reliable sources now — vvv 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Strong Keep (see "revised position" just below) Although I think an article with this title can meet all Knowledge (XXG) policies, one with this title absolutely needs to be rigorously sourced. This isn't it. This article hasn't been sourced for a long time, so I don't see any prospect of that happening any time soon. When someone is willing to provide sources, an article with this title can be resurrected. Until then, this probably does a lot more harm than good, since it could easily mislead a lot of readers. -- Noroton (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Revised position I'm happy to be wrong about the prospects for sourcing this article, which now seems to meet Knowledge (XXG) standards. This is essentially the new article I was looking for. Seels and other editors have done a real service. (Off the topic of deletion: It isn't as easy as it might be for a layman to understand it, but I'm glad we have it.) -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*Delete No refrences, appears to be original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC) The artcile is now substantially rewritten and appears to be adequately referenced, so I withdraw my delete and replace it with keep. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment WP:ILIKEIT and it's WP:INTERESTING but even interesting, likeable original research is still OR. Mandsford (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• This is actually rescuable. As with David Hilbert's 23 unsolved problems in mathematics (Hilbert's problems) there is at least one set of acknowledged unsolved problems in economics that is recognized by economists and has been discussed in the literature of the field for some 37 years. The paper that put that set of problems forward is:
  • Oskar Morgenstern (1972). "Thirteen critical points in contemporary economic theory". Journal of Economic Literature. 10: 1163–1189.
• Unfortunately, I have no access either to it or to the later papers, books, and journal articles that it engendered, such as doi:10.1177/1354066100006001003, doi:10.1017/S1053837200002601, and doi:10.1080/08913819808443492 for just three examples. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have access to the articles and I can find reliable reference to help improve it. I'll start with the given one (some of the them have been since solved so I'll tried to weed them out). Please don't delete and at least give me a slight chance to improve it. However, most will be book references and journal articles that required paid access to get too. Seels (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Can someone look at the article and tell me if I'm taking the right approach? I normally just fix typos here so I'm new to this slightly. I plan to do more, but you have to start somewhere. I will do more tomorrow since I have to go now. Seels (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• In the absence of some rapid improvement, delete without prejudice. Knowledge (XXG) readers could be well served by an article on Morgenstern's problem set, but they are not being well served by the article in its present form. SlamDiego_←T 01:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Your argument appears to be that this article is a valid stub, but we should delete it because it hasn't yet been expanded to be a comprehensive article on the subject. How does deletion get us that expansion, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Please do not employ such counter-arguments. First, my argument does not entail a claim that this is a valid stub; rather, that it is an unacceptable stub. An acceptable stub would at least do no harm. (On the other hand, if all that a stub did was no harm, it wouldn't actually be an asset.) Second, the deletion is not itself expected to get us the expansion, nor is it expected to hinder the expansion; it is expected merely to sweep-away an article that, as it is, should not exist. —SlamDiego_←T 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You present no reason for this stub to be "unacceptable". Indeed, your only objection is that it has not been improved. Nor have you offered any explanation of the absurd claim that the stub does harm. Nor have you presented any policy-based reason that this stub "should not exist". Once again, your argument appears to be that this is a valid stub, but we should delete it because it hasn't yet been "improved" to be a comprehensive article on the subject, because it does some mystical unexplained "harm", and because it "should not exist" for no specified reason. So I ask again: How does deletion get us improvement, exactly? What is this mysterious "harm" that this verifiable stub is doing? And what actual basis in project policy do you have for your rationale? Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • You are again misrepresenting my position. I did not level the lack of improvement as an objection; instead, I made it plain that rapid improvement would be sufficient to change my position that it should be deleted. (As a matter of logic, that is quite a distinct position.) I have already explicitly stated that it is not a valid stub, so insisting that I argue that it is a valid stub is simply disruptive. A pejorative reference to “some mystical unexplained ‘harm’” is a poor substitute for civilly asking me to clarify why I think that it's an invalid stub. I haven't, on the theory that it's rather obvious what is wrong with the article (hence the nomination) — it was, when last I looked, close-on to gibberish, without even a sensible enumeration of the problems to which Morgenstern drew attention — and that the only disagreement is on how significant that wrongness is. Only if the sole possible reason for deletion were to promote expansion would it be appropriate to demand that I show how deletion would lead to expansion. (Again a simple matter of logic.) The purpose of deletion is to clean the slate for the sake of a reader who might otherwise come to the article; it's simply better to have no article than to have the sort of article that prevailed when I looked at it. —SlamDiego_←T 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the nominator has expressed a wish to withdraw his nomination, but concern that the two calls to delete might preclude a withdrawal, I drop my call to delete-without-prejudice. —SlamDiego_←T 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Query: WTF is with the reference to AfD/Unsolved problems in medicine in that infobox? —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Read it and find out. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not the most useful response from you, but I see that the article was in the past bundled with “Unsolved problems in medicine” in AfD discussions. —SlamDiego_←T 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, it got you to read it and find out, saving the effort of explaining the obvious, which is very useful. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Nonsense. My one-sentence summary (“the article was in the past bundled…”) serves multiple editors, while you chose primarily to serve your spleen. —SlamDiego_←T 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• In its present form, the article reads like it is "List of unresolved problems in economics" and is nonscientific and nonnotable. I would support a keep contingent on finding an editor to rewrite the entry as coverage of the article. Otherwise, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystache (talk • contribs) 2009-08-24 02:55:48
  • Please explain how you conclude "non-notable" from a subject that is clearly covered in academic journal articles written by economists. Also note that AFD is not cleanup, nor is the deletion tool the way that articles get expanded from stubs. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep for now. I'm gonna set about searching for some more sourcing, but 'open problems' articles are both tantalizing and dangerous. Unsolved problems in mathematics clearly fits our inclusion policy but isn't a very interesting article/list. Category:Lists of unsolved problems will probably show lots of similar articles. There is some sourcing available, but I'm not sure that Morgenstern's ideas of what is or isn't an interesting open problem makes for a good subject for a wp article. Protonk (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Updated comment. The problems brought up by Morgenstern in the 'anchor reference' (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2721542 for those w/ JSTOR access. It's in JEL, so it should be accessible to someone w/o an econ PhD) aren't so much unsolved problems as they are critiques of the discipline as of 1972 (some much older than that). The problem on the page which is not due to morgenstern is the equity premium puzzle. Depending on who you ask, this was pointed out in 1985. Note the use of the word "puzzle". This refers to a bit of Kuhnian hedging about the nature of the problem. The prevailing 'theory' surrounding the equity premium puzzle (and many other puzzles in behavioral finance) is, jointly, the Efficient market hypothesis and the Capital asset pricing model. The equity premium puzzle is a puzzle and not an anomaly because it is seen (by some) as a manner for refinement rather than wholesale replacement of the two theories. Other problems in behavioral finance exist, such as the nominal share price puzzle and the closed-end fund puzzle (ch. 3), but I don't know that sourcing exists to elevate them to the same level as the Millennium Prize Problems. A source like this one may be more appropriate to build this article from, but as it stands, the article will have to be completely rewritten. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough, the nominated version, while basically OR, was a much better list of unsolved problems than the current revision. Having said that, I applaud the work going into the current revision. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article is on a notable topic. Needs to be rewritten to better reflect what was in the original article by Oskar Morgenstern when he set out the list of 13 unsolved problems. However, needing a rewrite is not a reason to delete, especially since the article as it stands contains some information and citations that would be lost if it is deleted. Obviously, having the article there would make the rewrite easier. LK (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep & Rename Article should be kept but it should also be renamed, per CRETOG8's comment below. LK (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As usual, Uncle G has shown the way, which isn't to delete this promising start. Please see our editing policy for further guidance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This page is of interest to economists and may become more useful as more editors add content. The references are to legitimate, well known sources. Lattefever (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
• Keep - fascinating. -MBHiii (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - notable paper by very notable Morgernstern. I don't think the article title is very good though (although I understand the attractiveness of mirroring the unsolved problems in maths). Such improvements can be handled outside an AfD. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Moved to delete or merge See my indented comment above for some background. In searching for a current list of open economic problems, I run across the principle trouble I have with this list: no one agrees what is or isn't an open problem. We have some agreement about what may constitute puzzles or anomalies in the current frameworks of various subdisciplines, but no agreement that these boil down to a puzzle or boil down to an anomaly. The equity premium puzzle (As I say above) is a good example of this. If we assume that the framework of the CAPM and the EMH are appropriate, the equity premium puzzle may be an open problem, insofar as no one has advanced a bulletproof explanation of why the risk adjusted return for stocks is higher than for bonds. However, the reasons why the problem is open are not limited to lack of sophistication on the part of researchers. If we reject the EMH or find fault in the CAPM as a descriptive tool for these purposes (See MacKenzie's 2006 book for some discussion of this) then the equity premium problem is an anomaly. It is an indication that the theoretical framework needs to be scrapped. If we accept some tenets of behavioral finance, then the equity premium problem becomes much less exciting. Instead of an open problem it is waiting for some data to be filled in. That's even if we accept that the equity premium problem will remain open forever. Much like the year end effect and the weekend effect, the equity premium problem may eventually be arbitraged away, leaving no anomaly with respect to the EMH. This is troubling for this article because among the listed "open problems", the equity premium problem is the only one with some contemporary support as an "open problem" and it wasn't even in Morgenstern's list! On the subject or Morgenstern's list, I'm dismayed to see people accept that it is a list of open problems when it clearly is not. The two listed--relevance of revealed preferences absent a budget constraint or with durables and conflicts with contracting and Walrassian equilibrium--aren't "open problems" as it were. They (as the rest of the list does) speak more to the problems of characterizing economics as a science than they reveal open problems. The error of assuming a unitary policy maker when most organizational problems are collective action problems (Morgenstern's first 'critical point') is a flaw of economic assumptions and methodology. The precession of Mercury in 1900 was an open problem. Not so for much of Morgenstern's list. What this list needs is a current source asking "what are the open questions", a determination of what sort of questions go on the list, and some check against formation of this list solely through editor opinion. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rename - I'm neutral as to whether this is notable (it certainly was at one time, but I'm not sure it's retained its notability). I certainly don't object to keeping an article describing Morgenstern's description of the "13 Critical Points". However, it needs to be renamed to make it clear that this is merely Morgenstern's list and not something canonical. So the name, "Unsolved problems in economics" is inappropriate. I'd recommend either naming it directly after Morgenstern's article, or something like "Morgenstern's thirteen problems". The alternative--trying to have the article be about unsolved problems beyond Mogernstern's list--seems like pretty hopeless WP:OR to me. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:37, 25 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. NW (Talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7 Speedy; article attempts to assert some notability, and ghits seem promising. Haven't scanned it too carefully, though. I' 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Could find no information on Tim Addison entrepreneur, however, someone may want to write about Tim Addison, Tourism Manager, London Development Agency. On the other hand, someone could make a case for his company New Career Skills having a piece on Knowledge (XXG),based on the following news articles. . Thanks. ShoesssS 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The references given all appear to be basically self-promotion of one kind or another, as does the aticle itself. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:50, 23 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) 13:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of diseases and conditions with unusual features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AFD: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

There are no clear inclusion criteria, leaving the list open to essentially any subjective addition. kilbad (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The inclusion criteria should obviously be diseases whose features are considered unusual by reliable sorces. 189.105.119.191 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note:This was the user's first and only edit. ceranthor 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We've given this article several months to come up with some non-WP:NOR-violating criteria for inclusion, and it hasn't happened. IMO, it hasn't happened because it can't happen: despite assertions that we'll just follow the reliable sources, high-quality medicine-related reliable sources simply don't provide a basis for inclusion. Reliable sources frequently describe diseases as "rare" (which has several legal and technical definitions, depending on purpose and jurisdiction), but the meaning of "unusual" in the medical literature is decidedly different from what this sensationalistic article wants. For example, leukemia normally presents with high white blood cell counts, but some less-common forms, and some less-common states, present with low white blood cell counts (called aleukemia). Low WBC counts is an "unusual feature" of leukemia. But the editors don't want leukemia in this article, because it's not a gruesome, grotesque, or sensational disease.
  The bottom line is every single disease has unusual features, from "the common cold can cause a fever, but it doesn't usually do so," on down the list. This article wants to be Ripley's Believe It or Not, which I don't accept as a proper reliable source for this purpose. This article could maybe be transwikied to Wikibooks, but it cannot meet Knowledge (XXG)'s basic WP:V and WP:NOR policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources used do not meet Knowledge (XXG) guidelines re reliable sources, nor is the list encylopedic. In the previous AFD, several recommendations were given to make this page into a list suitable for Knowledge (XXG), nonetheless it remains unsuitable. --Una Smith (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete To clarify: not only are there "no clear inclusion criteria", but that there is no hope of clear, objective, inclusion criteria. This article cannot be fixed, hence the AFD. Almost by definition, diseases have unusual features. Otherwise old age, being annoying, needing to sleep every night, and the hassle of having to shit now and again, would be classified as diseases. Distinctive, unusual features, are what doctors use to tell one disease from another. If it weren't for "unusual features", medical school would consist of learning to say "You look a bit poorly today; I hope you feel better soon." Extremely unusual features are what doctors write about when they want to have diseases named after themselves.

The extent to which as disease is "unusual" is inherently POV and a matter of opinion, not fact (see the policy WP:ASF which prevents us from listing opinions as though they were facts). This isn't resolved by citing reliable sources: we don't have lists of beautiful people or great paintings or boring novels, even though one could find sources for those opinions. If one were to create a List of rare diseases and establish an objective criteria (commonly defined as rarer than 1:2000 of the population) one could produce a NPOV and V list. It would contain between 6,000 and 8,000 diseases. That is not this list. Let me repeat that: this is not a list of rare diseases. Anyway, the Category:Rare diseases is better for that IMO, as it limits the number to those we actually have articles for. Colin° 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per blatant POV and OR. (Older arguments to use outdated books to justify current information should be ignored or discounted.) As an example, Tourette syndrome is included on the list because it used to be considered rare or bizarre, and current research shows it to be a common condition. This article is an OR magnet, and does not rely on sources that meet WP:MEDRS; it is inherently OR and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently unencyclopedic, per WhatamIdoing. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Delete - this is a load of rubbish. It's in poor taste, riddled with original "research", resembles Victorian fairground voyeurism, and has the potential to damage the project's well-deserved reputation for quality. WhatamIdoing is quite right in saying every "disease" has unusual features. I am ashamed to see this here. Graham. Graham Colm 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - As the original creator of this article I agree on your points of having it deleted. As I wrote in the last deletion review, I wanted to give it a chance to show what it perhaps could evolve into with the combined effort of the community, but now it's just a complete disappointment to me - not much improvement to the article itself, but, on the other hand, a hell lot of controversy and dispute. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Delete un-encyclopedic POV fork per above. Ward20 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete "unusual" is inherently subjective, making this list original research and a violation of WP:NPOV. Coverage in reliable sources doesn't matter here, as what constitutes "unusual" will differ between sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WhatamIdoing and Graham. They've said everything I could have, and more eloquently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: POV article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Medicine-related deletions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I really like this list in spite of its problems. Since that's not a proper reason, I am not !voting, but if I think about it for a while perhaps I will find a pretext to !vote keep. This AfD reminds me of List of common misconceptions, which also once survived an AfD with no consensus. There are some superficial similarities, but this list is much more focused and attracts much less nonsense. Basically the question is whether a specific article is sufficiently interesting to include it here. I would have thought that we can deal with this, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe this as a POV issue. Perhaps this list can be moved into portal space, and perhaps we need WP:WikiProject Edutainment to take care of such lists. I would see it as a service to those of our readers who like to learn the general basic facts of nature by reading about the most unusual and exciting special cases. Actually, outside my main areas of interest I am one of them. This kind of list doesn't need to be as carefully done as other, more serious ones. Nobody will be seriously misled by an erroneous decision about the conclusion or otherwise of an article. Hans Adler 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - There is absolutely no way this isn't a original research list unless some actual, reliable, scientific study from whatever organization handles odd and rare diseases (excuse my ignorance in this topic) is released. Also, per Sandy's comment about Tourette syndrome. ceranthor 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The name is the only reason people complain about it. Perhaps call we could rename it "a list of things with what a considerable number of people find interesting". I said keep last time as well, at the first AFD for this article There really should be a book listing just these things. Dream Focus 01:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  How you plan to source that vague title? Hemorrhoids are interesting, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  List of diseases and conditions that at least 5 Knowledge (XXG) members state are interesting to read about. Everyone alright with that name? Seriously, if enough people say each item is interesting, then consensus can be to keep it. Remember, a policy in Knowledge (XXG), that overrides any suggested guideline, is Ignore all rules, which reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge (XXG), ignore it." Dream Focus 02:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Wiki uses reliable sources, not editor opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, not always. Depends who is around at the time to post their opinions, and the opinions of the closing administrator. We saved this article last time didn't we? ;) Dream Focus 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  So, you suggest that if I find five editors who think hemorrhoids are interesting, we can "save this article"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  All things are possible, if you believe in yourself. I believe in you. I honestly do. Keep trying, and you can make all your dreams come true. Dream Focus 02:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please try to base your arguments in policy, rather than vague aspirations. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  "Depends who is around at the time to post their opinions" – I agree. I wish the same people who are here now had been around at the AfD for List of common misconceptions.

  At the very least I would say rather than deleting this article we should move it to WP:Unusual diseases, as a kind of subarticle of WP:Unusual articles. Having such a list leads to more people watching them, which is probably a good thing because we can expect more vandalism or other problematic edits in this area than for other diseases of similar rarity. It also helps editors looking for good topics to feature in portals, or to bring to FA standard. Remember there is a reason why the general media love such diseases. Hans Adler 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  You are essentially saying that because TV programs like "Extraordinary People" are popular, that a serious encyclopaedia should have an equivalent article. They are popular because there is no limit to the source they can draw on, the threshold for freakishness is remarkably low, and people like to stare. Based on such programs, we'd have to include obesity because there are some extremely fat people who can't get out of bed any more, eczema because a really bad case can be pitiful to look at, pregnancy (a condition) because of multiples, dementia because it is easy to get a laugh, allergies because some people claim to be allergic to everything, and so on. These have all been topics on these programs and you would find it hard to exclude them from this list because they meet the criteria. Truly this list shows medical ignorance and naivety, for once someone becomes really familiar with more than a few diseases, you realise they are all fascinating, unusual and bizarre in their own way. Colin° 09:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. "Unusual" is not a neutral criteria — vvv 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Merge with WP:Unusual articles, as per User:Hans Adler, after pruning a bit and keeping only the really unusual ones. The article has problems but it has value and it is interesting (and it is not completely random or unsourced). --Cyclopia (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  And how will you define "unusual" in a way that is consistent with Wp:RS and WP:MEDRS, and what will be the difference between this and rare disorders? And, as an editor of medical articles, I find no evidence for the assertion that these article will receive more vandalism hence need more attention: coprolalia receives far less vandalism or faulty edits than more common conditions, for example, tuberculosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• In fact I am proposing of bringing the list out of article namespace and in the WP: namespace, just because of the concerns above. I mean, I agree it is not an encyclopedic list (otherwise I'd say "keep"), and in fact I'm proposing to take it out of the encyclopedia: , but I feel it is an interesting enough list (IMHO), even if idiosyncratic, to merit some inclusion of the material in the WP:Unusual articles page, which is not strictly part of the encyclopedia namespace (but it's funny and interesting enough to stay). --Cyclopia (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Further, I'll pick apart some of the medical ignorance in this article on the topic I know best there-- Tourette syndrome (TS). First, TS is neurological, genetic, not psychological (as classified on that page, but that can be fixed). Second, neither tics nor TS are unusual or rare; tic disorders and TS were previously considered to be rare or bizarre, but that is now known to be incorrect information. In fact, reliable sources define tics as "isolated disinhibited fragments of normal (emphasis mine) motor or vocal behaviors" (Cohen and Leckman, p. 23, and many others). Third, if the intent is to define coprolalia as "unusual" because it is so rare even within TS, even that info is misleading, because coprolalia is present in many other conditions besides TS. So, I suspect if every entry on this page where scrutinized by knowledgeable medical editors and based on reliable sources, there would be little left. On what basis are conditions to be included in this article, and how would that be different than the category for rare disorders? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• This I completely agree. The list in fact needs a lot of pruning: TS in fact would have to be thrown away, while gephyrophobia or aquagenic pruritus can need mention. See comment above anyway: I am proposing a merge away from the article namespace. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another example: the inclusion of Alice in Wonderland syndrome using that high impact WP:MEDRS source The Wall Street Journal. The real article states it's a "common experience at sleep onset". What's so unusual or unique, the name? This article will never be NPOV because the objective is a specific POV. Ward20 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Again: it needs not to be in the article namespace. It can find inclusion in the WP:Unusual articles list, which is away from the namespace and explicitly idiosyncratic. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• There. I merged what was worth merging, now I'm fine if deleted. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• A somewhat futile Keep -- but I agree with Dream Focus that the major problem with this was its name, not the topic. Essentially, this is a list of existing Knowledge (XXG) articles concerning rare medical conditions, with additional context and citations to sources for the reader to consult for further information. I find nothing offensive or unencyclopedic about the subject; each of the blue links is the exact title of the article, rather than a paraphrase. Even the picture of the child with progeria is an image on that page. I'll save it to my hard drive, since it appears that this will eventually result in a delete. However, let the discussion run its normal course, since it's not a candidate for a snowball. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Since you are asserting that this page contains "rare medical conditions", can you please support that assertion with reliable sources ? Since you also assert that there is a problem with the name, just how would either you or Dream re-name it so that it could comply with WP:V or WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  You are falling into the same trap as happened last time this went to AFD: that a List of rare diseases would be more acceptable and quite easy to reliably source (there are organisations in the US and EU that maintain a database of all diseases so-classified). That is not this list and so not relevant to this AFD. That article exists but is a redirect. If someone wants to start a real List of rare diseases then be my guest, but see my comments above about the size and practicality of such a list. Many of the entries in this list are not at all rare, just freaky. Colin° 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as before. The scope of the article cannot be suitably defined. It's content is subjective and unencyclopedic. Axl ¤ 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Listing criteria inherently subjective. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is indeed a book listing these things--though rather old, it's still the classic, here's a classic older book on the subject that should have been cited: Anomalies and curiosities of medicine ; being an encyclopedic collection of rare and extraordinary cases and of the most striking instances of abnormality in all branches of medicine and surgery, derived from an exhaustive research of medical literature from its own origin to the present day by George Milbrey Gould & Walter Lytle Pyle, Saunders, , OCLC 249245631 that was republished as Medical curiosities : adapted from Anomalies and curiosities of medicine by George M Gould; Walter L Pyle, Hammond Pub., 1992. OCLC 59921916. -- proof that material can be verified and is not necessarily SYNTHESIS & that there are objective criteria. There are others. It's a topic that has a certain interest: human sensationalism can be notable. That is not to say that the book can be taken at face value for everything listed--even for its period, it was deliberately prepared to be an inclusive compendium including diseases that were reported as such. Like any older source, it has to be used with discretion.it's not scientific, but it shows the interest in such things, the fact that people write books about them, and the fact that diseases and conditions can be qualified as unusual or extraordinary on the basis of what other people have said about them. A lot of what it reports is poorly authenticated, and I would never use it as evidence for what something is; I certainly would use it as evidence for the view of what people considered something to be. There are many older books of this sort, which don't qualify as real science, but rather as earlier generations views of pop science. They appear weird or quaint today, but they are culturally significant none the less DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps an article should be written about the book, as the dated curiosity that it is, but you made the same argument last time, the article hasn't improved, and it's an outdated source that isn't likely to meet WP:MEDRS. That a very dated source exists doesn't mean we should tailor an article to it, unless the article is about the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That book would be an excellent source for the historical article on cabinet of curiosities, but not for a list that purports to be factual. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Subjective title/topic inhibits NPOV since one source could call a disease "unusual" while another could place it within a larger topic. Reliable sources don't cut it when the topic is subjective like this and a leap to original research is necessary to create the article, which is against our policy. A rename can't work as long as the topic is subjective and judgemental. ThemFromSpace 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't see anything wrong with the topic of the article itself. SandyGeorgia has pointed out that there are statements in there that she knows not to be true, not to mention problems with POV in the writing, and I acknowledge that she, and other persons who have noticed errors, have more expertise than I on medicine. My feeling is that when there is a blatant inaccuracy in an article (it drives me up the wall when someone says that Pearl Harbor happened on "December 7, 1942"), then it should be fixed by editing immediately, in order to prevent false statement from staying on Knowledge (XXG). I've edited out many an unfounded statement in articles, such as the one where someone wrote that when General Patton died "10,000 soldiers volunteered to be pallbearers". My feeling is that, unless the topic itself is inappropriate for an article, then the decision to keep or delete should be made after errors are removed or corrected. Perhaps there wouldn't be anything left of this article after the falsehoods were removed; still, I'd rather that there be something accurate that the average user could refer to, as opposed to nothing at all. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the entry on epilepsy from this article. It isn't "unusual"; it is the second most common neurological disease after stroke. The paragraph also contained a multitude of factual errors, and was unsourced. I got no end of grief from someone who claims to be an admin. If we all had to fix the falsehoods in articles prior to AfD, and get hassled for doing so, we'd spend all our time polishing turds and no time writing articles that deserve to exist. You say there's nothing wrong with the topic but how is it different to "List of beautiful women"? How would one define an "accurate" list of beautiful women? And why would anyone waste their time trying to fix errors in such a misguided non-encyclopaedic subject? Colin° 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think anyone is obligated to replace incorrect information with corrected information, it is never a waste of time to remove an obvious falsehood, even in an article that should be deleted, nor to call a lie a lie. To do otherwise is to permit misinformation to masquerade as truth, even while the article goes through the slow discussion process. I'm not saying that anyone should fix a lie by replacing it with "improved" content. As to the person who claimed to be an administrator and gave you grief for removing false information, a self-righteous dumbass like that needs to be reported. Nobody should ever attempt to deter you from editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I appreciate DGG's point, but I don't agree that one book defining something as "anomalous" is a definitive source that something is anomalous. May's Curious Facts, in many ways the direct inspiration of all modern "weird things" books, includes some things that would never be considered unusual my most people, and their listing doesn't make them anomalous. We grudgingly tolerate the wretchedly aren't-non-Americans-funny Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles (maybe someone can explain just why Siachen Glacier, Project MKULTRA or Not proven are "unusual") because it's not in the mainspace, but "list of foo with unusual features" is just as subjective as "list of funny looking cars" or "list of hot women" except in those few cases where there's a broadly accepted definition of what is and isn't anomalous. – iridescent 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: only a subjective collection of miscellanea with no encyclopedic value.--Garrondo (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I take DGG's point, but I agree that the issues voiced by a number of other commentators (WhatamIdoing, Sandy, Iridescent, etc) are prohibitive. When medical sources use the word "unusual", they tend to have in mind either uncommon presentations of common diseases or common presentations of uncommon diseases. This, on the other hand, seems to focus on symptoms that seem attention-grabbing to a layperson. I actually think that either definition is too hopelessly subjective to be feasible under Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies.

  The strongest argument in favor of keeping the list is that Knowledge (XXG) ought to be interesting and fun to read. But that only goes so far. In the end, the sorts of interests addressed in this article are probably best satisfied by watching a few episodes of House or a trip to the Mütter Museum. MastCell  17:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, highly prone to subjective decisions of what is listed. I can think of no valid reason for keeping this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This list is harming the encyclopedia far more than it's helping it. What's next? List of diseases that Knowledge (XXG) editors find amusing? Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • We already have that. – iridescent 21:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh - in that case... merge! :P Just kidding. MastCell  23:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe you didn't notice I did exactly that, and no kidding! (see above) --Cyclopia (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Oy. MastCell  01:06, 27 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) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are a fair number of Google hits for him, Google News is less kind. After reading the text of the article, I have serious doubts that thorough sourcing is out there for him, as opposed to his various projects. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It makes me suspicious that there's no article in Italian Knowledge (XXG). Apparently, it was deleted in October 15, 2007 -- Noroton (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The type of work he is in will garner him Google hits, but nothing to verify notability. Our Italian counterparts are on the right track. Location (talk) 05:48, 25 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 Cheers, I' 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rather spammy article about not-yet-released movie. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Tentative keep pending verification of notability of festival awards.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Having just performed some preliminary cleanup, and with respects to the nominator, it is a documentary that has already screened and won awards at several festivals. Though it may never receive widespread "commercial" release (few documentaries do), as a film about how inner city schools might improve themselves, it is making positive impressions when and where it is seen... so "unreleased" is not exactly correct. After myself removing promo and peacock, I feel this article has potential. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and move to The Providence Effect. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I had thought of doing to do the move... but when such is done in the middle of an AfD it messes up the various links. But yes... it should be moved to the correct title per naming conventions. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I just moved it -- it shouldn't be too problematic with the redirect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well... that left the rescue tag with a redlink, but I fixd it. Thanks for the move. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:28, 26 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) 13:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Airplaneman 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT per nom. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NEO. Jujutacular _contribs 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Possible speedy as promotional? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - typically I would suggest a transwiki over to Wiktionary. However, it is not in use within the English language, at this time. As there are no references, that I can find, delete is the only alternative. Thanks. ShoesssS 20:41, 21 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. NW (Talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term, sourced to only one TV show. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Standard issue non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So, how many TV shows must an article be sourced to before it's allowed to stay? Does the Wiki community always hate on new contributions? --Chris.kuebler (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• How many TV shows? Er.... more than one? Try Googling for "AIS time" and get back to me. Hairhorn (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the term has uses other than the TV reference used in the article: Its a term used for writers when "Ass in seat" time is important to actually producing . "Ass in seat" is also used as a term for headcounts at entertainment venues . The term seems to have wider use than expected from the context of the article . MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Then there's still the issue of the article is a definition. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an unsourced neologism. Furthermore the page currently consists of a definition and a de-facto "In popular culture" section (the description of the television episode), neither of which is appropriate as the sole content of an article. (I suppose one could argue that the combination of the two is sufficient; I disagree.) Note, too, that the references suggested by MichaelQSchmidt are uses of the term ass-in-seat, not uses or descriptions of AIS time. Cnilep (talk) 13:33, 27 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) 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

White-supremacist capitalist patriarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Keep. bell hooks specifically coined this phrase as a way of talking about the intersections between all of these systems of oppression, although it is important to address patriarchy, white-supremacy and capitalism individually, it is critical for us to have the language and understanding on how these individual systems affect us on multiple levels. bell hooks talks about this a great deal in her work and this article could easily be edited to add her more detailed analysis. Seedling (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We have articles on white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy. There's no evidence presented that this phrase is something other than an amalgam of what can be found on those three articles. Nor is there evidence that hooks' usage is particularly notable outside a small realm. csloat (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Change to merge with bell hooks article, unless someone can present evidence of this phrase being used by other scholars to mean something other than the sum of its parts. csloat (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nothing past Hooks claims/references. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – Though the term seems to go hand and hand with bell hooks, I believe it has generated enough interest and use as shown here to warrant a stand alone piece at this time. Thanks ShoesssS 21:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Change title to White-supremacist capitalist homophobic agist large-environmental-footprint militarist patriarchy, although I get a nagging feeling that this doesn't even cover it. -- Noroton (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't pass WP:N -- not enough substantial, in-depth coverage of the concept in sources other than its mother, bell hooks. -- Noroton (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Even though it is cited well over a 100 times, as shown here , in Google Scholar ? Thanks ShoesssS 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Though google hits alone don't establish notability, I actually find the google scholar argument persuasive. Are there any third-party scholars commenting on what this phrase means other than what the individual words mean? csloat (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe if you look at the very first reference, Making Sense of Women's Lives, does not define what the individual words represent, but discusses "... what this phrase means", and is cited 25 times. Thanks. ShoesssS 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (PS: by the way I agree totally with your Google hits remarks. If that was the case ShoesssS would have his own article. I look for in-depth - reliable - CREDTABLE - third party sources before expressing a delete or keep opinion). ShoesssS 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw nothing in Making Sense of Women's Lives other than the author's unsubstantiated opinions (assertions, not argument based on logic or facts), and amid that, only a throwaway use of the phrase, not a discussion of the concept referring to bell hooks and exactly what bell hooks means by it. There are other phrases and even concepts used in opinion journalism (which is the kind of writing in Making Sense) that get plenty of repetition, but without the in-depth treatment that justifies an encyclopedia article (Drive-by media, Club Gitmo -- which redirect to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show; there may be a way to salvage all or some of this by merging it into a similar article or even section of some other article; Feminazi has its own article, which should be deleted for the same reason I've given here -- no in-depth coverage in reliable sources is shown, so if anyone nominates it for deletion, tell me and I'll vote to delete). Although it's not necessary to the decision here, there's an obvious possible POV motivation to include anything in the encyclopedia related to points of view on politics or religion, and we really should be skeptical until the proof is solid. If in-depth coverage of the idea can be shown, I'll change to Keep. -- Noroton (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as the article is WP:NN. Lithorien (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge Per WP:NN Soxwon (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per csloat's reasoning. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe that this phrase is sufficiently well-assocaiated with bell hooks to make a redirect appropriate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't played in a professional league so seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. Lack of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Hussein Karim is playing with Arbil in the 2009 AFC Cup. he was Najaf FC main Striker until Arbil bought him because he is one of the best Strikers in the current time. Mussav (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have a source that he has played a competitive game in the AFC Cup in 2009? GiantSnowman 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• he did not play yet because he moved for Arbil this month and he will play for Arbil this month in the 2009 AFC Cup against a Kuwait Club. So why deleting it then recreating it again? Mussav (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Saying he will play in the future is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL; what if he is injured and is unable to play? GiantSnowman 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Then all you have to do is to delete this article and then I will recreate it as soon as he plays?... or how about delaying this issue until this month pass so we can make sure if he will play or not. Mussav (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I brought a source for Hussein Karim being played in an official Tournamnet, he played for Najaf in the Arab Champions League in 2007 and scored 2 goals . Mussav (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - meets WP:ATHLETE as he has played in a top-level, continent-wide tournament. GiantSnowman 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep link provided above, meets WP:ATHLETE. Weak_Willed 19:23, 21 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. NW (Talk) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product promotional page. The page has been marked for cleanup for more than 3 months with no sign of becoming an article rather than an advert. No sources demonstrate notability. Ash (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fix - GNU Project, which is definitely notable, endorses it, and credible sites such as talks about it. Needs major work and fix possible cut and pastes. (may still not be copyright violations if the original documents were also GFDL). I think this is just a bad stub, in itself not a reason for AfD. Greenleaf (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Note) It is listed on http://www.gnu.org/software/xnee/ but I cannot find any "endorsement" by GNU. Unfortunately the appearance in Linux Journal is probably contestable as a poor source as the only article I can find listed there was written by Henrik Sandklef where he says that he was the original creator of Xnee.—Ash (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a part of GNU project, home page hosted there, and so on. That's the endorsement I meant. I'm not saying that any part of GNU project is inherently noteworthy but that's a different story. Greenleaf (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete': All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence or even claim of notability. JJL (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability requires multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources; I can only find the one LJ story. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:N but it's not a slam dunk: These seem to satisfy coverage with the first likely qualifying as significant.
  • http://www.research.rutgers.edu/~jhom/pubs/thesis.pdf page 56 through 57 (one full page), mention on page 72, and example script on page 75 where the author also added notes explaining some of the xnee script file format.
  • http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gghartma/final-report.pdf - end of page 5 to the start of page 6 (pages 7 to 8 in the PDF).
  • http://www.ibcn.intec.ugent.be/papers/2650.pdf - top of page 4 in the PDF (page 89 on original document) - Trival mention in that they used xnee as part of their test bed. Note - this appears to be an illegal copy of the document and so likely should not be cited as a ref. Legal copies are available from ACM at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378210
  • Google Scholar finds what look like more than trivial mentions of xnee in the following documents. All of them require membership in ACM or payment for viewing and so I can't verify how substantial the coverage is. I'll include the snippet Google shows.
    • http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1450095.1450132 "... Xnee records X11 protocol data such as Xevents from the local X server into log files and later, uses those recorded log files to replay those events."
    • http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240669 "mouse events were logged using a modified version of XNEE 2.00 (http://www.gnu.org/software/xnee/), which received data directly from the X11 windowing system."
    • http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1411759.1411779 "Xnee synchronizes replay against the X11 windowing events registered during record (eg change of focus, window pop-up, etc)."

Something that may tilt this as not qualifying is that WP:N states "sources" plural in "sources address the subject directly in detail." The implication is a notable subject should have more than one significant source. The second item in the list above has one paragraph about xnee which I generally classify as trivial coverage.

I was unable to find anything where someone wrote up a page, or even a section, reviewing xnee other than the software author's article in Linux Journal (which I don't count for WP:N as it's not independent). I did run across a number of ports which could be construed as independent coverage but all of them seemed to be part of mass ports of either GNU or X11 software. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I've updated the article with a bit more detail that also allowed for citing three examples of independent coverage as references. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:N. Lithorien (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per links above. Satisfies WP:N. Weak_Willed 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep suitable from the first, and better now. One good references would have been quite sufficient--it depends on the quality of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Marc Kupper; thanks for saving an article! --GreyCat (talk) 06:23, 24 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 and redirect to List of Decepticons. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The subject is a non-notable minor character in the Transformers franchise. It fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability, as the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theleftorium 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete As someone who happens to really like the Transformers franchise, I have to say that most of characters are not notable. This is one of them. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just as note, "non-notable" is never a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • -sigh- There's no independent reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• He was one of very few new characters made for the movies and the books. shows information about him. My mistake. He has a similar name to an Autobot named Blaze Master who was in the movie. Unlike Blaze Master, he has no toy, no film appearance, and is only in one book. Dream Focus 17:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That book can not be used to establish notability (see WP:PRIMARY). Do you have any reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject? Theleftorium 17:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I have followed the Transformers since the early 1980's. I collected the toys, bought some print media, watched the cartoons and the movies. This character is not notable and does not need its own page. Lattefever (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
• Comment - Is there an appropriate article it could be merged with? A list of minor Transformer characters or the like? If there is I didn't find one. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 27 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) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the press this man has received, a biographical article on him apparently fails WP:BIO and specifically WP:BLP1E; the individual played a very small role in a larger event, and any mention of him should be included in an article/articles about the event. He does not meet the notability requirements for his own article and, if anything, his page should be turned into a redirect to where he is mentioned elsewhere. Vicenarian 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep/ speedy close This AfD is premature. This is a developing story, so we don't know yet what level of notability this individual or the related issues have. It may be the case that nothing further develops and this can be merged into an appropriate article. But deleting it now despite the substantial news coverage before its relevance is fully apparent is not in the interests of building an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep While it may currently seem not notable, it may become notable later on. The event has just taken place, give it some time. Warrior4321 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The article itself fails WP:BIO and really, the only notability that's offered up goes towards proving the event's notability, not the person's. Regardless of if more information will come out or not, this single person isn't likely to ever have signifigant notability. Just the event. Lithorien (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom's statement and reasoning. If it turns out, after all the hoopla dies down, that this subject does meet the notability criteria, then we can always recreate this article. →javért 19:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment My comment concentrates on the last sentence: "Just as in Mr. Kostric's case, no gun crimes were being committed and no arrests were made." This statement taken from the final sentence in the article is not supported in the article itself. There was no mention of actual charges, potential charges, comments of the secret service nor comments of police officers regarding the nature of the arrest. A record of false arrest would be necessary to justify the sentence. The statement implies there have been no valid gun related arrests in association with protest demonstrations - a false claim. "Richard Terry Young, 62, of 821 Ocean Blvd. in Hampton, was arrested around 9:40 a.m., hours before Obama's arrival, and charged with the misdemeanor crimes of criminal trespass and carrying a loaded pistol without a license." source link http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090811-NEWS-908119961. I hope this article will be edited and presented without what I see to be clear bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkatlady (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are welcome to edit the article yourself if you feel it can be improved. Vicenarian 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The entry doesn't even try to present a biography, it's an account of an event. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now I agree with ChildofMidnight here. The event just happened, so we don't know what will happen. If it turns out that this was just a minor incident, it can be deleted, but we don't know if this story is going to explode or not. Weak_Willed 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Textbook example of WP:BLP1E. As to some comments, we shouldn't be in the habit of keeping articles and then if the person doesn't become more notable delete it. We should delete non-notable BLP's and if later he becomes notable, then the article can easily be recreated.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - hi, welcome to WP:BLP1E. The guy showed up to make a controversial statement, got some press out of it, his 15 minutes are over, and we have nothing outside of his little demonstration to prove he's got any continuing notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Saying something that is evolving is one event seems a bit overconfident to me. At the worst, some of it can be merged to Free State Project or to an article on health care reform efforts or an article on the related protests. I don't see what the big rush is. We don't know how this issue will progress or if it will. We don't know if this indivudal will continue to campaign. Why not give it 2 weeks? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't create biographies for people in anticipation that they may, perhaps, become notable. We create articles for people who are ALREADY notable. Just being mentioned in the news doesn't make you a notable person, as WP:BLP1E states; if we agree in principle that this individual is not notable now, then he shouldn't have an article now. If/when he becomes notable, he can have an article. In any case, this AfD will run for a week, so he at least has that period of time to assert notability. Vicenarian 22:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep What this man did was newsworthy, it just remains to be seen if it turns into a significant movement--as evidenced by the recent events in Phoenix. Time will tell. If this fizzles, THEN we should delete this page, but not before. But regardless, there is definitely some room for more linking and redirects, since it is very likely that people researching Open Carry will continue to search on his name. Trasel (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Being "newsworthy" is a poor defense of an encyclopedia entry. This isn't a newspaper. And at any rate the news, if anything, is the event. Hairhorn (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Wholeheartedly agree with Cube lurker. Take away this guy's gun, and he wouldn't merit an entry into Knowledge (XXG). It's the event, not the man that was the thrust of the news stories - and even the event wasn't all that noteworthy. If anyone can remember this guy's name one year from now, contact me on August 22, 2010 and I'll rewrite the article myself. TruthGal (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - This article and bio do not contain their own context. That is to say, Kostric does not by himself have any significance. The phenomenon of the town-hall meetings and their backlash and protests and counter-protests are part of this year's national debate on health care, insurance, and government intervention in the medical services market. These meetings and the protests are a significant factor in the larger debate on health care. The town-hall meetings and protests should have their own article, as a sub-article on Obama's health care agenda. This sub-article should contain all the major events that composed this part of the debate, including the belligerence of the protesters, the violence of the counter-protesters and protesters, and the phenomenon of open-carrying gun owners presence at the debate. As yet, none of this has a clear ending or resolution, so perhaps it would be best to wait and then merge all related bios and articles into one single article on grassroots protests and town hall debates, once their significance becomes clearer. To ignore Kostric would be a clear effort to bleach history of unpopular protesters, but (as yet) he lacks the significance of his own context. --D. Bier-- 08:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BLP1E poster child. Our article says nothing about him except he stood outside a building for an hour. That's an article about an event, not about a person. No evidence that any of the news outlets that covered the event were any interested in the person either. One sentence could possibly be squeezed into an article about how heated up Americans are about Obama's health care proposal, but needn't contain Kostric's name. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry to post again (I already earlier voted to Delete), but a "If a tree falls in the forest" analogy occurred to me. A guy shows up with a gun to an event... but he doesn't shoot anyone with it -- he's, in fact, at no point anywhere near President Obama. There seems to be nothing remarkable about this, right? A tree didn't fall in the forest in this case. Or another way -- if Oswald took his rifle up to the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 and didn't fire it... would he be notable enough to warrant entry into Knowledge (XXG)? I can't imagine there'd be an article about a man who "carried a sidearm openly while President Kennedy was visiting Dallas." TruthGal (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is determined by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. And as far as people caring, it's not only a big story in the U.S., but being carried internationally. Here's a Chicago Tribune column form one hour ago , a Canadian news story from six hours ago , and a Zimbabwe news story from 10 hours ago. Yet it happened more than a week ago. But you're welcome to cover your ears if you don't want to hear about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles you cite do an even better job making my case for Delete than I did. Both mention a man identified as "Chris" who also brought a gun to an event that was so far away from the President, he was never in any danger. By your logic, "Chris" is notable and thus warrants his own entry in Knowledge (XXG) because he's mentioned in multiple news sources. When, might I ask, will you be getting around to creating the entry for "Chris"? TruthGal (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article mention Chris as being a more recent example of the phenomenon. So now we see that perhaps a merge to the organization that both belong to makes sense. All it took was a little time. There's no rush. It's a notable phenomenon, we just have to figure out how and where it's appropriate to include it, instead of running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to delete things we don't fully understand the signifance of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Openly carrying a gun in New Hampshire is legal. Citizens in states that allow carrying firearms in public tend to do just that, so I respectfully disagree that this is a "phenomenon" much less a notable one. TruthGal (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Epbr123 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP: not news. not notable Capitalismojo (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as textbook WP:BLP1E, which hopefully will be applied correctly this time around. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable outside of the context of one news cycle. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete completely unnotable news event of the day. As noted, this is a textbook WP:BLP1E. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Absolutely no notability, he just got lots of news coverage one day for doing something stupid. Reywas92 21:07, 25 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. NW (Talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

International Astronomical Youth Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable summer camp. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable 40 year old international summer camp. Adequate sourcing exists . The article needs some work to make it more encyclopedic. Many more sources also available at google books.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would expect something with a 40 year history would have more than 6 google news hits. These hits are either to blogs (or similarly self-published sources) and are trivial in nature. Not the kind of significant coverage required by WP:N--RadioFan (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you persist in neither looking for sources nor reading what others say? User:ChildofMidnight said "many more sources are available at Google books". Your own AfD nomination comes with links: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Clicking on either "books" or "scholar" will show there are enough sources. Not even doing this much counts as a bad-faith nomination, surely? Shreevatsa (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments, they are about Google news only, not on books or scholar. Please dont assume bad faith.--RadioFan (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, assuming good faith. I saw your comments were only about the Google news hits, but that was exactly what was puzzling; why you seemed not to have looked at the other sources before nominating (after it was already a contested prod). Shreevatsa (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Google hit counts are not a definitive indicator of notability but the lack of news hits does raise questions in my mind. That's what I was trying to say (poorly). --RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep In addition to my comments above (there are enough sources), we must remember that it's plausible there are sources in other European languages that do not use the words "International Astronomical Youth Camp". Shreevatsa (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per CoM. This is a well-established and probably as notable a science youth camp as it gets.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:27, 23 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) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey in Mali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most probably a hoax. It is highly unlikely that Ice Hockey is played in Mali, and the claim that a local team has played against a NHL team is full nonsense. Originally prod, but the author removed the tag Julius Sahara (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - utter nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, funny but likely a hoax, and definitely no evidence of its existence. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe they (or lackthereof) can meet up with the Jamaican Bobsled Team? Transwiki to unencyclopedia. The idea of having them meet upwith the Jamaican Bobsled Team is still perfectly valid however. Weak_Willed 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I tried combinations of "Hockey sur glace" and "Patinoire" with "Mali" and "Bamako". Sadly, none of them turned up anything to support this wonderful article. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, re-create on 1 April 2010. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This is actually true, even if it's hard to believe. It's hard to search for information about ice hockey in Mali, because Mali is one of the poorest nations in the world. I will try to improve it. -KyyhkyBoy
• Delete The Youtube video under links is not much of a support, either, just a bunch of seemingly African children copying a seemingly American man yelling "Let's go Penguins, Let's go Steelers, Let's go Pirates." I've been working on Downhill Skiing in Nauru and Surfing in Mongolia but I realize that if this is deleted, those might be, as well. Eauhomme (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - even if not a hoax, it is not notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, the Rescue Squad is on the job. We've added pictures and we've added references. Admittedly none of the references actually mentions Mali, but we're circling in on it. Just takes time. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When I see independent filmmakers with finished projects to their credit and established character actors who have never had "significant" roles get deleted for failing WP:ENTERTAINER, the last thing I want to see is crap like this get rescued. Sorry if I sound bitter, but it took a solid week of rescue work and arguing for me to get a well-established character actor with 40 roles to her credit to close with a "No consensus", rather than the delete it was heading for. Eauhomme (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't say that yet. We still can improve this article. -KyyhkyBoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.30.169 (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. This important subject should not be lost to the world just because of the shortsightedness of a few Wikipedians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (copy to Uncyclopedia if anyone knows how). It is clearly a hoax - no trace of any sources. I have used some of the material for a new article on Ice hockey in Africa (not a hoax). Mali does not figure in it. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Mali might as well be Mercury for all the ice hockey you can play there.--EchetusXe 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete obviously a hoax page created to "test" the ARS, as demonstrated by Aymatth's sarcastic comment. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we Snowball this one? I apologize for the sarcasm - never appropriate. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No way. Winter is coming and I sense the tide may be turning in this AfD. Clearly the subject is gaining interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax article, and there's no evidence that ice hockey is played in Mali. Epbr123 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like its time for that article on Antarctic mud wrestling. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to start Mountaineering in the Maldives there are solid references here and here. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you get a bunch of native children to rattle off the names of Pittsburgh sports teams in a Youtube video and call it a source in that article, too? Eauhomme (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Get serious. Hockey is not relevant to Mountaineering in the Maldives. Edmund Hillary may not be either. We just need a Youtube video of kids planting a flag on the highest peak in the Maldives (2.3 meters) - that would be definitive. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• "In the 2006 Hockey World Cup in Germany, Ivory Coast came from two goals behind to beat 10-man Serbia & Montenegro. Arouna Koné evened the score with a header early in the second half, and Bonaventure Kalou scored the winning goal on a penalty shot". I didn't know you could head a goal in ice hockey........ Seriously, this article is a total load of bollocks and should be deleted post haste.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*Should this be relisted so we can get a stronger consensus on how to handle it? Okay, I admit it. This has no place on Knowledge (XXG) although it's amusing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• The consensus is delete. Why is this discussion still open? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• AfD discussions typically last seven days. –Juliancolton |  04:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This and same-sex marriage in Antarctica are in the same category. What's next? Golf in Antarctica? Basketball in Mars? Tim Song (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Golf in Antarctica has more sources than this article but seems to be limited to disc golf, golf driving and crazy golf. As far as I can tell, Basketball in Mars is not very popular sport. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who says Martians can't play basketball? I'll find some sources, and create that article for ya. Weak_Willed 23:36, 27 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 G8. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of L-Men Of The Year Winner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable beauty competition. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• G8 as subpage of deleted parent page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I did look but could not find anything... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Make that nonexistant parent page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:47, 21 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 as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Liscomb 09: The Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously prodded for lack of notability but was knocked down by creator. My concern is if it really exists. Quick google search returns nothing but wikipedia hits and mirrors of wikipedia. Also maybe a coincidence but title is similar to another baseball game: MLB 09: The Show. Salavat (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Salavat (talk) 16:02 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete – complete lack of verifiability. Likely madeup. MuZemike 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unverifiable, possible hoax. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete hoax, as far as I can tell  Chzz  ►  00:26, 28 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. — Jake Wartenberg 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product lacking GHits of substance and lack any GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:PRODUCT and WP:COMPANY. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Speedy removed by IP which should not be allowed IMHO. Jujutacular _contribs 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. Removing a speedy template normally calls for an edit summary at least, especially from an IP. Sorry, speedy decline rationale on talk page, although at no point in the edit summary does it say "speedy declined", which is poor form at best. Delete at whatever speed, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable. --GreyCat (talk) 18:22, 22 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. SNOW. A7, OR, trivia, name it. Tone 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sponge Bob errors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-verifiable list of fan cruft. PROD denied by author. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - per nom. Nothing worth salvaging. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable list. Jujutacular _contribs 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, OR, and the spelling looks far too bad to be simply bad spelling, this looks more like a nuisance entry. Hairhorn (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Even ignoring the spelling (and for a member of WP:TYPO it is indeed painful), this seems not notable at all. Maybe in the "Goofs" section of IMDB it would be more welcome. McMarcoP (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete trivia cruft. And that's not even going into the original research and the erm..."nodisabol" spelling errors. Doc StrangeLogbook 16:47, 21 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 Third Watch. — Jake Wartenberg 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - non-notable fictional character, fails every notability policy and guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - sources do not provide enough to warrant an article about the character. Jujutacular _contribs 15:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Sources exist."bobby+caffey"&num=10&as_price=p1&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&start=10 Those are kinda slight. Someone with lexisnexis could get it up to GA pretty easily, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merely being mentioned in a source does not mean that the individual character is independently notable. Please offer some sources that are substantively about the character, not just sources along the lines of "Bobby Cannavale plays Bobby Caffey in Third Watch". Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Peregrine Fisher, but having said that, it doesn't seem necessarily unreasonable to merge this character into a list article. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge I don't see enough for an independent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, limited coverage, little analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge or Redirect to Third Watch article. TruthGal (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment a whole bunch of Third Watch characters have been prodded for dleetion... 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've started a merge discussion for all the various characters at Talk:Third_Watch#Merge_all_character_articles_together_onto_a_list. — 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 14:00, 27 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. — Jake Wartenberg 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of a one-sentence definition, followed by three brief, apparently arbitrary "examples." A WP:DICTDEF prod was removed with the edit summary "seems to be a discussion, not merely dicdef"; personally, I think "You can manually override printer errors sometimes, and they manually override stuff on Star Trek, and someone manually overrides something in this one movie" (paraphrased) is a pretty weak discussion. Propaniac (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article consists of two things: WP:DICTDEF, and examples. A list of examples of manual override would be unmanageable. Unencyclopedic. Jujutacular _contribs 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) - I agree with the 'keep' arguments below. Jujutacular _contribs 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable subject. Ripe for expansion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The article could be expanded to a general set of examples of using a manual override, and give explanations of different override mechanisms. This would require someone more familiar than I with the subject to really make it shine, though. Lithorien (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable article, though it needs expansion. This is a fairly general concept in practice. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree the article with the above Keepers. How could we not have an article on such a common concept? Dream Focus 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — a widely used term with suitable examples and references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The nominator just tells us that he has found an imperfect stub and gives us no reason to delete this rather than improving it. There is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Articles that consist only of brief definitions (as this one was, plus three random and essentially worthless examples; it's now a better-written definition plus two random examples) are deleted all the time; it's a perfectly valid reason to delete. I disagree with the opposing arguments that because this is a common concept, there must be something encyclopedic to say about it, and surely eventually someone will actually create this encyclopedic content (by that logic, we should create stubs for every single word and phrase in common usage). I will be amazed if this article ever turns into something substantial and informative. Propaniac (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Remember all the new automatic transmissions coming out with Manual override options. -MBHiii (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Still fundamentally a dicdif with no potential to go beyond a dicdif. The only thing in there beyond a definition of the term was a random sample of places where manual overrides have appeared in fiction, which is not an encyclopedic topic. The only sources are to a technical definition, and to an article that happens to mention the subject... which is used, in the article, only to provide a more detailed definition. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Potential for much beyond being a dicdef. Quantpole (talk) 13:52, 27 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. The debate has now moved to a more appropriate place, RFC. In order to keep the debate centralized, I am closing this AfD as No consensus and kindly ask everyone interested to participate at Knowledge (XXG) talk:What Knowledge (XXG) is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules. Thank you. Tone 12:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

classic WP:NOT, particularly "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• delete all. Not particiularly encyclopedic either. Weak_Willed 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this directory info. JJL (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Its not a directory, its a just a novel navigation device. We have the same for US television and radio. See 2009–2010 United States network television schedule. A directory is a list of red links or of external links. A list of blue links is a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment ugh! I don't see how that isn't a directory listing--the shows are already in WP and searchable, so this just adds the ability to know what was on at 9PM on a Tuesday on NBC? JJL (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Weak_Willed 09:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• • WP:WAX should be avoided. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Pure deletionist copyright paranoia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete-do I really need to comment? Once again, Knowledge (XXG) is not to be confused with tv guide.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you still should. Grazi. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not an electronic program guide; what makes this schedule historically significant? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. An interesting historical artefact, consistent with existing articles at United States primetime network television schedules which survived deletion discussion. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  See WP:WAX. The deletion debate you mentioned was in 2007 - it is hardly relevant. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, it is highly relevant. Edison (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not voting either way on this as I don't really care (although I don't see the need for it, as it is not really encyclopedic), but I would like to say that while I understand that the What About X?/Otherstuff exists arguments are invalid in an AFD, surely as a policy it is responsible for a lot of heartache amongst contributors. As human beings by nature we look to precedent to see what is acceptable, so that when some articles are deleted and others are not (when they essentially are the same) it is bound to lead to feelings of frustration amongst some contributors (and also possibly the notion of selective/biased deletion). So I guess what I am really saying is that while Otherstuff exists is an invalid argument, it might be nice to actually have some consistency. 115.129.5.223 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A television schedule. Joe Chill (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Programming schedules are outside the realm of encyclopedias unless there is something descriptive to say about them (the current article is just the schedule, nothing about the schedule). CyberCobra correctly points to the relevant WP:NOT policy on them which explicitly mentions them. Information like this dates very quickly, we avoid having articles on bus schedules for the same reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong DeleteAre we really questioning this its really easy Delete.--Dcheagle (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Nice looking article, transwiki to at least somewhere. Dr. Eme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
• DELETE Ironclad case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Indiscriminate info, unsuitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. –Juliancolton |  16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Who would look up Australian television schedules from the 1950s to the 2000s in an encylopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is notable and encyclopedic material here in the United States, and barring any systemic bias its just as notable and encyclopedic Down Under. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the fact of Broadcast programming as strategy is notable, but I'm less convinced that directory listings of the annual outcomes of that process are notable. JJL (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• WP:WAX; And fwiw, I personally don't find the US ones any more notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete While I don't agree with Ironholds's reasoning on past TV schedules, I think the guy is right about a current schedule being too much like TV guide. Besides, I never watch Australian network television. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced. I'll bet that it is copied verbatim from a copyrighted source. Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: If television schedules are so important why not create television schedule instead of making a directory of old TV Guides? Even an old TV Guide has no historical significance. What you guys are saying is that old TV Guides from 2008 and below are historically significant without explaining how it is. Whenever anyone posts links, it always shows notability for television and not the individual old TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Husband: I'm going to throw away last years TV Guide.
• Wife: Don't! Copy it onto Knowledge (XXG)!
• Husband: Why?
• Wife: The TV Guide is historically significant now that it's a year after.
• Husband: Okay. I'll type this up on Knowledge (XXG).
• Wife: Get my mom's old TV Guides from the attic and type those up also! Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

this is argument from anecdote--which often cuts both ways, for what this amounts to is the proper collection of material for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you guys say that when no one has said how this particular schedule is historically significant. And for anyone who wants this deleted because it is a current schedule, do you want the delete to be undone in 2010 when it is "historically significant". Joe Chill (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: Please consider together the related open AfDs Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). JJL (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Keeping such articles about the schedule (as opposed to daily programming) is consistent with WP:NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory which says "..historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." This is not "TV Guide," which says what the program's episode will be on a particular day. In a given country, the network TV schedules have typically been discussed in more depth in books, magazines, and newspaper media columns, than mere listings of the days programming. The schedule is a strategic choice of what program leads into a given program, and what the competition is in a time slot. Edison (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Scheduling choices generally perhaps, but this schedule specifically? What makes this one "historically significant" as required by WP:NOT? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Its significant as the history of the real world presentation of a major artform. I note the repeated use of Harry and Louise arguments, which do not help rational discussion.
• Delete, a clear case of WP:NOT, as far as I can see, and the above Keep comments don't convince me otherwise. Lankiveil 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOTDIR. As some delete voters have done, I also copy my comments made at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules (same nominator, same topic, same batch): The deletion rationale: "a classic case of Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY" defies imagination. It is not only grossly misleading but downright counterfactual as this type of information is specifically mentioned and even wiki-linked in WP:NOTDIRECTORY as acceptable. While I would like to assume good faith my olfactory organ informs me that the nomination does not pass the smell test. The present outcome is pretty obvious: - divisive stuff that turns Knowledge (XXG) into a battleground. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  I have no ulterior or pointy motives in nominating this for deletion. Either provide "Available evidence and logical inference" or withdraw your unwarranted and baseless personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The relevant section of WP:NOTDIR specifically requires that such schedules be "historically significant"; no evidence has been presented that this one is. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It does not "require it", it presumes it. It says that U.S. network programming schedules are historically significant. I would extend that to other countries, since this is not "U.S.pedia" Edison (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the validity of that special exemption in the policy is questionable. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
        • If you want to change a policy, please go to the policy page to do so. Edison (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are provided as to why this is Historically significant, Gnangarra 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - and, to closing admin, my !vote to the other Australian TV Guide articles is Delete as well. I could go through a list of WP:NOT examples, but, this one's pretty much common sense...--Unionhawk 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Knowledge (XXG). Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year. Dream Focus 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, Knowledge (XXG) is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Article should not list tv schedules and I do not see how this has any significance. Richard (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I relisted this debate because there are several similar cases open at the moment and my opinion was that there should be a unified approach to all of them. However, if I focus just on this one, it would be a delete, NOTDIR as the main reason (as it was discussed above). --Tone 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment "2009 Australian network television schedule". Not true. Maybe that is what is true for parts of the year in some parts of Australia. It is not the schedule for what is curently happening in my part of Australia. My part of Australia is a lot bigger than Melbourne and Sydney. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

what I gather you are saying, then, is that the article should be expanded? Go to it. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This should be an obvious delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or a TV guide. It's an obvious example of what Knowledge (XXG) is not. I personally cannot comprehend how this is possibly historically significant. Timmeh (review me) 21:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#The_consensus_so_far shows that 21 editors feel these guides are unencyclopedic, ten think some are acceptable, and five think all such guides are appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

that pretty much comes to no-consensus at least as regards network or national guides, such as this one . DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the policy has not been overturned. The alleged lack of consensus means the policy is upheld. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And many of the ten in-betweeners are against current program guides. Abductive (reasoning) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And per WP:AFD, "Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page." The admin who closes it is presumed able to evaluate the quality of the arguments, and whether they are based on policies or guidelines without your assistance in tallying. And it is not a vote. Edison (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Power.corrupts, above at 22:01, 18 Aug -- Noroton (talk) 22:17, 21 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. Tone 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

National Junior Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, for a business that hasn't opened yet this appears to be Crystal Ball gazing and also promotion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - WP:CRYSTAL and a blatent advertisement. Lithorien (talk) 13:30, 21 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) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Live Phish Downloads: 06.07.09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable music download  Chzz  ►  12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. What makes this different from all the other live show downloads that jam bands put up? Weak_Willed 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Whether or not it's different from other "jam bands" isn't the issue. The following was on WP:NALBUMS regarding non-notable recordings: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums". And this release does not fall into any of those categories. Therefore, I do not agree with this or any other Live Phish Downloads release being deleted. Rjvaughn1979 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a bootleg. Weak_Willed 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a bootleg. Bootlegs are released without the artists' consent and are in effect illegal. These recordings are sold by the band and are considered "official" as such. Rjvaughn1979 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all bootlegs are unofficial, and most aren't illegal. This is similar to what Linkin Park, Pearl Jam, the Allman Brothers and Disturbed do, they release the concert to download or as a CD. If it is part of a series, the series may be notable, but an individual recording isn't. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if more Phish recordings get AFD'd. There also has to be WP:RS provided for each album.

It wouldn't be practical to make an article for every official live recording/bootleg released by artists. Knowledge (XXG) would turn into bootlegapedia. Weak_Willed 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The definitions at bootleg and bootleg recording would definitely not include this recording. Both say that bootlegs are recorded without the artist's knowledge and distributed without their intent. This recording, and all Live Phish releases, are soundboard releases obviously recorded with the band's knowledge, and released through their official live download site. I fail to see how this could be considered a bootleg. — MusicMaker5376 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So articles on each individual bootleg/live recording listed , , , and all the other artists that sell their live concerts online can be created and exist? Weak_Willed 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge (XXG)." — MusicMaker5376 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: The only source that I found for this was the article itself. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I also did a search and could only find one source. If there are more sources out there, I'd be willing to change my vote to Keep. TruthGal (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources:

• http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/review-phish-find-their-footing-in-camden/
• http://thebutterroom.com/post/122353055/review-phish-camden-nj-6-7-09
• http://fromtheroad.phish.com/tour/2009-06-07-susquehanna-bank-center — MusicMaker5376 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are about the concert and not the subject of the article which is Live Phish Downloads: 06.07.09. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

They're about the subject of the recording. — MusicMaker5376 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe someone should have created an article on the concert instead of the non-notable recording. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Or how about an article that encompasses all of Phish's Official Bootleg Recordings? If MusicMaker5376 was to write that article, I think I'd support it. TruthGal (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Such an article would be extraordinarily long: http://livephish.com/catalog.aspx — MusicMaker5376 13:48, 23 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) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vector (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A thirteen year old "unreleased" short film. The directors' names link to disambiguation pages, only one of which lists a director (which turns out to be a stub article). All but one of the actors are redlinks; the sole blue link has "unconfirmed" written next to it. ('m not clear on how you can be unconfirmed for a 13 year old film.) Google searches turn up little more than movie database/aggregator sites. Prod declined, pointing out that the film can be watched online. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• DELETE Absolutely not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Christopher Long (director). No reason to lose the more relevant information if it can be merged. (Not sure if Long is notable, but that article can be AfDed on its own merits).ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unreleased efforts are generaelly not notable, unless the failure itself is notable. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:09, 23 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. No reason for deletion here, SNOW keep. Tone 14:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory nor is it a repository of entries already contained in barebone catalogues of flora and fauna that do not provide veriable evidence of notability.
This is just one of hundreds of stubs created using automated editing tools without any regard to Knowledge (XXG) content policies, sourced only from tertiary sources. Without notability, this article topic is best suited to Wikispecies, not Knowledge (XXG). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

see also

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability#Existence does not equal notability — Jack Merridew 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - not quote sure what the nominator means. It's a real species, which puts it on the same sort of footing as a real place. It was the subject of more than one scientific publication. And it has been included in several checklists - the one listed as a source, the Kew checklist... Easily meets our content policies. Guettarda (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Guettarda. There are thousands of stubs like this, all expandable. By definition each species of plant has one peer-reviewed scientific paper on it and almost always many many more referencing or discussing it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above. WP:N with WP:RS — Ched :  ?  12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - While there are many references to the specific species of plant, Knowledge (XXG) is specifically designed to hold articles of notability. Just the existance of something doesn't mean that it should nessicarilly be included in the project (see: WP:NN), and this species of plant by itself isn't notable enough to be kept. Lithorien (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep per the edits done to the article to prove WP:N coupled with the argument from Rich Farmbrough - Better to provide some information than none at all. Lithorien (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy-Keep per Cas, Guettarda, and Rich, who's editing the article at the moment. Jack Merridew 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- I understand the concerns for the type of stub, but am uneasy about all WP:NOT type arguments. If I enter a reasonable heading into WP I want to get ideally an encyclopaedic article, but failing that a simple explanation of the term and only failing that a link to another wikiproject or other site - a "not found" is almost always worse than a sub-stub. Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC).
• Keep - Per Guettarda. Has been the subject of scientific study. This just like 99% of other species related articles needed research and expansion. Granted though they all require a tremendous amount of work. Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above reasons. Keep in mind that the notability guidelines beyond GNG (love 'em or hate 'em) are shortcuts for determining that reliable sources are likely to exist. Any species documented and included in catalogs is likely to have significant amounts of data backing it (unlike many other topics for which directory-like stubs may be created). There is a strong presumption that any classified species meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. _matic 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; all taxa are notable, both inherently and by the letter of the policy. Hesperian 13:49, 21 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. A7/advert/crystal. No prejudice agains recreatin when more material is available. Tone 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a new political party. Appears to have been created to promote the party. Doesn't seem like this party has been around long enough to meet notability requirements. -- Mufka 11:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are figures in the above party:

Dylan Gilligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joe Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Mufka 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all. The sole source seems to indicate local notabilty only (if that) and they have one candidate ready to run. Not yet notable, needs more press coverage at least. Hairhorn (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Lithorien (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a project that is about to be publicised in the British national Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.128.142 (talk) 13:47, 21 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, copyright violation of the UrbanDictionary page. The fact that it was a made up word about a Facebook game referenced only to UrbanDictionary didn't help. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Zynga'd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO  Chzz  ►  11:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant non-notable neologism; see also WP:MADEUP AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NAD, WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. More than an entry about a (non-notable) neologism it looks like a rant against the developers of Zynga. This is not the place for this. McMarcoP (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per JohnCD and nom. Lithorien (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All neologisms are madeup at some point. This is a fair explanation of the word zynga'd which is now in common use on the facebook forums. If the last 3 paragraphs are deleted it will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyfob (talk • contribs) — Keyfob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, per JohnCD, nom, and WP:NOT. WuhWuzDat 12:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. Urbandictionary is not a credible source, WP:NOT. Syrthiss (talk) 12:54, 21 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. NW (Talk) 13:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced/Speculative and not warranting a dedicated article Jasepl (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Something weird is up with this AfD listing... Delete tiny airline that is still in planing stages. Not notable at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete nom, Subject appears speculative, not notable AndrewHowse (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unformatted, unreferenced, possible hoax, WP:CRYSTAL Admrboltz (talk) 03:46, 27 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. hoax is blatant so this is a speedy. Wizardman 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant hoax. No evidence of any player by this name having played for Tigers in any of the years listed in article. Googling for "Ben Caiasson" + "Detroit Tigers" turns up nothing useful. Baseball-reference.com has no similarly-named player listed in the 2008 Tigers' stats. Also, the majority of the creator and sole editor's edits have been vandalism. Majorclanger (talk) 14:24, 21 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. I am overriding the non-admin relist because WP:RELIST wasn't followed. Relisting an AFD is done in order to achieve a full debate when there has been only one or two contributors to the discussion, not as a tie-breaker when plenty of people have commented and opinions are split. This is the very definition of no consensus.
There are some suggestions of merging, which can be taken further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT this person is quite the opposite of noteworthy. JBsupreme (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• 'Delete He's only notable for one event and searches on Google indicate the same. Ilikepie2221 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, although I think most of the merging has already been done. Although I don't think there is enough to keep an article on him, he appears to have been an important witness in an important trial. Location (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. Most of it is there already, apart from the allegation about the $2m reward. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's a choice between just delete and keep (i.e no-one's prepared to do the merge work), then I'd keep. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think you will lose important information merging this into the bombing article. There are a lot of exceptions to WP:ONEEVENT such as the bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. --MarsRover (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:MarsRover. To quote from WP:BLP1E, "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." I don't think anyone is suggesting that the event was not significant. And given that the individual's testimony played a core role in Megrahi's conviction and then his subsequent appeals, obviously the individual's role was substantial. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life (on Knowledge (XXG)). No, if the living person has not personally received substantial lasting coverage by multiple third party publications then said person should not have an article here at all per WP:BLP and BLP1E. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This article has been in Knowledge (XXG) since 2006 and nobody has reacted against it until the sudden interest in the Lockerbie bombing got a lot of people to read the articles concerning it. WP:ONEEVENT states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Well, the fact that Tony Gauci's witness statement (for which he is claimed to have been paid $2 million, and which a number of high profile people have since questioned) was the sole reason for the arrest and conviction of al-Megrahi must definitely be regarded as playing a large role in a highly significant event. If you want to remove articles about unimportant people from Knowledge (XXG), there are thousands of others that are much better candidates for removal. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:35, 21 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 Danny_Wallace_(humorist)#Danny_Wallace_and_the_Centre_of_the_Universe. NW (Talk) 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Danny Wallace and the Centre of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a non notable book by Danny Wallace that has very little third party coverage . oppose redirect because typing Danny Wallace is good enough. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - What's wrong with adding the redirect anyway? People may be searching for the full title, why not allow that? Lithorien (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Danny Wallace (humorist) Lithorien (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect - blatantly non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rdeirect - Definately not notable enough for an article, but still valid search term.--Unionhawk 12:02, 28 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 already deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)