Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 11 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep per withdrawal. I'm surprised this was nominated, tbh; it is the most popular Linux desktop environment behind GNOME and KDE.. (non-admin closure) Sceptre 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


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

Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable, all sources listed are passing mentions, self-published, or blogs. Contested PRODMiami33139 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn considering LinuxMag source by Reisio and Linux Journal source by OlivierDST. I hope those sources make it into the article so the next person on cleanup patrol doesn't re-nominate the article. What is currently there is not enough. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 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 affiliate marketing. MBisanz 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains no references to recognizable, independent, third-party sources that meet WP:RS, and a variety of searches brings up nothing that I could use to help establish this article's notability. While I understand that certain industries do not receive mainstream media attention, there is a certain standard that needs to be met, especially for potentially contentious subjects such as affiliate marketing, and the self-serving sources used for this article just do not cut it as legitimate references. Flowanda | Talk 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - clearly promotional. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge, as the article did receive enough attention to become a good article nominee. While you can remove some non-encyclopediatic information (i.e. information about the protocol for affilate marketing, or material from interested sites), there is still a significant chance the article can be written as a normal article without promotional information. The article may be a little short, and if there isn't additional information, can be merged into Affiliate_marketing#Past_and_current_issues. Alternativly, text from that article can be pulled onto this page, since the "main article" is about 41KB long.--Sigma 7 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

A list of casinos, almost none of which have articles and none of which have references. Redundant to Category:Casinos and its subcategories. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you are of course right, the list needs a good dose of cleaning up. But that is an editorial matter. But to give an example of the utility of the list I didn't realise until I saw it that Crockfords didn't have an article. Not only arguably one of the world's most prestigious casinos but one which dented the profits of it parent company and Kerry Packer made the national news by suffering the biggest losses ever sustained in a casino the UK. TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per TerriersFan. Lists like this can be improved greatly with sources and info, etc. Lists that include redlinks are good places for people to expand Knowledge's content. A category and a list aren't mutually exclusive. SMSpivey (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Categories and lists serve different purposes, list is susceptible to fleshing out in a way the category isn't. I don't understand what the rationale for deletion is - it is just because the list isn't done yet?. Townlake (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Sigh. Absolutely not redundant to category casinos, from: WP:Lists#Purposes of lists: "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigation templates." Please, don't be a list hater. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The list clearly mentions the cities the casinos are located in, thus providing information the category can't cover without going in execessive overcategorization. - Mgm| 11:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Obviously the list which is now 80K should be broken up (e.g., casinos in U.S., Europe, etc.). The nutshell for WP:NOTE says there has to be mention by third party sources. There are countless websites and books which list casinos. Casinos are loaded with various political, religious, and social issues not to mention the entertainment issues. I've started writing some of the red links and once you start digging, it's amazing what you find. Americasroof (talk) 20:15, 12 February 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 deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:HOAX. Would have speedied it except hoaxes can't be SDed. §FreeRangeFrog 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • delete - no google results, so seems likely a made-up condition. Could probably have just proded it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:28, 11 Feb 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure if this merits deletion, (may just need a rewrite) but I'm unsure which forum it should be discussed in. It's basically a puff for the company.

However, the references don't quite support the article text:

Reference 1 is the company website

Reference 2 CNN - does mention Talentsmart as a "leading provider of emotional intelligence tests"

Reference 3 Amazon - no mention of the book being a best-seller (as stated in the article text), but at least it does exist

Reference 4 article written by company employees

Reference 5 Newsweek article - doesn't mention Talentsmart.

Additionally there is one main contributor, Underwaterhero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - apart from the logo which was uploaded by the indefinitely blocked spamster Talentsmart2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom edit only Talentsmart-related pages.

I don't know what to do with this, like I said, but I think it's worth someone more experienced taking a look at. pablohablo. 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC) pablohablo. 22:54, 11 February 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 deleted as nonsense/hoax (non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a made-up nonsense name. Google turns up zero results. The sole reference has no mention of "Alksdnfaokse". Deli nk (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This one is obvious nonsense, hence the G1, some others I've seen qualify as pure vandalism. I imagine the rationale is that if it's not so obvious you give the creator a chance to prove the validity. No way that's going to happen here though. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 11 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This person does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Besides the COI (see signature added at bottom of article), the original reserach, peacock terms there are no multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Although a short story is in a magazine and a poem is on the web this doesn't meet the above criteria. It is mentioned that she has performed at open mic "hot spots" (though who considers them hot spots is not cited) but this is largely trivial. DFS454 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete puff page. pablohablo. 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This article has basically become a guide to various methods of marijuana smoking. It's full of contentious statements and a staggering amount of original research.

Let me be clear that I do think this topic is notable, and it does deserve an article — but this isn't it. An article on cannabis smoking should cover the social phenomenon, the way it's viewed in different cultures, the history of the practice, and so forth. Not this atrocity, which I view simply as a guide to gettin' toasted.

One possibility could be to migrate most of the content to a more appropriate title, like "Cannabis smoking methods". The content would still be pretty lousy, but at least that would make way for a total rewrite of "Cannabis smoking".

Either way, I believe the slate needs to be wiped clean to make way for a completely rewritten article that's actually worthy of the encyclopedia entry "Cannabis smoking". Equazcion •✗/C • 21:50, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - I see a lot more information than just a how-to guide. With a little expansion and cleaning up I can see it reaching GA status. It needs way more references, which shouldn't be TOO hard to find, and that's why the maintenance tags are there. -- OlEnglish (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, more than a how to guide. "I believe the slate needs to be wiped clean to make way for a completely rewritten article that's actually worthy of the encyclopedia entry Cannabis smoking"....well, why don't you be bold and do it then.  Esradekan Gibb  22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You mean, blank the article? I don't think that'd go over too well... I know, if you think an article is notable but the content is bad, you can't nominate it for deletion, just edit it... Well, that's just not how it works, yet. I'm suggesting deleting the article on a content basis, which isn't uncommon. Someone needs to write an essay on "no deleting articles for content", and try getting it promoted to guideline... but til then, here we are. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -- We don't delete articles on notable subjects unless there's no content of value there, which is clearly not the case for this article. Article deletion is not a substitute for editing. Feel free to remove any OR or HOWTO material from the article, and add information on the worthwhile subjects you mentioned. If the article is expanded as you recommend, there might some day be reason to create a separate Cannabis smoking methods article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; but that's not a subject for AfD. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I would remove all the OR -- I really would -- but since that would basically mean blanking the majority of the article, I thought it better to bring the issue here and let the community decide. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:49, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • Articles under AfD can't be blanked, but they can be stubbed; of course, if you delete material that other editors don't view as OR, they are entitled to revert those edits. That's how this type of problem is supposed to be resolved -- not via this forum. See Knowledge:Deletion_policy#Editing, Knowledge:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_not_for.3F, Knowledge:ATA#Poorly_written_article, among others, if you have any further doubts. If you do delete material, please remember to make a note here so other !voters are aware of significant page changes. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well there's more than just the OR concern, there's the contentious statements and its guide-like nature. Since removing everything that fell under those categories would leave a mere sentence or two... in my opinion... not much different from a deletion... I chose nominating instead. The debate over deletions for content, and how much bad content should make a deletion necessary, is far from settled. I believe this article is sufficiently full of bad content as to warrant its deletion. You seem to disagree. We can leave it at that. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:24, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep/Rename This is a perfectly decent article, although I'd be happier if it had a great many more in-line citations, particularly in the Homemade and single-toke sections. The nominator's suggestion of a name change has some validity since "Cannibus smoking" is a loaded sociological (and political) term. "Cannibus smoking methods" (or some variation) would be a more accurate description of the article's content. No particular malice to the nom, but this shouldn't have come to AfD. A talk page straw poll for a name change would have been more appropriate. -Markeer 00:12, 12 February 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 deleted by MBisanz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Kenosha helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst the crash is tragic, the accident is of a highly common nature, although I appreciate the aircraft did strike a house. Had the five occupants been killed, it would be an entirely different matter. The accident fails WP:AIRCRASH and Knowledge is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Blood Red Sandman 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Aviation accidents resulting an loss of life." is for commercial airliners. There is no sign the helicopter was anything other than a private or corporate aircraft. Blood Red Sandman 07:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
And the reason for keeping? I'm with the aviation accident task force myself. In particular WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS if you're suggesting that since other aticles exist than so should this. Blood Red Sandman 07:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
-My impression of WP:AIRCRASH as a non-member of Project Aviation and as a categorizor of many aircrash articles for airline categories viz Category:EgyptAir is that the notability of aircrashes has something to do with the "aviation-nature" of the incident; if an incident is noticeable and puzzling to the aviation community then it gains strong notability. That was my impression upon reading the nominated article yesterday, and I didn't figure from reading the nom that you were involved in WP:AVIATION. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. Not only were unusual circumstances involved in the event, also "The National Transportation Safety Board responded to a string of helicopter crashes including the Kenosha event with a set of hearings, beginning February 3, 2009, intended to build support for wide-ranging increases in helicopter safety regulations." Events that change regulation are also notable. - Mgm| 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to bite and agree based on the recent expansion that added that little snippet, but the source doesn't actually say a word about the crash in relation to the hearings, instead simply using an image of the crash as an ilustration. I'll go scout out the NTSB's website; if the accident was specifically mentioned at the hearings then that to me equates notability and brings it neatly past WP:AIRCRASH. Blood Red Sandman 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This didn't bring up anything that suggested so, although it did bring up the factual report (a stage between the immediate preliminary report and the final report with reviewed information and a cause) here which offers important information if we are to keep the article. Blood Red Sandman 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The article fails NOTNEWS because the event does not get covered for an extended period of time, like say US Airways Flight 1549, but is simply reported on like any other news story and then is forgotten by media. It fails AIRCRASH because although there is loss of life, it is not from a commercial airliner. Tavix (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasons to keep this aren't too strong but it does meet the criteria under http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Notability The crash was a helicopter owned by Midwestern Air Services, a charter company. The criteria to keep is "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition." If we want to modify the criteria, then that's a discussion that should occur on that WP page, not this AFD. So my gut feeling is to delete but my careful consideration of the criteria says it's a keep. Therefore, it's a keep. Chergles (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If you read the NTSB report you will see that although owned by a charter company it was in fact a private flight. Therefore, it is not commercial but general. I agree the wording is fuzzy and needs changed, but am reluctant to do it until this AfD closes so as not to be seen editing the guideline while it is being referred to in an AfD I am active in. Blood Red Sandman 00:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, one of many non-notable fatal light helicopter accidents which we dont document. Sadly these small helicopter fatal accidents are not that uncommon. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete When I looked at the article, and saw it was a Robinson R44, this has re-affirmed my belief this is not a notable accident, particularly as that model has a looooooong history of problems in operation. The fact it crashed into a house does not make it notable. Also, the operator is not a part of civil aviation, but of general aviation, and there are hundreds of general aviation accidents around the world on a yearly basis. It perhaps deserves a mention on Robinson R44, but as a stand-alone article, it is not that notable, not by WP:AIRCRASH which is only an essay, but by WP:N, in that it does not have long-term notability except for a short burst of news, making it WP:NOT#NEWS. --Russavia 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've linked to the NTSB Factual Report from the article. General aviation, single pilot, drinking shortly before the flight. "The accident pilots medical certificate and student pilot certificate had a solo endorsement with 'revoked' written across it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Just because a helicopter crashes doesn't demand an encyclopedia article. There needs to be something about the incident that causes it to rise above the tragic but "ordinary" nature of crashes. That's why we have criteria for encyclopedic notability. Yes, it has references, but they are news sources, and they do not demonstrate lasting notability. AKRadecki 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per first part of nom. I disagree that it's a memorial page and that it fails WP:AIRCRAFT, but I do agree that although the loss of any lives is tragic, this particular incident simply is not notable in any way. --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 04:06, 16 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Like Me, Schoolmate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax or a vanity page. Found no sourcing in English that was not a mirror of the WP article, and no sources in Japanese at all. Dekkappai (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Future work or not, Knowledge is not a crystal ball. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment that's probably a mirror or a copy of the Knowledge article pablohablo. 16:56, 15 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Globe Department Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singular department store. Despite a long history, it doesn't seem to have been significantly covered in any reliable sources; even if it were, I doubt that it would extend beyond local coverage anyway. Any verifiable information should probably be merged to Mall at Steamtown, which was built around the store. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:41, 11 February 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. Userfication is available upon request. kurykh 02:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Created by COI/SPA account. Not sure if it is notable enough for an article. Discuss. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a good faith editor. I told him/her about the username issue, but nobody suggested that s/he change his/her name. I'm not sure why everyone is so down on this editor, who is making good contributions, if also newbie-ish mistakes. I'm not sure the camp is notable, but deleting it because of a supposed SPA issue (s/he has also edited the article Camp Fire USA and made corrections to the Girl Scouts article) is wrong. Yes it's obviously likely there is connection with the camp or council with the same name. Perhaps the article could be merged and redirected to an appropriate target. I'm really tempted to bring up WP:NOHARM, but of course that wouldn't fly. My declared COI is that I was a longtime member of Camp Fire, a camp counselor and a recipient of the WoHeLo medallion. That and $5 will get me a latte at Starbucks. Now can we find another solution like merging this to an article about the local council? Katr67 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • comment Since getting the message this morning I have changed my name as you can see. I read the rules but did not think it would be a problem. the only reason I added the webpage because I saw that there were other camps in Washington with the wikipages, (Camp Sealth, Camp Orkila ) there is a list of summer camps with links to their pages so I did not think it would be a problem to add one for zanika. There isn't one for its council cause the camp is more well known than the council. Sorry for making it seem like it was spam, but I have changed my name now.--Abebless (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't change my name, I just started a new account because I am blocked and can not try and request a name change at this time.--Abebless (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
comments: First: take a look at Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Second: the big problem with these types of article is in establishing notability outside the local area. I'm not very familiar with Camp Fire organization, but if it is as similar to the BSA as I understand, then camps are not separate legal entities and they exist primarily to serve the local council. You are jumping from a national organization to a chunk of a local chapter; you really need to work from the top down. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the two news articles cited in the article's references, it seems to me like it satisfies WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Furthermore, while it does seem to need some cleanup to make it not read like an advertisement, it doesn't seem like the best course of action would be to delete it. --Aka042 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I am not entirely convinced that a summer camp is particularly notable, Knowledge seems to have established that articles on summer camps are worth keeping. Take a look at Category:Summer camps in the United States, which lists quite a number of camps in the US. I took a look at some of them, and most do not seem more notable than this one. I know, this sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the point is that we do have established categories and subcategories for summer camps. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The references provided, specially the Seattle PI article seems to indicate that this camp is notable. By looking at the category it seems that we do have an established tradition of including summer camps. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area.

While notability is not inherited up or down, the lack of any connection to the local council or to the national organization makes it difficult to asses the subject in context. It does not show how it serves the youth of the council and has only one illustration of serving youth outside the organization. I recommend that the article be userfied, expanded into a council-level article and reviewed before returning to articlespace; I will be glad to help in this process --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be ok then if I went through and added all the other camps, like Camp Arrowhead (Washington) and Camp Orkila to the AfD list, because as far as I can see Camp Zanika has more cited references.--Abebless (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - not because of COI, but because not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article has a limited or no assertion of notability. While I do recognize that it's old and is accreditted, that alone isn't necessarly enough. It seems more suitable as part of a directory of camps and is unlikely to be searched on Knowledge unless there is a major event. In summary, WP:NOTTRAVEL --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing has changed since a week ago. This camp is still not notable. Enigma 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The COI is in good-faith so I'm ignoring that. The article itself isn't notable enough for inclusion. The three arguments for notability in the lead are that the camp is ACA accredited, is 75 years old, and is a beneficiary of the united way. Age alone doesn't demonstrate notability, unless the camp is an extreme (IE: oldest camp in the state). ACA accreditation doesn't demonstrate notability since its standards aren't that high. The beneficiary of the United Way doesn't demonstrate notability because the United Way doesn't have to do with campgrounds. I can't find anything that separates this campground from the ordinary or distinguishes it. Themfromspace (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn due to page creater redirecting. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Redundant disambiguation for an unlikely search term (a relatively obscure japanese slang word for a much more common word. The useage of the slang is a pun). Anyone looking for either of the pages in the disambiguation will search for the full Urusei Yatsura - a page which already has the disambiguation and covers both the useage and meaning of the word. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:33, 11 February 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 Orlando Sá. MBisanz 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

A more expansive and descriptive biography is available at the Orlando Sa page. Additionally, Orlando Sa is not known simply as Orlando, in the tradition of many other footballers. Czechthetechnique (talk) 21:24, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician. HeirloomGardener (talk) 20:57, 11 February 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 Baltimore County Public Schools. MBisanz 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lutherville Laboratory Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Elementary school is not notable  JGHowes  20:54, 11 February 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 deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I believe this article should be deleted, because I have found no evidence that it meets WP:N. In fact, I have found no evidence that the subject of the article even exists, and I am convinced this is a hoax article as a result. Allventon (talk) 20:40, 11 February 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. G12: Copyvio of http://democraciausa.org/en/about/ PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Unsourced. I'm not really sure how notable this is. I've tried to CSD it twice, but both times the CSD tag was removed-- once by the author and once by another editor. Let's settle this once and for all. Cssiitcic (talk) 20:21, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Only notable for being wife of Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because we don't have the articles doesn't mean they're not notable. If that was true, we wouldn't be able to make new articles because material we don't have articles on would never be allowed to be created by this reasoning. - Mgm| 10:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, she's the wife of Boris Johnson, the daughter of Sir Charles Wheeler and a member of the Junior Counsel to the Crown. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Junior Counsel to the Crown etc. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator's statement ignores the fact she's a barrister, author and columnist by focussing on her relationship with Johnson. She's notable for more than her relation to him. - Mgm| 10:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was going to vote delete until I read the arguments here... I just don't feel that her notability is expressed in any way, shape, or form in the article. Look at the first line: "Marina Wheeler is a British barrister, author and columnist who is best known for being the wife of Mayor of London, Boris Johnson." (emphasis added) The article is basically calling itself not notable. No one is notable simply for being married to someone. So while the subject itself may be notable, the article doesn't show that. It needs a fundamental rewrite (preferably by someone who knows something about British politics... any of you "keep" voters want to do that?), after which I believe it may become notable. --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 04:02, 16 February 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. MBisanz 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Marugoto Anjyu Gakuen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An entirely non-notable short run manga series. Originally contained a copyvio plot summary from a scanlation distribution website and what remains is a basic character list. Google searches are only coming up with scanlation and other copyvio websites, but no reliable sources under both the Kanji and Romaji titles. Farix (Talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment 3 volumes series by Sae Amatsu with 2 more alternates names/spellings Marugoto Anju Gakuen and Marugoto Anjugakuen, referenced on ANN (Marugoto Anjugakuen naming). 176 hits on Google for Sae Amatsu Marugoto key words. No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Unless someone can put two RS Japanese reviews or something similar, it will be a delete vote for me :( KrebMarkt 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm getting pretty much what KrebMarkt did. Looks like doofy fun if you like this sort of thing, but all I've found to even indicate notability is that there's a surprising amount of doujinshi for it, and fanfic ain't a notability criterion -- the rest are manga databases or scanlations. Unless Japanese notice can be demonstrated, I'm also leaning to delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Google its name and get 41,700 hits. I value the community over that of the opinions of reviewers, and of course not being officially released in English yet, and the fact that those you consider notable media do not review manga, means you can't really get a fair coverage of it. Even those sites that do review manga, don't do it for all types out there. But if this many people talk about it, clearly its worth noting. Remember, the polices are just suggestions, everything decided by consensus. Read: WP:BURO Dream Focus (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Policies and guidelines aren't to be ignored just because you find them inconvenient or because you disagree with them. But that is the bases of your logic. --Farix (Talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it says "If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Read the rest of it as well please. Dream Focus (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The Knowledge is not improved by the inclusion of this subject, and WP:IAR is not a blank check to, well, ignore all rules. Knowledge isn't an anarchy after all. --Farix (Talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As WP:EXCEPTIONS specifically points out, WP:IAR should only be applied if it leaves the rule in place, and cites using WP:IAR as a way to never apply WP:N as an act it does not apply to. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment:"Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." - Google tests#Notability --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment You noticed the limit of the ANN reference for verify as it can only cover title, author and year of release. In no way it can cover the plot & character so the content of those article can be challenged easily. --KrebMarkt 09:54, 14 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

phantom hockey team that as failed to materialize in years, there no arena built, prospects are slim ccwaters (talk) 19:39, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach ECHL team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

phantom team that has yet to materialize in over 3 years, the arena never got built. a sentence or 2 at its previous incarnation (Pee Dee Pride) would suffice at this point. ccwaters (talk) 19:32, 11 February 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. MBisanz 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant actress never did anything notable. The first "reference" used in the article do not mentions her (and thus, does not supports what's supposed to reference) and the second is just a trivial mention in a huge listing. Damiens.rf 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - She is credited in IMDB as being on the show , but it's a completely non-notable role. The rest of what's on that article is unverifiable autobiographical cruft. §FreeRangeFrog 19:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here's validation of her modeling claims, however that seems to be the modeling agency page so it's not reliable. It seems this girl might be on the threshold of being notable... but she's not, yet, so she fails WP:ENTERTAINER right now. Maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The agency is not independent. There's no reason to question their reliability. - Mgm| 10:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to accept it, either, given that their information would be a clear conflict of interest, so it wouldn't be a good primary source. It would be irrelevant other than as supporting material for the secondary claim of notability based on modeling activity. But you're right, wrong term. §FreeRangeFrog 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's not notable now. As FreeRangeFrog indicated, she might become notable in the future, with more modeling and more press coverage. The deletion debate covers her and the article right now, though, and there's insufficient notability and a dearth of reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:49, 12 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 14:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Radioactive Friends of the Deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed with no reason given. A google search for "Radioactive Friends of the Deep" for notability receives absolutely nothing except for these two articles. Very probably hoax. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, co-nominating a character from the comic:

  • Speedy Delete (both all) I reckon it's an attack (comparatively mild, but insidious) on some of the creator's school colleagues. The newspaper does exist, but I can't seem to get their site up http://www.vest.com.mk/ It would be very unlikely for a publication in Macedonian to have characters with names like these in a non-syndicated strip. Quite possible for a non-existent strip. If not attack, certainly hoax anyway. 2 ghits. Guess what they are.... Peridon (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I've got into the Vest site now, and can't find this stuff. What's shown under Хумор doesn't seem to include this stuff. That's not to say it's not in the printed copy (Macedonian newspapers aren't easy to get where I live). Peridon (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding another character from the comic, and an article about its creator:

...and here is another spin-off article, not even a character, just a "plot-centric item":

I don't suppose it's strictly correct to add these extra articles during the debate, but I invoke WP:IAR as they clearly stand or fall with the main article. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all for lack of notability and verifiability. JohnCD's point is valid, but I agree: if the main article is deleted, all feeder articles on characters should be deleted as a matter of course. The only one I might have an issue with is the creator, but he's been in the nom most of the way. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's the only place I can find him... (The gSuggestion corgi didn't work either.)Peridon (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I actually edit-conflicted with JohnCD adding the first two extra articles: it's clear that the notability, or lack thereof, of all of these articles is completely intertwined. It saves everyone time in then long run, and seems to be a good use of WP:IAR. ~ mazca 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Or the WP:SNOW subset of IAR, specifically. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 14 February 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. WP:CSD#G3. Because of the likelyhood of a reliation to 419 scams and the violation of WP:BLP, keeping it any longer would be harmful. Mgm| 10:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Obodji Apata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Mgm| 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IE7 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a disambiguation page for non-notable software. Techmdrn (talk) 17:37, 11 February 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. MBisanz 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the Elephant, U Are the Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A movie with an 1 liner description, directed by an unnotable director. Fixman 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per meeting foundation principals of WP:Five pillars. Film has been WP:Verfied. Schmidt, 06:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Please let's not have "keep per five pillars" arguments again. It's been thoroughly established that verifiability is not notability, and arguing that it is is counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Please' don't disrespect the Five Pilars in an argument again. Verifiability is a CORE principal and notability is a suspect and subjective guideline based upon opinion and regional bias being continually misused. It is currently under consideration to be demoted to a historical essay as Knowledge returns to the foundation principles. Arguing that foundation principals should be ignored is counterproductive and does not imprive Wiki. Schmidt, 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Considering that the user nominating it for demotion is the same editor who used to appear on WP:ANI on a daily basis for disrupting AfDs with bogus "keep per five pillars" arguments, I wouldn't consider this a strong argument against my point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
          Oh...? Are you suggesting we should judge the messenger and not the message? I purposely do NOT look up such so as to not have my opinion bent by any preconceptions. I do not know if he ended up at ANI for being incivil, or because he admired the core principlas of Wiki. But is does not seem the two go hand in hand. Schmidt, 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Just how is Five Pillars connected in any shape and form to AfD? Pillars states: "all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy". It says nothing about all articles must be kept. JamesBurns (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
            • So you at least admit the article has been WP:Verified to meet the Five Pillars? The connection? Per Knowledge:Deletion policy, WP:ATD:
              • No. What I'm saying is that nowhere in the Five Pillars does it expressly say that any verified article must be kept. AfD does however state that an article must be verified AND notable WP:DEL#REASON "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)"
              If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include
              {{cleanup}} for poor writing
              {{expert-subject}} for articles needing expert attention
              {{notenglish}} for articles written in a foreign language
              {{npov}} for bias
              {{stub}} for a short article
              {{verify}} for lack of verifiability
              {{merge}} for a small article which could be merged into a larger one.
            • Per the nom's sucinct "A movie with an 1 liner description, directed by an unnotable director", I do not see how any alternatives were considered or offered. And the Pillars, lest we forget...
            • Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Knowledge is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Knowledge is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects. (The article passes)
            • Knowledge has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. (The article passes)
            • Knowledge is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL. (There is no copyright infringement)
            • Knowledge has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,737,940 articles on the English Knowledge to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. (No incivility has been involved)
            • Knowledge does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Knowledge or irretrievably destroy content.(The article is not perfect, however there is no WP:DEADLINE for it to be so as we continue to improve Wiki)
            • Kinda nice to see the simple set of rules that built Wiki. Schmidt, 07:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:MOVIE#General principles specifically discounts "trivial" coverage in RSes in the form of release notification or plot synopsis. After examination of the references (and a search under both titles) I am unable to find reliable independent sources which provide coverage other than this. No evidence that this film saw wide release or received any form of critical coverage; I can barely even turn up unreliable sources for such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    Meets all requitements of Knowledge's foundation principals, like it or not. The GNG, being based upon the failed exclusionist guideline of notability are subjective criteria that do not improve Knowledge. Schmidt, 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    The GNG is not "failed". It is currently the main guideline upon which AfDs are judged. WP:MOVIE is likewise a guideline, and you've provided no argument to counter my previous appraisal of the subject's failure to observe even the minimal requirements of WP:MOVIE. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    GNG and NF are based upon N. Since its on its way out as a failed guideline... soon to be but an historical essay of what was destroying the growth of Knowledge and turning it into the laughingstock of mainstream media, all beaucratic creep based upon it will go as well. Thank goodness for the soundness of core policies and the Five Pillars. Its time for Knowledge to become as notable itself as it once was, and for mainstream media to stop snickering. Schmidt, 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep The soundtrack for this film was done by the highly notable band Slowdive. There are some references on the Slowdive wikipedia entry that may be useful here. 74.56.205.235 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether he does or not, having a soundtrack by a notable band still doesn't imply notability of the film, especially when a) there are no reliable secondary sources for it in the first place and b) said soundtrack was never actually released. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That was my keep vote above and comment regarding Slowdive doing the soundtrack. I guess I wasn't logged in when I made the comment, oops. Amazinglarry (talk) 00:31, 16 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete unremarkable person, rewrite of http://www.jeffreylant.com/old_site/bio.htm -Zeus-c 18:04, 9 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Totally not notable, player appeared in only 1 friendly game for a top-flight Croatian club. Spent most of his career in second division and is currently playing in the fourth, which is not even fully professional and never appeared for the national team at any level. Timbouctou (talk) 16:15, 9 February 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 Maxim(talk) 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF. Has yet to play in a fully professional league, win a major award, or play at the highest level of amateur ice hockey (World Championships or Olympics) – Nurmsook! 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. As always, we can recreate once this individual meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. As a complete aside, it's been a while since either the World Championships or the Olympics were for amateurs. I wonder what the highest amateur competition is these days? Resolute 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well we've always sort of looked at them as amatuer tournaments still. Players don't get paid for playing in them, and anyone can technically make the team (ie: Jonathan Toews played at the 2007 IIHF World Championship while still an amateur with UND) – Nurmsook! 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The tournaments are still technically considered amateur as none of the players are paid to play in them, and amateurs if good enough could make the team as they are not barred from them, if anything this makes it the true highest level of hockey. Higher even than the NHL. Albeit extremely unlikely these days, but it wasn't all that long ago the Eric Lindros played in the Canada Cup before playing pro, and there is Toews as mentioned above. -Djsasso (talk) 02:53, 6 February 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. (A3), lack of content (cross-namespace redirects are against policy. Mgm| 10:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

People from Musselburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless PSNMand (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was not exactly encyclopedic in the first place, but was useful. Now that the election is over it should be removed. No need for this level of detail in an encyclopedia. Even a full length book on just the 2008 campaign would probably not include a list of all the superdelegates. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep- Seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Given how much of an issue the super-delegates became in the 2008 election, it seems reasonable that keeping an article listing who they were and where they stood is of a matter of encyclopedic interest. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they were important. However we already have Superdelegate explaining about them. This article is really a list of raw data, not an article. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It does more than just explain about them though, in that it also tells who the actual people were, and how they voted. Information like that is important, and should be covered. Covering it in theSuperdelegate article isn't really feasible, since it would bloat that article beyond reason. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. There is at least one other place in the article that needs to be changed to past tense. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Renominated per:
- they broke up and she did not become any more notable in her own right since then
- i question the (2006? - undocumented?) undeletion of the article in the first place
- WP:SEWAGE and WP:Pokémon test (i'm not calling HER sewage at all, i'm calling the inclusion of the article sewage)
- WP:F*** Gregorik (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No doubt thanks to being the girlfriend of Prince Harry. But: WP:NOTINHERITED, notability should be established independently. Gregorik (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay that doesn't have general consensus. The fact is, that this person clearly meets the general purpose notability guideline, and therefore the argument put forward by WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply. Many of the press articles about Ms. Davy are about her, specifically, and I fail to see any reason therefore to discount them. JulesH (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Full disclosure: This is actually the very first article I created on Knowledge way back in 2006, so consider me biased. As far as documentation for the undeletion, that's still on the article talk page, when I got permission from a sysop who needed to remove some salt. I'll go ahead and admit off that bat that it's, quite simply, not a good article. But it shouldn't be deleted, on the basis of passing the general notability guidelines with flying colors. You could make a very good Keep case just off the 2,700 Google News Hits. But there are also the substantive profiles of her: like these two in the guardian . Nor could she get knocked off on the one event exception: the guardian's year by year breakdown shows her name appearing in multiple articles in each year since 2004 . There are also articles which concentrate solely on her activities: like this one in the Telegraph regarding her career plans. The break up doesn't take away from her notablility: notability is not temporary. The immense mainstream media coverage of Davy over the past 5 years made her notable, and she didn't lose that in the breakup. That said: the article definitely does need a clean up. Vickser (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, she is covered personally, in-depth, by many articles in the British press. Sure, she became famous because of her relationship with Prince Harry, but there are plenty of articles focused primarily on her. Like, this one that has come up since they broke up in the Daily Mail. I understand that notability is not inherited, but her continued celebrity shows that she is interesting in and of herself. For example, Paris Hilton became famous because she is a Hilton who became a wild child. Now, she is famous on her own. Notability is not temporary. SMSpivey (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is not temporary so the breakup is irrelevant and while her relationship with Harry may be what caused her to be in the spotlight, there's no case of inheritance either. She's the subject of multiple publications herself. - Mgm| 10:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mgm. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep; there's easily enough press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Still a notable person. Sf46 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 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. MBisanz 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sons Aumen Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has had a number of months to find reliable sources, as noted by the tags, going as far back as October 2008. A quick Google search has revealed none. The single source that it does rely on are two pages in an encyclopedia on Mormonism. In addition, the article is largely self-serving, reading more like promotional material, than a serious entry in an encyclopedia. Drumpler (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also a number of redirects that lead here which might be notable for deletion. See . Drumpler (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Odd. Normally for a topic meriting inclusion in a paper encyclopedia it is also trivial to demonstrate that it merits inclusion here. I haven't been able to do that using Google tools (web, news, scholar, book). All I found was a website by a former member that has been previously discussed on the talk page. That site says that a former spelling of the group's name was "Sons Ahmen Israel. I also checked that spelling and came up dry. Between the article history, the date of the source, and the former member's website, I believe that the group was largest in the 80s and 90s and is probably smaller today. This would hardly be an unusual membership curve for a splinter group. But the timing of that curve does make it hard to evaluate the true availability of sources via a google search, so I really don't know what to do. GRBerry 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I researched their other name, Order of Nazorean Essenes, according to their website linked in the article, and also nothing worth note. The article history has demonstrated that this article has existed since 2006 and nothing of note has really been added. Would it be correct to presume that perhaps it isn't notable? Drumpler (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This appears to be an obscure heretical sect. It does not sound notable to me. Do we have any idea what the membership is/was? There is none on their website. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    On the article talk page, one of the editors said that their understanding was that only groups with a membership in excess of 1,000 were included in the print encyclopedia. It would be useful if someone found the print encyclopedia source and looked at it, both for this question and for general assessment. The former member's website reveals that in 1999 the group leader claimed "We have a little over a thousand people involved with us, but only a tiny handful are now located in Arizona."Question 1.7 GRBerry 20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    I have access to the print encyclopedia (see my comments below), and I see no indication that the 1000-member limit is a requirement for inclusion. Not even close—I see many sects listed that say things like, "55 members, 6 ministers"; "less than 100 members"; "membership unreported, but 100 addresses on mailing list", etc. If anyone else is wondering about anything else in the source, I could hopefully respond to inquiries about it. Good Ol’factory 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    I found a statement of inclusionary criteria in the introduction to Melton's encyclopedia. They are:
  1. the group seeks the chief religious loyalty of its members;
  2. the group promotes its particular view; and
  3. the group satisfies one of the following conditions of size: (a) the group is organized into congregations, has two or more congregations, or has one congregation with more than 2,000 members who make a measurable impact on the country through mass media; OR (b) if not organized into congregations, membership is drawn from more than one state and from beyond a single metropolitan area
  • Hopefully this info helps. — Good Ol’factory 21:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment/keepish. I have briefly worked on this article in the past—have tried in vain to find more sources, but pretty much all I have been able to find that is reliable is the Melton reference, which I added months ago (which is not an encyclopedia about Mormonism, but rather an encyclopedia about American religions). The Melton reference says, "In 1995 SAI had three centers in the United States with a combined membership of less than 100." But it also says it has memberships in "England, Switzerland, Norway, Japan and the Netherlands" (membership totals not specified). It sounds pretty small but at the same time relatively widely dispersed—but I haven't been able to find any more recent information on it or its membership statistics. I'm not sure what to do, but because it's at least notable enough to be in Melton's print encyclopedia, I would say on balance it's worth keeping. It's not a situation where we lack references completely, which would be an entirely different story. Good Ol’factory 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It might be notable enough for Melton's encyclopedia, but if he's the only one who has it, how can it lead to a good article? Just because its notable enough for one encyclopedia does not mean its notable for this. Perhaps notable for a list of Mormon break-offs, but I can't see a justifiable reason to include it here without more references. Drumpler (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we know that Melton is the only available source? I'm doubting that Melton's is the only one. There may be nothing on the internet, but that doesn't mean that nothing is out there, since there is a substantial body of works on the Latter Day Saint movement that are not on the internet or on google books yet. I imagine that in cases like this the it's entirely reasonable to maintain "sources needed" tags on the article for longer than 3 or 4 months. Ideally, as someone who edits a number of pages in the Latter Day Saint movement, I think we should wait and see what it says about the sect (if anything) in Steven Shields's new edition of Divergent Paths of the Restoration, which has usually been seen as an authoritative source on Latter Day Saint sects. I'm not sure when the new edition will be published, but it sounds like soon. Or, because the date the book will be released is still unknown, ideally it could be deleted without prejudice to re-creation if the Shields book contains more information on it. Good Ol’factory 03:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I just read J. Gordon Melton's Knowledge entry. While I know it isn't a reliable source in and of itself, from the article, the man seems to carry a counter-cult agenda and his inclusion of the group in his encyclopaedia seems to be with that in mind. Aside from a few articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, I have some considerable questions as to whether his own encyclopedia has been peer reviewed. I can't seem to find the particular policy, but I remember a debate on here some time ago saying that sources from countercult agencies (such as Rick Ross) weren't exactly permitted as sources on articles. Likewise, his own page at J. Gordon Melton seems to violate WP:V#SELF. Drumpler (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That encyclopedia is clearly a reliable source. The publisher of the 7th edition, for example, is Gale (Cengage) (after renaming and coporate M&A activity) which does research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and business. (This book is definitely not aimed at businesses.) A trivial attempt to find reviews for it finds good reviews and plenty of scholarly citations. I see it is in at more than 15 different university libraries located within 5 miles of me, from obvious expectations like the Harvard Divinity School (and also another one of the Harvard libraries) to places like MIT and the New England Conservatory of Music that don't have any significant religious studies. GRBerry 04:39, 12 February 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 Nixon (film). MBisanz 13:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Jones (banker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

According to this article this is a composite fictional character. As such, not notable and should be deleted. ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

film character, if renamed. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Does not assert notability and article exists only to promote the company as per blatant COI on talk page ErnestVoice 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - May be a COI but it's still written from a neutral POV (so far). Author claims he may still expand this article so it's worth giving it some more time. Also, I provided a reference for the "1 million registered subscribers".. although from a primary source, that's still an assertion of notability, there's potentially a million people that know about this ISP if the source is to be believed. OlEnglish (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem that I'm having with this article is that it requested more time when it was first created, and the author has not edited this article since April 2007. There are no references to prove is notability (and in my limited ability to find sources, i could find very few 3rd party references at all). Just because MacDonald's has a sign that says "Over 99 Billion Served" is not definitive proof that they have served 99 billion meals (even though they probably have surpassed that greatly). The references that are included with the article detail it's service and costs, not what makes it notable. Granted, it is written as NPOV and I withdraw my accusation of promotional, even though it is still an obvious COI and that just raises a red flag for me. -- ErnestVoice 14:20, 12 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Disputed PROD, original rationale was "Very low-level football club playing, by article's own admission, "on the playing field by the Village Hall". Never played at a level deemed notable" ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The league does have an article, York Football League - fchd (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Sorry, just remembered that. (It doesn't help that three of the top four divisions on England have "league" in their title.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
County leagues before 10 is it? Okay. Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 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. With all respect to the subject of the article, what is needed is verifiability for the claims made at this AfD, which are still lacking. If a user requests I will be happy to copy the current text over to userspace so that the article might be improved to eventually reach standards. From the sources I could get at, coverage appeared trivial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I must first declare that I have been doing my best to assist the user who is the subject of this article to prune self puffery out of it. The more I have done this the more I have formed the view that the gentlemen is not notable, and that this article should not be included here.

I've based this on a very extensive study of the references and on using Google to search for "Raymond Aaron". Of the references the one with most appeal is the Canadian Who's Who. But this follows the A&C Black model (0.9 probability) of publishing self submitted material. That means it does not pass WP:RS and cannot verify any notability.

Of the other references, it is a fact that the books have been published. I have found them in Amazon listings where available. But the authorship or co-authorship of a book is not of itself sufficient to confer notability.

It is a cited fact that Mr Aaron took part in a polar race. It is cited from the race's own web site.

All in all I see this as a borderline article and I am coming down on the side of deletion because I cannot find any true notability. It's the wrong side of the borderline. That's disappointing, because I expected to find notability and verifiability. So I feel that the community should now have a chance to make a decision by consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as non notable for the reasons set out above. Note to Mr. Aaron: in borderline cases which have ample helpings of WP:COI it is always safer to delete. If the subject is notable, a new article will eventually be created by soeone independent of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject hasn't been significantly covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Aaron has written a book that is very popular in Canada. 693 Google hits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment As this stands it is a very general piece of information. If you search for my name on Google, for example, there are just under 4,000 articles with it in, quite a few of which of which refer to me. When I run the search my own blog comes up as the top answer. I am damned good at self promotion. But that doesn't make me notable. What is required for notability is not just a hit, but an item, however short, in a reliable source. Most importantly that needs to be placed in the article as a reference. These were the things I failed to find. If you have had better success please place the relevant reliable source references in the article and let us know that it has been done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't think his work as author is influential enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, nothing else in the bio qualifies. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: I know that I am Raymond Aaron and that possibly my self-comments do not count. But, I will be as impartial as possible. I have written two Chicken Soup For the Soul books. That alone shows that one of the most famous people in the world, Jack Canfield, has selected me as a multiple-co-author, not just a co-author. Parents Soul his NY Times #9. That seems notable -- not many people have written a Top Ten Bestseller. Canadian Soul was #1 book of the week on Chapters (the largest chain of bookstores in Canada) practically every week for about six months after it was released. That seems notable. I have written seven books and I do acknowledge that simply writing books does not necessarily confer notability, it is just another piece of the puzzle showing notability. Also, I am one of only several dozen people who have ever reached The North Pole by foot. It was a month-long, 350-mile foot-race braving -40 degree temperatures and polar bears! That seems notable. I'm in the Canadian Who's Who which yes you are right contains information provided by the biographee -- nevertheless The University of Toronto Press is careful about who is invited to be a biographee. Just being invited seems notable. I have qualified to be a member of MENSA, the top 2% of IQ in the world. I have a document proving that but I am not sure how to use that document as evidence for Knowledge. Also, there are a variety of lesser achievements which individually may not be notable but together seem to add up to some notability: ran 3 marathons, ran one 100-km ultramarathon, competed in about 50 competitive cross-country ski loppets. I also have explored wild caves, became a full qualified member of the Alpine Club of Canada. I ride the unicycle and the five-foot-tall "giraffe" unicycle. All this seems to add up to something -- possibly a lot. I am asking you to preserve the sanctity of Knowledge, but I am also asking you to realize that I have some very considerable achievements in my life. Further, though I am indeed a great self-promoter, I have bent over backwards to comply with every request made of me to make my article "flat" and compliant. Please accept my notability and please allow my article. Raymondaaron (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
    • Comment this will sound very unfair, I apologise in advance for that. All the things you have stated are true, of that I am sure. Some of them, if reported in reliable sources could well add up to notability. They may not. But Knowledge is not interested in Truth. It is interested in verifiability. A lie is as encyclopaedic as the truth if it is notable (look at conspiracy theories) and verifiable. It is extremely difficult knowing that one has what look like quite magnificent achievements and having to understand that they are only acceptable here when verified independently in reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Dear Fiddle Faddle ... I understand your distinction. Please allow my article and give me time to VERIFY my claims so that it complies with Wiki's rules. Is that a good deal? Raymondaaron (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
        • We do not need a deal. This process has a five day duration. I hope you can achieve it. I very much wish to see notability asserted and verified. But this is not my process, it is our process, which includes you. Any deal you make is thus with yourself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like it's down to the book. It's a best selling series, but does being one of four co-authors on a best selling book (that - correct me if I'm wrong - sells on the name of one author) make him notable? Well, problem is... Raymond Aaron promotional websites dominate the Google rankings! That must take some resources and/or energy. All I can find on Google is sites selling the books and sites promoting the books. Can't find one news item or anything else apart from Who's Who.
I'll say Delete - I can't find anything. I'll check back regularly and see if any more sources have turned up.
Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
the top 2% of IQ It would be smart to realise that 135,000,000 other people do too. Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have been asked to be impartial and now I am asking the administrators to also be impartial. I am seeing sarcasm crop into the discussion and I request that we take a higher road. Accusing me of "spamming Google" is not nice, possibly even rude and also has no basis in fact. There is no such thing as spamming Google. I have some websites that offer my products. That's it. Secondly, it is a wonderful achievement to be admitted into MENSA. To make a cutesy comment that 135million other people also qualify is beneath the quality of response I would expect from a Knowledge administrator. Let's take a higher road. I want the Raymond Aaron article to stand and I want to discuss it wholesomely and cleanly. I have never made any untoward comment against the administrators, even though it has been tough for me to understand the rules. Raymondaaron (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
    • I agree with you over comments that go too far. By the way, MENSA polarises folk somewhat. It also confers precisely no notability. It is the one membership to leave OFF a resume, for example, since it prevents your being hired. It does tend to confer a perceived notoriety, though. By the way, by no means everyone here is an admin. Most are folk who are just like you and me, ordinary editors. This is a community creating an encyclopaedia using the Wisdom of Crowds. You are part of that, and your opinion matters. It may also not hold sway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think, though, that you need to look at "achievement" in a different manner. IQ as measured in MENSA exams is an attribute, not an achievement. It's like being black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, left handed etc. One cannot help attributes and one does not achieve them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not an administrator. The administrator makes the final decison. I'm no more or less a part of Knowledge than you are. That is, completely a part of it, but all I did was register - I'm nothing to do with the Knowledge Foundation or any subsidiaries. All I'm here for is because I believe in free knowledge and to amuse myself. So... if I'm way out of line, I'll be blocked. Cutesy or not: it's non-notable is the point. I know you didn't literally spam Google, Mr Aaron, but that was a succinct way of putting it. Anyhow, back on track. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Dear FiddleFaddle and Ddawkins ... Thank you for your kind words and your very clear clarifications. I will not include MENSA and I am now hunting for some magazine articles that have been written about me to begin to show notability. Raymondaaron (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
  • Comment Lets give this a couple of days before posting our conclusions while the subject researches and offers magazine articles. On the other hand, it would be worthwhile for him to make a private copy of the article: he may become more notable over time, even if the article does not survive the present debate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Compiled not Ghost-Written Janet Matthews was hired as an editor to compile into book form copyrighted material that was created by me over the 12 year period in which I created this goal-recording technology. Ms. Matthews may have used the word "ghost-written" in her website, but truthfully she edited into book form what I had created in verbal and written form already. Raymondaaron (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
  • Comment I have added a lot of verified achievements to add to notability and verifiability. I am getting documentation to confirm that Parent's Soul hit NYTimes #9. I am also getting other verified achievements related to the hit movie "The Secret".

Raymondaaron (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron

  • Keep Raymond Aaron is my mentor and a wonderful teacher. He is a well-recognized teacher of some of the top leaders of our time, including many members of The Transformational Leadership Council. Thousands of people around the world follow his MAINLY goal-setting program and subscribe to his monthly mentor program. Raymond has written two best-selling Chicken Soup for the Soul books at the invitation of two of the world's most notable and credible bestselling authors: Mark Victor Hansen and Jack Canfield. Raymond Aaron has also written the bestselling book, "Double Your Income Doing What You Love" and four other popular titles. He placed well in a polar race in his 60's, something almost no twenty or thirty-year old's have accomplished, making him remarkably notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.87.136 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Rhetoric without facts to back it up is irrelevant I'm afraid. I'm sure he is a fine mentor, but that does not make him a candidate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If one looks that the membership list of the private members' club known as the Transformational Leadership Council one sees no names that appear to carry any weight whatsoever as "top leaders of our time". I was expecting to see Barak Obama there, but no. I see a set of what appear to be self written biographies selling the wares of the recession - self motivation, self success, groom yourself for stardom. I don't really think that teaching each other to make money is that important for the 99 or so members to have any notability conferred on them by having been invited to join by their best friend. It has a nice name, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing mentioned in the article is notable by itself. And notability cannot be achieved by adding up a number of non-notable things. The polar race for example: while I'm sure it's a tough experience, the polar race website quotes that in 6 years only one person did not manage to reach the goal. Also it's a trip to the magnetic North Pole which is considerably further south. Actual North Pole expeditions may well be notable, but adventure holidays like this are surely not. 87.175.68.107 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Good for a CV, but I agree. It's the court case (most notable thing, but hardly significant coverage) and the 2 co-authored Chicken Soup books (no significant coverage for co-writing them outside of them). There's nothing else.
The 'environmental action' - launched a recycling plant apparently in 1971. Reported in regional newspaper. What does "launched" mean anyhow? COI and special pleading is getting in the way here.
Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Digression What I am at a loss to understand is that the article is now quite damaging to a motivational guru. I cannot see that it shows the gentleman in a particularly good light. If a job applicant presented me with this resume I would interview him out of curiosity, I suppose, but I very much doubt I would make a hiring. I would not spend money on courses, especially in the current financial climate. I have read the complimentary chapters of one of the books on the website, and am unimpressed by everything except their impressive lack of meat. So, with all this massive COI stuff, what, precisely, is in it for the gentleman? For me it damages him, not enhances him. On that basis alone I would put it out of its misery and delete it as a pure kindness, and hope that a good article will be written abiouyt him some day by a disinterested editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep much of the argument around whether this article meets notability requirements can be addressed over time...Third party verifiable support for article claims from notable publishers, successful students, academics, and broadcasters can be added to the article and will, in the end, make this article "worthy of notice". Wise Passage February 12, 10:33 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wise Passage (talk • contribs) 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
— Wise Passage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Speculation (Crystal ball).
___
The events of this discussion make me uneasy. It's the whys of someone wanting to use Knowledge as an advertising service. Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
e.g registered user with one contribution, to this AfD, makes me uneasy.
06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Overall, the sources provided suggest WP:GNG is met. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE Beyond the conflict of interest and puffery issues, as well as the multiple edits from one-subject users, the coverage in many of the sources is incidental. While I would ordinarily argue for a mere "Delete" based on WP:NN, I think the context argues for a STRONG DELETE, whatever that exactly means. Tractops (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment Dear Tractops: I am sorry that my sincere effort to create an honest flat non-puffery article has offended you so. I have learned a lot from other editors and I am doing my best to be a good Wikipedian. For example, it was my habit to make a small change and then save it, just to ensure that I had done it correctly. Now I know that this simply clogs up the system with very many edits. I had no such intention; I just was learning and new. Sorry for that. Raymondaaron (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron
With the best will in the world, I think people are concerned about the massive conflict of interest rather than multiple edits. I keep advising you to leave the article alone and let it take its chance. I realise that advice may be discarded, but I advise it again. Knowledge does not thrive on people who write massive articles about themselves. Ego gets in the way of objectivity. That is why we counsel most strongly against it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:58, 15 February 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 (G10) by Jclemens. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Laffy Taffy Recall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If this is true (and there is no evidence it is) it belongs under the Nestle article. There is no reason this supposed recall should have an article of its own. Carbon Rodney 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete (G3) as blatant misinformation. This looks like an attempt to induce panic or hysteria. I definitely call bullshit. MuZemike 17:11, 11 February 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 a bit speedily in the spirt of G11 and WP:SNOW. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Text copied directly from 'BooYa Tequila', it's not NPOV and it is blatant advertising. Doesn't contain any interesting, relevant or encyclopedic content and is a waste of time to read and a waste of space on Knowledge. Carbon Rodney 15:38, 11 February 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. Nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix School of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources; non-notable   —Chris Capoccia ⁄C 15:14, 11 February 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. Hoaxes are vandalism. Also I suspect this may be an obscure attack page against someone bearing the name this was cut and pasted into. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay, this contributor has only made 4 edits, but this page contains an incorrect protection tag, and looks too "high quality" for the average "first article". This page may be a cut and paste move from somewhere in Knowledge, a GFDL violation

Username may also suggest an conflict of interest. ViperSnake151 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Just came to say the same thing; I didn't initially realise this and couldn't understand why such a fine-looking article had been marked as vandalism. I think this ought to be speedied. Skomorokh 14:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:03, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Pretty much a recreation of Private (album)—the group's debut album has been pushed back repeatedly since it's original release date of Nov. '06; the name was changed and still seems unlikely to be released (and someone in the group saying it'll be released is not a reliable source—they've been saying that for over 2 years). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control 14:49, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This looks like a vanity article, and notability has not been established. Peeper (talk) 14:30, 11 February 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 redirect to Been Waiting. Mgm| 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Been Waiting (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet to be released single with no reliable sources to show it's notability. Fails WP:NSONGS. Tried to redirect to the song's album, but was reverted twice. JD554 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Single has been released. In the Herald Sun today (Feb 12) it states, that "Been Wiaitng" is the third single and has just been added to radio. Jessica's manager also stated this in her official forum, as did Jess herself when she performed the song on Australia Day. Billy4kate (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles need reliable sources to prove notability. Forums are not generally considered to be reliable sources per WP:SPS. --JD554 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Forums may not be reliable, but the Herald Sun is a newspaper. You didn't respond to that statement. - Mgm| 10:14, 12 February 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 per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey Bell (host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio of an NZ TV presenter, inserted by TVNZ Publicity (talk · contribs). Broadcasting organisations always seem to be particularly keen to use this encyclopedia to boost their employees, I don't know why. There is obvious COI here, which is not itself reason for deletion, but does make one look hard at the evidence for notability. The references are:

  1. List of "our graduates" from Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology;
  2. ... is all about one Nick Andrew, says at the end "you can see him alongside Amber Peebles and Geoff Bell";
  3. Web-site of NZ Performance Car, a program he has presented. He isn't mentioned on the page linked to, but in the episode pages we get "Geoff Bell is back to present the best of import car culture... "
  4. Interview on his employer's website;
  5. He is one of a list of over 70 finalists for various categories of "TV GUIDE - BEST ON THE BOX 2007";
  6. NZ Performance Car again
  7. Detailed episode listing of a programme called "Invention Competition". He gets a passing mention in episode 5: "Jennifer jets her way to surfing history by even getting Geoff Bell up on a wave."

Every TV presenter can collect this kind of list, but not every TV presenter merits an encyclopedia article. I don't see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", still less enough to meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER, which is the relevant notability standard for TV personalities. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 11 February 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. MBisanz 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete: fails both WP:MUSICBIO & WP:WEB. Only coverage is on Youtube (unreliable) and a single mention on 'entertainment gossip mag' Now magazine ("tabloid journalism" per WP:NOT#NEWS). Prod-notice removed as part of vandalism of the article, so AfDing. HrafnStalk 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually YouTube is the most reliable source when it comes to YouTube hits, so I'm not concerned about that. I'm worrying about the lack of other sources. The single magazine mention doesn't do it for me (why do you consider Now a gossip mag? Every publication occasionally resorts to juicy stories to get readers. So far I've seen no evidence of that mag being any less reliable than other publications. I'm more interested in how they ended up on Lilly Allen and Friends; that could've drummed up some publicity. - Mgm| 10:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 16 February 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. MBisanz 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyanide in the Beefcake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, minimal information, fails WP:NALBUMS. Redirect to artists article undone by author. CultureDrone (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Album & Artist indeed notable. Was awarded South African Music Association (SAMA) Best Pop Music Performance in 1995. Gidzz —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

If the award was for this specific album, then I withdraw the nomination. if, as would seem based on and , the award was given to the artist (whose notability I'm not disputing), and (as far as I read the notability criteria), the album still fails to meet notability, defined here and here. CultureDrone (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep If the performer has established notability (which abased on his article seems to be the case) then this becomes part of his historical record, which is valuable. One could argue that the album itself does not merit a standalone article and could be merged into the artist's page, but the information should be kept. §FreeRangeFrog 18:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • According to here In general, 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. I would agree that at the moment the articles does not consist of more than just a track listing and could theoretically be merged with the main article, but bare in mind that it is a new article and will in all likelihood be expanded in content. The award for Pop Performance was for the Album - although it is difficult to substantiate/reference Music Awards are mostly given in reference for recent work (the notable exception being Lifetime Achievement Awards.) Gidzz —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC).
Yes, but the important phrase there in the WP:NALBUMS declaration there is " may have sufficient notability" - not " does have sufficient notability" - as I read it, that means that the notability of the artist simply tips the scales towards keeping the article if it's on the edge of notability, but I can't see that this particular album reaches that point. You're also making the assumption that there is anything else of note than the track listing which could be included to expand the article, and your statement that that award was given for the album is, by your own admission, unverifiable. I'm not saying that the album may not justify its own article at some point, but I can't see anything about it that means it passes the notability criteria right now - hence why I originally redirected the article, rather than simply suggesting deletion. Personally, I'd still prefer a redirect (or a merge if the track listing is that important) than a delete. CultureDrone (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'd also disagree to an extent with FreeRangeFrog's comment - the implication is that any artist who meets basic notability criteria automatically imparts notability to all their albums, regardless of the content, notability or chart position (if any) of those albums. This would seem to therefore negate the requirement for WP:NALBUMS altogether, and circumvent the basic requirement for something to be notable to deserve inclusion. CultureDrone (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I get your argument and I agree that it is valid for a significant numbers of articles that appear on Knowledge. I also believe that a large number of these should be deleted for not being notable of being included but how will the article in question ever be expanded on by other members if it is redirected in the first hour of being written. Have a look at the first version of Thriller (Album) and compare it to where it is now. It has to start somewhere. The Album in question is without question a significant album in South Africa. The fact that it is not known well outside of South Africa should not negate its significance. Yes, indeed there are not many references available but then it was released in 1994 when the internet was in infancy. By writing a first version of this article I hope that other wikipedians will add to it and improve its content and standard (and add references no doubt.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidzz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And I get your argument about articles being expanded, but the fact remains that Knowledge is not designed, as far as I read it, to hold details of things that may become notable in the future. If that was the case, then every 15 year old who'd formed a band with a few mates would claim that they were entitled to an article because they'd become famous in the future..... it's a tricky situation I know, and whole swathes of Knowledge to do with music, television and films have this notability issue. However, the issue here seems to be not that you're claiming that it will become notable, but that it is notable, but you can't provide sources to prove it. The fact that the internet was still young at the time shouldn't make a difference - magazines and newspapers have been doing reviews and features long before the internet was even a twinkle in ARPAs eye :-) Whilst I understand the difficulty in obtaining suitable sources, making claims without backing them up violates WP:V - one of Wikipedias core content policies.
Incidentally, have you noticed how few comments there are on this - it's pretty much just you and me :-) Hellooo....is anyone there ?! CultureDrone (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You are missing my point. I did not say it will become notable in the future. I said reference will be added as the article expands that will substantiate the notability. In any event, I am not going to add anything more to my arguments. They are out there and quite frankly I am not sure what happens from here. Does CultureDrone now make the decision about whether the article is deleted or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidzz (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope - the decision will be made by an administrator. However, since it's just been (pretty much) you and me going over this, they may decide that there hasn't been a consensus, and may relist the request to try and get other opinions. CultureDrone (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 13:20, 11 February 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 copyvio by Lectonar. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Strategies to promote your internet business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The 100th human (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See previous debate at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The 100th human. Article has expanded significantly beyond reach of G4, but still doesn't explain why the book is notable Mgm| 13:12, 11 February 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. MBisanz 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:N. Professionally written but inappropriate self-publicity for a local (Staten Island) community cable show. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • A regretful Delete - Professional grade PEG programming - which IMHO should be a ground for notability; this level of quality is very rare on community access ;) That being said, high production values does not equal notability for Knowledge's purposes, nor does it make up for a lack of third party, non-trivial coverage. If this program ends up getting a wider audience via the web, it has the potential for becoming notable but Knowledge isn't a crystal ball. We have articles on people, places, events, and things that are already notable, not on subjects that might be notable someday. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 06:31, 16 February 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. The fuziness has been cleared up (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Sort of divided on this one, but I'm not sure that she's notable for much beyond being Nathanael West's wife, and much of the information in this article is in his article. Bringing it here for discussion. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 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. MBisanz 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Minimal information given to establish WP:BIO, and nothing listed is verifiable. A brief Google search only turned up Knowledge and Knowledge mirrors when looking for this particular Thomas Wolf. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 16 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:ONEEVENT. Her only claim to notability is being abandoned four hours after being born. She reappeared in the news later, but only because she graduated from high school and because she was "that girl" - NOT for any other reason. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Neologism that is not in wide use and even if it was, Knowledge is not a dictionary. Mgm| 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, I can't find much usage of this term anywhere (look at this, for example) to make it notable enough for a transwiki to Wiktionary. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: My bad. I deleted both of the user's terms when I saw the date he'd cited at the bottom of each. I restored them after he'd convinced me they were terms in general use. I couldn't find any relevant Googles, but then again I'm not a programmer. I feel I should vote neutral leaning toward delete. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a neologism, but tech jargon. This has been around a long time, in reference to hardware as well as software. As one who works in the aerospace industry, I have used "gazintas" and "gazouttas" for many years. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
My bad. It should still go on dicdef grounds, though. - Mgm| 09:45, 12 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Article about a skin cream invented in a class project. Not quite promotional enough for a speedy WP:CSD#G11 as advertising, but certainly not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Knowledge is not for things made up one day in school. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator as fails notability. Sadly I can't think of a speedy other than an WP:IAR deletion. Whilst it appears there is a product called Derma Cleanse on the market this is clearly not it. A google search for "Lyons and Kerry Company" returns exactly nothing. M♠ssing Ace 11:12, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notable only for one event Pascal666 (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Holding a record is not the sort of thing ONEEVENT was created for. It was meant for people involved in events covered by the news for which no real biographical information was available. Clearly this article can be expanded with information on her service besides the record in question. - Mgm| 10:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Well referenced with notability established well beyond the scope of WP:BLP1E. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Are we reading the same article? I see no mention of any records held, there are over 250 people in VMM-263, several times that in the United States Naval Academy class of 2000, and god only knows how many people have a Master of Science degree from Boston University. The only thing in that article that makes her notable is being the first female to pilot the V-22. This is exactly the kind of thing BLP1E was intended for. The XV-3 article (a predecessor to the V-22) for example includes the text "On 18 December 1958, Bell test pilot Bill Quinlan accomplished the first, dynamically stable, full conversion to airplane mode, and on 6 January 1959, Air Force Captain Robert Ferry became the first military pilot to complete a tiltrotor conversion to airplane mode." Neither of these individuals have their own articles, nor should they. Okoreeh-Baah should certainly have a footnote on V-22, but a separate article is unwarranted. --Pascal666 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (and reduce) - Footnote, as per Pascal666. How is her notability established beyond the scope of one event? Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —— ERcheck (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep — significant with respect to the enduring history of women in military aviation. — ERcheck (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO, especially as most of the references are from military publications which obviously aren't independent sources given that Captain Okoreeh-Baah is a serving military officer. I have serious BLP concerns over this (especially per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NPF) - she's a fairly low ranking officer, it's not remarkable for US military personnel to come from third-world countries and becoming the first woman to pilot a V-22 is admirable but not particularly notable - it would probably be removed as trivia if it was added to the V-22 article. The fact that one of the article's sources is a notices page on a local news website is, to be frank, a bit creepy and suggests that Captain Okoreeh-Baah's privacy is being intruded upon. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Historical interest, ref'd by newspapers and a university too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the other "keeps" above. Notable. In my humble opinion I believe that the deletionists should dedicate themselves to targeting the articles of real un-notables, such as those reality show contestants who all seem to have articles in Knowledge. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely familiar with the whole history of Knowledge, but I do know that one-dimensional labelling is just divisive and unhelpful. If millions are using it, don't care - they should stop too. Here, the comment prejudices proper assessment. Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 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 Deleted by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as A1 no content. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A Date with Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film which has yet to enter production. A google search for "A Date with Fear" and "Asit Kaul" brings up just four hits. Fails WP:NF; prod removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I think he is not notable right now. If he is make it through top 36, it will be a redirect to his brother's article. ApprenticeFan (talk) 08:48, 11 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Propofol for Narco-analysis; A novel and better alternative. Preliminary report of three cases. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Taking it here because an earlier Prod nomination was removed. Looks like a fairly unambiguous case of WP:OR. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:42, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack M. Thunderbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uncited and flagged as such since April 2007, I can't find anything to cite it with. "Jack Thunderbird" does not appear to be notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:27, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Carries no external references as to why this person is famous. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 07:58, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Military of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page holds a template of the same name and then calls itself a disambig. There's no real information here. I'd also be open to removing the dab template and calling this a stub. JaGa 07:54, 11 February 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 American Idol (season 8). –Juliancolton 06:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

TV contestant - no recordings fails Knowledge:Notability (music) - case of WP:RECENT. No other contestant has a page. Most notability claims are WP:SPECULATION. I would accept redirect until he either wins or becomes notable but IP editor reverts redir to American Idol (season 8).

I am basing this nomination on the outcome of other similar TV show contestants. Triwbe (talk) 07:16, 11 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD (twice actually), article about a non-notable alcoholic cocktail that looks more like a promotion for a website. Web search returns few hits tertiary references. Pulling to AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Eschalon: Book II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speculative article on a non-existent game, sourced mainly from its developer's comments on web forums. WP:COI edits fomr the develoiper, BasiliskWrangler (talk · contribs) () Guy (Help!) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:31, 11 February 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 Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks . MBisanz 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The previous deletion debate was closed as delete, but has been relisted per the discussion at Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1. I have no opinion on the matter. Aervanath (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:28, 11 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Niflheim: Blood & Bullets (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:25, 11 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Brooke Freeman (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICTION, in that the article offers no real-world context, its only sources are the programme's official website, and much of the analysis appears to be Original Research dramatic (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

*Keep. Meets WP:N (two independent sources describing the character and her involvement in the plot of the show are linked in the article) so WP:FICT is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

These two references are in to plot summaries. They are not enough to establish notability. Unless you believe that a reference to a football team squad makes all the players notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There are some good links here: . This is a reason to keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per JulesH excellent research. Ikip (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Throng is pretty marginal as a reliable source. The parts of it which are not user-contributed appear to be unedited reprints of media releases by the producers of programmes. I agree that some of the sources found are good, but in that case the article needs a full rewrite to focus on what those articles say rather than regurgitating plot. dramatic (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I just went through and copyedited and wikified a bit. I would be concerned if the show had a short page with little content, but it's reasonably lengthy and the the prose in this article flows. The references in the article already aren't bad and verify the content in the article. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talk 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:25, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jens Kjaer Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Economist, and would seem to need to meet WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see much independent/secondary coverage of him; ghits indicate nearly all references to be on blogs/social networking sites. Nothing in gnews. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails notability criteria for WP:BIO. This individual, a common equity trader at a bank, is asserting notability solely based on his seemingly unique Master's thesis about the housing market crash. However, reports like a speech by the Bank of Canada Governor and blogs on economics indicate many well-known economists predicted it -- and no one mentions Sorensen -- until he inserts his own name in discussions. The few google hits reveal a lot of effort at self-promotion through self-submitting websites -- even trying to sell his thesis on Amazon. There is no substantial coverage. — CactusWriter | 11:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: A google search with his name correctly spelled (Jens Kjær Sørensen) revealed the following , which is exclusive coverage by an major, independent reliable source (in Norwegian). There's also this from a major Swedish publication. I have doubts, however, that this is enough to fulfill the general notability criteria. Either way, his name is Jens Kjær Sørensen, and not "Jens Kjaer Sorensen". decltype 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your clarification on the name. However, google search always includes hits for alternative spellings (ae for æ, o, oe or ø, and aa for å). As you can see, a search with the Danish spelling finds the same few hits of blogs and self-submitted comments. Nothing scholarly. I agree with you that a couple of Scandinavian news articles are unpersuasive. — CactusWriter | 16:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:24, 11 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

only claim to notability is a minor award for a trailer. not enough fo WP:CREATIVE. lacks coverage in independent sources. also has coi issues. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So a recognised award is not good enough for Knowledge, no? How many awards have you won Duffbeerforme? No, didn't think so. 86.147.166.46 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Jamie Rae is an award winner. I can pick hundreds and thousands of Wiki pages of people who aren't eligible for a page, yet on the occasion one is, it's proposed for deletion! No wonder I don't use Wiki except to complain! Grahampitt (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Grahampitt is the publicist for Cupsogue Pictures (afd), Gene Fallaize's production company who is involved in the production of Rae's existing work. The rest of his work is crystal ball (Let's Just Do It (2011)?) The IP stinks like a sock. To answer the socks question, I have won more than one award. One for drinking quicker than the few other people competing, an award that obvious did not make me notable. Other similarly superficial awards, giving me a similar lack of notability. Most awards do not make people notable. Another award I have won is a notable national award with it's own article here on Wikipwedia. The difference is despite that award which means I pass the definition of notable I have not made an article for myself. Read WP:COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:23, 11 February 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. –Juliancolton 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Ward Poor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a pseudo-vanity page an editor created about his grandpa. His alleged claim to fame is that he was a co-founder of an aircraft company, however that statement is not backed up by the one and only (questionable) source on him, which merely says he joined the company when it was founded. Other than that, he's just a guy who went to church, was involved in local politics, and had some kids. This is a genealogical entry, really. Nothing notable here, and no real good sources. R. fiend (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm not sure the article still asserts notability. I mean, sure, the guy was one of the company's founders and served as its director, but does that make him notable? Maybe it does. (Well, the NYT articles would indicate that he was considered a notable person at the time, I guess, so fair enough. But that really should be reflected in the article as well; just running a company doesn't seem like that notable a thing to me. Anyway, at least it's sourced to some degree now.) -- Captain Disdain (talk)
  • The first search on the talk page is the same as what I did. I checked the NYT links, and while I can't see the articles, one looks like a wedding notice and the other looks like an obit. If only trivial coverage is available (as appears to be the case so far), I'd say the mention of him name in the company article is enough. I see no evidence so far that there's enough sources about him to allow a biographical article. Friday (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • All the article or the sources say is that he was one of about a dozen people who helped found a now defunct company and was its treasurer. Everything else is fluff. The only sources I see are about the company, merely mentioning his name briefly, and stuff like his obit. I see nothing notable here. I don't believe it is standard practice for WP to have articles on everyone who held a significant position in every company that has existed in the past 100 years. I notice we don't have entries on the other "founders" with the exception of Grumman himself and Swirbul (the real founders, according to the sources), probably because the other 7 or so people don't have grandkids writing for Knowledge, or if they do, they know better than to write vanity articles on their ancestors in a contrived effort to mention themselves. If we are going to keep stuff like this we might as well have articles for everyone who has been an officer in any sizeable company, or maybe anyone who's had an obituary or a wedding announcement about them. Just about all the google hits provided on the talk page are wikimirrors, unreliable sources (including conservapedia), or passing mentions of the guy. The ones that leave out the middle name are almost all the wiki editor Ed Poor. The only source worth a damn is the book on Grumman cited in the article, and I'd be curious to know if that even says anything else about other than the 2 sentences we have. If he's only mentioned on one page of a 600 page book all about the company, it seems to reinforce the fact that he is not a notable person. -R. fiend (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The article only says that he was a successful accountant who invested $100,000 in the start-up of Grumman. That doesn't seem like notability to me. The motives for the article's creation and for its AfD nomination have nothing to do with it. Redddogg (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the Arbcom case, R_fiend claimed to have blocked User:Ed Poor while he must have been drunk or high. R_fiend also stated that he was a self-admitted "Snide Bastard". Now we find R_fiend going after Ed Poor again. Are we expected to believe that he is drunk again? Is his failure to notify Ed Poor of the AFD and to declare his interest here due to such intoxication or is it a blatant breach of WP:HONEST? This matter seems an utter disgrace. The refusal of other editors to accept impeccable sources like the New York Times when they are found seems outrageous too. What are you expecting as a better source? The Bible? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not drunk this time. And this isn't about Ed Poor, it's about an unencyclopedic article, regardless of who wrote it. All the New York Times states is that the guy got married and died. That's happened to about 20 billion people. If I sell my lawnmower in the NYT classifieds do I get a WP article because I'm mentioned in the Times? Where is reliably sourced information on his accomplishments? What actual information do we have on the guy other than that he invested money in some company 100 years ago, and was that company's treasurer? That much might qualify for a mention in the Grumman article, but this is just an editor writing about his grandpa. Right now we have exactly one source that says anything worth a damn, and that is a book about Grumman planes. Apparently that book says little about him, which is hardly surprising. Are you really stating that a marriage announcement and an obituary are top of the line sources for information on a businessman? Find me other Knowledge articles on companies' early investors and we'll have a look at those too. Grumman is notable. Swirbul is notable. The guy who gave them money is not, at least not unless reliable sources can verify that he did something significant that can't be covered in a single sentence in the Grumman article (or that it's even significant enough for that). The fact that almost the only information on the guy is about his marriage and death show that he really isn't a notable figure. I suppose if we found a newspaper article from 1920 stating he got the the best time in the 100 yard dash at a local track meet you'd use that as further evidence of just how notable Edmund Ward Poor is. If he is notable, write 5 sentences about something other than his personal life. So far it seems no one has been able to. Right now the article reads like an obituary, so I guess it's not surprising that's one of the only sources for it. -R. fiend (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep He had a NYT obituary. Consensus, 100% keep rate, has been to keep articles about people with obituaries in the NYT.John Z (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep improved article as meeting all of the nom's concerns, except his animous toward the author. I don't care WHO authored it if it serves to improve Wiki. Schmidt, 01:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Grumman#Early history as his chief claim to fame was to be one of five founders of Grumman. His work in local government doesn't add much toward satisfying WP:BIO, and I don't see anything else aside from his premature death (but thousands drown at a young age every year). This almost reads as a eulogy. If more can be added about his career, it might be enough to make the WP:BIO bar for a standalone article, but for now, a mention in the Grumman article should be sufficient. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Bwind makes a good point, methinks. If this article can be fleshed out so it covers his accomplishments, we'd have a much better case for keeping this. Everyone seems to be impressed with his NYT obit (I was unaware that such an obit was a free pass into Knowledge, is that really true?), but does it say anything of substance? (I can't read it without paying, which I don't want to do; can someone relate its contents here?) Right now it's only used as a source for his death, which, while tragic, is hardly a claim to fame. If this touted source doesn't give us anything of substance except that he was one of the first investors in Grumman and its treasurer and director, then we really just have a sentence or two of substantive information, and that is already included in the Grumman article, making a redirect a sensible choice. Filling it out with fluff about his family and breaking out a separate article is one of the reasons why Knowledge has nearly 3 million articles, a small fraction of which are actually good. I'm skeptical that it can be done, but if details about his role at Grumman (pretty clearly the only notable thing about him) can be discovered and added then we might have an encyclopedia article rather than some sort of genealogical/eulogy piece. -R. fiend (talk) 07:58, 14 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ITV scheduling of Shortland Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Definitely not notable for its own article.... we are not a TV guide. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:41, 11 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Regional culinary item which does not establish notability through the inclusion of reliable, third-party sources. The Lincoln Fresh-O-Matic, the declared "standard sandwich steamer", is a generic steaming device and in no way specific to the item described; descriptions of it on product sites don't appear to make any reference to this subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete This is merely a style of preparing a sandwich which has dubious standalone popularity as, say, boiled beef. Possibly redirect or merge to the main Sandwich article. §FreeRangeFrog 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with sandwich. This is currently nothing but WP:OR, but I would still consider it worth saving if I could envision it as something other than a preparation method, rather than an actual food item. A line or two of this concept to sandwich is fair, methinks. Unschool 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as essentially obvious from the title. A steamed sandwich is just like a sandwich but steamed. No kidding? I didn't know that it was a regional thing, though. WillOakland (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    Earlier revisions of the article state that it's available in a handful of establishments in Knoxville, TN. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There are lots of ways to steam a sandwich. This type of steamed sandwich is not notable. Section in "Sandwich" would read "A steamed sandwich is a sandwich that is steamed". It would also describe the generic Taiwanese "steamed sandwich". It wouldn't say anything about the Lincoln-steam-o-matic, or insist that the sandwich contain meat and cheese. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Borderline case where one reliable source appears to exist, but nonetheless asserted to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. After some searching, the Portland Mercury article cited is the only non-trivial, reliable source coverage of this corporation; there is some blog coverage, and some trivial mentions. As such, fails WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge

Merge some of the content in here into a new article detailing pay-to-play scams. This is a big thing in the music industry and is worthy of an article, with Afton being a prominent offender. --Iron Chef (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:30, 11 February 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. No prejudice towards future notability. kurykh 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Spryng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Also nominating:
Sprong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable topic, not found with Google or Google Scholar, possible WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete spryng, but for now Neutral sprong The name is certainly covered by WP:NEO, but cubic restoring force actually comes up enough that it may be worth discussing the general case with reference to specific examples. The term sprong does not seem to be in wide circulation, so I would prefer to rename the article; on the other foot, cubic restoring force or x spring are less than elegant titles. Nonlinear dynamics (sometimes likened to the study of non-human animals) is important, but I am not at present convinced that this particular example is better treated as a unified article on the differential equation or if we should just mention it as a model system in relevant application-specific articles (especially wherever aerodynamic drag and vibration in wings is treated). Example citations: , , , , (although some of these actually deal with spring hardening, where a cubic term is added to the linear restoring force as a first approximation to the difference between an ideal spring and something made of matter). A solid reference to a well-developed and decently cited article on the use of this system in teaching or finding it in a standard mathematical handbook or two would push me to keep sprong. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I cannot find either of these systems treated in Goldstein (ISBN 0201657023) or Arfken & Weber (ISBN 0120598256), indicating that neither is hugely important to modern physics. Perhaps materials engineering or aeronautics source would be better. AlB1337, you say that you attended a few relevant lectures - perhaps the presenters have published notable material? - Eldereft (cont.) 17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Check the textbook, just because something isn't online doesn't mean it's not worthy. I attended a few lectures discussing sprongs and related materials, the others already had articles (ie constant force springs, metamaterials), but the sprong is a fairly recent addition, maybe I can provide more references? -Albi —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlB1337 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't whether or not someone used these terms in one textbook or whether the concepts they describe aren't "worthy" under someone's definition. The issues I cited related to Knowledge's guidelines explained in WP:Notability, WP:Neologism, WP:MADEUP. Also, you wrote in the article that the concept is "popular in materials engineering", but evidently not yet popular enough for anyone to have mentioned it yet anyplace that Google has indexed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Lazgo, it appears that the "spryng" article seems to have compromised the credibility of mine. May I mention that while sprong is indeed a notable concept, a spryng seems to be nothing but a copy-paste of my article. While it is possible to manipulate three dimensional geometry to achieve such a dependence on length, a spryng has no clear way of doing this, and furthermore seems to be plagiarized.
      • Tell me what I can do to prove this article's crediblity, I could maybe post some of the math mentioned, although I have very little knowledge of latex and it would take a while. Also, the differential equations are somewhat complicated and long, which is why I ommitted them. Perhaps you would like me to cite more textbooks that mention this idea?
      • I agree that googling this concept it indeed appears to be made up, but you have to realize this is the initial reason I made the article. Please tell me what I can do to prove its notability, or as you say, prove that it is not a neologism or made up. Perhaps I can post the original discussion between Celaj and Knight? Just give me some ideas, I was shocked to find this article nominated for deletion. -Albi —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlB1337 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
find two authoritative widely used textbooks. Or perhaps some published lecture notes on the web by authoritative professors? With respect to the MOS page on neologism, I point out the the MOS is not where notability is decided. I have proposed a modification on the talk page there to bring it in line with general policy and guidelines. Finding some concept to be widely used is not OR, just assembling the material for an article. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, the word "notability" as used on Knowledge is misleading because of the ambiguity of the word. If it isn't talked about anywhere, than by Knowledge's definition, it isn't notable. It isn't a matter of demonstrating its significance despite its being mentioned nowhere. Also, it isn't a matter of whether you've provide enough information about the topic: showing more math would be great if it's a notable topic, but won't help with the notability issue. Now, if you have textbooks to cite, that might be adequate, provided that they meet the requirements. Though I wonder, if the topic is discussed in several textbooks, how has any discussion of it managed to avoid being on the Web?
        • Understood, what you've said about Spryng being a separate issue. I believe the deciding administrator here would have the option of finding in favor of keeping your article and deleting the other, if the consensus should suggest that to be the most appropriate outcome. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Lazgo, I understand your concerns. The thing is, I'll be honest with you: this is somewhat of an esoteric concept, I think the professors just give us this idea to help us practice with our TI-84's and get us thinking about the nature of materials. That being said, it is mentioned in a few encyclopedias specifically about materials engineering, I'm kind of perplexed as to why it isn't in google as well. I did find an online discussion of sprongs, although he does not mention it by name: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-149740.html, this is similar to an assignment I had to do, the kx^4 spring was proven to be infeasible due to it violating the second law of thermodynamics (thres both a logical and mathematic explanation for this), I think he just tries avoiding the jargon as it's easily understood without a name.

Also, here's a rather low level textbook that mentions the idea by name: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OvflOrCvnO8J:www.gfy.ku.dk/~pditlev/fysik1/Knight_kap11.pdf+%22a+clever+engineer%22+%22sprong%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

I do encourage you to check out the Knight textbook I cited if you get the chance though, it's probably the most understandable thing mentioning this. I'll search for journals as well, it's just kind of late now, but I could go to the library for 20 minutes tommorow. As for lecture notes, they are not available to the public, I'm not sure how i'd go about citing them? Do I cite my professor or what? And the fact that they're inaccessible makes it inverifiable...maybe I could post them somewhere but they're copyrighted, I'll just email my prof and ask where he got the info.

Also, I've been surprised in my recent studies to the degree of information that is NOT available on the internet from google. For example, I had to provide a mechanism for the dehydration of glucose by sulfuric acid to yield carbon and water(for a totally unrelated class). This reaction appears in many chemistry books as it's not very complicated, but the mechanism is not posted ANYWHERE by googling, but a quick trip to the library found it quite easily.

Anyway, if you don't feel that Knowledge could use an article about something like this, I understand, I just felt it didn't get enough coverage. I don't see the harm in keeping it though, the information is all accurate, and it's a neat concept despite the issues we're having regarding its notability. -Albi Oops, forgot to log in. Last edit is indeed me.

  • Comment The pdf conversion is incorrect for the above link (it shows a time dependent force); the actual scan does indeed give a problem from a textbook discussing cubic restoring force as being given by a "sprong". I would not say that this is really encyclopedic coverage - the authors' needed a relatively simple analytically solvable system, and chose the name to suggest to students the techniques presumably used in the preceding chapter to derive the simple harmonic oscillator. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ddawkins, you obviously didn't read the discussion very thoroughly...yes I've been slacking off a bit with finding sources, tommorow for sure, not trying to postpone anything, I'm just incredibly busy :\. --Albi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.229.93 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, delete Spryng. I haven't even looked up Sprong. So my bad in that sense, yes. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both Checked on google, google news, and google scholar, and I can't find any information about these two topics other than this article. I'm not sure what's written in that textbook, but it could easily be the author's own neologisms for the words. I doubt he would expect the physics community at large to use them, since it's apparant that they aren't a part of the physics lexicon. Themfromspace (talk) 22:26, 16 February 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. MBisanz 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oisin CLG Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Article edited I have edited the page content making the content more encyclopedic. With regards to the "non noteable" amateur sports club comment: Oisin is over 100 years old and has a centenary book documenting its history. There are also thousand of gaa clubs listed on wikipedia and each is as important as the other.Markhallen (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst I would concede that some of the really blatant sel-puffery has been removed, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument. Yes, the club has a centenary book. It has such a book, because it published one. Notability depends on OTHERS writing about you, not on you writing about yourself. Mayalld (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply GAA clubs have a high standing in Ireland, much as Football clubs in England. Oisin is not a fly by night sunday league football team. They have an elected committee and contribute to the community both through charitable donations and charitable work. The club itself is a registered charity. The club is notable to the people who have come into contact with it and as with any GAA club, it is notable to people from Ireland or of Irish decent. It is also notable to people with an interest in sporting organisations and history. Markhallen (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment in Knowledge, notability is not an abstract subjective concept, for this very reason. Everything is notable to somebody, but everything is not necessarily notable to the public at large. There is a risk of conflating worthiness with notability. Many registered charities are not notable. As such, on Knowledge Notability is a subjective measure (see WP:N). The club is only notable if reliable independent sources have written about it. Broadly speaking, if the Manchester Evening News has never run an article about the club (results listings and the like don't count), it probably isn't going to meet the notability criteria. Mayalld (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply We are featured in the written press regularly. I have some links from internet press we have recieved:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/122/122989_gaelic_football_clubs_century.html
http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/sport/s/364848_oisin_to_four_in_trophy_clean_up
http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/sport/s/364890_oisin_power_to_popular_home_win
http://www.manchesterirish.com/irishstory/mancirishstory4.htm Markhallen (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The MEN one is useful as a step to establishing notability, because it is an article about the club in a regional title. The others are from more local or niche publications, and are no more than the match reports that such publications will run on any local team.
The notability requirement is for multiple sources though, and when it comes to the press we are looking for nationals for preference. So, whilst a couple of articles in the nationals would be enough, and nothing from the South Manchester Reporter really counts, you need a few more articles from regional papers. Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it feels to me like you're moving the goal posts. Markhallen (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if it looks like that. I'm not moving the goalposts, because the goalposts are there in the links that I've given you. They are, however, not that easy to read, and my comments were a good faith attempt to direct you to where the line is drawn. If the sources exist to show notability, the article will stay. If I let you spend the 5 days of the AFD arguing for notability in ways that don't actually meet the requirements of Knowledge, that would have been unfair. My comment about the MEN was a starting point. I said that unless it had an article in the MEN it would definitely not be notable, and that it would be a waste of time going further. One article means that there is a possibility of notability. Three would probably settle the matter definitively. Two would be enough for me to assume that there are others, and to withdraw this AFD. Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld can I ask a question? Having read your arguments for deleting this article I am still at something of a loss as to why you would want to proceed in doing so. It seems to me like you have an axe to grind against this entry for some reason. Surely a man who has over 10,000 wiki edits to his name can see the merit in keeping this unbiased encyclopedic entry. As for its notability can you please explain why you would want to delete it as "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". I think that active effort has been made to find you these sources of note which you are looking for. Have there been other entries in the same field as this one that have been earmarked for deletion also? Would this count as notability, the organisation being mentioned in the foreign press? http://www.kerryman.ie/sport/gaelic-football/irelands-economic-woes-lead-to-revival-of-gaa-cross-channel-1600835.html Risteard (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC) — Richiecoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Might I point you in the direction of WP:AGF? Accusing me of having an axe to grind seems to be a failure to assume good faith.
I have suggested that the article be deleted because I tried to find sources that showed notability, and didn't find any.
This is the key point. It isn't relevant whether the article is unbiased (when it was nominated it was horribly biased, and even after improvement it remains somewhat biased). No matter how unbiased the article might be, if it isn't notable, it should be deleted.
As you note, deletion is inappropriate unless active effort to find sources had been made. Merely making an active effort doesn't mean that deletion is inappropriate. If active effort fails to find sources, then deletion may be appropriate.
You ask about other entries in the same field and whether they have been flagged for deletion. Please read WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles aren't judged against other articles to try and find parallels. They are judged against notability criteria.
You question whether mention in the international press counts as notability. In the example that you give, no it doesn't. The mention must be more than incidental to count. The press article must be substantially about the club, rather than incidentally mention it.
As I've already said, I don't have an axe to grind. If notability is shown, I will gladly withdraw the AFD. If notability isn't established, the AFD remains. I'm not about to be browbeaten into withdrawing the AFD by accusations of bad faith being flung at me.
Oh, and glad to see that you enjoyed my user page enough to copy the design for your own. Mayalld (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply I am sorry if you think I'm accusing you of being biased it was just my way of saying that I thought the article was being unfairly judged and not a character assassination or personal attack on your good self. I am still at a loss on your notability criteria however. Can you not admit that the user who set up the article has tried and is still trying to find evidence of notability? If there was a full article about the club in a national paper or on a website which is seen as the leading authority in this field would that count as being notable enough? Maybe the clubs lack of mention in the press on a large scale may be down to a bad PRO (the majority of column inches or web chatter about a club or organisation stems from people within said club).
To say that I am trying to browbeat you into withdrawing the AFD is going a bit far and also in bad faith if the WP:AGF article is followed to the word.
Lastly, of course I copied your user page the whole point of good wikipedia is to learn and I learn by doing or in this case copying. It is open source code after all and as I am new to this contribution scene I'm sure you wouldn't mind. 'Imitation is the sincerest of flattery'. Charles Caleb Colton It is the small thingl like this which i hope might move me away from the — Richiecoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tag in future. It is a confidence thing and I hope you and others in the community will give me the time I need to expand my knowledge of how everything works. Risteard (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article creator is looking for sources, but the system is that for an article to be kept, the sources must be found. It isn't enough to say "somebody is looking for sources", and expect an indefinite stay of execution. I looked for sources before nominating and found none. The article creator has found one source that "counts". AFD gives a minimum 5 day period for the author to fix the sourcing issue (this AFD has been relisted, so it will get 10 days). If sources exist, they will surely be found within 10 days! I say what I've said all along. If sources, independent of the club, can be shown to exist, I'll withdraw the AFD.
The comment about my user page wasn't a criticism BTW. It just made me chuckle. Mayalld (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep winner of 2 All Britian is by far enough to establish notably Gnevin (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAA have been informed of this discussion Gnevin (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment AFD'ing an article less than 15 minute after it's created is hardly the best way not to WP:Bite or give the article time to develop. This the article should of at best been {{Prod}}'d or better yet watched and AFD after a week if no notable was forth coming Gnevin (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep notable club. Derry Boi (talk) 10:33, 15 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company under WP:CORP. No reliable independent sources presented (all sources that are presented are either not independent or do not even talk about the subject of the article, but rather a particular industry). Declined speedy (which I will say is completely improper as none of the assertions are for notability but just statements of fact). Material relevant to this discussion is also at Talk:Aeorads. Cquan 03:22, 11 February 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 WP:SNOW Delete. Probably hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You Got To Dance! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced. WP:CRYSTALBALL & WP:SPAM or WP:HOAX. Unverifiable in any case. Prod removed without comment. Evb-wiki (talk) 03:07, 11 February 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. Non-admin closing this AfD as the article is already deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Great CSD candidate except that hoaxes are explicitly excluded from CSD. Appears to be a blatant hoax. -- Mufka 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically not, since the article is different, but since it doesn't improve on the previous entry, I see no reason not to delete it. - Mgm| 10:48, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

J. Barney Hawkins IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:20, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as fails WP:BIO. Just a normal academic (charity work is great, but not automatically notable), nothing indicated she is particularly notable. These mostly look like CVs, not encylopedia entries (pasteing responses, nut checking individually).k]]) 13:17, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacques B. Hadler Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:18, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A. Katherine Grieb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:18, 11 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Jonathan Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:18, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:17, 11 February 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. MBisanz 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger A. Ferlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 February 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. MBisanz 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Judy Fentress-Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:17, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring 02:16, 11 February 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. MBisanz 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Neologism that probably could lbe CSD-IAR'd without a second thought. The prod almost made it through the five day period, but was removed by an IP. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:03, 11 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Legend of the 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources given to back claims of book notability. Search is difficult because of the namesake XBox game, but "Legend+of+the+9"+book+Junius returns no relevant third-party sources. The ISBN seems to be fake, no publication references on Google Books, nothing. Does not seem to meet WP:BN at best. Article is also tagged as WP:COI, author is probably the creator of the article. This might be a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The fake ISBN, the cover that looks like a laughably cheap Photoshop job, the fact that the only Google hit for it if you search with both the book's title and the author's name is the Knowledge article... That last one is really obvious, because for almost any modern book out there that's actually been published, you're going to get some hits. Also, the "Fenner Arts Award" the manuscript supposedly received doesn't seem to exist, or so the 0 Google hits for it seems to indicate (and I find it hard to believe that there's a literary award out there that is never mentioned on the internet). All of this is fishy. It's a hoax. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, let me correct myself: it might actually exist, because Central Books, the publisher, appears to do print on demand. Maybe someone actually wrote this. But that'd make this a vanity press project, which doesn't automatically make something non-notable, but certainly kind of raises the bar. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per Disdain. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 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 University of Michigan. MBisanz 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Will Work for Food (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have been unable to findany coverage at all in reliable independent sources.

The subject is not notable.--Patton 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Michigan Daily article has been added to the external links.

Here is a link to a blurb about the organization from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs Website http://www.e-guana.net/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=54&typeID=1212&itemID=21497 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboro438 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable for its own article. There are simply hundreds of not-for-profit and charitable organizations out there. The World Encyclopedia has very few articles about companies except some of the top Fortune 500 companies. Mention of this organization could be put under the University of Michigan's article under Student groups and activities. Mkdw 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think it would be more productive to make an argument based on Knowledge's inclusion criteria, not The World Encyclopedia's inclusion criteria. Knowledge is not a paper dictinary, and there is really no limit to how many articles it can have. I think the question is whether or not it meets WP:ORG.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another article from the Michigan Daily detailing Will Work For Food's partnership with Doctors Without Borders http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2009-02-09/will-work-food-event —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboro438 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith L. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I just don't see, based on this article, how he reaches the WP:PROF standard of notability, or any other notability standard. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:44, 11 February 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.

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

↑