Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 16 - Knowledge (XXG)

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 merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. No non-primary sourcing or real-world notability is apparent Black Kite 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete This is non-notable. It's really nothing more than a collection of TV trivia which makes it unencyclopedic.George Pelltier (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment It should notified that this Afd was not listed properly by the nominator hence a day was lost this way. Further more it should be also know that another Afd by the same nominator had the same issue corrected Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Leorio by another user and the nominator did not make any effort to correct issue with this Afd. That say a lot on how much this editor cared to have those Afds done properly --KrebMarkt 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge a concise character description and voice actor information to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. As the article currently stands, there is no non-trivial coverage of the character by reliable third-party sources. Without reliable third-party sources, we can't have an article on the subject. Role in the plot does not play a factor in determining if the character should be included as a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is entirely plot summary and in-universe info without real-world information. Notability has not been established via reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I believe there was a prior AfD that ruled that this and other GX character articles would be merged, but it never happened. JuJube (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge Nominator doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing. Also, let it be noted that the copy-pasted rage essay he has on his user page is applying to him now more than anyone else. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough information to warrant its own page. Merging would mean deleting at least 90% of that to make it fit on a character page, and I'm certainly against that. Dream Focus 12:13, 19 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete This is non-notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by George Pelltier (talk • contribs) 06:13, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete It's non-notable. TV Trivia.George Pelltier (talk) 06:18, 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. –Juliancolton 02:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

unreferenced, unverifiable, speculative, original research - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Citations need to be added, but otherwise this is a very notable listing of notable emerging technologies (lots of bluelinks). I think it's a terrific article with lots of potential that would be a shame to lose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any of the current article even can be referenced properly as an emerging technology. If the article is kept, I can still remove all unreferenced content, which is the whole article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reference properly.--Kozuch (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I believe the controversy over this article is related to the unclear definition of what is an emerging technology. One could consider naming it something like. "List of new technologies that are not in widespread use, but where prototypes or successful trials (for treatments) have been created" (the title should, though be shorter:) ). The pressure for references would hence be reduced as the referenced wiki-articles would need to state that a prototype has been made or else the technology should be deleted from the list. Another list could be named "list of diffusing technologies", which would contain technologies whose wiki-articles state that the technologies are new and gaining market-share over alternative technologies.--hulagutten (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, Hulagutten is right, a proper definition of emerging technology should be defined. Jezcentral (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The deletion is based on the fact that none of it is referenced, and it doesn't seem that any of it even can be referenced to be an emerging technology. That these are emerging technologies is OR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course material of this nature can be referenced - a quick google with a term like "emerging technology" turns up plenty of conferences, magazines, etc. (Whether these specific items can be referenced is another matter.) Zodon (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that it's possible to write an entirely new article on this topic that is actually based on reliable sources?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. Probably also possible to find sources for much of what is here. Zodon (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If it's certain, then you can do it, right now, and then the AFD will die. Otherwise it's not certain, because nobody has done it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just wrong. Everything has to be referenced in the same article according to WP:RS.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The list guideline seems to suggest otherwise, and specifically allows uncontroversial additions to lists: references are only needed if an addition is controversial or if living people are involved, obviously not an issue here. Lists are also allowed for development purposes including listing of articles yet to be created. How are you going to "reference" those? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, what's an emerging technology? How do I know if scramjets are considered an emerging technology? I mean scramjets have been messed around with for decades and to date the only flight articles ended up a smoking wreckage in the sea. Fusion, even longer, about 70 years or more. What exactly is emerging about them? In the absence of a RS saying that they are being considered so, it doesn't seem to me that this is in any way unarguable, and that to me points towards this entire article being OR right now. This isn't a case where everyone will agree that such and such is or isn't emerging.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact, quite contrary to what you say: Knowledge (XXG):LIST#Listed_items specifically says that you have to have references for the list. But there aren't any.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the intro to the page could list some criteria for inclusion, such as existence of an article that either is on the technology per se or is the subject of a subsection of an article that provides citations??? 75.42.20.61 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if it does, that any particular item meets it may be considered to be OR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is primarily a navigation page, and is useful mainly for a reader wanting to discover what range of technologies are being examined in a given area. The links then guide the reader to a more detailed examination, which would seriously detract from the utility of the page if it had to explain and reference every item. Disputes may arise over whether something should be listed or where it should be classified, but these should be settled on a case by case basis, and should not be a basis for dumping the entire page. As mentioned above, a clear statement of how a technology qualifies to be listed would help with such disputes. Brews ohare (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs clear definition of emerging technology and some refs (not all lists need as many refs as long the supporting articles are well ref'd), but otherwise a useful, verifiable list —G716 <·C> 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That it's useful or not isn't sufficient; that argument is specifically disallowed in AFDs.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a vote?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper. Why don't you delete Comparison of relational database management systems too? It has maybe 10 citations and hundreds of uncited claims. I really think you would increase the quality of wikipedia (and make lots of people happy) if you did. --hulagutten (talk) 12:47, 20 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 an obvious BLP problem. Not a chance of this being kept. There is already sourced commentary in the fires article - Peripitus (Talk) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

per WP:BLP1E. The person in question is notable for only one event, and a negative one at that. The person has not yet been convicted of any charge. Given that the article discusses in detail the online vigilantism and other personal threats made against the subject of this article, it is not clear to me that Knowledge (XXG) needs to add to this already heated environment. Mattinbgn\ 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and support deletion. Privatemusings (talk) 23:59, 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 per WP:HEY and the withdrawal of the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER - only one significant role in a notable film (the guidelines require multiple) and lack of reliable secondary sources —Snigbrook 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination – sources have been found, and I don't think the reasons I mentioned still apply. —Snigbrook 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Article now expanded beyond stub status. - Mgm| 13:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, film makers don't spend money on flying an actor across the ocean to attend the Toronto Film Festival unless they had a significant part in the production. - Mgm| 18:28, 17 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 by nom. Needs work, valid/notable sources have been added (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software. No unique features. Unsourced. Makes no claim to notability and does not provide sources showing notability. Run of the mill open source players are not inherently notable. Notable subjects have active editors and wikilinks. This article has no major edits in more than a year, and few wikilinks except for templates. Miami33139 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination. Being the default music player in KDE 3.2 is notable, too bad the article didn't state this. I added the sources provided by Scott Wheeler to the article. Thank you Scott. Miami33139 (talk) 00:52, 18 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 02:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software. No unique features. Unsourced. Makes no claim to notability and does not provide sources showing notability. Run of the mill open source players are not inherently notable. Notable subjects have active editors and wikilinks. This article has no major edits in more than a year, and few wikilinks except for templates. Knowledge (XXG) is not a list of features. Miami33139 (talk) 23:47, 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 02:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Website set up this year with no real-world notability. No news articles I can find, no awards, significant independent reviews and definitely nothing that satisfies any of the notability requirements to write a verifiable article based on reliable sources Peripitus (Talk) 23:41, 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 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company that has received no material coverage in independent reliable sources. Other than press releases, appears to have been mentioned only in passing. Bongomatic 23:23, 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 as unverifiable. DS (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam 2009 Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL; procedural nomination, as I declined the article's speedy deletion request. –Juliancolton 23:13, 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. –Juliancolton 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Important Person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - nominated once for deletion two years ago and kept, but in the intervening two years nothing has emerged to indicate that this is or will ever be anything but a dictionary definition. If there are, as the previous AFD asserts, special protocols associated with various military bodies then articles should be written about them specifically; they do not serve as justification for keeping a dictionary definition article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • True, but not even close to the point of the nomination. There are no sources that indicate that this phrase in and of itself passes policies and guidelines. It would be a different matter if there were a plethora of sources out there that established that this was proper for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary and no one had just bothered to expand the article with them, but there are not. If this is deleted and suddenly someone discovers such sources, then great, recreate the article with proper sourcing that establishes the encyclopedic nature of the topic. But "keep it because someday there might be sources" is not a reasonable rationale. Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that nothing has happened to this article since the last nomination is frustrating, but there's potential for more than just a dicdef here, if someone will roll up their sleeves. A couple hundred pages link to the article, so someone just needs to fix it. If I can actually find some decent references, I might do the work myself. Cool3 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This pretty much translates to "keep this article because I just know there are sources out there somewhere!" That is not the standard for articles. There need to be reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this phrase as a phrase in and of itself. Should such sources materialize following the deletion of this article then the article can be recreated. It's not like the depth of coverage in this article is so great that recreating it with sources would be some great burden, and if it were the deleted article can always be userfied by asking any admin to do it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 17 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The U (University of Miami) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per the debate at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The U. This is mostly original research with questionable claims such as "Reference to the University of Miami as "The U" has since gained national notoriety." In fact the article was created after similar dubious content was forced out of the article/disambiguation The U. I have no problem with making this a redirect to University of Miami or to Miami Hurricanes football. Such a merge-redirect should probably be endorsed by AfD: as the history of The U suggests, a merge would probably be reverted. Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see that the content of the article is worth saving; it's either OR or trivial. That "this U" in Winslow's tirade would mean "the University of Miami" is a matter of interpretation; it could just mean "this university" (as opposed to "that one," UT that is). Moreover, there is nothing that I found on Google that suggests that this has gained currency at all as a specific reference--and the very existence of the redirect The U seems to bear that out. I think this is really fancruft. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nom that this fails WP:OR, but disagree that it should be a redirect on the grounds that nobody is going to type "The U (University of Miami)" in any Knowledge (XXG) search. KuyaBriBri 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Good point. The redirect would indeed be meaningless. Pichpich (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, I disagree with Drmies that is hasn't gained currency as a specific reference. Watching a lot of NFL games this past season, it is very common for players from the University of Miami (and only the University of Miami) to introduce themselves as being from "The U". Everything in the section "National Football League" is correct and could be cited from broadcasts of NFL games. However, despite this, I think the term is not notable enough to have its own article, separate from the University of Miami and Miami Hurricanes football pages. I think the mention that the University of Miami is sometimes referred to as "The U" in the first line of the Miami Hurricanes football article is really all that is needed about this nickname, so I think a merge of any content is unnecessary (though I wouldn't be opposed to merging the section "National Football League" into the Miami Hurricanes football page if others supported that . . . the rest seems to be original research).
Forgot to sign my name. Calathan (talk) 16:20, 17 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. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Shalhevet Pass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BLP#1E. This is just one of multiple articles about civilian victims of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I feel sorry for their death (from both sides) but wikipedia is not a memorial. Osm agha (talk) 22:21, 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. –Juliancolton 02:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Unclear notability, desperately short on references, multiple other issues including spam/BLP. Black Kite 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

His work on the tobacco and benzene litigation has kept him marginally in the news. Don't think he quite meets WP:ACADEMIC, but he passes WP:BIO more than, say, Beauty Turner. THF (talk) 23:18, 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 delete. G7 J.delanoyadds 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. I can find no sources linking Aubrey Vosburg to skiing at all, let alone to the claims made in the article. Richard 22:00, 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 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The article has two assertions of notability. The first is a Commonwealth Press Union Fellowship, which does not seem to be a very notable and high profile award (Google news did not return any coverage of this award in newspapers). The other assertion is that she wrote a bestseller, but looking at Amazon.ca and Amazon.com shows not only a very low sales rank (although that could be explained by that the book was published in 2002) but also only one review. Surely a bestseller should have generated more reviews by readers. Googling her name shows only her own articles (and only a few), and no coverage about her. Afroghost (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: This nominiation is related to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/DiversityCanada Foundation Afroghost (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete An Canadian author with a book in only 2 Canadian libraries (a/c Worldcat, which does cover Canadian libraries moderately well, though not completely) has not written a bestseller. A statement of best seller status not verifiable by references, reviews, sales information, or libraries holdings tends to induce in me a feeling of general disbelief. DiversityCanada may or may not be notable, but not enough so that she's notable for being the director. DGG (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - No soruces to establish notability. Note that the her book Journey to Joy which is being claimed a bestseller in the article is published through Damascus Press which accordinf to their website "is a Canadian media company owned by the Sankar family." So it appears the book is self-published. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 19 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 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources to confirm any notability. No current tours, or past notable ones. No label. Only one release and it's not even a full length studio album. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:06, 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 merge to Interstate 74. Merge and redirect to main article (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 74 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not worthy of its own article. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 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. AFD is the wrong venue to discuss redirects. Mgm| 08:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Human appearance in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recommend redirect to Indian dress. Quantumobserver (talk) 20:56, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable indie movie. No reliable sources, none found. Article implicitly claims that it showed at the Toronto Film Festival, I am unable to verify that info. TNXMan 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see that this article has been much improved from its initial state and should be kept. I strike my nomination. One serving of "my words" please, waiter. :P TNXMan 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Info can now be verified. Please re-check Category Stub: 1997 Toronto International Film Festival/ Perspective Canada --Iswearius (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have been more specific. I am unable to verify the info in independent, third-party sources. Knowledge (XXG) cannot be used as a source for itself. TNXMan 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Info further verified. Please check http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/1997-Toronto-International-Film-Festival Perspective Canada.--Iswearius (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Info further verified. Please also check http://books.google.com/books?id=P15tyiOSRz0C&pg=PA45&dq=L%27absent+baril --Iswearius (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Info further verified. Please also check http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=94&layid=29&csid2=110&fid1=221#alpha --Iswearius (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Info further verified. Please also check http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/158614/L-Absent/overview --Iswearius (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Info further verified. Please view the following webpage. This is the Toronto International Film Festival Group's official Film reference library http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=94&layid=29&csid2=110&fid1=221#alpha . Contact info is also available for authentification.--Iswearius (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All this source confirms is that a copy is held by the film reference library, which doesn't really help. The NYT review does help, but is brief and appears to be copied from "All Movie Guide", which I'm not really sure is reliable. Are there more reviews of the film published elsewhere? JulesH (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking at the above sources, we have a review in what is apparently an academic textbook, which suggests artistic importance of some kind. Plus there's the brief NYT review, which is marginal but also helps establish notability. I'd say this is enough. JulesH (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I see brief mentions in websites and the like, but I don't see any in-depth coverage. At most, I am able to determine that the film existed and was shown with very many other films at the Toronto Film Festival. I would ask the original poster the same question you did - Are there any reviews of the film? TNXMan 19:40, 17 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 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Doesn't appear that this person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. -- Mufka 20:24, 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 (withdrawn by nominator). Misleading title lead to a discussion of AfD. (non-admin closure) Imperat§ r 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Green Stickers on Consumer Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't feel that it is deserving of a speedy delete (it is quite notable), so I thought I'd give it a chance for discussion. Imperat§ r 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The subject of Green Stickers has emerged through reviewing articles on environmental issues and an attempt to find a more appropriate category for labelling practise that have emerged. Energy rating labels are a subset of this kind of labelling on consumer goods. When looking at articles contained on the government agencies responsible for regulating Energy Labels/Stickers a common thread of greening, green standards, etc... emerges thus The title word 'Green' becomes appropriate.
  • This article is not reiterating already existing pages and is intended to evolve along with emerging practices of labelling of consumer products. I picked the auto industry and appliance industry first because they are well known and serve as a base for discussion. I might concede the word Sticker could be replaced with Label but that would not reflect what is emerging which is Green Stickers on Consumer Packaging The word Packaging was changed to products because some products do not have packaging e.g. fruits and Vegetables Mkevlar (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I agree that the article title is not ideal, which is probably part of the reason why it was posted for AFD. The concept seems useful and notable if the article can be restructured. Plastikspork (talk) 01:50, 18 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 British African-Caribbean community. LAck of unique information, few references, little notability. Merge to larger sourced community article (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint Kitts and Nevisian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Saint Lucian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vincentian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles make no assertion of notability, which I think is doubtful. The only useful, sourced material in the articles (the population data) can be found at Foreign-born population of Great Britain, 2001. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete no indication that this dormitory is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 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 redirect to The Devil in the Dark with no prejudice against restoring the full article if additional information is added or sources found (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Horta (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An enemy of one Star Trek episode. While I agree that Klingons and Vulcans and such should have articles of their own, the Horta never really got past "alien menace of the week" status. As far as content goes, the article doesn't get anymore in depth about the Horta than the episode's article, which makes the Horta article redundant. Furthermore, no real world perspective present anywhere in the article and unsourced. Suitable for Memory Alpha, but not Knowledge (XXG). Atlan (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: User:A Nobody has since added some sourced real word perspective to the article so I struck that sentence from my nomination.--Atlan (talk) 09:54, 17 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article starts out by saying: "In January 2009 the then governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich revealed that he had considered naming talk show host Oprah Winfrey as his first choice to fill the Illinois senate seat previously occupied by president Barack Obama." Blagojevich, as you probably know, is a notoriously dishonest person. Why should WP have an article about something he "revealed" that he considered to do? Yes, I know that many people commented and/or joked about Mr. Blagojevich's statement, which is what the article mainly consists of. Borock (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete and merge changed to merge and redirect, I agree with Jezhotwells. Among some of the things that Knowledge (XXG) is not, is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that he considered her is notable enough to be in the article about him, and perhaps about her, but not with anything near this level of detail. I do feel bad for the original author, though, as a lot of hard work seems to have been put into this. -Lilac Soul 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your point about delete/merge is a violation of the GNU license. What do you mean? It is quite common to delete implausible redirects, and this would be one, were it merged+redirected. -Lilac Soul 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that, if material is merged into another article, it's necessary to leave a redirect to the previous article for purposes of attribution, and delete destroys the page history that documents who first created the material. Quoting from WP:MERGE: "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and can be helpful in finding articles, e.g. from alternative names." Deleting is perfectly okay, if no material is merged. Let me know if you think I'm wrong on this. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Before you voted someone said how merge and delete was a GFDL violation. The GFDL is more important than the plausability of a redirect any day. - Mgm| 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I should have quoted WP:MERGE the first time around. My fault for not being clear enough. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a sucker for deleting implausible redirects. Content with substantial numbers of revisions is deleted all the time, I don't see how this would be any different, especially considering that some of the material would be merged into the article, and in the unlikely case that the original author(s) would bring a complaint based on their rights under the license, the revisions can be restored. §FreeRangeFrog 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into Blagojevich. It had nothing to do with Obama beyond the fact that it was his vacant seat. Rather it was part of the scheming (I don't think that term is POV at this point) of Blago. Valley2city 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect A single fact that isn't sufficient for an entirely separate article. - Mgm| 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Subject was covered by several major media sources, deals with a historical presidency, a historical senate seat, and the biggest names in politics and popular culture. Easily more relevant than 95% of wikipedia articles. SamanthaG (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as an incoherent collection of soundbites, and therefore not an encyclopedia article. (WP:NOTNEWS, if you want to be formal) WillOakland (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Article is well researched, well referenced, well organized, important, historical, topical & interesting. Globeclotter (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It would be more appropriately merged at Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. However, it is a fairly elaborate article that might be a bit more extenesive than would be appropriate as a section of that article. It is certainly to extensive for the Rod Blagojevich and Oprah Winfrey articles where it should just be mentioned. I think the article is a distinct topic from the other subjects and although a footnote in history is modestly encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. The matter was widely discussed in the mainstream media for a short time. The article is decent and decently well referenced. There's more material in the article than would be suitable to merge into another one, so on the whole what's the harm in keeping the article. This isn't just a random piece of information, and I can see someone in ten years being interested in the topic, though probably just as a trivia fact. Cool3 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that the most talked about governor in America went on a publicity tour gushing over the most famous talk show host in the world, and considering offering her the former senate seat of the first black president is a subject people will find interesting centuries from now. This is one of the most interesting stories in American political history and is more than worthy of an article. Bluescientist (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't find it particularly interesting right now. Most talked-about governor - WP:NOTNEWS. Blago was already on his way out of office and had picked Burris. Mentioning it on his media spree does not make it worthy of an article.
  • Delete, or as a second choice merge into some appropriate article (such as Rod Blagojevich corruption charges). This article is about an unrealized idea -- something that Rod Blagojevich said he thought about but never attempted to carry through (that is, he never actually discussed it with Winfrey). Note that Blagojevich did not even announce this idea until Roland Burris had already taken the Senate seat, at which time the idea could not have been put into effect anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Some of the information might be useful, but the incident by itself is an absurd degree of over-detail for an article. DGG (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep!!! If this subject matter was notable enough that the Governor of Illinois was asked about it by six of the biggest names in American media, notable enough that Oprah Winfrey herself commented on it, notable enough that the senator from Illinois commented in detail on it, notable enough that political analysts and entertainment shows debated it, then of course it's notable enough to be its own article. Not only that but there's a strong possibility that had the scandal not occurred, Oprah would be senator today, and that would have been the biggest political story of 2009. I am astonished that anyone would consider deleting this article, especially when wikipedia is littered with trivial articles about episodes of TV shows, movies that no one's seen & other obscure topics. This is a topic that connects Oprah, Obama, Blagojevich and Roland Burris-The four most talked about people in the state of Illinois. The fact that an article as valid and referenced as this one has been nominated for deletion shows how random the deletion nomination process is. Christmasgirl (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There are millions of things that have been talked about by the media, senators, and Oprah, but we do not need a separate article for every single one of them listing every single mention of it in the news. You have absolutely no basis that he would have picked her if not for the scandal. The most talked-about thing? WP:NOTNEWS. Reywas92 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge The tittle of this article is misleading and original. I don't see any news sources describing this topic as the "Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat." Nobody argues that Blagojevich was notable and interesting subject, but do we need an article for every idea that the governor had about the senate seat? Any relevant content should be merge. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If wikipedia only covered subjects we needed to know about it would be very small indeed. But wikipedia is supposed to be the sum total of all human knowledge, and judging by all the references, humans know a lot about this topic. And information that is useless to some is useful to others. Irongood (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Knowledge (XXG) is not the sum total of all human knowledge. -Lilac Soul 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There more than half a million google hits relating to the subject of this article. Article is too detailed & specific to be merged into any existing article and the details are relevant and interesting. I learned a lot from it. Irongood (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Every detail in this article is referenced and the subject matter meets any reasonable standard of notability as all the players involved are extremely influential and important people who are discussed in the media on a daily basis. Merging this article would only serve to greatly reduce its content and prevent wikipedia readers from taking an in-depth look at the topic. Makewater (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. We do WP:NOT need an entire article on every little thing that has ever happened to people. Just because Blago mentioned her multiple times on his media spree does not mean there should be an article on Oprah and the seat alone. It could be listed in the charges article that Blago commented on Oprah, but every instance of him talking about it does not need to be covered in detail. This info is also at Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama. We do not need a separate article for this. It might have been "discussed in the media on a daily basis" but Knowledge (XXG) is WP:NOTNEWS!Reywas92 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Being seriously considered for the U.S. senate in a seat as historical as Barack Obama's by a governor as controversial as Blago for a woman as influential as Oprah is not every little thing that happens to people, it's a major event and is worthy of being covered in extensive detail. We're not talking about some pop-culture trivia, we're talking about political decisions that affect how the world's sole super-power is governed at the higest levels of political office. SamanthaG (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Blagojevich goes on a media spree right before being impeached. He says he considered Oprah at each one and some other media commented on it. Why should this really warrant its own article? And no, this was not a decision at all and it did not affect anything.
It should warrant its own article because he was the governor of the state and there's no more important a decision a governor can make than deciding who gets a senate seat. And apparently the only thing that prevented him from asking Oprah were his infamous corruption charges, so from a historical perspective, it's crucial that we document how those corruption charges may have changed the course of political history. SamanthaG (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
A better question would be why shouldn't we keep it? What's the advantage of deleting this article? I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia not destroy one. Why the knee-jerk impulse to delete any and everything that we personally have no use for? If you don't want to explore this topic in depth, no one's forcing you, but if other people are interested in the topic, why the urge to deny them all the research that has already been assembled? The advantage of keeping this article is that a lot of time, effort and research has been invested into creating it so why flush all that human capital down the drain when it allows us to explore a specific topic about very relevant people in great depth? It's wrong that similar incidents in India and Nigeria have more difficulty establishing notability, but the solution is to build & defend more articles about those countries, not to destroy articles about America. SamanthaG (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That is not a reason to keep the article. There is nothing wrong with a merge of the information. Knowledge (XXG) can WP:NOT just keep every tidbit of material just because WP:ILIKEIT. The WP:EFFORT invested does not say why the article passes. There are inclusion criteria that have been agreed on. Reywas92 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You make it sound like this is an article about bubble gum. We're talking about the most talked about governor in America considering filling the most historical senate seat of all time with the most influential woman in the world. Everything about this topic is notable in the extreme, so to just dismiss it as a tidbit unworthy of an article does no do the topic justice. I really think you need to step back and look at this from a different perspective. SamanthaG (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Being a passing blip on the radar of history is more than sufficient to merrit an article on wikipedia. If we insisted that all wikipedia articles met the highest of standards of historical significance then 99% of wikipedia's content would vanish. This article revolves around the most influential woman in the world, the most talked about governor in America, the most historic seat in the most powerful institution in the world. The notion that this is just celebrity gossip really misses the point I think. SamanthaG (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Article is much too long & referenced to be merged into an existing article without deleting a lot of important content from the historical record. SamanthaG (talk) 23:37, 20 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 Speedily redirected to Music of France#Heavy metal, and closed as moot. This is without prejudice towards any future article on real French death metal, assuming it exists. But this article was a blatant hoax, speaking of playing death metal on French horns, and claiming that French death metal grunts are about bicycle racing on the Tour de France, and as such qualified for speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

French death metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete mildly amusing but more satire or hoax than encyclopedic; has been blanked before, but that's not the proper way to delete things... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Red Hot Chilli Pipers do AC/DC's Thunderstruck, also Smoke on the Water and We Will Rock You, on bagpipes. I've played the drum part to Wipeout on a djembe (when the drummer - and kit - failed to turn up). It's amazing what can be done sometimes. French horn in metal, possible. French bread, no. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(Also, there might be Death metal in France - I didn't think it was big in Finland. Then they sent Lordi to Eurovision in 2006.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:55, 17 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 Raw foodism. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The article has no reliable sources, and will probably never have any reliable sources.--Hq3473 (talk) 18:54, 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.  Sandstein  07:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Finnish company with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - As the original PRODer. The article was just slightly beyond WP:CSD. Two Russian patents and one product simply do not meet WP:CORP. No problem with the company's page being recreated once notability is established. §FreeRangeFrog 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - More software company spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not spam at all just that the software was claimed to be really radically new in the audio quality field as it basically works in automating audio quality.Even original PRODer says it was just slightly beyond WP:CSD . But What does "Russian " patent mean ?? Cost of filing patents is more expensive in EU.I find the Qyartermaster's talk to be cursory and dismissive while the Original Proder seems a bit biased on the Russianess of the patent even though he admits it is just slightly beyond WP:CSD . Also it is wrong that there is one product - I have mentioned three products including Document management System, Association rules for market basket analysis and the audio quality product. --Audiovocal (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have also added more references now and edited to include the existing products. --Audiovocal (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - My point about the article being just slightly north of WP:CSD doesn't mean I didn't think it should be deleted, just that it wasn't eligible for deletion under those specific guidelines, which are very strict (for good reasons). And don't give too much importance to the "Russian patent" part - they could be US patents or Canadian patents or Palau patents. It doesn't matter where they were awarded, the point is that the company isn't notable to begin with, and your recent edits seem to indicate you're shifting to "this company might be important because of their patents", which is also normally not acceptable as an assertion of notability. We're not trying to make your life difficult here :) This might be an important topic for you, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or otherwise worthy of inclusion. No one here is against the recreation of the page once the company is notable. Knowledge (XXG) is intended to document importance, not establish it. §FreeRangeFrog 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • ok.I dont get it still but its okay.I still think it is an important company in russian-finland software or in audio testing software but notability would need to be established by a resident of those countries I suppose. --Audiovocal (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment. No, it's obvious from this comment that you do not understand the very concept we are talking about. See what we mean by "notability." What was said is that since the company's importance, or notoriety, has not been established outside Knowledge (XXG), Knowledge (XXG) won't have an article about it. -- Blanchardb -- timed 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
          • agreed now. it seems not notable enough. agree to delete. do we have a quantifiable procedure for notability like so many third party resources etc. clearly niche organizations need to be bigger and then have a wiki page. agree to delete. sorry for the bother. this was my first page. sigh --Audiovocal (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes. We find as many independent reliable sources as we can find, and we evaluate them to see whether their coverage of the subject is a trivial passing mention in discussion of something else, or an in-depth discussion of the subject at hand. It's a matter of seeing how much (potential) encyclopaedic information a source supports, whether a subject is better addressed in some other way than an article of its own (because that's what the sources themselves do), and whether independent sources even exist at all. The measure is not of whether something is a "niche" subject. Plenty of "niche" subjects, from (some) individual asteroids to (some) individual railway stations, are covered in depth in multiple independent published works within their respective disciplines. Notability doesn't equate to fame, significance, or importance. It's governed by the depths and provenances of the sources available for the specific subject at hand. It's the extent to which a subject has been noted, demonstrating that it is notable. Read User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 21 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 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Per WP:PROF, some good, solid publications, such as PMID 10617196 and PMID 11071764, but no significant academic positions, editorships or awards I can find, and doesn't appear to have had the time to produce a lasting influence. Looks like a promising young scientist, but not an established leader in this field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(Previously de-prodded) Non-notable neologism; no references. Relevant search engines hits are few and far between (e.g. , and these appear to be referencing the link in the article, which doesn't use the term "guy-cry"). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - Coverage about this appears in newspapers over a period of time when doing a Google News search. Specific articles include this NPR broadcast and this Chicago Tribune article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Just did a very quick stab at expansion and sourcing and there is MUCH about this specific topic in reliable sources showing it as a phenomenom that has recieved extended coverage that can easily make this a terrific article... well worth having on board to Improve wiki. I suggest tagging for expansion and further sourcing. Deletion, merging, and reditection not at all needed. Schmidt, 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Some of those sources don't contain "guy-cry" at all, or don't address the term. (An article named "Movies that make a guy cry" doesn't establish it as a notable term.) I tagged them as failed verification. Most of what's there only have the words "guy cry" next to eachother in the article; the only sources calling this a genre are the Fox News piece and Kass, and they're both editorials. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment - The concept is about a genre of films that make guys cry. Between MichaelQSchmidt and I, we've shown enough sources to establish this as a notable concept. I would also disagree with your assessment that the referencing supplied by MichaelQSchmidt placed in the article fails verification for a couple of the references. For example, is marked as failing verification in the lede. The article specifically uses the phrase as in this passage; "Might the definitive guy-cry movie be a film in which the guy absolutely must not cry? " That it deals with emotional impact of the movies is mentioned several times as in "...there's no denying the emotional power and legitimacy of Gary Cooper re-enacting Lou Gehrig's farewell address to his fans..." for example. An assestion that Oregon Live compiled a list of movies that makes guys cry is also challenged as failing verification. The very title of the article is "Sad scenes: Movies that make a guy cry", and unsurprisingly, it's a list. I don't see what verification it has failed. The EW article is about guy-cry films although the statement is incorrect and needs fixing as it is more than twelve movies and is a reader poll. And the Exodus episode is a weak reference (incorrectly linked) as it should have been to the overview where there is a quoe for guy cry. Despite the weakness of the latter two references which are to trivia entries, it's quite clear that the main concept is referenceable to reliable sources, and teh key issue of notability for the article has been addressed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 20 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance of byzantine icons in worship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is original research and an essay, the links within it (which do not appear to be reliable sources to establish notability are broken. Article was proposed for deletion but the original editor removed it without explanation. kelapstick (talk) 16:38, 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. Article was renominated prematurely. Disputed mergers are not a case for AFD. Mgm| 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Reluctantly placed here after an editorial dispute. Editor refuses to acknowledge the result of the prior AfD, in which the majority of the editors suggested a merge. As per before, this film explicitly fails future film notability guidelines, and should be merged back into Robert Rodriguez (which I did). No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that the standalone feature has already begun shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girolamo Savonarola (talk • contribs) 12:36, February 16, 2009

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A1, quite reasonable here. Tone 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Unencyclopedic trivia Mayalld (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per A1 no context.

The Promotions and Transfers every year is the time of Joy for many and time of Change for a lot of persons. The different countries and different companies in a country have different times for Promotions and Transfers.

Definitly doesn't provide any context. Tagged as such.--Patton 16:24, 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 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gift of life transplant house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What makes this place notable? It's a home for people awaiting transplants from the Mayo Clinic and that's it. There are no third party sources to confirm any notability. Yeah, the house is old, but age doesn't determine notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:20, 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 delete. No reliable sources; no target article has been suggested by those proposing a merge/redirect.  Sandstein  07:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Miss Oliver a filé à l'anglaise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:08, 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 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

None of the sources listed are reliable sources which would give this company notability, and I can't find anything that discusses this company in great depth, so it likely fails WP:CORP. There is also a clear conflict of interest with the creator of the article, who is now blocked, and it is also more than likely they have also created Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barry frankel. Russavia 16:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

**Also, with the article on the Mr. Frankel himself speedily deleted, another article from the same WP:SOAP editor is Devyn Smith. This one has had its speedy tag removed by an admin, I think for good reason. It looks like Smith may have done notable research. I've advised the editor to rewrite to focus more on that and less on corporately promoting the Frankel Group and Mr. Frankel. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Nominated for deletion by someone from WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 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 keep though I do recommend that someone who reads Polish look over the Google hits and possible sources. The article can always be nominated later if they're trivial (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Car Is on Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I propose deletion of this article as the subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources:

In addition the band's music has never been recognised by any kind of chart or award organisation. Patton 16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking that above for time being. There are plenty of hits on Google news, yet they are in Polish. The Polish article indicates they may be signed to EMI Music Poland. There is some possibility of notability here, but it's going to need a Polish speaker to work on establishing that. So I am staying neutral for the moment. --Russavia 16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes your search term was different to mine. The third and fourth results are apparenty about the band because I see the word "group" and "concert", though the rest could be about anything.--Patton 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Reversing my delete, per Mgm below. Certainly meets #5 on WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog 21:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Merely not charting is not enough reason to drop an article. It only means it fails 1 of 12 criteria for inclusion. I'd prefer it if this was brough directly to the attention of some Polish article creators rather than those checking deletion sorting pages., - Mgm| 21:21, 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 merge to Teen Titans. Significant arguments to merge (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Teen Titans: The Judas Contract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that it ever was produced. As such, explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that production has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:59, 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 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Article is a mix of biography and company profiles. Initially nominated for speedy as nn, speedy was declined. Another user has pointed out on its talk page how spammy the article is. Notability itself is questionable IMO, and alone may have been good enough reason to list for AfD, but the near complete advertisement tone of the article is what compels me to list it. --AbsolutDan 15:48, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Film by unknown director, unknown production company. Film gets very few Google hits, none of them notable. Only a single local news hit for the director, no notable actors, no third-party sources, nothing. Director is also in AfD ttonyb1 (talk) 15:49, 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 08:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This is non-notable TV trivia. It's unencyclopedic.George Pelltier (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • 1) You have not listed this AfD correctly. 2) Per my removal of your original prod, you are tying to use both WP:JNN and WP:UNENCYC, which, if you will read them, are not valid reasons for article deletion. 3) All that said, I'd support a merge to a character list. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to address your first point and correctly list this. ~Itzjustdrama 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And per the IP above, a Merge and Redirect is best. I've noticed you nominated the only stub character article. And just a note, but the entire group of character articles are in-universe and should be merged into the main list, which should also find some creation, influences, and reception. ~Itzjustdrama 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge Not many fiction characters deserve their own article but usually all fiction characters deserve to be in a character list. --KrebMarkt 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Hunter × Hunter characters, per Standard Operating Procedure and all versions of WP:FICT -- preferably as part of a concerted merge of all the series character alticles except those that can demonstrate notability. I suggest tagging the relevant cleanup workgroup for doing the work. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable article. He's a major character, so mergeing is not necesarily the default position if t he series is notable enough. . Such discussion should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. It is not SOP to merge major characters--it is SOP to look for suitable references for articles on them. No statement has been made here about any attempt at all to look for material. DGG (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. per WP:BEFORE - Neier (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a major character in a very successful major series. Keeping should be the default position. Merging would only serve to further decrease the (admittedly low) volume of edits. The main problem here is not notability, but that the US is not one of the two dozen countries the series is licensed in (or was not until very recently) and thus most information available is not in English. -Zyrxil (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment A character's role in a series is not used as a bases for article inclusion. Instead, we check to see if the character has received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. If no such coverage is present, then the character should be merged into a list. --Farix (Talk) 23:15, 17 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 Speedy delete. WP:NAC for an already deleted article (non-admin closure) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

There are no reliable independent sources indicating notability for this businessman. Even Forbes reference seems to be merely a database. Delete per WP:SOAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 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 08:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The subject of this article seems to fail WP:N, in that there are not multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject which discuss the subject in-depth. The only notable aspect of this biography is a matter of contention, and has been removed yet again, after being repeatedly removed as "scatological material". As I believe this is the only notable information on this subject, apart from a couple of sentences in a FAIR media release, and having failed to find any sources myself, I don't think there is clear notability of this subject. Russavia 15:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • delete Finally, someone wants to kill this thing instead of edit warring over it. Delete: non-notable, except for one incident which isn't really "notable" in any sensible way, and is arguably a BLP vio, and causes nothing but trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • delete, but... The journalist is "marginally notable" or maybe "borderline notable", but rather than continually having to remove the gross BLP violations, it's better to delete. The incident constantly inserted is certainly not notable and should be deleted as well in the article the eXile. This is subject, of course, to recreating the article if something more notable happens to the guy. Idlewild101 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only real notable aspect of this person that I could find was this semen pie incident. Is it suitable for the eXile article? Yes, because it is absolutely notable for the eXile, and it is written in an NPOV way. To give you another example, on an article of an individual there was a very poorly sourced, "stated as fact" accusation that this individual made against another BLP; the accusation being that the other BLP is a paedophile. This was removed by myself, as it was a very clear BLP violation, but was later reworded and totally NPOV'ed and placed back into the article, as it indicative of the types of accusations this person made, and as the NPOV'ed text stated, it was unsubstantiated, wild, and there was absolutely no evidence to support it. So it is completely valid for that particular article, but if it were to be inserted into the article of the person who had this accusation levelled against them, it would be removed in a flash. And it is for this reason that I have just undone your revert on the eXile article, because it is a notable aspect of the eXile, and it is neutrally worded and sourced reliably; hence there is no BLP in that article. The only problem with this article which is at AFD is that this incident is really the only thing that gives this person notability due to it being covered in-depth by a range of reliable sources, so if that goes, the article needs to go also, and it is why this is now at AfD, as I made clear on the article talk page. --Russavia 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • weak delete I agree he's mainly notable through his relevance to other subjects. This would be not only the eXile's stunt but also any other subjects covered in some depth by secondary sources, such as his involvement in the Frankel/Kahane/CIA/PKI affair. dsol (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • delete - nothing really notable, no major awards and it's not like he's the managing editor of the NYT fr33kman -s- 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clear WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT here, the latter being a BLP vio anyway, as per nom. A BLP shouldn't be allowed to exist simply because the subject had 15 negative minutes of fame. §FreeRangeFrog 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Heads of major units in the NY Times and other internationally known major papers are notable. not just the ed. in chief. . Whether he counts as one is not quite clear to me. We do not delete articles because people keep inserting inappropriate material--we can watch, and if necessary protect. The implications of deleting in such cases is that one troll can force us to remove an article. DGG (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I would agree with DGG (although I dispute that the material is inappropriate). The article was a stub previously, and is brief now. I don't think there are any "trolls" here - just people having an honest dispute about whether a factual event is Knowledge (XXG) material or not. Now the question is if Michael Wines is Knowledge (XXG) material. I feel that he is, but doesn't warrant a longer entry than this one. Richard Cooke (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I generally agree with DGG, with the same view of Richard that the material is appropriate. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. A notable person. Edit warring is not a reason for deletion, especially when the deletion nomination was made by one of the warriers.Biophys (talk)
Are there any secondary sources that mention him, aside from those relating to the pie attack, the FAIR criticism, or his self-authored Q&A? dsol (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In addition to his career achievements, his postings, and the controversy you mention, his work has been cited numerous times by other authors . ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It should perhaps be noted that bureau chiefs aren't what they used to be... I don't think there are "bureaus" to be chiefed these days, but I agree this guy seems to be notable enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous comments supporting retention. Frankly, I'm amazed. My first thought when I spotted the title of the article in question was, "This must be a different Michael Wines, because they obviously wouldn't be talking about the NYT correspondent." It seems to me the only reason we're here is because the ongoing dispute over controversial material has led to skewed perceptions of Mr. Wines' notability as a journalist. Cgingold (talk) 12:18, 20 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I am not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria; the sources do not appear, to me, to meet the 'nontrivial' level. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:13, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Subject is just a nude/car show model with a few bit parts in film and television.  Mbinebri  15:05, 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 close, withdrawn by nom Patton 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Rejected speedy under non-existent criterion. I actually think this could be quite a good list, though sources for it are hard to find and whoever tagged it wants it deleted, so sending to AfD for wider community discussion Patton 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Because I'mm currently working on another article that is at FAc and is taking up a lot of my time. I'm also doing an immense category cleanup.--Patton 15:40, 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 02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Song has failed to chart, fails Knowledge (XXG):MUSIC 12bigbrother12 12:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The song has even been released in the UK Download chart yet so how do you know --78.148.133.250 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Unclear what you're saying, but assuming that you're trying to say that the song hasn't been released yet then it would automatically fail notability requirements. If it has been released but hasn't charted, again it would fail notability. Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds 13:16, 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 06:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This website seems to have generated very little coverage by secondary sources, and was created by a User:Holsuncovered. There is very little in the way of an indication of notability in the article, and the Alexa ranking for the website is not very high. From what I can tell, I think that it does not yet merit an article. Dominic·t 11:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep The article was originally created as a blatant advertisment, however i have cleaned it up. I think it is worthy of an article as it has recived significant coverage in these secondary sources:
Patton 12:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That is not significant coverage. The first is simply a single passing reference in a list in the article and the second is an industry publication's blog post on the company's sale. It doesn't add up to much. Dominic·t 12:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it enough to write an informative, although short article? Yes it is, so it isn't trivial.--Patton 13:39, 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, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Pin Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only released one album, doesn't meet the criteria at WP:BAND. JD554 (talk) 10:28, 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.
I would argue that the band is notable above and beyond the significance of Kerr (and thus should not be moved to his personal article) due to the significance of band member Wilf Plum, whose involvement with Dog Faced Hermans, another popular and influential experimental punk band, makes the group significant beyond Kerr and thus qualified for its own article. Colinclarksmith (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephanie. MBisanz 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC unless we accept mp3.com.au as both a reliable source and an acceptable chart for the "charting single" criteria. To be honest I'm surprised any article where the primary reference is (prefix).cjb.net lasted more than ten minutes. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm adding all albums and singles by this artist:-
Babygirl (Steph album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Givin Up Everything (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slow Down Baby (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm Your Babygirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Watching You (steph song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Through the dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:G7 as the author supports deletion and there are no other substantial contributors. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kit evolution of the Peru national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Excessively detailed yet completely unsourced content fork. Already covered at Peru national football team#Team colours ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete but merge the information (and source it) into either the Team colours section linked by nom, or into History of the Peru national football team if that isn't deleted. — CHANDLER — 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. If anything in it is not OR (which I doubt), merge that much into one of the above-mentioned articles. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am the author of the page, and I found the source from which I got the information for that page. However, I used the source for the Peru national football team article, but did not include it in the "Kit evolution" article as I figured that it would be deleted (there was a merge proposal prior to this deletion). If you go to the "team colours" section of the Peru football team article, you'll see two sources for the same information provided (it's not original research). Nonetheless, I agree that deletion (at this point, with only two sources) is the best option.-- (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The U.S. and Britain, two nations separated by a common language. I never knew the word kit was used this way; for us Yanks, the article is about the history of the uniforms of the Peruvian national soccer team. No opinion on keep or delete, but I am of the opinion that I learn something new every day. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 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 05:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

While I don't think the article qualified for speedy (no blatant advertising), I do believe this is simply an advertisement, and the company is not notable, per WP:ORG. The only edits from this user have been this article, and adding a link to the IDealwine website on another article, French Wine. If someone thinks it does qualify for speedy, then I apologize, and by all means... If not, then perhaps the author can edit the article further? Pax85 (talk) 08:04, 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 redirect to The Emancipation of Mimi. MBisanz 06:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Never released as a single, album track only. No significant chart placings Paul75 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Peaked at 73 on an R&B hip hop chart, no other charts. JamesBurns (talk) 06:02, 19 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 02:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The One (Mariah Carey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Withdrawn single, never commercially released. No chart placings Paul75 (talk) 07:23, 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 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever You Call (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Promo release only, no significant chart placing Paul75 (talk) 07:16, 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 redirect to Abacab. MBisanz 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Underneath the Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Promo release only, no official single release, no significant chart placings Paul75 (talk) 07:12, 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 redirect to Abacab. MBisanz 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Till the End of Time (Mariah Carey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Promo/radio release only in extremely limited markets. An album track only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 07:05, 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 redirect to Abacab. MBisanz 05:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Who Dunnit? (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 07:00, 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 redirect to Abacab. MBisanz 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dodo/Lurker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Album track only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 06:56, 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 redirect to Abacab. MBisanz 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Me and Sarah Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:SONGS. Album track only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 06:54, 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 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The article makes no assertion of notability, and after several months nobody seems inclined to demonstrate notability. Inasmuch as it has been deleted under a different spelling of the name (see afd), perhaps it should be speedied. —teb728 t c 06:45, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Per the guidelines for non-commercial organizations, "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." Enigma 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 06:45, 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 delete. G3, vandalism Mgm| 12:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Hoax religion. The article reads like a hoax, especially at Fearellaism#Beliefs. Also, Google has not heard of this religion, and the creator of this article is Fearellaist (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:38, 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 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce on Karma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not seem to be notable. It is Edgar Cayce's opinion on Karma, which should be dealt with in his article and if notable enough the Karma article. The article was created on 4 August 2004 and still does not have one footnote demonstrating its lack of importance/interest. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:16, 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. The nom's deletion rationale no longer applies to the updated article. – sgeureka 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

4-D (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a plot summary. Sceptre 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 06:10, 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. Black Kite 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

19 year old "award-winning" filmmaker, but not much substance in the article. An "award-winning" high school play (but doesn't say which award.) A documentary "under consideration" for a government archive. Director of a fan music video. Gnews search for his name returns nothing. Maybe notable someday, but not now. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:09, 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 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This organization appears to be new, and there does not seem to significant coverage of it by secondary sources at all. I can't find any evidence that this topic merits an article yet. Dominic·t 05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment: the Celia Sankar article requires a separate AfD listing in my opinion. Ottre 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Nominated at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Celia Sankar Afroghost (talk) 21:34, 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 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

P. K. Subban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an interesting case. This article was taken to AfD in October 2007 when Subban was only a junior hockey player and second round draft pick. Typically, we at the hockey project have limited notability of junior players to first round draft picks, and/or those who have won a major award. At the time Subban had not, and his article was recreated and G4 deleted several times. Since this AfD, Subban has been on two World Junior championship teams with Canada, but otherwise his status has not changed. An admin restored this article some time ago citing WP:IAR, presumably based on his winning gold with Canada. G4 obviously is not applicable anymore, and I think it would be good to answer the question of whether being a World Junior gold medallist crosses the threshold to notability. It is not the highest competition in amateur sport, that would be the Olympics or World Senior Championships, but it is the highest competition in junior (U20) hockey. It is also an event with a ridiculously massive following in Canada, and often these players end up as household names even without playing pro. This is, therefore, a procedural nomination as I can think of several other players who carry similar notability to that of Subban. Resolute 04:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 04:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 04:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Part of a gold medal winning national sports team seems to pass notability for me fr33kman -s- 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Many many individuals compete in international competitions. If they aren't the highest like the guideline indicates, they aren't notable enough. After the next Olympics, when Olympic teams are amateur, we won't have this problem. But right now, it's a grey area. Grsz 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: If this article passes, it opens the door to a bevy of other bio articles. The article fails WP:ATHLETE, as the U20 tournament is not the highest level of amateur hockey. – Nurmsook! 05:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was the one who restored this, IAR as I thought the repeated G4 deletion was a farce (applied to an AfD from a year prior). Sourceable article of a 2nd round draft pick (43rd overall) of an NHL team, with two gold medals at the World Junior Hockey Championships, on the all-star team as a best defenceman of the 2009 tournament, 77k GHits, international news coverage (Canadian examples are: Toronto Star, Sportsnet, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail among many others), also played the NHL pre-season with the Canadiens this year. I personally think it's a no-brainer to keep this. For those citing WP:ATHLETE, I note that this has always been a guideline, and not policy; deletion decisions should be made in account of all of the evidence and not simply whether one meets the two listed criteria. -- Samir 06:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Many people seem to be hung up on WP:ATHLETE. To the closing admin, I remind you that this is a guideline and not the be-all and end-all of notability. Many individuals do not meet the criteria at WP:N for a particular category, yet still maintain notability based on other evidence. The news coverage includes many sourced articles about this player (not about playing at the world juniors), so a threshold of notability is clearly met. For those wanting to call for deletion based on policies, WP:V is the policy at play here. Given the multiple reliable sources listed above, I can't see how this merits deletion -- Samir 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep winning well-known important awards in competition is pretty much what notability for sportspeople is about. Trivial to find sourcing, and apparently joining the NHL - while this is not simple notability, an award winner + drafted to pro-Sports is notability beyond doubt.--Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I would argue that the U20s are the highest level of amateur hockey in an international sense. The Seniors are not amateur at all with the participation of the NHL etc. If NCAA players are allowed to stand on their own (as evidenced by the overwhelming number of football and basketball players with pages), I'd say these types of players can be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootmaster 44 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Samir. Not only did the person win Gold and get drafted in the NHL, there are 4 detailed references about Subban to back it all up. - Mgm| 12:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The individual has not competed at the highest level of amateur competition which is the World Championships or the Olympics. Articles on gold medal winning juniors in hockey and in many other sports have been deleted time and again. Keeping this one will open the door to every youth that has ever won an award in an international event. Remember the news coverage has to be non-trivial, so it mentioning that he won a gold medal or that he was drafted does not cut it. There has to be articles about him. Also being drafted in an of itself is not notable as 210 kids are drafted every year, and most of those never play a single NHL game and a number of them never even play a professional game. -Djsasso (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep But I do think the article needs improvement in the referencing. A quick search found a ton of stuff that could serve as useful references, so we need to get on this. Cazort (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE (No, The World Juniors are not the highest). Who was persistently recreating the article back in Dec-Jan?ccwaters (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep because too many people are full of Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. This article is well-written and can easily be expanded or just as easily deleted in the future provided player continues to fail WP:ATHLETE. Jc121383 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Article can also be undeleted should they finally meet the criteria. To leave it up thinking he might become notable is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Delete article content does not disappear after deletion so it can easily be undeleted should he finally meet the guidelines. -Djsasso (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I know that, but information can't be added to it while it's deleted. That creates a lot of work (deleting, undeleting, adding any info missed while it was deleted) for our editors. It also creates this page which takes five minutes away from when I could be editing. Obviously I could go either way though. Jc121383 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would think that the world juniors would qualify as "top level of amateur", being as Olympic hockey really can't be seriously considered amateur when you have NHL players competing. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the subject will most likely meet notability criteria in the future, but he isn't there yet and if this is kept because he won gold at a junior level international tournament, it would open the floodgates for hundreds of other ice hockey players who doesn't meet the criteria for athletes but at one time won gold at junior ice hockey tournament. Basically; No exceptions, article can be created when he meets WP:ATHLETE criteria. —Krm500 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Samir's sources need to be added to the article, as well as others easily found via a Google search that meet the standard of being non-trivial. Failure to pass WP:ATHLETE is debatable — I'd argue that Canadian juniors are the highest amateur level — but immaterial, as he clearly passes WP:N and WP:BIO, which take precedence over the sub-guideline. Mlaffs (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Player does not yet meet current standards for notability for hockey players. Time and time again players have been deleted that have played on gold medal junior teams. The subject is not notable per WP:BIO as his only claim to notability is the fact that he is a hockey player so you would have to look at his notability as an athlete. Since he has not played at the highest Amateur level which time and time again precedance has been the Olympics or World Championships, he is not yet notable. Article can be recreated or undeleted when he becomes notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:51, 19 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 per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

FRINGE theory article. The reasons from the previous nomination still apply, most notably the level of detail; at 55KB, it is longer than Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (52KB). While yes, it has ninety-four sources, that's the problem. Articles that push a POV often overload with sources to give a veneer of verifiability. And yes, while it is notable by the GNG, when it comes to fringe theories, we need to apply a much stricter standard of notability: the birth certificate thing was debunked, SCOTUS declined to hear any of the cases, and not one Representative objected to his confirmation. Not one. As a result, Obama was inaugurated successfully (if I recall, some people elected to keep the article until the inauguration). Compare to Dubya: The margin of victory had the full recount gone ahead is debated (from Bush by 1,000 to Gore by 600), SCOTUS had to arbitrate the matter, and twenty Representatives objected to his confirmation. Again, we say more about this bullshit theory than the other bullshit theory. I think we should do the right thing and get rid of this article; it makes Knowledge (XXG) look bad pandering to the tinfoil hats. Sceptre 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - The subject is obviously a moot point as the Supreme Court Chief Justice has sworn him in, but the subject of the article is notable and the debate about his citizenship did actually happen, people did question it and others did call it a conspiracy (Fox News comes to mind as providing coverage of it in Europe). I'd even go so far as to say this was a WP:SNOW keep. fr33kman -s- 04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Isn't FOX News in Europe just a feed of the US channel? In any case, using FOX in discussion of this theory is like using MSNBC in discussion of the Florida theories. Sceptre 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Talk like that will get you named Worst Person in the World. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a feed of the normal US Fox. The point is that the theory exists and is notable; that doesn't make it true (which, in my opinion it isn't; I think it's stupid). We don't decide if something is true, only if it is notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia and the fact that there were a large enough bunch of people who were/are believers of it, is enough to have it here. Take care fr33kman -s- 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable, as the nominator acknowledges. Like any "conspiracy theories" article which documents idiotic nonsense spewed by morons who choose to ignore facts/logic/reason, there is a proper way to go about writing the article while carefully avoiding the promotion of said theories. I think this article does an ok job of that and I disagree with the author's assertion that we are pandering to the tinfoilers. This article conclusively destroys these conspiracy theories by presenting the information in a neutral manner. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    I think the batshittery and/or obscurity of this theory is proven by the fact that no Representatives objected to his confirmation. Let me say that again. No Representatives objected to his confirmation. Not even the representatives for UT-3, AL-6, and TX-11, the three most conservative regions in the entire country. If none of the sane dyed-in-the-wool conservatives saw Obama as ineligible, it really says something. Sceptre 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    I don't disagree with the stupidity of the theories; they are extremely silly. I just disagree that the ridiculousness of a theory is a reason to delete its article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, it is. Quote Jimbo, Sep. 2003: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Knowledge (XXG) regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Sceptre 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, but that's a bit different from saying that a fringe theory isn't worthy of inclusion because it is extremely stupid. For what it's worth, I disagree that the Obama conspiracies are so uncommonly believed as to merit deletion and I think the verifiable information provided in the article backs up my assertion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    People are generally smart enough not to fall for bullshit like this. The article indicates we have... five state representatives who subscribe to the theory. If we set a lower bound of the number of elected legislators in the US, at state level, at 7,500, that's less than a tenth of a percent. In other words, obscure. Very obscure. Sceptre 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    I counted it up. 7275 at state level, 535 at federal level. Including undecided seats. That's 0.68% of state senators. Sceptre 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    I appreciate the effort on your part, but I remain unconvinced. Politicians are smarter (or at least ought to be) than normal people and are less likely to buy into this nonsense. I would bet that you can find similar numbers of adherents to 9/11 conspiracy theories among politicians. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Nice save, there. And the reason you'd see similar numbers of adherents is because it'd be political suicide to subscribe to a belief that 9/11 was an inside job. However, it's not political suicide to subscribe to this theory. In fact, were it notable, I'd see a larger number, consisting of politicians playing party politics. Sceptre 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    It should be political suicide to believe in this crapola. At this point, it's probably best to disengage. I understand your point but I disagree, and I don't see an agreement forthcoming. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. My first instinct was "what a load of crap". However since Knowledge (XXG) does see fit to cover creationism, Flat Earth Society and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories I suppose "loads of crap" are a suitable topic for an encyclopedia when they are significant movements that have been noted by reliable sources. This article does in fact seem to be a documentation of such a movement. It is not as though it lends any credit to those who believe this, the article makes it clear that these claims have been dismissed by pretty much anyone who matters. Chillum 05:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Way to pick weak examples: creationism is a straw man; FES could be easily merged into Flat Earth (and I think, might just get a pass as it's an organisation); and the Apollo moon landing theories are one of the most famous unproven conspiracy theories of the last fifty years (just behind JFK and 9/11). This is a theory so insane/obscure that no duly elected and sworn Representative objected to Obama's confirmation. Sceptre 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the relevant issues have materially changed since the last AfD. Even leaving aside the basic rule that Notability is not temporary, the fringe still hangs out there. Maintaining this separate article remains by far the best way to deal with the subject on Knowledge (XXG). Even if the issue isn't getting continuing play in the media, this article performs a genuine public service for Knowledge (XXG) to maintain an unbiased article carefully itemizing the allegations and their refutations, and it provides a place to redirect (and then delete where appropriate) material that would otherwise keep mucking up other Obama articles. Delete this and we have to spend a ton of energy keeping this sludge out of other articles for the next 8 years or more. Not to mention, it is really a pretty good article, all things considered given the difficulties inherent in its subject matter. I don't think it's overly long (but if it is, the answer is to compact some of the details, not to delete it) nor do I find it to be "pandering to the tinfoilers"; instead it provides an encyclopedic and authoritative treatment of a bizarre but real phenomenon.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Qv. WP:BETTERHERETHANTHERE and WP:UNDUE. Notable by the GNG, not notable by WP:FRINGE. Sceptre 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Knowledge (XXG) is not centrally edited, so "we say more about this bullshit theory than the other bullshit theory" is not a valid reason for pruning or deletion. If there are more important topics in Knowledge (XXG) that get scantier coverage, let's create or improve those articles, instead of trying to serve some amorphous overall "balance" by depriving our readers of neutral, validly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I suspect these repeated deletion nominations are politically motivated. This was an important part of the campaign, with all the stealth email messages spreading rumors. Yes, nutjob theories, tinfoil hat, but notable and important to keep. Tony (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as the theories are sourced (and not just made up for this wiki page.) Having an article on this gives no more legitimacy to the conspiracy theories than the "JFK conspiracy" articles do; that is a silly argument. And can we squash the AfDs on the article once and for all? Isn't this what deletion reviews are for? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: No, deletion reviews are for alleged improprieties in the conduct or closing of a nomination. Where, as here, the argument is that circumstances have changed since the previous AfD, then a renomination is the appropriate procedure. Obama's inauguration provides a good-faith basis for revisiting the question (although I for one continue to oppose deletion). I hope that, if this AfD fails, we'll see no further nominations, because it's hard to see what else could change. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The notable point is not the theories themselves, but the phenomenon of the theories. There's plenty to discuss here, and frankly, I think the article does a valuable service by providing a wealth of material that allows one to understand just why the theories are built on sand.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep a really strange part of recent history, but will be part of history nonetheless. As this is the sort of nonsense people like to write about, I'd expect considerable future expansion. Can't be helped. DGG (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a notable conspiracy theory; I don't think objective standards of whether the theory itself is supported by evidence (rather than that people believe the theory) can be considered in whether or not we should have an article. Arguments to delete this theory would also be arguments to delete almost all conspiracy theories, most of which have just as much basis of fact as this one. That any elected representatives profess to believe it simply confirms its notability; it would be notable even without the 5 mentioned by Sceptre above. JulesH (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. We're talking about the most powerful person in the free world here, so I would imagine most things about him could pass notability. This conspiracy theory is pretty prevalent and the article rather long. Rather than let it clutter one of the obviously most accessed articles in Knowledge (XXG), let's let it keep its own article space. Valley2city 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for pretty much all of the reasons set out above. Sadly it's not a fringe viewpoint; an opinion poll cited in the article suggests that 10% of the US population (that's 30 million people) subscribe to this conspiracy theory, so Jimbo's injunction about "a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" is not applicable here. The article was created not only to document this conspiracy theory but to keep such material out of other articles - before the article was created, conspiracy theory material was metastizing through numerous other related articles. We're now able to keep it in one place, out of the related articles, and thus keep the inevitable POV-pushing under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Looks like we're just about in snowball territory here, but anyways, I wonder if public opinion polls are qualified to serve as a counter-argument to the "viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" standard. I'd think that a simple head count isn't what they had in mind, but rather it was meant to be a count of sometihng/one more established or notable. i.e. global warming has its share of skeptics, but the skeptics are usually scientists themselves brings their POV up to a recognizable, if still fringe, POV. There's still a pretty sizable % of the public that thinks Hussein was behind 9/11, but that's not reliable enough to make an article about it. (I sure hope thee actually isn't one, now that I mention it). Tarc (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Same reasons as above. It seems like every couple of months or so the same editor renominates this article to get it deleted. Maybe instead of trying to get the article deleted or slapping all sorts of tags on it, why not try to work with other editors and improve the article. Brothejr (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: the subject is clearly notable, and was the subject of endless news coverage. Documenting the existence of a fringe view is not the same thing as endorsing it. Although the view is a fringe view, it was held by a huge number of people at the time, and is culturally significant as a snapshot of some people's reaction to Obama's "otherness": would the same reaction have occurred if he had been a white man born in Hawaii to an American mother and an English father? -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have any idea how little these matter if you don't read Digg/Wikipedia/fringe blogs? I read the NYT, my local paper, several magazines and watch MSNBC, Fox News and the local news and simply do not hear about these conspiracy theories from those sources, and never have. I'm not say we should delete the article... but getting your news from user-influenced internet outlets really gives you a skewed sense of how important this topic is, I think. I realize there's a mainstream story here and there... but once I stopped reading Digg a few months ago, this conspiracy theory went from being something I was bombarded with on a daily basis to something I literally didn't hear about until I saw this AFD. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: the story was all over the mainstream media. See this Google news search for "Obama birth certificate" for coverage from Newsweek, Time, the Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Fox News, the Boston Globe, the Australian, and many, many regional U.S. newspapers; also coverage from the BBC, the LA Times... According to this report, the citizenship rumor had been heard by more than half the American public. -- The Anome (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
And yet I never hear the American public talk about it... only people on websites. I know it's all anecdotal... but for me, this story disappeared from my life the minute I stopped reading Digg. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Unlike some other articles on nutcase theories which rely on basically a single nutcase source, this article is verifiable to a multitude of nutcases. What it needs is more sources to debunk the nuttery and to show those who made such claims to be the nutcases they are. Let them have their 15 minute of fame preserved for all time. --Russavia 15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think keeping an article on this nonsense is in any way an endorsement of the baloney. Per WP:NPOV, the article should clearly mark that the people believing the nonsense are a small minority. But the coverage is intense enough to set up an article. The Obama campaign considered such nonsense attacks serious enough to set up the Fightthesmears website to debunk them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep- These "theories" are notable. While individual ones may not be notable, the coverage they've gotten as a whole more than meets notability standards. I'm feeling a little bit of snow in the air. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The coverage of the theories is what makes them notable, not the truth value of the theories. We had a similar debate about the Apollo hoax stuff. It's not the theory itself that's notable, it's the fact that reliable sources talk about it in some depth. It's also a place to send some yokel who, coming late to the game from conservapedia or someplace, says "What about this?" and we can send him to this page to read all about it. It's educational, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs 16:09, 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 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Article subject does not meet general notability requirements — "significant coverage". Large majority of references are self-published primary sources. Single reliable source (Citybeat) is only minor coverage of the topic in a summary of a local concert. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Credibility has already been asserted on multiple occasions by various users; the only self published link is in reference to the blog, subject has sold music in multiple countries and has performed on tour across the united states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevergonzo618 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Further note: you need to refer to the history; notability has been has been asserted by at least three different users; I'm not closely related; vandalism will not be tolerated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevergonzo618 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason for notability has been provided, thus it did not meet speedy deletion criteria, but the sourcing to verify notability has not been provided. If you can find any reliable sources, please add them now. Also, please stop removing the AFD banner, this is only disrupting the process and it is considered wilful vandalism. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Notability and credibility has been established. There are several credible sources linked on the page. How much more info should be provided? No explanation is given by Sillyfolkboy as to why any if the information is not credible or a reliable source, suggesting the info is self published. This is false and incorrect. Sillyfolkboy is simply attempting to vandalize the page, even made an accusation I was closely related to the subject; a baseless falseless claim as well. Forevergonzo618 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.144.88 (talk)

I apologise, I have misread the sources — I thought the "copyright 2008 Donnie Witt" referred to the article not the release. Still, the problem with sourcing stands. The reviews on cdbaby.com and event notice from citybeat do not pass as reliable sources and do not demonstrate that the subject has received significant media coverage. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make accusations of vandalism against other users who are following legit procedures. It might be considered incivil. tomasz. 12:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources by WP standards; nor are any of the WP:BAND 12 criteria satisfied to my eyes. tomasz. 12:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Further note:It is vandalism if someone is posting false accusations and making assumptions, and using those baseless assumptions to try and delete the page; the subject has gone on a national tour, which by wiki standards generates notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevergonzo618 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It is neither vandalism nor an entirely baseless accusation to say that an editor may have a conflict of interest when they have uploaded self-made pictures of the artist in his own house. Furthermore, a national tour does not create notability, only significant coverage of that national tour does. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP:A public domain photo does not directly link anyone to the art. The same photo is available to anyone who wants to upload the pic. I'm reporting you to wikipedia for obsessive abuse. On a daily basis you have directly attempted to abuse and remove this page, which has several legitimate sources linked. You have made false accusations. That alone should be enough for you to be banned and tagged as abusive and a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.144.88 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Please tone down the threats and huffiness, and consider reading WP:VANDAL to understand what is classed as "vandalism" on Knowledge (XXG). Arguing for a page's deletion most categorically does not qualify, as there are at least three legitimate procedures for this on Knowledge (XXG), of which one is being followed here. tomasz. 11:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I realise the photo is in the public domain—thus no one effectively owns the copyright. However, in the photo description you describe it as your own work. It is this that led me to the conclusion that you took the picture yourself. If the photo is not your own work then please credit the original author. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment. None on the first ten pages (that i can see) appear to be reliable sources by WP standards. Can you point out ones you think are? tomasz. 11:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Listings on CD Baby, and event announcements in local papers do not establish notability. -- 15:50, 19 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 Poodle Hat. MBisanz 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS as it never became a single or otherwise gained significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Tavix (talk) 04:25, 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 Withdraw as I didn't know it was listed. That should be more blatant in the article or something... Tavix (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Friar Garth Farmhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The best claim to fame for this farmhouse is the fact that it is 300 years old. As far as I'm concerned, age does NOT equal notability. There are a lot of old thing that aren't notable. The only other thing I'm seeing is its connection to Fountains Abbey, which isn't that strong. Also note that notability is not inherited (in this case, it would be inherited from the Friars who owned it.) Tavix (talk) 04:22, 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 06:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Anze is a non-notable video game composer. A quick search for reliable sources turned up nothing for me. Tavix (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DeleteNot notable.User:Yousaf465
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Andrew_Lih. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I mean no disrespect and know the inclination is to include Knowledge (XXG)-related topics, but does an interview by CNN and a book that's released next month (vanity by an admirer?) give that much notoriety? Poowe (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Although not notable but I my view should be kept.User:Yousaf465
Was that a joke? You're making my case for me. Poowe (talk) 04:30, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Has not played pro, has not won a major award, and has not played at the highest level of amateur hockey (WC or Olympics). – Nurmsook! 04:04, 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 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Wing Framing Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) VX! 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Does this really need its own article? I think having this information on Lucian Piane makes a lot more sense Nick Catalano  contrib 03:47, 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 SPEEDIED as vandalism/hoax. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

No ghits for "Darth Epsis" outside of this article. Fan creation/non-notable/WP:MADEUP/etc. Speedy delete was rejected, as well as previously deleted by article author, thus the AfD. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:22, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Elissa Brent Weissman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns. Also, WP:NOT (crystal ball clause). Quantumobserver (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the article there is no mention of a crystal ball. I believe that two published novels by Penguin and Simon and Schuster indicate notability. Obviously we have different views on this. What do you think would make it more notable? Clearly this is a first edit of a page and who's to say that more people don't have additional material to add...the article has to start somewhere.Volatility (talk) 04:15, 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 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of hospice-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't seem to have any function beyond a category, nor any real contact. I have created a Category:Hospice , and asked on the talk page for this article if there is any objection to deletion. Author has been notified. jbolden1517 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Author for the article and author for the content are evidently different people. I've put a message on the talk page of the article where this content originally came from notifying them about the AFD. jbolden1517 15:31, 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 redirect to Leaf#Arrangement_on_the_stem. MBisanz 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Article consists of a simple dictionary definition with answers.com as the only source (not a reliable source). There's not much room to expand the article beyond a dictionary definition. As a term in plant anatomy, it is of little taxonomic significance and not much more can be said about it. Definition should be copied to Wiktionary and List of plant morphology terms and then redirected if a better source can be found. If not it should just be redirected. Rkitko 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

keep it important for plant anatomists.User:Yousaf465
  • delete. Article has no WP:RS for WP:V and at the end of the day. If we removed all the information that is unsourced reliably, then it'd be blank. It's just a type of leaf and doesn't require its own article. fr33kman -s- 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep reasonable stub on a topic that could be expanded to a good article. Improvements to the article could include discussions on which families of plants have such leaves. JulesH (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, that's just the problem I noted above in my rationale, it's not taxonomically significant. Most families have a few or at least one member that possesses basal leaves. What else is there to say about it than what it is and it's location? Rosette (botany) also covers some of this territory. --Rkitko 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't it taxonomically significant? If i'm not mistaken, some plants have only basal leaves, some have none, in other plants they aren't differentiated from the other leaves. There seems to be lots of room for expansion. Isn't this a little bit like trying to delete an article on feet or roots? I'm missing where this subject isn't notable and why it isn't worth including in an encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, some do, some don't. The distribution of plants with basal leaves is seemingly random, unlike other plant forms like cushion plants. It's not taxonomically or evolutionarily significant. All of the recent additions you've made are random examples of plants with basal leaves and add no real discussion of the significance of basal leaves. This information is already included in articles like rosette (botany) about plant forms (not about the type of leaf), so I concur with the opinions below: any usable information should be merged into Leaf; this article can never meaningfully be expanded beyond a stub. Would it make any sense to also have an article at apical leaf? --Rkitko 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Indeed it does seem to be a location as much or more than an anatomical description, so not as notable as a particular plant part. As such I would be okay with merging the notable content. I think the information is definitely worth including and I wouldn't rule out the chance that an article could at some point be developed. I'm not at all certain that basal leaves aren't significant in evolution, and I think variances among plants as far as the role (or lack of role) of basal leaves is interesting. I couldn't find a whole lot about basal leaves in google books and goodle new, but there is some discussion of the leaves growing in this location and plant growth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As for WP:V, the basic definition can be found in basic botany literature. - Mgm| 12:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redir MGM's idea seems reasonable. Should a more thorough article on the purpose of basal leaves in plants, the evolution of the leaves to meet the purpose, and so on, be possible, let it be worked up on the basal leaf talk page, and then implemented. The current form of the article's not satisfactory for reasons given above, and though I brainstorm ideas here, I have no idea if that depth of information's available. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I think it's worth including, but I'm not sure it needs to be in its own article. (I created this article). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This topic should be covered in other areas instead of on a stand alone page, there are problem with the definition in the article as it now stands (I know that is not a reason for deletion). This type of leaf habit is a product of short internodes and can be covered under stems, or on the page covering leaf. It also needs to tie how they relate and contrast with stem or cauline leaves too. The best page to make would be Leaf arrangement (on stem). Hardyplants (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge A lot of tiny articles generally make it harder to cover subjects such as plant morphology in a coherent way. Leaf#Arrangement on the stem sounds like a good place to me although I'm sure there are other possibilities. The text might also need some work (I'm sure there are better/other examples of plants with two kinds of leaves, one basal and one up the stem, although I'm not thinking of them right now), but the concept is relevant enough to be a paragraph or some such. Kingdon (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect; you're not going to get much more than a dictionary definition here. Hesperian 01:03, 19 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 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Acheilognathus koreensis is a real species, it is not a synonym of Tanakia. See fishbase according to Loupeter (talk · contribs) (Kylu (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

  • While technically this should be a RfD (as the original page was a redirect), since it's asserted to be an invalid redirect, the AFD may give us an opportunity to place the correct page there or, if none are interested, remand it to RfD if desired. Kylu (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • delete - article contains no information whatsoever and therefore no assertion of how or why it is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. fr33kman -s- 05:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have written a stub about this fish, rather than leave the article blank. As a documented species, I believe this is inherently notable. JulesH (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, documented species, viable stub. - Mgm| 11:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, no less notable than any of the thousands of other semi-obscure species stubs we've accumulated. (Not sure if there is an official guideline saying that all species are automatically notable, though that does seem to be the de facto consensus.) Hqb (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Speed keep Teh Google has many verifiable, third-party, reliable sources available to write an article on the topic. -Atmoz (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps this ought to be transwiki'd (or copied, if this results in keep) to wikispecies. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:03, 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 speedy delete. A7 Tone 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ian "The Stewart Spencer" Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable boxer; doesn't seem to pass WP:ATHLETE. --Dynaflow babble 02:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am directly related to Ian Adams, I am his nephew. This is true. But, do you have any proof to say that is not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshboy'o (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but that is not exactly how things work around here. The verifiability policy requires people to prove information is true, rather than the other way around. Also, the nominator didn't say it was not true. He cited the WP:ATHLETE guidelines. - Mgm| 11:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around. There are two Knowledge (XXG) inclusion criteria at issue here: the Knowledge (XXG):Notability guideline, which requires that articles assert their subjects' notability, and Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability, a core policy which demands that claims made in articles (including claims to notability) be backed up by cited outside sources. In other words, it is up to the author(s) of an article to prove that their subjects are as encyclopedically significant as they claim they are. --Dynaflow babble 11:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof this isn't true. I am the nephew of Ian Adams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.186.95 (talk) 19:31, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Waking Up In Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Created 4 months in advance of an unsourced release date. No signs of a release announcement on the web. Should be deleted, and remain deleted until it has met the recommended test for notability in WP:NSONGS: either charted or covered by multiple artists. —Kww(talk) 01:47, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) VX! 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Dictionary definition that can basically be summarized as "'Press any key to continue' does not actually refer to a key that says any on it." The only sources are from one particular vendor, primarily an FAQ. Knowledge (XXG) is not an FAQ, so I don't see any real, encyclopedic content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:41, 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 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

William B. Roberts (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 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:40, 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 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dark Carnival (2001 novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a novel self-published through iUniverse, according to its Amazon.com entry. It doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for notable books. Though searching is admittedly difficult due to Ray Bradbury's collection of short stories by the same name, I checked all the google hits for "Dark Carnival" "Keith Ferrario" and Amazon and the author's site were the only two that had any information whatsoever other than the back-of-the-book synopsis. —Korath (Talk) 01:39, 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 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - there are no reliable sources that this particular individual television episode is independently notable. Yes, the television series is notable and the films based on the TV series are notable, but the notability of the series and the film do not confer separate independent notability to each individual episode of the series. Those who are inclined to !vote keep should be prepared to provide independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this particular episode on its own, per WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep this article on a 27-year-old pilot episode of a (then) notable television series, because WP:NTEMP allows the presumption that 27 years ago, pre-internet and pre-wiki, the series, and more importantly the pilot episode of that series, recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. I do not know how the nom overlooked it, but even the New York Times specifically praised the pilot episode. And answering the nom's declaration that "Those who are inclined to !vote keep should be prepared to provide independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this particular episode on its own, per WP:N", I politely suggest he pay more attention to WP:NTEMP in this instance, because if a presumption can be reasonably be made that sources once existed (pre-internet, pre-wiki), it is not required that we now jump through his hoops. It would be more prudent for the nom to prove that the initial pilot of a notable series following a notable film was itself never reviewed before or upon its release. Thank you and regards, Schmidt, 07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The linked NYT article is about the series and includes exactly two sentences that are specifically about this episode. Per WP:N this is a trivial reference, not significant coverage. "There are probably sources" is not a legitimate argument, as that claim could be made for any subject. It's also suspect given that the NYT article is pre-Internet. Regardless, WP:NTEMP does not mean that editors may assume that sources exist pre-Internet. WP:NTEMP states that reliable sources generated at any time remain reliable sources for purposes of notability and that once those sources establish it, newly-generated or ongoing sources are not required. But, it requires that the subject meet WP:N first. "I just know there must be sources out there somewhere so this is notable" is a complete mis-reading both of WP:N and WP:NTEMP. Otto4711 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: That a very few pre-wiki pre-internet sources are searchable online of a 27-year-old pilot episode, allows reasonble expectation that others exist and is completely within the meaning and intenet of WP:NTEMP. Not searchable online... but in libraries or subscription only archives. They exist. Period. And need not to be brought forward because a nom demands them of any editor who disagrees with him. Since I have that reasonable presumption that they exist, as evidenced by the few that are still searchable, it is now up to the nom to prove they do not. The nom now has the burden to convince me and all editors that the episode was never reviewed. He has the burden to prove that media ignored the episode and the stars and the event of it first airing. The New York Times and Boston Globe are indicators that others did indeed review it. His dismissive argument is akin to someone asserting that dinosaurs did not exist because all one can can look in the present is meatless old bones. Sorry. No sale. The Times and the Globe are the bones... and proof enough, even in their meatless state to show that the beast at one time shook the earth. That's a given. And as long as you wish to bandy about WP:NTEMP, let's all look at it together, shall we? "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Nothing in this article is written upon speculation of the future, but only is sound understanding of its 27-year-old past. No one has to jump through your hoop as you decide that something that at one time had coverage does not any more. Schmidt, 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, actually, you are the one who is bandying NTEMP about, and you're still misrepresenting it. NTEMP comes into play once an article demonstrably passes WP:N through the existence of older sources. NTEMP does not mean that we can assume that sources must exist because they are supposedly not online. "Oh, I just know there must be sources, even though I have absolutely no tangible proof of those sources, but honest I swear you guys they're out there somewhere even though no one can find them." And, sorry, the burden of proof is on those who claim that sources exist to provide those sources. Your dinosaur metaphor, while mildly entertaining, is meaningless. Sorry to hear that you think the minimal standard of reliable sourcing is "jumping through hoops." Maybe you should consider contributing to a project that doesn't expect that its information have sources and you'd be happier. Otto4711 (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The notability of the people involved does not confer notability onto the individual television episode. Notability does not transfer from people to the projects in which they were involved. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Delete Two of the four used sources are unreliable (WP:RS) by definition (user-edited content), the New York Times article is almost completely about the show and not about the pilot, and the fourth source just verifies the premiere date. Notability (WP:N) has been challenged since November 2008, still hasn't been established (where is the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"?), and likely can't be established based on the very meager results of Google News, Books and Scholar. No prejudice against recreation if someone can actually prove that a proper article can be written, although I doubt this is even possible. – sgeureka 12:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Mgm and MichaelQSchmidt. In response to Sgeureka and Otto4711, WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." This article can be improved. AfD is the wrong place to clean up an article. Ikip (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The only way that this article can be improved is if there are reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode. Since there appear to be no such sources and thus the article cannot be brought into compliance with our general notability guideline, deletion is the appropriate response. I would also note that the two essays you have cited have no standing or authority within Knowledge (XXG) and can never override actual policies and guidelines. If you have reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this individual episode as required under WP:N, please present them. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • i.e.: "The only way that this article can be improved is if other editors add reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode, because all I do is put up articles for deletion, I rarely, if ever attempt to improve those articles before putting them up for deletion"
  • Please follow: Knowledge (XXG):DONTLIKE#That.27s_only_a_guideline_or_essay "Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading."
  • But since you want a policy, which trumps the mere guideline of notability, here it is:
  • WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: (list)
  • Knowledge (XXG):Notability itself states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator has not done this in this case, and he rarely does this in the 719 articles he deleted. So I would appreciate it if you follow WP:N.
  • Knowledge (XXG):Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"
  • I can't imagine how much content this editor could have created, if he would spend as much time referencing articles, instead of attempting to delete 719 editors articles. Ikip (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • First off, this is not about me, so your pathetic personal attacks and ridiculous manipulation of statistics have bugger-all to do with whether this individual article should be kept. Second, as long as you're bandying about statistics, note that in over 70% of the AFDs listed by the tool, either deletion or redirection resulted, so I guess those nominations were not so out left field after all. But as long as we're playing the statistics game, I have created at least 273 articles, which apparently doesn't include articles that I created that have been deleted. Of the articles I created, 12 are currently Good articles. I have also substantially expanded well over a dozen additional articles to GA status and been instrumental in promoting one article to featured status and another to featured list status. And that does not take into account the dozens if not hundreds of articles which I have expanded, copy edited, reviewed for GA status, peer reviewed and reviewed for FA and FL status, nor the countless hours I have spent re-organizing categories, creating and revising templates and participating in other aspects of Knowledge (XXG) beyond AFD. And how many articles have you created? Oh, two stubs. How ambitious. So as far as Knowledge (XXG) street cred is concerned, I think I've established it so let's hope you're all done trying to make this about me.
  • As for looking for sources, of course I looked for sources, so your phony and unsupportable claim that I didn't is just another attempt to shift focus away from the article and onto me. Your claim about what I did or didn't do in any other AFD is also a ridiculous falsehood. Make it about the nomination, not the nominator.
  • As for WP:PRESERVE, that is an editing policy and does not discuss AFD at all in the section you cite. It deals with preserving existing content within an article, not deleting the article entirely. Another misrepresentation on your part.
  • As far as discussing on the talk page, when there are no reliable sources about a subject, what is there to discuss? Nothing.
  • Clearly, you are an extreme inclusionist, who's probably used to manipulating and misrepresenting not only policies and guidelines but the actions of other editors in your desperate attempt to save the unsalvageable. that's fine, we need extreme inclusionists (for comic relief, if nothing else). But no matter how much you twist and manipulate and misrepresent and distort and make this about me, it all boils down to the simple fact that not you nor anyone else arguing in favor of this article has offered even a single source that offers significant coverage of this individual episode. Time and time again I have made this simple request. Yet instead of meeting it, you choose instead to indulge in falsehoods and personal attacks. That speaks volumes. To lapse into the vernacular, shit or get off the pot. Either provide reliable sources that significantly cover the individual episode, or admit that there are none and shut the hell up. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the search for lost treasure. Like digging for the bones of a dinosaur. Hard to find the meat though after such a long time. Perhaps the few bones left might be indicative that the animal was actually alive at one point? Or do you have to actually touch the beast to believe it existed? Schmidt, 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't matter for a natural history museum if the animal was alive at one point. You can't exhibit a skeleton if no-one has ever found more than a few minor bone fragments. – sgeureka 07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So the obvious thing for the museum to do is to discard those useless minor bone fragment into the trash. Then when someone comes some time later with a few more minor bone fragments, they can throw those in the trash also. After a few years and hundreds of bone fragments similarly found and tossed, the museum has managed to receive and discard an entire skeleton. What a great way to run a museum! DHowell (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The obvious thing for the museum to do is to let someone whose business is storing minor fragments of bone store them, and deal with the skeletons they can display. Exactly as Knowledge (XXG) covers the articles the sources allow and leaves collections of trivia or direct observation of the subject to other projects. That some information should be saved does not mean Knowledge (XXG) is the project to save it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a list of episodes Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And the reliable sources that are significantly about this individual episode are...which exactly? Or do you think that our general notability guideline does not apply to this article, and if so, why? Otto4711 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
first, I think it just adequately meets the guidelines. The sources just have to cover the material, not be devoted to it. Second, no, I do not think there is consensus that the GNG has applicability to episodes or characters. the policy is WP:V, and the episode itself serves for the description. What is really needed for this article is to write it in a more coherent and mature fashion. this is what we should be spending our efforts on. Concerning ourselves over what does or does not get a separate article is a waste of effort--writing the material properly & adequately is what is needed. if we didnt have to waste time defending them, we could do this. DGG (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh please. As if this nomination is preventing anyone from searching for reliable sources. This article has been around for over a year. And I agree that sources do not have to be "devoted" to the article topic. There do need, however, to be sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. The notion that an enormous swath of articles is somehow immune to sourcing requirements is ludicrous. Show me anything in any policy or guideline that exempts episode articles from sourcing requirements. WP:WAF specifically states that articles on fiction need secondary sources and that they must meet the notability pre-requisite. Otto4711 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Retaining articles for which no reliable sources exist does not improve the project, and is in fact detrimental to the project because it encourages the creation of more such articles. Otto4711 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess those 165,000+ articles ought to be immediately deleted because Knowledge (XXG) is so obviously an utter pile of junk with all those unsourced articles lying around. Clearly no one will ever bother to find reliable sources for articles when "the 💕 that anyone can edit" has over 6% of its articles continuing to exist without sources. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Another chuck of bone... The series premiered March 4, 1982. That was the airing of the pilot episode. Here is an article written in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on March 4, 1982. It could not have been about the other episodes, as they had not yet aired. Add it to the Times and Globe. Schmidt, 08:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    An excellent source for the series as a whole. A poor one for this one, as it's the reviewer reviewing the series as a whole based on a sample of it. It's easy to mistake coverage of the series using the pilot as a sample or example as coverage of the pilot, but it leads to a disjointed, unimprovable article if you do so.
    And, on a technical point, there's no reason a reviewer couldn't have seen other episodes than the one aired before they aired on national television; how do you think there's a review for a show debuting the evening of March 4 in the paper doubtless delivered on the morning of March 4? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SARCASM. Keep. Knowledge (XXG) is not improved by tossing away small pieces of verifiable information about notable subjects. We all agree that the series is notable, and even an insignificant amount of verifiable information about the pilot or first episode of a series is relevant to that notable topic. So a merge and redirect is the worst outcome that should ever be considered for such an article, which means this article should have never been brought to AfD. I'm recommending keep because I'm tired of AfD being used as a forum shop to force merge or redirect decisions, or to delete verifiable content about a notable topic, even if it might be in the wrong article. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 20 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 00:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bihartimes.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Awfully promotional article about a news website. Written by user:Bihartimes. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Here's another source to go with the one already in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Whoa, I stand corrected--I don't know why my Google News search produced nothing but strange false positives (for instance, a NYT article with no "Bihartimes.com" in it). I'm changing my vote; some of the hits generated by Phil Bridger's search discuss the site in-depth enough, and there are plenty of mentions that suggest the site is notable. (The article is still overwhelmingly promotional and needs cutting.) Thanks Phil. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 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 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Does not satisfy the notability guideline for biographies. Most content is not attributable to any references, and the few references provided fail either the "independent source" or "depth-of-coverage" standard. Dancter (talk) 00:46, 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 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This film has not yet been released, and appears not to have been the subject of any significant media attention. In my opinion, it does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable software. No great sources either in article or Ghits ("Veo Remote"). Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan 00:34, 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 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software. No unique features. Unsourced. Makes no claim to notability and does not provide sources showing notability. Run of the mill open source players are not inherently notable. Notable subjects have active editors and wikilinks. This article has no major edits in more than a year, and few wikilinks except for templates. Miami33139 (talk) 00:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Big International Non-Government Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable references prove this terms existance (other than wiki's, Wiki'mirrors and Blogs). NGO is the term applicable to all bodies listed here, and is more appropriate. Exit2DOS2000 04:17, 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 04:32, 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 00:04, 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 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable religious leader. Brianyoumans (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't point out anything in particular because there isn't much to point out... that's the point. She leads a congregation in Pittsburgh, she has some moderate involvement with some small organizations, she had a small art project displayed at a local museum. I'm not sure that adds up to more notability than, say, a moderately active Catholic priest or Protestant minister. And when I last checked, run-of-the-mill local clergy didn't get Knowledge (XXG) articles.Brianyoumans (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - This search reveals several articles, such as this and this, which helps assert notability in the sense that she is a largely active figure in Buddhist teaching. That said, I couldn't find anything on Scholar. There are, however, numerous references to this women elsewhere on the internet. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • To be clear: The first article you point out is in a local newspaper, the Sewickley Herald. I'm not sure what the circ. is, but Sewickley has a population of about 6,000. The other article is from a blog on About.com, and just quotes a letter that Roberts sent to a Pittsburgh newspaper.Brianyoumans (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's my point. Yes, they're not the most reliable sources in the world, but together with other references on Google, I feel this to be notable, or at least salvagable. Remember, it's not our aim to delete here, it's supposed to be a last resort to unsalvagable articles. That's my opinion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it's just about digging a bit deeper. It seems that some of the top items in that list get many hits, but are not necessarily the most relevant items. For instance, here and perhaps more importantly here you see information about a first amendment/religious freedom issue that garnered the attention of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Associated Press when the current location was acquired by her and her group. The other items in the article being discussed are found somewhat further down in the returned search items. Also, a great number of those blog posts (on both English-written and in other languages) reference a letter published in the Post-Gazette found here and it seems to be referenced by quite a few. The same paper also grouped her with the likes of PA Governor Ed Rendell and the internationally know Dr. Cyril Wecht as one of 30 prominent Pittsburghers here. I'll take some guidance as I maybe jumped the gun in moving the article out of my user space (please note it was my first article). Do these relevant items increase the notability? Should they be added to the article? Thanks for the discussion! --Wedge (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a feature that makes her more noteworthy than a minister, priest, rabbi of an individual religious organization? Ranking among the 30 most prominent people of Pittsburgh by an influential commentator would hint that there should be an underlying reason. If we can ferret it out, that may provide the information we need to keep this article. Fg2 (talk) 10:45, 12 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) 00:04, 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 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 (XXG) and Knowledge (XXG) 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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sahib Biwi Ghulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:38, 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) 00:02, 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 23:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Farooq Bahawal Haq Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was previously speedy deleted. Seems the author recreated it but this time from a totally non-neutral, biased POV. Needs a complete rewrite, otherwise delete as it fails to meet WP:NPOV policy. OlEnglish (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Full of POV assertions not sourced. Deleted most of it - No need to be patient with unsourced material. So there's nothing of interest there. Burden is not on me to chase up refs for questionable notability. But if someone wants to do it... Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:55, 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) 00:02, 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 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd A. Lewis (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Del. As with other similar nomination, article doesn't make any specific assertions of notability, looks more like any professor's CV than an article about a notable living person. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 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 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 delete. MBisanz 23:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

John Yueh-Han Yieh (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 02:19, 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)
  • Del. Article doesn't make any specific assertions of notability, looks more like any professor's CV than an article about a notable living person. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Keep His book "One Teacher : Jesus' teaching role in Matthew's Gospel report" from the major academic humanities publisher deGruyter is in about 100 WorldCat libraries. For the subject, this is of at least borderline significance, & his college is a major theological institute. DGG (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see what harm there is in being inclusionist about this. He's a published scholar. As such, even without knowing anything about him, I feel confident that within whatever niche field it is that he studies, he is eminently notable and important. LordAmeth (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Every scholar publishes, that's what they do. That doesn't make them notable and I can assure you that I know many a published scientists who is eminently non-notable.... --Crusio (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ask someone who studies the Gospel of Matthew if Prof. Yieh is notable. ... I once had a professor in college who taught medieval history. He wasn't famous or anything, really; he hadn't even published in over 20 years. But he was an amazing lecturer, with a really unique and fun personality. I never thought he was anyone special, really, just another college professor. Then one of my friends went over to the UK to do her MA, and her advisor there was shocked that she had studied in undergrad with the great William E. Kapelle, the top scholar on the Normans in Northern England and Scotland. In other words, within that field of research, Kapelle is a superstar. And I am sure that if you ask the right people, people who study precisely the same niche thing that Prof Yieh does, you'll find that he's a superstar, extremely notable, as well, within his field. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he isn't notable. LordAmeth (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You may note that I haven't voted, so I didn't say that he was not notable (and certainly not because I never heard of him). I just commented upon the fact that your argument is invalid, despite the nice anecdote about Kapelle. If we follow your logic, we should immediately stop all AfDs. Certainly someone somewhere thinks Mr/Mrs XYZ is notable and a superstar! The fact that I haven't heard of him indeed does not prove that he's not notable, neither does it prove that he is notable. What we need is a few reliable sources to show notability, nothing more, nothing less. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. His book, which is in 109 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat, seems to be largely based on his doctoral dissertation. The following is the dissertation’s entry on WorldCat: “One teacher: Jesus' teaching role in Matthew's gospel / Author: Yieh, John Y. H. Publication: 2003 /Dissertation: Thesis (Ph. D.)--Yale University, 2003.” The title is nearly identical to that of the book. The subject may become notable in the future, but is not notable yet in my opinion. One quasi-notable book based on a recent dissertation is not enough.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:19, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Originally I tagged as G11, but tag was removed and a little more added. Still seems to have no encyclopaedic value, but I'd rather have some other people look at it. In short WP:ADVERT, WP:NOT • \ / (⁂) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello, my name is Sophie and I am a fresh out of college journalist. I am writing this as my first Knowledge (XXG) page. Forgive me if it's not in the right format. Could you give me some pointers? I am following James Jacoby's progress as The Urban Shaman as it is a very promising and interesting one to watch. I will be continuing to document his progress and success. This article is designed to be a place where people can get a little bit more information about him. It is not designed as an advert of any kind. I only want to have a place people can refer to as a point of reference. That is what an encyclopaedia is for is it not? His work is extremely interesting, evocative and illuminating. There will be a lot of interest in his work and himself over the coming months and years. I will work on the layout and make it more 'encyclopaedic' over the weekend. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Effortlessflow (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sophie, and thanks for you contributions. I nominated the article for deletion for two reasons. Firstly, the article reads like an advertisement. Since Knowledge (XXG) is meant to maintain a neutral point of view, advertising goes against Knowledge (XXG)'s philosophies. The best way to avoid advert-like writing is to follow the tips listed here. However, I have another concern about the subject's notability. Quite simply, in order to meet the criteria for inclusion, the subject should have received some level of coverage in a reliable source, such as The New York Times. While 'The Urban Shamans' work may be promising, I couldn't find any said sources that would validate his notability. It may be best to wait a month or two and see if Jacoby manages to build a larger, more notable profile, and then create the page. If you can find said sources, fantastic, but until then I don't believe this article meets the criterion for inclusion. • \ / (⁂) 10:48, 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 00:01, 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 redirect to List of Yes, Dear episodes#Season 3: 2002-2003. MBisanz 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Jimmy's Dumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary. Sceptre 11:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge to List of Yes, Dear episodes#Season 3: 2002-2003, which is unfortunately lacking in any information other than episode names and airdates, and redirect as a plausible search term and as recommended by the episode guideline. Why waste time at AfD for what should be an uncontroversial merge and redirect? 03:01, 14 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 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"Mediocre" is your personal opinion and not rooted in policy. - Mgm| 11:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge the stub has multiple bits of info the list hasn't. It should be referenced, but it's definitely useful to expand the episode list with to the point it has more than just names and airdates. - Mgm| 11:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete LoE covers material already, and there's nothing there asserting individual notability. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 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 redirect to Ellen_DeGeneres#Career. MBisanz 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ellen's Really Big Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, this is a show that aired once on a cable TV network. Notability not established. Enigma 20:43, 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) 00:00, 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 redirect to Take Action! (compilation album). MBisanz 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Car Wire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Band does not meet WP:MUSIC. Dismas| 18:16, 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 00:00, 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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is poorly written and makes little sense. Supported only by a dead link. The article says nothing about the party itself and may fail WP:NOPV. Does this party even exist any more? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 14:40, 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.

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

↑