Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TellEm T.V. The Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability guidelines for music specifically say that mixtapes aren't notable. My PROD tag was removed by an anonymous user with no explanation. Unscented (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue moon Manga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant google hits for "Blue Moon" and "Jamie Leather" . Clear COI (article created by User:Jleather); Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for Mr. Leather to promote his latest DeviantArt project. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there are better ways to determine whether or not an article is genuine than a simple 'Google search.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleather (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Best have a look at what Knowledge (XXG) is not. I have no doubt that this is a real project of yours, but it is no way notable or encylopedic. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for you to promote yourself or your pet projects. PC78 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dropkick#Missile dropkick. MBisanz 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Misspelt and non encyclopedic

Why delete first? The current content isn't causing legal issues or threatening someone's privacy. - Mgm| 13:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. Vote changed. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rock of Love. MBisanz 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete. Does not appear to be notable beyond winning a reality television competition. Other claims are made on the page, but most are uncited. Discussion on talk page asked for nomination for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax, and snowballing discussion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
PROBABLE CAUZE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss or even mention the artist to the extent that I cannot be sure the article isn't a hoax. The website linked from the page () gives a picture that says "Coming soon" and the following Google searches give no meaningful results: "Christian Myers" AND "CZA", "Christian Myers" AND "Record Collection", "Christian Myers" AND "Wu Tang Clan". Additioanlly the Record Collection label to which it is claimed the act is signed, does not list them as one of their artists (). Currently there is no verifiable information on which an article could be based and no evidence that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for music related articles (or that they even exist). Guest9999 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding PROBABLE CAUZE to nomination - same story, looking at the creating editor's contributions - I'm pretty certain these are hoaxes. Guest9999 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: User added a November 2008 dated tag themselves, perhaps to sidestep a speedy delete. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snoopy, Come Home. MBisanz 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources found. Only appeared in the strip a few times, mostly as unseen. Doesn't seem worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If she's a major character in that, she should be mentioned in that article - the question here isn't whether she should be mentioned in Knowledge (XXG), but whether she should have her own freestanding article. Pointing out that she appears in a film isn't an argument for her having a separate article, in fact if that is her primary reason for being notable, all the more reason to just mention her in the article about the film and not cover her separately. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the sentiment, it seems to be more based on primary sources, mainly the comic strip itself more than OR. While it's bad to rely too much on primary sources, especially when specific citations to collections of strips, or individual dates for the strips, it isn't OR if you can go back to the primary source and verify the info. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of Marital Rape in Pakistani Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Long and elaborate essay, full of original research. Probably written for some other use, so possibly a copyvio. Was prodded by me, removed by creator (then prodded again, which I removed, because AfD is the appropriate next step for a contested prod.) gnfnrf (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Chicago Shamrox season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Team suspended opeations and is not playing this season. Jc121383 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper Format for Titles of Politicians, Academic Degrees, Numerals and Time for print and online media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be a how-to guide to AP Stylebook formatting, but as we have a page for the AP Stylebook, I'm unsure of the necessity of this article. Lastly, it's an orphaned page (no incoming links), and unlikely to be found by many readers with such a long and unwieldy title. Raven1977My edits 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Being junior chess champion of Guyana is not notable enough, given the very low number of chess players in this country. SyG (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - WP:ATHLETE says that, for sports in general, a person needs to compete at the top level, i.e. not just junior competition, to be notable. We follow the same principle in chess, that success at the senior level is required. A rough guideline, which has been used in the past, is that this usually means being a Grandmaster or a national champion (men's or women's). So being a national junior champion, while a fine achievement, doesn't bring enough notability. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. He won a national competition. It's called "junior", not because the event is not notable, but because of the age of the participants. Calling him not notable because of his age is discrimination. - Mgm| 13:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing discriminatory about it. As I understand it, a younger player is allowed into the senior level chess tournaments if they are good enough. The junior tournaments for players under a certain age are not the top level of competition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Can't find any independant sources reporting on him. However, being a chess player is obscure and not covered by most publications. Panyd 22:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE, has competed at the Guyana National Chess Championships and won the junior category, 1, 2 --J.Mundo (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Guyanese junior championship is a nice achievement, but the restriction on age makes that tournament considerably weaker than the regular national championship, and so winning it is not the kind of achievement which garners notability as a chess player. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus for an outright deletion of this article. Many who request its deletion cite WP:NPOV concerns, but to the extent that the article has or had such deficiencies (on which I express no opinion), they are in principle remediable by editing. The article has in fact undergone substantial editing since its nomination, making POV-based arguments even harder to assess. Accordingly, these comments count less in this closure (as, incidentally, do the "keep" comments who do nothing but complain about censorship). Similarly, the WP:SYNTH-prone assertion of this being part of a larger global conflict has now been edited out. In view of this, there is currently no consensual basis on which to delete it, but this does not prevent continued discussion about merging or renaming it, as perceived appropriate by editors.  Sandstein  07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warning that all users commenting here fall under special sanctions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

This AFD could, if an uninvolved administrator thinks it warranted, be closed under these sanctions without recourse to the below comments. Hopefully no such action will be necessary. NonZionist (talk · contribs) and The Squicks (talk · contribs), as key parties in this discussion, are both reminded particularly reminded of these sanctions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I am happy to debate and I am committed to dialogue. I even attempted to debate on your user page. My participation in the Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict discussion is extensive. In the talk page for the article you challenged, you made no attempt to debate the issues. In the main talk page, there was no consensus on whether the material can be used as the basis for a subarticle -- the subject was not even addressed. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The entire article, from the lead-- "Because foreign powers are involved in the conflict, providing military and/or diplomatic support, the Israeli offensive should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a larger global conflict, involving a series of military operations -- the 2007 military strike against Syria, the 2006 aggression against Lebanon, and the 2003 aggression against Iraq."-- down is one big fat original research synthesis. The creator of this article has a pet conspiracy theory, which he described here, saying that some dastardly gang of puppet masters has a secret evil plan to take over the middle east. Since s/he was not able to shape '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' to include his or her theory, s/he created this page. The Squicks (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. The discussion at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Iranian_involvment_cont. pertains to Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan, as published at an Israeli site. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Richard Perle is not God, and just because he wrote a book ten years ago does not mean that every single fracking event in the Middle East in the past ten years has been orchastarted by puppet masters.
The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. Marxist professors in the 1960s and 1950s wrote books about critical theory that advocated gay marriage in America. Therefore, all efforts in the years afterward to legalize gay marriage is nothing but a Marxist conspiracy! It's a part of a Marxist master plan to destroy American moral values, as articled by this book. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. Do you see that? It's the same silly kind of conspiracy mongering. The Squicks (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say that Richard Perle orchestrated ANYTHING?! Please don't put words in my mouth, Squicks. And why are you even talking about "Clean Break"? It was mentioned in the talk for the main article, but it is not mentioned in the article we're currently dealing with. There is no "therefore". You are seeing something that isn't there.
Let's make your analogy more realistic, Squicks. If a highly influential gang of Marxists with access to the highest circles of power developed a plan to use gay marriage to sow division in America, and gay marriage was subsequently implemented and did prove divisive, then one might reasonably ask to what extent the plan influenced subsequent events. That is not the same thing as saying that that Marxist gang totally orchestrated everything that happened over a ten year period! Using such a hysterical claim as a strawman would indicate an unwillingness to look realistically at the degree of influence the Marxists exerted.
Anyway, thanks for giving me this much debate. It seems to me that some people here are afraid to even raise the issue of foreign involvement, afraid to even ask the question. If that is true, then you have shown more courage than most by daring to respond intelligently to me. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The previous request was removed by another user without my knowledge. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep:
  • This article contains WP:RS material that was moved from the main article, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Section_titled:_.22Iranian_involvment.22. It is under development: It will expand as new countries become involved and new sources are found. The proponents of deletion have made no attempt to balance the POV or remedy perceived shortcomings. They've offered no constructive criticism or discussion.
  • The article casts light on the hidden participants in the conflict in Gaza. Discussing the conflict without mentioning these larger powers would be like discussing the 1960s "conflict" in Vietnam without mentioning the U.S.. The assault on Gaza, moreover, could easily expand into a regional or global war, in which the covert involvement of other powers will become overt. If that happens, the information in this article will be useful as background.
  • The article addresses involvement and differs from International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The latter addresses verbal reaction, which occurs after the fact, and it focuses on parties that are uninvolved. This article focuses on parties that have allegedly or actually contributed in significant ways to the conflict or its resolution.
  • Suppressing WP:RS information about the context of a situation amounts to censorship. That suppression is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and inconsistent with wikipedia policy. See WP:UNCENSORED. Is Israel acting alone, or is it supported by other powers? How can that information not be of interest to encyclopedia readers?
  • Much as censorship may appeal to pro-war forces, it is ultimately ineffective. In this age of the internet, the information does eventually get out, if not through wikipedia, then through dozens of other sites. But the delay in making the information widely available results in an additional loss of life. For those who sat on the story, there is also a loss of credibility. Knowledge (XXG) has an opportunity to be at the head of the curve, promoting the humanitarian philosophy of the original Encyclopedists. That opportunity should not go wasted.
  • NonZionist (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to fix the format, or describe your objection to the format or offer constructive criticism. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting (for what good it will do). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Violating neutrality policy is a reason to delete if the very existence of the article is POV. There's no way this article could be written that would make it NPOV, no matter how neutrally we worded it. Graymornings(talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Foreign funding of a State is clearly a neutral, encyclopedic topic, that if it warrants its own article should deserve it. This article isn't. It is a WP:POVFORK attempt to eliminate the material on Iranian involvement from another article.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, let me clarify my wording - I think we're on the same page here. This topic could definitely be presented neutrally if it did warrant its own article, but the intent of this article was bad to begin with, so the article (i.e. its existence) can't be neutral because it's a POV fork. Graymornings(talk) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is a "POVFORK" then where is the other side of the fork? TO be a "fork", one needs at least two POV's or tines. This information is presented nowhere else, and is based on mainstream WP:RS. It was moved out of the main article to reduce the length of that article, not to create a separate POV in opposition to the main article. NonZionist (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that I don't know the intricate details of the history of this article. It would appear to me from it's bias that it has forked from the main article to push a POV. If it was moved from the main article to reduce its length I would suggest that the person who moved it had an agenda (as opposed to the people who called for it to be moved deliberately setting out to make a bias article). Similarly, whilst I accept your comments in good faith (and I hope you will do the same for me) your username suggests that this is an article you may have a personal stake in. Panyd 01:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Panyd. I do have a personal stake in the Middle East peace -- as do we all! My taxes go to support Israel, and war-making in the region could draw in the entire world, and could even go nuclear. To fix the problem, we have to know what factors are contributing to the problem. That's why I am making an effort to keep the notable RS information in the article from being deleted. That is my POV and my agenda. Although I created the article, I do not own it: Anyone can edit it, change phrasing, and add or subtract POV. Some of the material already in the article comes from someone with a POV very different from mine.
I'm really disappointed by the knee-jerk rush to delete. It makes me wonder how anything at all political gets published here. Instead of deleting each other's work, shouldn't we be making an effort to collaborate and improve things together?! NonZionist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The subject is notable, that the article is currently non-NPOV is not basis to delete, rather it is basis to improve the article. There is no room in the main article for this information, so I would support a subarticle. Though I do think it is not currently NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
How do you propose we fix the article? The very foundation of it is rotten. It was created solely to promote a user's own personal POV. See WP:POVFORK. The Squicks (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as any other article, we go through and remove unsourced information or find sources for it, making sure to keep in mind UNDUE, and try to create an article that presents an encyclopedic account of foreign involvement in this conflict. I think too many people are trying to delete it based on the motives of the creator, but just ask yourself this, is the topic notable? Are there RS that discuss this topic? I think most would answer yes to those questions. This article has a long way to go to be NPOV, but the topic is notable. Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I try to make my wikipedia participation a learning experience, so that something positive can be taken away even when deadlock arises. Your comment, Squicks, points to a general problem I find when editing controversial articles, especially articles pertaining to Israel. It is all too easy to stereotype people and assume we know their intentions. Palestinians are often victims of this, and I seem to be a victim of it too -- because I use a taboo word, "Zionist", in my id. But this "problem" is also a great opportunity, an opportunity to move beyond stereotypes and assumptions about motives. You will find that I am reasonable and willing to listen and respond to your concerns about the article. Yes, I have a POV -- I care about justice, peace, freedom, life -- and that inspires my work here. But that doesn't have to be an obstacle. We can still find things to agree on, and, when that fails, agree to disagree. Anyway, I hand the article over to you: Make it your own! But if you simply delete it, I'm confident that someone else will repost it, in some other form perhaps, because the foreign involvement in this conflict really is worth noting. NonZionist (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, problems with formating and POV pushing can be fixed through editorial improvement, thats how wiki works and its not grounds for deletion. I think this issue does deserve its own page as it is only going to grow as an issue worth noting as more facts emerge and these will not be properly addressed if left a sub section on the main article. Work on this article, dont delete it. Superpie (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I really think this can be fixed quite rapidly with some editing, deleting seems a little knee jerk because its off to a rocky start Superpie (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, although it may need heavy rewriting to comply with WP:NPOV policies. The subject (foreign involvement in the 2008-9 Gaza conflict) seems to me a notable one; I don't accept that it's a POV fork of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as that article doesn't contain much information on this specific topic (and besides, it's long enough already). The question here is not 'is this article, in its current form, worth keeping?' but 'is this an acceptable subject for an article?', and I would have to agree that it is. Terraxos (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it be an acceptable compromise if the page was blanked, and started again completely from scratch? The Squicks (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunetly, no. If the page gets blanked then it qualifies for speedy deletion. It is possible for the page to be recreated IF AND ONLY IF the article is rewritten from scratch and presents a Neutral Point of View. Why? Where you planning on rewriting the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It does a disservice to the "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" article to have a link to this one at the bottom of the page. This page is rife with grammatical errors, formatting problems, and POV phrases like "U.S.-supplied weapons have facilitated the killing in the Gaza Strip". Really one of the worst examples of blatant POV pushing I've seen on wikipedia.Kaylorcc (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete (warning first wiki post ever so if i mess anything up sorry in advance) - ok-this is a complete unnecessary fork as has been mentioned many times. it's not censoring to delete this whole thing completely it is -redundant- heavily from information already available in the main topic. as i've seen its entire purpose has been propaganda based POV from the beginning - example: the amount of money that US provides Israel a year is irrelevant to the involvement in the Gaza war .. another example: where the drone parts are made.. this is completely propaganda to the extreme. i'm surprised that the author didn't mention that IDF's soldier's beef jerky was made in spain and that their fine boots were manufactured in Italy by Versace... and the battery packs came from China.. you get the point. this post presents VERY VERY little NEW information that has not been presented in the main article - actual involvement of various governments has been mentioned and the fork serves very little purpose in it's current form - (did i do this correctly?) Sereneami (talk) January 18 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
This article actually does discuss things that there is no room for in the main article. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

anything that hasn't been covered in the main article is already under "international reactions". so yes everything in here 90% is already been covered elsewhere. look under syria does it say anything -new- that has not been covered in the main article or the international reactions page? same goes for turkey - nothing new. really if there is tell me what new information they have. again out of everything there is on here.. tell me what relevant information there is here that's not covered anywhere else. the 3 billion aid from the US is not relevant to this particular war - there only for propaganda. the amount of aid israel receives has other pages to go under- not relevant here whatsoever...and again the section under britain is propaganda.. and has very little relevance to this conflict at all --Sereneami (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither the main article or the international reactions article cover any type of information that the topic of this article covers. There is no mention of aid or military support given to either Israel of Hamas from other countries in either of those articles. Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the main reason I support keeping the article, beyond me thinking the topic notable, is because I dont want this stuff clogging up the main article. There have been attempts to tie this conflict to Iran in the very first sentence of the main article with a citation to an editorial, I personally would rather send all that nonsense to some periphery article and let it be dealt with there. Nableezy (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep For this same reason, the page should be improved as the first option, but the information has correlation with the 'parent' article and so if deleted we should find room under the section titled "International reactions" for the inclusion of the 'information' in question. I vote to keep it because i see the world not as a stage for the strong or the battleground for the evils of this world but as a sick place where sick things happens all the time. Cryptonio (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Foreign involvement in the middle east, or something similar. Far broader in scope. Would make for a good article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see that others have made significant improvements to the article. Now that much of the POV has been eliminated, it may be easier to reach a consensus on the article status. NonZionist (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chester R. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Flunks WP:BIO; only reference is from a 53-year-old org chart. NB: There are several Assistant Secretaries of the Army. The first few I checked from the current roster do not have Knowledge (XXG) entries, including Davis's current successor as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management), Peter Kunkel. No NYT obituary, no Ghits of note. THF (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. His papers are part of the Eisenhower Presidential Library. Having ones' papers archived by a significant library is a pretty clear indicator of notability.--ragesoss (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep find a score of (pay) articles in the NYT referencing him including what is likely his obit. Also in WaPo archives search. establishes him as a banker of some power. Active in American Legion and a bunch more. Notability established. Collect (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see Chester R. Davis in the NY Times. I see Chester C. Davis, who is a different person. Can you name for me a single Senior Vice President of Chicago Title and Trust in Knowledge (XXG)? Or, indeed, a Senior Vice President of any bank whom we have graced with a page? THF (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977My edits 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Assistant Secy's of these departments are major policy making positions and therefore notable, even though there is more than one of them. WP covers not just the present, so every person who ever filled any of these positions is appropriate for an article. 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2009-01-16 22:57:05
  • (pay) etc. all from NYT for "Chester R. Davis" (this one is definitely the right person as it is about the bank). 381 googlebooks hits. Chicago Tribune featured obit. (over 200 hits in CT archives). Headed fund drive for USO. Still notable. Collect (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Keep: You shouldn't of mentioned the lack of sources in your nom, now people are arguing over that detail. The real argument is; that he was one of several Assistant Secretaries and hasn't done nothing extra-ordinary notable when compared with his peers. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually sources are the important issue. Notability guidelines are about significant coverage in reliable sources, not doing anything "extra-ordinary". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • "Extra-ordianry", see notable. I have struck the offending comment, statement still rests. Being reliably sourced does not make you notable. As pointed out above, you can prove practically anyone's existence with loads of reliable sources, that does not mean they should have a Knowledge (XXG) article on them. If you can find a reliable source stating that this man did do something notable in his career (none of the stuff mentioned above please, that's not notable when compared with his peers), then I'd be happy to change to !vote. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The requirement for notability is absolute, not relative. There's no need for any subject to be more notable than its peers. There's no reason why all of these assistant secretaries shouldn't have articles if they all have significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that I haven't said "keep" here, because I haven't seen evidence of notability, but I'm just pointing out that this particular argument for deletion is invalid according to Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually I believe it's relative, not absolute. Nothing in Knowledge (XXG) is absolute, it all requires some common sense consideration. If it were absolute that would mean anyone with significant coverage in reliable sources would be totally justified in having an article. Inclusion is actually validated by consensus (like this AFD).

            We're getting off topic here, and I don't fancy an argument just for the sake of it. I can't see you changing your mind, so it's best to just leave it at; "you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe", it wont matter until were both !voting on an AFD like the one described. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

            • Your belief is incorrect. You should read Knowledge (XXG):Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability. You have completely the wrong idea of what Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria actually are. The nominator is quite right to focus on the issue of sources, and you are quite wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto your subjective estimation of whether someone is important or famous or unique — a discussion that is irrelevant to our Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy and to AFD. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Calm down mate, I'm not "wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto subjective estimation of whether someone is important or famous or unique" lol. The first paragraph of WP:BIO says; "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Neither of you have stated what makes this guy so special? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                • The important words that you seem to be ignoring are "...or to be recorded". It has been shown that the subject of this article has been recorded, so this applies. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • You have ignored my above question numerous times. My answer to yours is; being recorded (or in this case name-checked) does not make you automatically notable. I reiterate; what has this man done that is "worthy of notice, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Ryan4314 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • The authors, editors and publishers of the reliable sources cited in the article have decided that this man's achievements deserve attention and to be recorded. That's what we go by in Knowledge (XXG), not our own subjective judgements. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • I did not realise the article had been significantly rewritten since I !voted. At that time the article simply stated that he was one of several Assistant Secretaries of the Army and only had one source, a name check on a government list. I agree that these numerous references from various sources indicate he is notable. Well done on the rewrite THF and Uncle G. I also notice that all the "delete" !votes were made before the rewrite, might I suggest politely notifying those !voters and even the nom, as they maybe inclined to change their !vote. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: This guy doesn't seem to meet the notability standards. He has done nothing notable to stand out from other assistant secretaries.WackoJacko (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Our standards are the existence of multiple, independent published works documenting this person's life and works in depth, not a Knowledge (XXG) editor's subjective opinion of how unique or special this person's achievements were. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:Note. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The nominator is wrong. There are at least 14 sources to be had, and yes that includes at least 4 NYT articles. This person's life and works do appear to be a part of the permanent, public, historical record, and it appears to be possible to create a biography of him, because one has been created. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The article is substantially better, and about as well-sourced as it could be. Which is why I stand by my delete position. Your edits effectively try to slant the debate; if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks. WP:NOTNEWS and Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. The passing mention in a number of sources doesn't add up to the significant coverage in multiple, independent sources required for WP:N. That adjective is all too often ignored in these discussions. Davis held a non-notable position, and then was appointed by a non-notable body to a subcommittee of a non-notable committee. This is not encyclopedic: even if Davis qualifies for a Who's Who directory, he doesn't qualify for a Knowledge (XXG) biography. THF (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Writing a sourced article is not slanting a debate. Don't be ridiculous! It's your additions of daft links to the article (such as turning "Committee of 49" into a link — clearly without having read the source that supported that content) that are the attempts to slant the debate, if anything. If the activities of this person were so non-notable, there wouldn't be the sources that have noted them, as there are. That you tagged the word "decorated" as questionable, when it was in the very title of the source cited (as well as in the body of one of the later sources), and that you are arguing about "news" coverage on a biographical article covering the achievements, dated between 50 and 80 years ago, of a person who has been dead for over 40 years, shows that you are grasping at straws now with your edits and arguments. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          1. You can't say that he's notable because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the Committee of 49 and then complain that it's not notable enough to merit a wikilink. One or the other, but not both.
          2. There isn't a source for the claim. So how can I read the source?
          3. I tagged "decorated" as questionable, because there's no indication that it's a notable decoration. Decorated with what? Millions of soldiers get decorated every year. Army brass have rows and rows of decorations. The fact you can't identify the decoration demonstrates my point that it wasn't a notable decoration.
          4. And, need I repeat, WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it's in the local newspaper doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. THF (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • You say "if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks". "Proper" wikilinks are links to subjects that either have an article or are clearly notable enough to have one. Adding links to subjects that you consider to be unnotable in an attempt to make the unnotability rub off onto another subject is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough sources have been found to show notability. Even without reading them it is clear that several of these are substantially about the subject, as he is referred to in the headlines, so they do amount to significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable eatery. One review in a local paper does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - A quick Google search shows that it's very notable in that area.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Week delete While I think the found sources establish at least some marginal notability for the diner, I am concerned that the article in its current form reads more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia article. If a fundamental re-write were done to improve the article, I would say keep. Otherwise, I'm forced to give it a week delete until such time as someone rewrites it in an encyclopedic format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I never claimed it to be a notability issue, what I'm saying is that this is a borderline candidate for {{db-g11}} "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Yes, it can be fixed by editing and article improvement; but unless someone actual fixes the issues, the article in its current form is better being purged until someone with enough interest comes along to write a true encyclopedic entry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Website seems to have no notability other than being part of an ad network owned by a group of large newspaper chains. There is no news coverage -- significant or otherwise -- that meets WP:INTERNET. Flowanda | Talk 12:25, 7 January 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) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to see further evidence of notability on this topic. Homescape reference may be self-promotional, or a COI. Recommend additional notable content, and external references to 'newsworthy' information about Homescape. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

* Delete. One article from a periodical is way below notability standards. Difficult to tell if there is any evidence of notability on Google because there are a lot of other things called Homescape, but this AfD has been around for days, and if no-one prepared to supply evidence of notabiltiy, I don't see any point in keeping this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've had a better look at this article now. It appears this was originally written by an single-purpose editor who has since left in horrible marketing jargon. After the editor left, all the marketing jargon was stripped out. As a result, we're now left with an article that doesn't really say much at all. However, I've now had a look at the scale of the business, and I think there's a reasonable chance of establishing notability. As a result, I suggest Keep if someone is prepared to change this into a worthwhile article, or Merge to its parent company's article if not. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This appears to have been originally written off-Wiki so I'm not going to move it to user-space.. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A Necessary Labour Concept of Classlessness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. WP:NOT a webhost for essays.  Sandstein  19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. I don't care that A7 doesn't cover this specific article type, it's unsourced and a silly unnecessary addition to the project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Liebowitz Day" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, something that was made up one day, references are all self-refs to MC's newspaper. ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Midd student here: No reason to delete this posting, if the individual suggesting deletion had attended the college, he would be aware that this is a long-standing tradition. I am in the process of adding more photos and links... give us some time, the individual suggesting deletion made the suggestion about 2 minutes after the article was posted. Geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.207.153 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. My college has its own holidays and traditions, too, but they don't need their own article. Unless it's gained notability outside the Middlebury community, delete. (Alternately, create a section in the Middlebury College article on "Student activities and traditions," as other colleges have, and merge.) Graymornings(talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, give us a chance to finish writing the article, we just wanted to get a template up. Judge it when you see the finished product. -Creator —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaginAlbanian (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there are just a few !votes and the potential to merge the material in the school article, I think snowballing this would be a bad judgement. It's better to consider a merge in more detail and close it after the regular 5 days. - Mgm| 13:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Take that, fame-seeking students from McGill University, Quebec. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cunty (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable drinking game, no references, WP:NFT. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. It's referenced, but the reference is not easy to verify; meanwhile the term gets precisely two google hits - it can't therefore be that popular. role 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True.Origin Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obscure creationist website, unaffiliated to any major creationist group. Appears to mainly republish articles previously appearing in more prominent Creationist publications. At time of nomination the article is almost solely sourced to the website itself (sole exceptions are two citation to TalkOrigins Archive pages, neither of which gives more than a bare mention of the website or its creator). HrafnStalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Nevertheless, it's a prominent trade journal and counts as a reliable source. I don't, however, think that this one mention makes the site notable - in fact, no assertion of notability is even claimed in the article. Graymornings(talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I've researched enough into the site that I can safely vote delete. Doesn't look like any other sources are forthcoming, and the article still doesn't claim any notability beyond being mentioned by Talk.origins. Graymornings(talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. Being mentioned by a notable web site doesn't make this particular web site notable. Knowledge (XXG) has plenty of articles on notable creationist sources; this one just happens not to be notable. Think before you accuse Knowledge (XXG) users of censorship. It's simply policy. We'd do the same for any non-notable site. Graymornings(talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Christian Skeptic, do you mean the Talk.Origins Archive? They have rebuttals of claims made on several websites besides True.Origin, so that doesn't make True.Origin special in any way.Sjö (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an article about a website that presents arguments against another website (in terms of its own publicity e.g. Wallace). I do not see how it meets any notabilitity criteria. Babakathy (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whoa boy. What do you call something that is hypothetical and non-scientific? I'd call it a bad compromise. Inclusion criteria essentially requires original research to determine that the planet is "hypothetical" (rather than fictional) yet "non-scientific" (rather than "scientific"). We have plenty of lists where these things can get merged to, the obvious being List of fictional planets. However, this list seems only to serve as a POV-platform (that is, an illegal WP:POVFORK) for those who are mad that there is no scientific evidence for their imaginary proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No; people actually believe these planets exist. If we call these planets fictitious or imaginary, then we're just as guilty of POV as those people who say all religions are stupid and that anyone who believes in them is psychotic. Serendious 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we need some way to distinguish these planets from the ones everyone can see in the sky. The article doesn't mention mythology at all, so the "mythology" part of the title can just be dropped. "Planets postulated in religion and ufology"? Deor (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That seems fine though I would say, "proposed" rather than "postulated". Serendious 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Lilith isn't related to UFOs or religion. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't a planet either. And probably should be in list of hypothetical solar system objects, since it was claimed to have been observed through a telescope.Serendious 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved Lilith to List of hypothetical Solar System objects Serendious 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Howden Moor Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A lot of original research went into attempting to "document" this "incident" with the excuses made in the article that the evidence is all classified. No third-party independent sources verify that this is a major incident. Just because Helen Jackson brought it up in parliament, that does not mean we've got ourselves a notable event. Merge a sentence or two to Helen Jackson and Dark Peak if you can find independent media corroboration or the records from the House of Commons. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

that said the article definately needs reliable sources in order to meet WP:N - The bibliography here would probably be a good place to start. Artw (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you please find some? Thousands of questions get asked in the British House of Commons each year and are put in writing to Ministers. Few attract any media attention. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is bad and it is full OR, but the event is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. Conversely being full of OR is not a deletable offence, saying that; I fully support the removal of any unsourced content, or stuff not reliably sourced. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - topic is notable, per DGG and Ryan. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The only material supported by a reliable source is the parliamentary question, and that's supported only by a link to the parliamentary records which, by itself isn't enough to show that this is notable in isolation (I note that this was a written question, and they normally get much less, if any, media coverage than questions asked during parliamentary sessions). This reference, moreover, doesn't verify any of the UFO material in the article as the minister stated that this 'incident' was a routine military exercise and that the Ministry hadn't received any UFO reports. What reliable sources demonstrate notability or verify that this 'incident' has a significant place in UFO-folklore? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I was wondering this, I did some Googling but what counts as a reliable source in the UFO world lol? I am starting to wonder if we trimmed out all the unreliable content and original research (which I condone), what we would have left? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Lots of serious academic papers, books and newspaper articles have been written on the belief that UFOs exist - these cover topics such as what motivates this belief, prominent incidents and the like. If any of these covered this 'incident' they would make a very suitable reference for demonstrating notability. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about it and I think it's best to strike my vote until we see some improvement of the sources (to the calibre mentioned above). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The implications of a source as Nick identifies above is that the article itself would also need to change significantly, moving away from a sequence of events towards a discussion of the nature of the reports and their impact. I think that would more usefully fit into an article about spurious UFO reports in general, rather than the specific about one.
Getting hold of anything credible which does anything more than identify this as one of many spurious reports is probably going to be the difficulty. Conspiracy headbangers are reporting these kind of things with monotonous regularity, it keeps duty COs occupied at weekends.
ALR (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:V because there is only one source, which itself may not pass WP:RS, thus WP:N also fails. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Hansard, as an official government record, clearly passes WP:RS. What it does not pass, I think, is the requirement in WP:N that the sources in question be secondary sources. JulesH (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • My error, have struck that section. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, it's perfectly secondary. The government had nothing to do with the people who directly claimed to have observed the incident. If it fails WP:N it is because it lacks MULTIPLE secondary sources (two refs from the same source are still ONE source). - Mgm| 13:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
          • WP:N would absolutely be met if the references in national and local newspapers mentioned by the article (and in the bibliography to the David Clarke article above) could be confirmed. Google has not been helpful on that. Artw (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is recent enough that we could expect reliable sources to be available online if the subject was notable, but searching for "Howden Moor"+ufo in the Google News archive finds nothing, Google Books only finds a "believe or not" piece of trivia and a Google web search finds nothing outside of conspiracy theory forums and blogs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the scrambling of aircraft, extensive searching and the mere fact of clasification combine to provide a decent amount of notability. A Google search does turn up a few sources; it appears to be well enough known amongst those who follow such events. Here is one source discussing the subject in great detail (it calls it "what was to become one of the most controversial incidents in British UFOlogy"), this looks pretty reliable and talks of 999 reports of a large explosion the source of which was never identified - something I find notable given the attempts to do so - so, in short, there is some real evidence of this being a notable incident. Blood Red Sandman 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Independent; reliable; non-trivial; I can find all three, but not in the same source. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (reluctantly) -- I do not believe in flying saucers, but some people do passionately. There appear to be credible sources for this, though more citations are needed. The allusions to "lack of official sources" should be removed: this is typical conspiracy theory stuff. The rational explanation is that official sources are not available either (a) becasue there are none or (b) due to the normal 30-year rule, though this is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I suspect that if the article is deleted, it will be recreated under anotehr name by those who believe in UFOs. It may thus be better to keep the present article, and get it properly sourced, ideally with any explanation that may exist for the allegedly observed phenomenon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a parlimentary question on low flying training does not make the article notable. Happy to change to keep if it had any sources about sightings, police press statements or even local newspaper stories but without it is WP:OR and not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non story, a potential air to air is reported, investigated and nothing is found. The fact that a politician asked a question in the madhouse about it doesn't make it any less of a nonevent. No evidence of corroboraiton therefore fails notability. ALR (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I do not think that this particular person is notable enough for an entire encyclopedia article. He seems to fail WP:BIO due to WP:ONEEVENT associations. Some UFO believers find him interesting seems to be the only claim to notability this chap has. Merge any useful content to contactee. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Porn for the Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination due to a contested PROD. Per request of nominator, article is about a non-notable website which cannot be verified. I am taking no opinion of this article as I am sending to AfD to assist nominating editor. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the Nassau Weekly and Wired articles already listed as sources, there is this. Jfire (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There is no evidence this is a legitimate charity organization. A "whois" on the domain goes to a student's dorm room. It is also not really notable...how many people use this site? What makes it notable? If it were so notable, why can't the owner even identify himself in the "Wired" article? He uses a pseudonym. No publications relating to blind individuals have mentioned this, and no porn publications have mentioned it either. The Nassau Weekly author was obviously gullible to believe this was real (and I've never even heard of Nassau Weekly - when did that become a standard for information?). Also, maybe you should go to the website yourself and play a clip and see if you think it is arousing. That's not "original research" - that's called common sense...ok... Why would you defend something so much that is CLEARLY a joke website? You honestly believe it's real? Thanks. Angelatomato (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentThe issue here is not whether it is a joke site, but whether there is enough in the article to meet WP:WEB. Wired obviously is a reliable source as it is one of the biggest tech 'zines out there. The Nassau Weekly reference is debatable, as it is a student-run literary paper from Princeton, and I'm not 100% sure on it's reliability, as it appears to be more of an op-ed paper than a journalistic one. Keep in mind that we aren't debating whether this is a "joke" site or not, but whether this is notable enough of Knowledge (XXG). As I said in my nomination, since I helped in filing the AfD, I'm going to abstain from giving my opinion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Has enough independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is a growing industry in it's infancy from everything I've been able to research, which, admittedly, is not much.Critical Chris (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Totally ridiculous, but it does seem to meet WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep procedural nominations are a nonsense, an annoyance, if the user who applied the prod (incorrectly) wanted deletion then it's up to them to nominate. RMHED (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Subject seems to have just enough sources to meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Snow has fallen. JBsupreme (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is this joke website so important for you to keep, but widely known people such as the Canadian actress and comedian Deven Green (article i started) was deleted IMMEDIATLY. Also, Alexyss Tylor (YouTube sensation with over 2 million views and several published books) was also deleted after I started her page. People - can you get some perspective?? When I go to rewrite those 2 pages, I hope you all rush to my defense with keeping them on here since this page is about a billion times more ridiculous. Seriously, am I missing something that you all see? I went to Harvard and walked by Dunster all the time on my way to the science center from the T stop - ok? (wait - correction...that was staughton...i forgot... dunster is on the river) Seriously. The people doing this are full of crap...do you want me to personally email him? Will that make you happy? I assume he won't reply. I looked on facebook and the owner is an '06 alum and in my network...so...how would that work for you? i cannot believe I care this much over something so stupid, but it's really am amazing thing to see people defending this joke when I have not been able to create articles about notable people because a few random wikipedians thought they were "NN"...but a million other people know who they are. Angelatomato (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, with very slight reservations. Although my previous position was that the site was a non-notable hoax, it seems that the sources linked above indicate notability. Whether or not the site's intentions are legit could still be an up-in-the-air issue, but I think it's also a moot one. Sorry it upsets you, Angelatomato, but I do my best to call it like I see it. If I saw legit sources in the articles you're frustrated about, I'd defend them, and if I didn't, I wouldn't. If a million people know of something, it theoretically shouldn't be hard to prove it. - Vianello (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Vianello, what makes a notable hoax? The 2 articles (one of which is a school newspaper) don't call it a hoax. They somehow thought it was real (or were having a slow news day). Also, there is no traffic count for this website, and no hoax magazines or joke websites refer/link to it. Using this standard, then there are probably 100,000 hoax websites that could be added to wikipedia. Angelatomato (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Response. I would say being covered by notable news agencies would make something (likelier to be) notable, and being a hoax makes something a hoax, and together they form a notable hoax. As for not being noted by major joke websites - those aren't generally taken to be reliable sources. However, it has been "covered" by SomethingAwful, a fairly major one. - Vianello (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Is not registered as a non-profit organisation with the US government's official database 78 if nothing else it shouldn't be noted as one. I'm going with a hoax here! And an extremely stupid/offensive one at that Panyd 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if it's not non-profit, I'm very, very close to deleting it as a hoax, regardless of the tally at the end of this AfD. No reliable sources beyond Wired (Metro is a rag, much like the national enquirer in the US), and Wired as a source isn't enough. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the consensus of this AfD, you would delete it as a hoax? And what policy would such a deletion be made under? However ridiculous the site/organization might seem, we have reliable sources that treat it as serious, and no reliable sources that claim it's a hoax. Overriding a consensus here would quickly, and quite rightly, be taken to DRV. Jfire (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd make it under the guide to deletion, which states Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). This article is most likely a hoax, and a rather blatant one at that. AFD is not a vote, and the closing administrator makes the final decision. Why are there no blind person magazines or websites mentioning this site? Why, in fact does the IRS not have any mention of it being a charity? Surely that's enough to suspect things. Have you listend to the clips on the site? They don't use 'naughty words', instead only describing the scene clinically. Let's take any one of the 'descriptions' (which are totally unchecked) - some are blank, and one seems to be a song. Some of them are of the infamous two girls one cup, and one of them is a description, by two college students, one of whom is laughing about the horse being red, about a video where two men receive anal sex from a horse. You cannot be seriously suggesting that this website, released during April Fool's week, is a real, 100% honest website. Try listening to it. I'd be surprised if even a horny blind person could get off to any of it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Yay!! Thank you - a sane person finally speaks. It is obviously a hoax website for all the issues you mentioned (and I mentioned) and you make a good point - the strength of the argument is what matters. Angelatomato (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The problem here is that the article describe the website as a non-profit organization, yet we don't have any evidence of the organization. The website doesn't have any information or a name to contact, WHOIS list the registrant organization as "Patrick Swieskowski", and the sources doesn't provide any information about the individuals responsible for the website.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Hollow Earth at least appears nominally notable. Hollow moon, however, seems to have almost zero notability. This article may be a complete hoax, in fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say it might be a hoax? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the entire article is WP:OR except the in fiction section. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Found one source here. Other than that, nothing. Doesn't look like even the conspiracy community recognizes this theory. Graymornings(talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of nuts maybe, but 62K googlehits on ""hollow moon" and "theory" seems notable. and a few hundred more book mentions. Notable even if you do not believe it, but belief is not, last I checked, relevant to WP standards. Collect (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as marginally notable and cleanup. There appears to be several papers in the mid-60s about a "hollow" Moon paradox and references therein. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as in terms of early SF literature (see references to Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells amongst other who reference a hollow moon in some of their stories) the idea had some note. I would also argue that that section ought to be expanded. Agreed that it could do with a re-write in general. Captmondo (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is well written, NPOV and sourced. A recurring theme in SF literature. No idea, though, why this is described or categorised as "pseudoscience" - article doesn't say this idea was ever put forward in mainstream or fringe science. Even if "hollow moon" is not notable as a pseudoscientific theory, it is clearly notable as a SF literature theme. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment I have re-written the article, putting the "in literature" section first, and removing some duplication from the science section. If this is notable as a pseudoscience theory then the science section can discuss the pseudoscience "evidence" and the mainstream refutation. If this is not notable as a pseudoscience theory then we can drop the science section and the article becomes soley about a recurring theme in SF literature. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep we have lotsa "pseudoscience" theories in Knowledge (XXG) such as Global Warming, Evolution, Oort Cloud etc. And there are lotsa websites and books bout it too.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gordon E. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Only claim to notability seems to be that he was harassed by Georgina Bruni. That doesn't seem to rise to the level of deserving of a Knowledge (XXG) article to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Pretty sure that this particular annual convention has not garnered the attention required for a Knowledge (XXG) article. Let it gain the fame and notoriety necessary so that third-party independent sources have reported on it and then it can have an article. Do we have a WP:CONVENTIONS notability guideline? We should. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Borderline case. Guy wrote a dozen books, most of them not very popular. He also wrote a book that was banned in Australia. Can't see if that really makes him notable. I'm on the fence, but leaning towards this guy failing WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

comment - His name turns up quite a lot int he Google Book search, but the material is not in viewable so it's hard to gauge the level of coverage. But it certainly is indicative of paper sources being available. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable per NYT. Notable per books written. Amazon even has the one I checked in the top million. Collect (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to the documentation above (and everyone in Gale's various literature Series' is notable), an admission in the nomination that something is borderline notable is a reason for keep not delete. DGG (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no question as to his notability. There are significances and notability in the local Western Australian literary community alone - and in turn to do with Australian literature. To focus on the labels of sci fi and new age ideas is a total misreading of his context as a writer - first and foremost he was a closet gay who survived a very nasty era in Perth where anti gay attitudes and inhibitions were strong - then he was a prolific writer - the later new age and other tags are peripheral to the body of his main work - see http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X?SEARCH=Gerald+Glaskin&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D - SatuSuro 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable, I had no trouble at all finding secondary works which discuss his contribution to literature, including: Overland vol 164 Spring 2001 p74-77; 169 Summer 2002 p55-58 and Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 14.6 (Nov-Dec 2007) p17-18, and that was just on a first online search on a journals database with his name. Also a West Australian article on 20 Dec 2001 which says "WA WRITER Gerald Glaskin's A Waltz Through the Hills was one of the most popular children's novels of the 1960s." I'm sure were I to look in literature journals either not surveyed by the database (Academic OneFile-GALE) or before the start of its coverage, I'd find even more references. (If those working on the article wish for copies of these pieces, send me an email and I'll send them by return.) Orderinchaos 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources listed above, clearly there is enough secondary coverage of Glaskin and his work that an article is justified. Lankiveil 05:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Private Schools in Bacolod City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant copy of List of tertiary schools in Bacolod City.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert C. Davie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Flunks WP:BIO. Google books result turns up nothing notable. The one reference in the article leads to a web page that only makes mention of Davie in passing in the context of the 136th Finance Detachment, which has no article. His 1997 death passed unnoticed by the New York Times. THF (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prod, then spent a while rewriting the article to better show notability... during which time the AfD was constructed. Have a look. DS (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is substantially better (though the opening sentence seems like Wikipuffery to establish notability; I've added a fact tag). But I'm not persuaded that Davie doesn't flunk WP:BIO. There are over a million U.S. soldiers who won the Bronze Star, and I don't support creating a million orphan articles for each of them. THF (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you assign some inline citations please. I haven't decided on this myself yet, but a common mistake made with articles about veterans is that people assume their claim to notability is based on what award they've received. Their notability is in fact based on various actions they've made in life that may or may not have occured on the battlefield. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:CSD#A7.

*Delete - Even though this looks like a super-obvious delete or speedy delete, I suspect the article writer could argue that the media coverage plus the awards, etc., ought to constitute notability. But there's no assertion of notability , and I think the reasoning in these cases really has to be "covered b/c notable" not "notable b/c covered" (this is a problem I've noticed in other discussions of notability, too). Jlg4104 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC). Woops, ok, I realize what I just said sort of confuses the very idea of "notability" as applied in WP ("significant coverage" itself is indeed on of the criteria). I have to think some more, but not about this nomination-- it's still a delete for me. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Question: Why doesn't this person qualify under the criterion: "finalist in a significant event"? No one comment on the significance of the events and to make a well-educated final decision the closing admin needs reasons for that, rather than votes without an explanation. - Mgm| 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You raise a good question, and I'll have to withdraw my "delete" suggestion while I think about it. I really don't see the point of including every person who wins some medals in some events somewhere, since that could result in millions of (to me) pointless pages, but I don't yet see the WP guidelines sufficient to marshal here in my favor. If somebody could help me with the policies and "caselaw" here, I'd be delighted, since I still see no reason for such an article to exist ("She won this and that and this and that..."-- to what notable outcome? a record-breaking performance? the youngest ever to do XYZ? the first X person to do Y in Z event? etc.)  J L G 4 1 0 4  01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment the events in question are not significant. She is an 11 year old elementary school student who won or placed in one of many, many divisions at some local tournaments. Press coverage is trivial, passing mentions in long lists--where is the coverage about her? JJL (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Seems to have won some arguably notable events, I've tried to wikify the page somewhat. I can't find any coverage of these events though so I'm unsure as to whether they actually qualify as 'significant' but considering that one is Olympic I am going by the assumption that my sport-reference-finding powers are not exactly well honed. Panyd 00:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - National winner in the country. Philippine Olympic Festival is one of the anticipated and established national sports events in the country with the full support of Local Government Units, National Sports Association and the Philippine Olympic Committee.Mmaasia (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sports achiever and won numerous medals including national championships in the Philippines. Notable athlete in the country and the official flag bearer of Visayan delegation with secondary sources backing it and with Online Citation in the Philippine Olympic Website; http://2007.philolympicfestival.com/default.asp General points

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Jego Balibalos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notability.

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Were the gold medals received from the Taekwondo World Cup or the Summer Olympics? Starczamora (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Course not, but that's because those competitions don't allow kids and it conveniently leaves out national competitions as competitions that establish noteworthy-ness. - Mgm| 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Philippines has never won gold medal in Taekwondo World Cup and last summer olympic in Beijing, China the delegation go home empty handed. So, perhaphs we'll consided new breed of athetes and support all the way from local, national up to international competitions.Mmaasia (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Failes WP:Notability

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:Notability

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No actual arguments for deletion are on the table. Whether it should be split, merged etc. can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  07:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Requirements for becoming a president (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplicate page of "Requirements of a president". Elm-39 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Not a duplicate but the main article to be discussed, the other one is a redirect as I've moved the page. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Requirements of a president. –Capricorn42 (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Corrected as such. However, this article ("Requirements for becoming a president") is still better explained elsewhere, on the articles for the specific presidents. Elm-39 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (e/c) The article surely is a copy-paste job, I just thought this could be a nice comparison when I first saw the page. Let's hear some other opinions :) –Capricorn42 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to President. Actually interesting information. But as it stands it is just a list of information. It would be better to talk about it in the main article on the office of president, then background information on why these requirements are, well, required could be added making a much better article. (I just checked out the President article and "Requirements for becoming a president in different countries" would make a nice section.)Redddogg (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977My edits 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It could use a better title, but I get the point-- it's a list of the constitutional requirements that different nations have for being the President of that nation. Encyclopedic topic, easily sourced, easy to put links to, no original synthesis or OR necessary because it's usually written out in a pretty concise form. In the U.S., it's about 60 words from Article II, Section 1 ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."). I would be surprised if this isn't already in here somewhere, but this type of arrangement helps in the comparison of the legal qualifications for office-holders in various nations. Mandsford (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep = Yeah, this is a really good idea for an article, and it can be strongly sourced and it's definitely notable! It can have details which would be overkill in the general President article. It probably needs a better title, though, as mentioned above. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that sources generally don't split the subject this way. I have both read and accrued … erm … let us just say a fair number of sources on the subject of constitutions, and comparative constitutional law, over the years, and I don't recall any of them dividing the subject up this way. The division is usually a vertical one, dividing up the subject by country/state/territory/so forth, rather than a horizontal one such as here, dividing the subject up by individual aspects such as eligibility requirements for an individual office taken across all countries/states/territories/so forth. So whilst such an article would indeed be very interesting, the reason that it would be interesting, to people such as me, is that no-one has yet done this sort of side-by-side tabulation. So it's interesting because it would be novel. And because it's novel, with no sources to guide the presentation of the subject, the question then becomes where to stop with this novel presentation. What gets excluded? Provisions on number of terms? Suffrage? Economic and historical factors? Informal, but nonetheless real and documented constraints such as racial prejudice? Party machines? Where is the line drawn around the subject? And if the answer is to "include everything", how does that not become a total overlap with our articles on the individual presidencies (e.g. President of France), which divide the subject up vertically, as the sources do? Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Split into the various articles for these heads of state. I don't see the need to duplicate the information here or the need to divide it as explained by Uncle G. --Deadly∀ssassin 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Manos: The Grasp of Fate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan film that fails guidelines at WP:NF. The film has less than 800 views since its YouTube release in August 2007. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While "notability isn't inherited" doesn't always apply (WP:MUSIC is one exception). In this case, the existence of a notable stage production is pretty much a given, since fanfilms have to be a fan of something. It does nothing to make the subject of the article notable or otherwise stand out. - Mgm| 12:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Seems non-notable political movement. Article created by a new user with clear political agenda. Renata (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep--The Cantonese independence movement has existed since the 1930's: 1, 2. I can't find any confirmation that the movement is active, except one sentence from this book (scroll down to #27). I don't know if the lack of sources to establish notability of the present movement is due to the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. Finally, any POV concerns can be addressed through editing.= Change to Delete per Flopsy Mopsy. --J.Mundo (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete--Almost no prominent (Western) sources can be found to support this as an independence movement. In order for an article of such topic to exist, somewhat reputed sources needs to be cited. Juding from the two sources presented by J.Mundo above, if the article was to be about historical events in the early 1910s instead of current movement, more needs to be elarboated.--Balthazarduju (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The creator of the article Nationalist320 has added two sources to the article. However, none of them are about "Cantonese Independence", the issues concerning with it or if there is indeed an active movement like this. The cited two sources are also incomplete, as there is only a title of the article and of the publication; no given authors, no page numbers and no links.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
User:HongQiGong, I suggest that you stop pretending that Cantonese people are somehow ethnic Chinese, particularly on your user page. Otherwise, I will report you (so that your agenda can be exposed once and for all) and I will make sure that your user page gets deleted! Nationalist320 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack is very not nice. You can post your comments but don't go after users and attack them in this manner.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete = Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for propaganda. Article is a WP:SOAPBOX full of original research and wishful thinking, from an editor whose contributions show that he was screaming madly at other Chinese editors before and after he wrote the article. I can't tell if this is an angry and misguided nationalist or a really clever troll, but in either case the article is propaganda and original research, and needs to go. An article on the early 1900s independence movement would be a good idea; however, I don't know enough to write it. :) In any case, the title of such an article wouldn't be "Cantonese independence," it would either be the (transliterated) Cantonese name of that century-ago independence movement, or it would be the term used by Western historians when referring to it. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think we're dealing with a very clever troll. He claims to want anyone who goes against the UN Declaration on Human Rights killed, which means he's either trolling or he's advocating killing people for interfering with your right to take a vacation (see Article 24). --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, this is unsourced from start to finish. "Today, few people are even aware of the existence of such a movement." This ain't helping things. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - A subject of this magnitude would need to be well-sourced, and there are no sources here at all.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - After reading through the article, it cites very little sources actually relating to the movement, but saying how the Cantonese are different from other chinese. And also, suffers from strong pov such as Determined to subjugate and enslave the Cantonese people, Qin armies, victorious from their earlier conquests, advanced on modern-day Guangdong and began one of the world's worst genocides.
and Supporters of Cantonese independence still continue to have an extremely difficult time convincing the wider community that the Cantonese people were victims of genocides at the hands of the Chinese., and I haven't found anything calling the Guangdong invasion a genocide. Despite having no links to support it, putting anything in the view of non-cantonese people, or Also, seems to be used for Propaganda and full of OR. Deavenger (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable series of football (soccer) games. WP can not cover every sporting event. Redddogg (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a battle to be had at the WP:N level. I wouldn't disagree with changing the existing policies to more explicitly exclude thousands of articles than are currently in Knowledge (XXG) (WP:MUSIC is especially appalling in bootstrapping notability), but given the existing policies, it's disruptive to have these futile battles over individual articles where deletion will happen only by accident. It's amusing to see Knowledge (XXG) be utterly completist when it comes to Pokemon characters and exhibition football tournaments, yet fail to have coherent articles about basic legal concepts, but I've given up trying to swim against that current. THF (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've yet to see a notability guideline that didn't require significant third-party coverage. It's just that AfDs continually WP:IAR and ignore them, and this becomes a 'precedent'. HrafnStalk 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - international competition that receives wide independent coverage in the media each summer. Participating clubs are from the major leagues around the world. If there is content you would like to see in the article, why not add it? robwingfield  17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: what "wide independent coverage"? And how can it be "each summer" when it is only held every second year? And the reason I don't add "content you would like to see in the article" is because nothing of any depth exists in WP:RS on this subject. HrafnStalk 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral Being a member of the Unification Church and also not knowing much about the world of football (soccer) it would be hard for me to judge the real importance of this event fairly. Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and Yahoo Sports News are cited, as well as some others that I don't recognize. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The event does gain international press coverage and it is slightly prestgious for a preseason competition. There are citations here and the article seems organized. There are also German, Spanish, French, Korean, Italian, Hungarian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Finnish WP articles on this event. Now should we have any articles about preseason tournaments? Probably not. But I don't think this is the place to start deleting. --Tocino 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I never heard of it, but if it's been noticed by the folks at Sports Illustrated, and if it's including such teams as Real Madrid and Juventus, it's notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete all as non-notable case law by clear consensus. Biography also fails rules on living persons.Bearian (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander v. State of Alaska, et al. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Alexander v. U.S.A., et al. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Kenneth S. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment nobody is claiming that this is untrue. Merely that it is not notable. As such, proving the truth of it doesn't address the fact that this isn't notable, that you have a serious conflict of interest, that the article is written only from your point of view, etc. etc. Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It's actually not anything like as rare as you would think. The court system is designed to find the truth, not who's best at debating a point, and anyone of reasonable intelligence with enough time on their hands to do the necessary research should be able to represent themselves reasonably. JulesH (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Wooreddy's Prescription for Enduring the Ending of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability, while the article meets some of the threshold standards of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books) with an ISBN and available in the National Library of Australia it doesnt meet the basic criteria of being subject to multiple independent reviews, recieved any literary awards, motion picture etc, or a subject of instruction. The author Mudrooroo Nyoongah, got a state award 10 years after the book he doesnt appear to offer any inheritance value to this article. Gnangarra 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pascal.Tesson. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Not notable and looks promotional. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP1E. Should be a redirect to US Airways Flight 1549, but not an article on its own.

Ok, sorry. Didn't mean to seem like I was piling on. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a text book. dougweller (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Article is on an obscure trophy in a video game, with no sources to provide notability. Failed PROD, as the author removed the tag. Author's only edits have been to this page Parler Vous (edits) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G3. Garden. 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghostboy (2010 movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. A google search for the film's title and lead actor produces no hits outside Knowledge (XXG). Prod removed by anon user. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pascal.Tesson. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:OR and possibly WP:Advertising. Either this is the artist's own term for his own work, in which case it's probable non WP:Notable, or, if it's a more general term, then this article is inappropriate because it explains the topic entirely in terms of one person's work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor evil pants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Check the creator's contributions for plenty of vandalism. This is a contested prod. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails to state why they're notable, No reliable and verifiable sources. Just because they're a radio DJ doesn't make them notable. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

this link indicates that there was an article published in the Adelaide Advertiser in March 2008, but no actual details, just notes the image was used in the article. This snip in September 2006 indicates that shes at least get some coverage over a 4 year period. Gnangarra 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus with erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article covers single printing of a set of pictures of Jesus with an erect penis. This did not receive coverage outside of a single piece on WorldNetDaily and possibly local newspaper. Contested prod where the remover suggested that it was "interesting" and did not have a policy backed rationale. Suggesting removal per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:NOTE (specifically the GNC). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Only notable for being the Outrage of the Day among cable news and trying to rouse up some people, and which quickly flashed by. Every stupid thing some artist with a sophomoric sense of humor does to decipt Jesus like this thing doesn't need attention or an article here. Nate • (chatter) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete WP does not keep an archive of every editorial cartoon, and this should not be the exception. Collect (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. Even those arguing delete can't help but admit it's notable... WilyD 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Ooops, you forgot that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Never mind this article never reaching the requirements of the GNC. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Uhm, it meets the GNG without difficulty. It's probably also worth familiarising yourself with other bits before quoting them. While NOT#NEWS is worth noting de temps en temp, it's not a be all and end all that needs to be applied mindlessly. The issue of routine vs. nonroutine coverage is clearly "would merit usual inclusion". Of course, one can look at the bigger goal, as say "Can we write a neutral, encyclopaedic article?" - here the answer is clearly yes (as we already have). "Is it a asset to the encyclopaedia?" - again, yes. So what's to delete for? Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT is left as an argument for deletion, and it's not compelling in the least. WilyD 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    One blurb on WorldNetDaily certainly does not meet the GNG. It is not substantative nor significant. Seriously, you're trying to protect a reactionary blip on the radar. This is not wikijoke, this is an encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article it is related to, the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, but it is not worthy of a standalone article. Another possible merge location would be the Controversial newspaper caricatures list. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Please familiarise yourself with policies before quoting them. Substantive contrasts trivial. The WorldNetDaily story is substantial - not only that, but so substantial that one can't honestly and informedly argue otherwise. Subjects aren't about "worthiness" or "unworthiness" in whether or not they deserve an article on an ethical level - the point is whether or not having an article is a) possible and b) valuable to us. You might well feel it's stupid (and you're correct in that), but that's neither here nor there. We're not supposed to be trying to impose our values on readers (see WP:NPOV), but writing a comprehensive neutral reference work. The Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy is such an enormous subject that it necessitates many articles (if only to make them loadable in a reasonable time for those of us with 300 baud modulators/demodulators), forcing us to write many spun out articles for simple organisational purposes. Until you forget "worthy/unworthy" and stop trying to impose your values on the reader, it'll be hard to see, but "Does having this article make Knowledge (XXG) a better reference work?" has a clear answer "yes". "Does this meet the usual guidelines for what's included?" has a clear answer "yes", and it is because these two are supposed to be the same question. WilyD 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English Knowledge (XXG) isn't the only one with an article about this subject.SPNic (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why "citation needed?" All you have to do is look at the "In other languages" section. You'll see that it's also available in German, Simple English, and Alemannic? If it's gotten coverage in more than one Knowledge (XXG), I'm pretty sure it's notable.SPNic (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some students publish a silly cartoon as a stunt. They attract attention from William Donohue, Bill O'Reilly, and other usual suspects. Step one does not equal notability. Step two does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Care to back that up with sources? The article does NOT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. A student creates a provocative cartoon and it is published by a student newspaper, it gets mentioned in World Net Daily, a conservative paper. Not every silly cartoon which gets mentioned by conservative bloviators needs an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete if people don't riot, pillage, and kill over your offensive cartoon, it's not as offensive as you'd like and not notable either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - coverage is of a single event with no lasting impression. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It has been on the O'Reilly Factor, which is one of the most watched TV "news" programs in the US. --Raphael1 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks the multiple substantive, reliable sources needed to establish notability. Deor (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per, for instance, Deor. This is the only hit on Google news, my yardstick for this kind of thing, and it's from the U of Oregon campus paper. Comparing this to the Danish cartoons is a bit specious, since those are well-covered in the news. This isn't, no matter what O'Reilly claims--of course, if he rants about it continuously this may change, but until then, out it must go. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind, that this story is almost 3 years old. Back in 2006 it has definitely reached substantial notability. --Raphael1 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It didn't leave a dent in the news archives. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that it's much better sourced. Two blog reports (major blogs, admittedly) have been added to the references (notes 2 & 3), but their focus is on O'Reilly's reaction, not on the cartoon that is nominally the subject of the article. Note 4 is a reference to what? an entire year's worth of the O'Reilly show?—in other words, a useless and unacceptable citation. The reference cited in note 5 has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and note 6 cites the work of another blogger, though this one appears to be a "videoblogger," whatever that may be. I'd like to see some mainstream coverage, please. Deor (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The O'Reilly coverage and the Media Matters reaction constitutes significant coverage. Obviously note 4 is vague, but that's a problem with the article itself rather than the topic's notability.--ragesoss (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Wholly unsourced article about a possible planned car from Suzuki. WP:CRYSTAL also applies here. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — neuro 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite the original editor's statement to the contrary, this does appear to belong on Wikiquote, and is not encyclopedic content. Ipsenaut (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: if none of the quotes are notible why wasnt the article removed a long time ago?
Also Also: (to counter CaveatLector) 42 isnt the only memorable quote that people remember and some consider others (eg "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike") more memorable.
Also III: If the article is deleated then it removes part of something that many people concider part of thier culture. rdunn 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
First you argue that this article has had an impact on people, so it should stay. This argument is null. Then you argue if the article were deleted there would be no way to find where the quotes come from. Wikiquote serves exactly that purpose. And finally you again appeal to the article's importance, which is subjective. I know not everyone uses Wikiquote. Could you suggest why this article needs to be on Knowledge (XXG)? Many articles have a link to their page on Wikiquote. Ipsenaut (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge: This article has some good stuff in it, but also some rubbish. I'd say merge the minor mentions i.e. "Knowing where one's towel is" to Wikiquote, and merge the big stuff i.e. "42" to the main article. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As a collection in itself, its nonnotable. I highly recommend creating an entirely new article for the answer to life, the universe, and everything; as I believe that subject has attained real-world notability, but a "list of phrases from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is pure fancruft (and I said it) and adds little to the encyclopedia as the topic is too broad and trivial. The information contained within can be used better in other articles (Hitchhiker's guide, 42, etc). Themfromspace (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep well written, well sourced, clearly encyclopedic and notable, and a perfectly reasonable themed spin off with the H2G2 set of articles - sits alongside Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gandalf61 Tavix (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I created the article, I don't think it's quite in the spirit that I originally intended it, which is probably unworkable anyway. The article was probably inspired most by Not entirely unlike X in The Jargon File -- the idea being that the article would be about phrases that evolved meaning above and beyond the original context in the series. The 42 thing certainly has, but the other things are more obscure except to people who are already fans of the series. So most of this stuff is noteworthy in an in-universe context rather than a real-world context. Whether that's good enough for an encyclopedia here, I don't really know, so I'll decline to pass judgement. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The unusual language of these books has had a major influence on certain segments of culture. Article has 4 independent reliable sources, plus a number of other sources that are not independent of the originator of these phrases. A well sourced article about a notable subject. JulesH (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep- Looking at it, I'd say maybe a rename is in order, since its more of an article than just a list. But aside from that, there's no real reason to delete. Plenty of references throughout, and the imact of the language of HHGTTG is undeniable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep--Not an Earth book, never published on Earth, and until the terrible catastrophe occurred, never seen or heard of by any Earthman. Nevertheless, the article is sourced and the subject is clearly notable. The article has been around since 2004 without no one proposing deletion until now.
  • Keep Sources listed include sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that the article meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Complete OR, sources either don't mention the "concept", or are advertising. I can't think of a way to turn this into an encyclopedic entry. Dendlai (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

No sources in the article. A Google search yields very little. Most likely a neologism. Graymornings(talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a joke. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ben 10: Alien Force. MBisanz 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben 10 Alien Force the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has begun. Suggest merge/redirect any useful content to source material's article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree. But the merge seemed to make sense, since that is where the information might best be expected to be found. Schmidt, 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, no problem with the merge of details. Just not crazy about the "Confirmed by IMDb" kind of wording. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Just changed the merged wording from "confirmed by" to "as listed on". With the film not yet released, the cast is not "confirmed"... simply listed... and only a few can be WP:Verified elsewhere. Schmidt, 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge and redirect to the main article for the franchise. At this point in time, the movie is not at the stage of development where sufficient reliable sources can be provided to support an article on the subject, but it is an important development in the history of the franchise. At the point in the future where more reliable sources exist for the movie, the content can simply be split out again. -- saberwyn 07:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't see how an ejido deserves an article. For one, it's just a co-op community, not an established city or town. The article says that the town is known for its snails which are actually found in Laguna Catemaco. I say delete or merge with a better article. (Laguna Catemaco) Undead Warrior (talk) 02:49, 6 January 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) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep appears from the available source to be a village. The village also constitutes an economic community, a cooperative. Nonetheless, it eetains the political nature of being a distinct settlement. DGG (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable person. No references at all in Google to verify that this person exists, is a boxer, or is in any way notable. Previously taken to AfD under Tyler McQuade but deleted via G7 when author blanked article. Somno (talk) 05:19, 6 January 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, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

not notable enough an amateur / NCAA basketball player. Not a statistical leader or starter on the team Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon and it should be deleted.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep: In the USA, members of Division I NCAA men's basketball teams play on a national stage. Each member of the team receives national (or at least regional) media coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which is what our notability guidelines for people are meant to guarantee. Trying to determine who's a star and who's unlikely to see much court time is an invitation to speculation by Knowledge (XXG) editors, of the sort we're institutionally committed to avoid. All Division I men's college basketball players therefore compete on the highest level of their amateur sport, (and even beyond) and as such meet current notability guidelines. For a more indepth archived discussion, please look here. GoCuse44 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: Joseph is a starter.
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, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Nom - weak claims but no evidence of notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Music Notability page you'll see that this band qualifies. On the Music Notability page it talks about worldwide radio play. And plus, in my opinion the iTunes thing does mean something, but I don't see that in the music notability page. XM638 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I love how you don't even read the article but then try to get it deleted. Read it and look at the references. It has a link to the radio station's charts and whatnot. I'm fully aware that iTunes isn't radio. XM638 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I've read the article - it was silly of you to say that I hadn't since you obviously couldn't know. "DistortionRadio" - isn't radio. It's an internet site. And it's a very non-notable website at that. And it's certainly not an indication of this band's notability. Indeed, the "chart" page you've listed as a reference indicates a whopping 17 page views - two of them mine. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you acted like iTunes was a radio station, no need to get hostile with me... So I'm curious: The band has been heard by thousands of people worldwide on that radio, that's a cold hard fact that's right on the artists page, and that doesn't count as notability even when the Music Notability page clearly says it is? It's your opinion that Distortion Radio isn't radio, times have changed and a lot of radio stations are online radio stations, this includes XM/Sirius radio who gets a good amount of it's listners from the internet. They license professional music like every other radio station, this band got played, got heard by thousands worldwide. I think that well meets the Notability requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Knowledge (XXG) standards, including verifiability.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

If the references are the problem, I can gladly get more, but this band meets both of the criteria I have mentioned above XM638 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • References are the problem - we need more evidence of notability. If you can't find sources to back up your claims that this band is the "most prominent representative" of a particular style/scene, it's unverifiable. Additionally "major radio network" has a generally-accepted meaning, and a non-notable internet streaming site is not one of them. Graymornings(talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Distortion Radio is not a radio station, and to call it anything else is being disingenuous. So I disagree that they meet the requirement of being placed on rotation by a major radio network. What they have is their song being requested and played on a internet music streaming site. I also fail to see any evidence that they are a prominent representative of a style or local scene. If you have additional sources that demonstrate notability, by all means put them forward. I can be convinced by sources. But I cannot be convinced by mere assertion notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:Music. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I understand where everyone is comming from. However, I do not agree with Distortion Radio not being a radio station or something note worthy and I strongly disagree with the page being closed because of this. I don't see anything on the Notability page that says internet radio or "streaming" disqualifies it. Internet radio sites have to license the music, program the music, have shows, and everything else that the frequency stations do. And I'm not sure what others believe, but a major radio network to me is a station who gets a good amount of listeners or is something that can be heard over a wide range. XM638 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In a context like this, a "major radio network" would be something like Clear Channel Communications or Pacifica Radio or the BBC. It doesn't necessarily have to be that huge, but certainly many orders of magnitude larger than Distortion Radio. I mean, just about any Joe Shmoe with a few hundred dollars can set up an internet radio station nowadays, including the cost of licensing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so if I can get ahold of some good references that show that Defused has been heard on other stations that meet this and an online article from the band's town newspaper talking about them would that be enough references? What do I need to get exactly? XM638 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You need reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just go ahead and delete it for now, I will restart it when I get some really good sources. If that's ok XM638 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination. This article was originally nominated for CSD and I find that the allbusiness.com source to be leaning too far toward legitimacy to delete the article. The article is still promotional in nature and could probably still be deletable under G11 criteria. However, I'm taking it to the community to decide it's notability. Trusilver 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Ah, sorry. I meant "few" reliable sources. Now that some reliable print sources have established notability/verifiability, I'm changing my vote to keep. I now have confidence that this article can be cleaned up and made Wiki-worthy. Graymornings(talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I do to make it non-promotional? I am not intending it to be a promotional article. 71.197.153.187 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what should be changed to make it non-promotional? I have cited three separate magazine articles discussing eng-tips.com71.197.153.187 (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Adding additional sources is not going to change the promotional tone that it already has. The wording of the content in the article itself needs to be changed in order to avoid having it has a promotional tone (see WP:SPAM). It can be as clearly notable as day, but if it's worded like you're trying to sell something, then it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia (this one or any one). MuZemike 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How is this article promotional? This article has been neutrally written from the version that Trusilver brought the article to AfD. As a neutral, third-party who has no connections with this website, I am having trouble seeing the spam that you, the nom, and the above two deleters have purported to be in this article. However, I have no trouble in seeing violations of WP:BITE in this deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So I am hearing three complaints:

  1. It needs to be "wikified" at some point. (Question: Should the article be deleted because it is not wikified?)
  2. Eng-tips.com may not be notable in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines.(Question: Do the references provided make it notable?)
  3. The article reads more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia article. (Question: If eng-tips.com is notable, should the article be deleted because of poor writing? Or should it remain and get rewritten?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 January 2009

This is the fifth iteration of the article. The previous four were deleted within hours. The reason why it needs serious work is I am reluctant to put significant time into editing until I know that the article will not be speedily deleted. Lgmagone (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article is not being considered for speedy deletion. It is going through a discussion for deletion process which normally runs 5 days. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That statement is inaccurate. I have gone back through the deletion logs for this article and the article has only been created a single time previously, on January 14th, where it was speedy deleted... improperly I think. Trusilver 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Lgmagone, cleanup (reference formatting, removing duplicate information, encyclopedic tone) really doesn't take that long. I just did it. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The first time eng-tips.com was pulled down I tried to create an article for the company that runs eng-tips.com instead, hoping that my error was trying to create an article for a website instead of a company. I attempted three times to create that article before giving up. http://en.wikipedia.org/Tecumseh_Group Lgmagone (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nintendo Entertainment System. –Juliancolton 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NES Test Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Narutolovehinata5 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete: Does not meet any of the nine criteria listed in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics): e.g., on the editorial board, but not an editor-in-chief, ... Plastikspork (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination - nominator has no opinion. This was originally nominated for CSD. Although it is unsourced, a google search has revealed marginal evidence of notability, and although I'm not convinced it is enough to warrant inclusion, neither am I willing to delete it outright. This article has suffered from it's share of WP:COI and WP:OR issues, and even if kept will require a great deal of work. Trusilver 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That reference just mentions that it exists and roughly what it is. We're not denying it exists. It doesn't seem to me to confer notability, and they've never even tried it and are not a reliable source on it, it's not substantive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This definitely seems to be snake oil of some sort: a self-help program whose claims are essentially untestable because it neither defines what it sets out to help nor sets clear criteria for success and failure. If you're a Homo sapiens, you probably shouldn't feel good about yourself anyways: self-esteem is self-delusion. But there is no lack of sources referring to this method and discussing it in some detail, which makes it notable by our standards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you give us a substantive third party reference then? Particularly if it's snake oil or pseudoscience I won't change my vote without it, because without it, the article will never achieve balance.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources = no article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, the sources in the article do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The blurb on this retailer's page for a book titled Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology presents (if you click a "reveal" link) an extract that says .... psychotherapeutic methods of unknown or doubtful validity are proliferating on an almost weekly basis. For example, a recent and highly selective sampling of fringe psychotherapeutic practices (Eisner, 2000; see also Singer & Lalich, 1996) included neurolinguistic programming, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique, rage reduction therapy, primal scream therapy, feeling therapy, Buddha psychotherapy, past lives therapy, future lives therapy, alien abduction therapy, angel therapy, rebirthing, Sedona method, Silva method, entity depossession therapy, vegetotherapy, palm therapy, and a plethora of other methods. I believe that "Eisner 2000" is Donald A. Eisner, The Death of Psychotherapy (Greenwood Press, 2000): Amazon.com's list of "key phrases" for this book runs: New York, Thought Field Therapy, Past-Lives Therapy, Strategic Therapy, Basic Books, Consumer Reports, San Francisco, Beck Depression Inventory, Alien Abduction Therapy, American Psychological Association, Implosion Therapy, Sedona Method, Spiritual Therapy, Top Dog, Carl Rogers, Jesus Christ, Los Angeles, Reassessing Freud, Emotional Freedom Technique, Entity De-possession Therapy, Fritz Perls, Clinical Research There, Guilford Press, Harvest House Publishers, John Wiley (some of which are surely innocent). "Singer and Lalich 1996" is surely Crazy Therapies, though the first-quoted author doesn't explicitly say that this book treats it. I've half a mind to hand over the $11.95 for this paper (linked from the Crazy Therapies article), which may or may not list it. I don't know what all of this goes to prove, really. Just that at least one researcher has thought that this is sufficiently silly and conspicuous to be worth at least a quick look. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a look, that Professional psychology, research and practice article mentions the therapy once, as one of several methods they eliminated from their study since these methods were not rated by enough of the people who responded to their questionaire for them to get meaningful data. If you want the Pdf please e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. An admin told me that the article does not meet csd-g4. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: "...the first open source (GPL) full disk encryption system for MS Windows..." As raised before, what source attributes that statement? A self-published source? Sorry, this article was crap before and it's crap after its recreation. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: I just don't understand why all the haters about this article? It is extraordinary difficult to locate a citation for anything being the "first" (let's talk about first human flight for example or the many other things we are traditionally taught that one person developed it first and years later we find out that is not quite the case). I am not aware of anyone else making the claim they were available before DiskCryptor, certainly TrueCrypt came later. In this case I think it makes sense to give the author the benefit of the doubt as no one else has come forward claiming anything different. This is simply not the kind of thing where a source would even exist. Still, it is the case that DiskCryptor was first and is thus notable. Can you tell I am annoyed that we keep going over this? --BenFranske (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep.. DiskCryptor is notable as being first open source disk encryption system for Windows that allowed the user to encrypt the entire disk, including system partition. This is particularly significant and makes the article notable in itself, as there are very few systems which can do this which aren't commercial. As for being a "self published source", AFAIK the DiskCryptor WWW site doesn't actually say it was the first - the date of its release can be confirmed by checking the ITConsult PGP timstamps, which state its release date, and is in advance of any other system of its nature (full disk encryption). ISTM that a lot of the vitrol launched against this software centers around truecrypt fanboy-ism; a product which would have been the first free open source disk encryption for windows, had DiskCryptor not been released Nuwewsco (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Sorry if that sounds rather "boilerplate" but this seems pretty straightforward to me. If this product is notable, it hasn't been demonstrated. If sufficient information has been published to source a verifiable article, where is it? Currently there are two sources, one first-party, both self-published. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's dispense with the concerns about notability which is generally a BS argument. If whole drive encryption is a notable topic, then the first open source whole drive encryption program is notable regardless of how popular it is among English speakers. I have added several more citations indicating that DiskCryptor was first, or at least was released prior to the TrueCrypt 5 release which would be the only other contender I know of. You can look all day but people don't often write articles saying that "X was the first" until they are looking back at the history of something some time later. What people say is "X is now available" and these are generally what I have cited. Unless someone can prove that something else was first it makes sense to assume that DiskCryptor was first given what we know. --BenFranske (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, see the policy on verifiability: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" This seems to fit the case here, the dispute is about notability thus self-published sources should be allowed to show notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Web-site forums are not reliable sources. I'm tempted to remove the self-published sources, given that they are not verified against other credible sources. seicer | talk | contribs 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm seriously loosing faith in the place of common sense in Knowledge (XXG) here. Obviously using only a web forum as a major source for an article is a bad idea. However, using one to timestamp when a product was made available makes a lot of sense as products are often discussed in forums shortly after the announcement. You have to use your brain sometimes to determine if a source is appropriate or not for the purpose of citing it. In this case it is completely appropriate that a web forum be used to timestamp the arrival of a product. Please cite any policy which specifically states web forums are unacceptable. I would think they would fall under self-published sources which (as above) are valid for discussions of notability. I fail to understand your holy war against this article and am becoming seriously ticked off. Regardless of what I think about notability being BS. The policy is clear, self-published sources are valid for discussion of notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Regarding common sense: I do not think it is sensible to use "X is notable because X says so" as an argument for keeping articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Agreed, but I am not saying "X is notable because X says so" that would be if the DiskCryptor people declared themselves notable. I am saying X is notable because they were the first to do something. I have also provided several sources indicating they when X was released as well as discussing why few sources ever say something is first until years later. Not sure what more I can do for you. --BenFranske (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • So be ticked off. Article deletion is a common process, and no one article is more special than another in the spirit of notability and article sourcing. We strive to have articles that are reliably and adequately sourced, that are declared notable, and if there are disagreements, then the article is either repaired or wiped under consensus. Such guidelines and policies are not open for reinterpretation for each and every article, although you are free to attempt to have these guidelines and policies changed through discussion on their respective discussion pages. As a note, you should seriously read Self-Published Sources seicer | talk | contribs 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Restart) To quote:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

See also: General Notability Guideline for a breakdown of the schematics. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • So the problem is that the "mainstream press" has not reported on DiskCryptor (eg. most references are self-published)? Seems like a bad idea to dump articles because they are under-reported by the "press" even if they may be of legitimate historical interest. This also seems to disadvantage open source software which often receives little press coverage. See CrossCrypt, Cryptoloop, GBDE, Private Disk, etc. for examples of software which would appear to be non-notable, there is lots more. --BenFranske (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it were of legitimate historical interest, historians would have documented it, and we could base an article on the sources thus generated. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to document something that the world hasn't documented, however interesting, significant, unique, groundbreaking, or otherwise you personally, and subjectively, think it to be. This is an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of first instance. If you want this subject documented in the history books, go and write a history book that documents it. And if you find other articles for which proper sources cannot be found to exist (after looking for them, yourself, properly), nominate then for deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep ISTM that the main arguments for deleting this article are that:
    1. It was previously deleted
    2. It isn't notable
    3. It can't be verified that it's the first system of its kind
  • Addressing these, however:
    1. The reason it was previously deleted for two reasons:
      1. Some users thought it was a copy of another product ("Truecrypt"), which had similar functionality, but couldn't encrypt the disk the Windows OS was stored on (although Truecrypt added this abilit much later).
        It wasn't a copy; and this is pretty clear from the fact it predated the version of Truecrypt's which could do this.
      2. The first version of the article was little more than a copy/paste from its WWW site, so it did make some sense to delete it.
      However, if you look at the article now, even though it's just a stub atm, this is clearly not the case anymore. I'll look into expanding it to make it more comprehensive.
    2. This software is notable. As other users have pointed out, it was the first ever open source disk encryption system available which allowed the Windows system disk to be encrypted, which is notable in itself
      This is a pretty major achievement, and one that shouldn't be ignored. There's only one other program which offers this, and it's long since been debated as to whether the licence under which it's released really does conform to the open source definition
    3. From the looks of it, a number of references have been put forward to verify that it was released before any other full disk encryption program; a couple were based on forumn entries which, although perhaps not particularly good source of information, do back up the claim. The other references which remain are from independant sources
  • Given time, I wouldn't mind extending the article to add more information Raftermast (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Discussion forum postings from undentifiable people going under pseudonyms such as "jamie" and "Neowinian", whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined, let alone be determined to be good, are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination.

      And you clearly don't understand what notability is. It is not your personal, subjective, estimation of what is important, famous, groundbreaking, or significant in the world. It is Knowledge (XXG):Notability, and it is not subjective. It is not based upon size, significance, popularity, usage, or fame. It is based upon sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of slang terms for police officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. This is the 2nd nomination for this list. The last debate was held in 2005 and reached no consensus see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Slang and offensive terms for police officers, a lot has changed since 2005. Deadly∀ssassin 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep A lot may have changed since 2005, but has it done so in relation to this article? It may not always be wrong to put an article up for deletion a second time, but it is often not good practice to do so unless there have been significant changes. The one time I ever did this myself I was able to argue that discussions had moved on, and it was deleted. Knowledge (XXG) is not paper, this is an article of some legitimate sociological interest, more than just a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. PatGallacher (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many such lists on the Knowledge (XXG). --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This list is at least as good as any other. And it's not a dictionary entry, but a pop culture reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • How is it as good as any other? In a deletion discussion, it would help to use facts and policies other than personal opinion. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • What I mean to say is that some people would want to delete this list for other reasons that have no link to wiki quality standards. If you look at it objectively, you will find nothing wrong, just as you won't with others. That was just a reaction, though. My argument to keep is my second sentence. I agree with PatGallacher. This has the value of holding a cultural reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If you can't find your way to WP:NOT it's amazing you found your way to this discussion. Please don't accuse me of having ulterior motives in the future and assume good faith. Oh sorry, I mean WP:AGF, happy now? --Deadly∀ssassin 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply for Maziotis. Thanks for that additional assessment, it helps your argument a lot (at least to me). Tavix (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • DeadlyAssassin, I didn't mean you personally. But I'm sure a lot of people would want this list to go since this is a list about insults, not cartoon dummies. What I meant from the beginning was that if you look at it objectively, a list of dummies is as good as a list of insults. That's what I meant. Please take notice that you are reacting to a response. If you read what I wrote at the beginning, you will see no sting there for anybody. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Any presently unsourced terms can be removed if reliable sources do not exist, or if the sources exist they can be added. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Such unofficial terms have been used for police officers and well documented in reliable sources for over 200 years. Peelers: , . "Fuzz:" . "Pig:" , , "County mounty" , , etc. Try Google advanced book search and Google News archive.Edison (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The original nomination didn't mention references, although as others have said the article is completely unreferenced. I don't see how this mitigates against the fact that wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral as I understand where both parties are coming from and could see it go either way. Tavix (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary. The info is uncited and I see some mistakes. For instance in "5-0" a 5 liter car engine is not very large, 305 cubic inches vs a 350 cubic inch engine which would be what is really used on a police car. So it looks like people just put in stuff as they feel like it. A lot is also kind of mean-spirited. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the way to deal with mistakes is to edit; the way to deal with lack of citations is to add them. This is a possibly encyclopedic topic, and there's literature on it.DGG (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I mentioned the mistake because it is an example of the carelessness of the article's contributors. I have no special way of finding information on slang expressions for police officers. I certainly have no way of proving one doesn't exist. One the other hand someone could remove all the uncited material. Would you like me to do that? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into Police officer. Just throwing it out as a possible compromise in the discussion. I mean, when I look into an article about police officers, I would probably except some nicknames/slang terms be mentioned in there; the article is small enough that this stuff could be merged into Police officer without much a hassle as far as WP:SIZE is concerned. MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — Oh, and don't be a dick about it, either! ;) MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Move sourced entries to Wiktionary and organize there using a category. Delete the rest. This isn't a list of encyclopedia articles, just a list of words/terms.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for want of any better choice. Merging into "police officers" seems odd for sure, and wiktionary does not actually have a set up for lists ... it should be edited for sources and errors, but that is not actually a valid reason for deletion in itself. Collect (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Wiktionary not only is set up for lists, it has plenty of them, including many lists of slang synonyms for things, such as d:Wikisaurus:penis. Wiktionary not only has full thesaurus capabilities, it also makes use the MediaWiki software's ability to automatically create lists. After all, a list of words is simply a category of articles, in a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - sensible, encyclopaedic list, no arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what's encyclopedic about it? It's a list of words, the definitions of which belong in Wiktionary. It's all very well for users to call it sociological, but at the moment this is just a collection of slang, and has been for years. As we know WP:NOT specifically says that Knowledge (XXG) are not "... slang and idiom guides." --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep (Strong Keep) The list will only grow more detailed in time with sources and historical and sociological details. Totally notable from a linguistics and sociology standpoint.Critical Chris (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If this were an article that describes the reason why there are so many slang names for the police and how in broad terms they developed, even the acceptance of their use in society I might tend to agree. As it stands (and has stood for a number of years) this is a list of word definitions and some etymology, you know what they call those don't you?. Calling it sociological and linguistically notable doesn't make it so. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • What sociological and historical details? Please cite a source that demonstrates that there even are any sociological and historical details to be discussed in an encyclopaedic fashion. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary; however, Wiktionary is. Besides, it's rather worrying when there are {{cn}} tags for nearly every item. Sceptre 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Those two arguments were already addressed several times. Maziotis (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, the no citation one was, I don't think the dictionary one has. After all WP:NOT is policy. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • To be honest, several can be cited. "Pig", "filth", "bobby", "Plod", and "Sweeney", most likely. I've never heard "Woodentop", though. It's like List of terms of endearment: "baby", "sweetie", "cutie" can be. "Newfoundland"? Not so much. Sceptre 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Absolutely mate, which was why I didn't include unreferenced as a reason for deletion. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
          • No one addressed that argument by saying that wikipedia IS a dictionary. That policy was never put into question. What has been argued, by at least three editors, is that this subject is of interest for an encyclopedia, as a legitimate sociological issue. Maziotis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Is your argument by that rationale then that whether the article is descriptive or not and whether it is against policy can be ignored? --Deadly∀ssassin 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Simply, I don't believe that it is going against that policy. That is what some people are arguing. I believe that even while it remains non-descriptive, it is a legitimate list on wikipedia for a set of cultural references. Maziotis (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
                • "Cultural reference" is often used to disguise the fact that there isn't really an encyclopaedic article to be had. It's a woolly phrase that really doesn't mean anything concrete. The thinking behind it is almost always that cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing causes encyclopaedia articles to magically arise from nothing. Conversely, Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary not only is clear policy, it is even our oldest written policy. To argue against it, one should show that an article isn't a dictionary article, or a mere collection of dictionary articles strung together in a list. So where are the sources that discuss the "sociological and historical details" claimed to exist above? Where are the sources that actually discuss something that isn't dictionary article content? What is the "sociological issue" and where has it been documented? Or are you arguing that Knowledge (XXG) should be the first to put all of these words together and document a sociological issue underpinning them, in violation of our Knowledge (XXG):No original research policy? Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • My argument is that we have a list that is of interest for anybody who is looking for particular references in our culture (slang terms; other social aspects related to police and community). I really can't say I undestand the wiki policy on lists such as this. We seem to have them by the thousands. I did make a reference to other editors claiming a sociological background being developt in the article. As for the necessary sources, I have to say I would be very interested in seeing them myself. Maziotis (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • But what is the reason that this should take place on Knowledge (XXG)? If people are interested in doing research on social trends they can look elsewhere and find the data they need. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • Yes, this would only be a deposit of those terms. We would have one place to find an extensive list of slang terms for police officers. I don't know if this is right, but it seems wikipedia is used a lot for this. On the other hand, there was the suggestion that the article itself could give an historical exposition on the phenomenon. We are still waiting for the sources. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Copy to Wiktionary whether or not it is kept on Knowledge (XXG), since a copy of this probably should reside there regardless of if it exists here. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, appears to just be another professor with nothing notable for inclusion. Possibly also a conflict of interest, heavily edited by unregistered IPs who only edit this article. The359 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

It is a topic that Google can find, but only 13 results, none of which appear at first glance to be reliable sources for the term, some of which are simply juxtaposition of Greco and Welsh. This looks like a non notable neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

People Skipped From the British Throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research or synthesised original research, plus a somewhat bizarre title. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added a ref.What!?Why?Who? (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derwent_College#College_facilities_and_events,. MBisanz 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Not really notable by any measure. Oli Filth 05:15, 11 January 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) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm| 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Update I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets WP:NF. Schmidt, 19:59, 11 January 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) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neon highfin barb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Species that "has yet to be scientifically described." Only ref is "personal experience," which is, well, not a ref. Looks like this is completely original research about a species that isn't recognized in the scientific community. Graymornings(talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete I did search for 'Oreichthys sp. "drapefin"' and did get a few results, but those seemed to not be scientific studies. Per WP:OR Narutolovehinata5 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I also searched with few results, including within aquarium-related sources. As Graymornings suggested, it does seem to be an article made up only of original research. FaerieInGrey (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. There's a lot of unpublished original research here that needs to be removed, but the fish itself does appear to (a) exist and (b) be notable. Google search for "neon highfin barb" (in quotes) turns up only the article and a blog entry apparently by the author of the article. This name is just not in common use, despite the article's assertion that fish are commonly sold under this name in the aquarium trade. On the other hand "drapefin barb" does seem to be a common name for a fish that is available for purchase but which has not yet been allocated a binomial name, perhaps because there is some dispute over which genus it belongs in. Note that these fish are sometimes identified as Oreichthys cosuatis, and that article also mentions the OR regarding the DNA profiling of them. We do have some reliable sources: reports the theory dismissed in the article that this fish is a species of Puntius. In the same magazine we have . Also published (although not available online) is Kalodimos N. Courtship Behavior of the Drape Fin Barb, Oreichthys sp. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine, 2002. I don't know the content but it appears from the description to be an entire article about this fish. JulesH (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have rewritten the article to remove the OR. I would suggest following the close of the AFD it is moved to Drape fin barb, which seems to be its most common name. JulesH (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oreichthys umangii appears to be another article about the same fish, and gives an additional reference which provides a binomial name, although this is apparently yet to be generally accepted. Changing my !vote to merge to oreichthys umangii. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Although it occurs to me that I don't have a reliable source stating that these are the same fish. So maybe the merge isn't appropriate. Not sure what to do here. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The original article was pure OR, and you did a great job cleaning it up. I'm not sure what to do here, either. It's either the same fish as Oreichthys umangii or it's a species that may or may not have been scientifically described. Depending on that, it's a merge/redirect or a delete. I think we need an expert. I listed it at WP:FISH to see if anyone over there has an opinion, so maybe that'll get us somewhere. Graymornings(talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems to be an article whose time has not yet come. It makes little sense, to me, to have an article about an uncertainly identified animal, unless the article contains all the details necessary to make the identification (which would not be practical or encyclopedic). Better to wait until the taxonomy is worked out. Tim Ross (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

A non-notable film about a previously PRODed band. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The prevailing sentiment is that this article is not only much too inadequately sourced, but also violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which we tend to understand also as prohibiting the excessively detailed reporting of incidents resulting in very numerous deaths (such as large-scale accidents, massacres or wars), whether or not the people who have died are actually named. I'm amenable to userfying this if someone believes that this could be the basis of a much more concise, well-sourced section in some appropriate article (to the extent that consensus allows for its inclusion and such content does not already exist).  Sandstein  07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Nor is Knowledge (XXG) a soapbox. While deep sympathy goes out to those associated with the victims, this is not the place to create a memorial to them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep If there is a list of attacks on Israel in 2008 that lists not only deaths but also injuries, then there should be a list of attacks BY Israel in 2008. Or did you nominate List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 for deletion as well? Trachys (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment please feel at liberty to nominate any article that you feel does not qualify for inclusion here to be deleted or improved. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment the other article you refer to differs markedly from this one. It has almost no personal names mentioned, and all the attacks have citations. It is about the attacks, and is not a memorial. Do please bear in mind that each WP article stands or falls on its own unique merits. Precedent is not set here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • So then suggest that the names of the victims be edited out. And do you not consider B'Tselem a reliable source? Trachys (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment This article is a list of the fatalities. Thus it contains, by definition, the roll of the dead. Without the names it becomes a statistical list of attacks with qualitative descriptions of the attacks. Individual citations render each wholly verifiable. That is a different article, and one that I would welcome along the lines of the other article you used as an example. I have no knowledge of nor interest in the actual topic. My interest is the article and the encyclopaedia. I expect the source you quote is reliable, but I have no knowledge of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
            • It is now a statistical list of attacks with qualitative descriptions of the attacks. The article states the source of the data in a conspicuous manner. Interested users may decide on the reliability of the source. I for one consider the source independent and more reliable than, say, the New York Times. Trachys (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I see it as a substantial improvement, though totals are what is required rather that a list of individuals who are not named by personal attributes. There are still a great many named and non notable individuals, however. I really do not see why you are worrying about the source. It feels rather "Methinks s/he doth protest too much" to me. If you are confident of your source then you are confident. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep. These type of lists are not memorials or soapboxes. See:

I don't see how this article overall has a problem along the lines of WP:COATRACK, as long as the introduction is kept WP:NPOV. This list, along with
List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008
2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire
Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
and other related articles provide essential background info to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict that can not be covered adequately in that article. The alleged cause of the breakdown of the truce on both sides were these types of events. So readers want to know about violent events of both sides before the war. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a single page at http://www.btselem.org that separates out Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008. If there were, I would agree with you. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: See later comments.)
The source this article explicitly uses is this one, although it does detail previous years as well. I don't know, it looks like a mirror. -- Nudve (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
After looking at that B'Tselem chart, I now think that the Knowledge (XXG) list is much better. The Knowledge (XXG) list has a table of contents by month, and there is no need to scroll horizontally for each entry in the chart. With my 17 inch monitor I have to scroll to read the info for each entry in the chart. So, since the Knowledge (XXG) article is basically finished, and much improved after going through this AfD, I think it should be kept. It is relevant at this time. Plus in the wikipedia article there is a bar chart that helps see deaths over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Nudve. The only source cited is the B'Tselem website (apart from the lead which gives a very POV background to the conflict and is not really related to the main subject of the article). Looks like this article is a mirror of B'Tselem. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
B'Tselem is the source for casualties in the infobox of Second Intifada. See: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp It is considered to be a reliable source. The intro can be made more WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. More casualty lists:

I think that these Knowledge (XXG) lists are encyclopedic and relevant. They are WP:NPOV. And they have multiple references for some entries. Very useful for readers and researchers. The list in question here could benefit from some more references for some of the individual entries. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What do people think about merging this information to the pages Causalities of the 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict and Causalities of the 2007-2008 Gaza Conflict, both of which I believe were proposed for creation before? The Squicks (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment It would be helpful if the editors who recently voted to delete the article on the grounds that it is a memorial would explain how an article which doesn't name any of the dead serves this purpose. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment—In its current form this article has too much detail. Compare, for example to Casualties of the Iraq War, Rwandan_Genocide#Genocide or War in Darfur#Mortality figures, which are orders of magnitude larger. This is just a demonstration of the old Stalin quote, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." The article needs a significant re-write; hopefully well after this tiny war is finished.—RJH (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete My concerns with the article in its current for are: 1. Each line needs to be sourced otherwise any IP with an axe to grind can add whatever they feel like. Although there is a list of references at the bottom, there are no citations on most if not all of what's listed 2. Is it possible to actually keep a list of this nature current? 3. The fact this war is underway and that lots of people have died is relevant and notable, but is it necessary to itemize everyone? Has a similar list been created for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? For the Six Day War? For World War II? I can't help but feel that this sort of a list is serving a non-WP:NPOV purpose by spotlighting the fact that lots of Palestinians are getting killed in a conflict that is current and controversial, and I believe that's beyond what Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be about. 23skidoo (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete another WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK horror. In any case Causalities of the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza Conflict would be the title, but 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict needs to be worked upon first. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I did a lot of editing at Casualties of the Iraq War. I also supported the editors of
This list covers before the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, so I don't know why both shouldn't be worked on now. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep:

It is sourced to here: . --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the article would be more useful and relevant if it stopped counting 2008 Palestinian deaths at the beginning of the main Israeli airstrikes Dec. 27, 2008. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Il would even write Strong keep The pair of articles this article is modelled after: List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 not only cite each and every names of the victims, except the 4 on Dec 27 and 29 2008 (June 28, 2004: Four-year-old Afik Zahavi, and Mordehai Yosefof, 49, Sderot; September 29, 2004: Yuval Abebeh, 4, and Dorit Benisian, 2, Sderot; July 14, 2005: Dana Galkowicz, 22, Kibbutz Netiv Ha'asara; March 28, 2006: Near the Kibbutz Nachal Oz two Israeli-Arabs (Salam Ziadin and Khalid, 16, a Bedouin father and son) are killed when a dormant Qassam rocket they find in the Nahal Oz area explodes; November 15,2006: Faina Slutzker, 57, Sderot; May 21, 2007: Shir-El Feldman, 32, Sderot; February 27 2008, Ron Yahye, 47-year-old student, near Sapir Academic College, Negev; May 9 2008, 48-year-old Jimmy Kdoshim, while working in his garden in Kibbutz Kfar Aza; May 12 2008, Shuli Katz, a 70-year-old resident of Kibbutz Gvaram; May 19 2008, Shir-El Friedman, 35-year-old woman; June 5 2008, Amnon Ronsenberg, a 52-year-old father of three), which is legitimate, those victims deserve to be remembered of, but those two pages cite every rocket attack!
For the sake of Knowledge (XXG)'s fairness not only this page deserves to be kept, but also reverted to its first status by User:Trachys where individuals names are given, which is more esay to verify than anonymous.
About the argument Knowledge (XXG):NOT#MEMORIAL. It is clearly is out of topic: the text says: "Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Knowledge (XXG)'s notability requirements" Victim's name quoted in List of Qassam rocket attacks, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and in this article are not "departed friends and relatives." and they hare not "Subjects of encyclopedia articles": they do not have their own article entry! They are victims whose name are public!
B'Tselem is the original source. It is a serious and reliable Israelian source. It is the main source for this article published on Jan 15 and nominated for deletion the next day. Knowledge (XXG) being a work in progress more might come in the future. Ist form is also a big ergonomic improvement from the original source
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Full_Data.asp?Category=1&region=GAZA
Every village in Europe keeps the list of the names and ages of the victims of WW1 and WW2 on marble stones. This is Internet in the 21st century. The modern lists may be kept on the Knowledge (XXG): once again it does not infringe Knowledge (XXG)'s rule Knowledge (XXG):NOT#MEMORIAL because each victim does not have it's individual article! --Cvrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
Good points. We should avoid systemic bias, or the perception of it. I suggest people read the info, talk archives, and current talk page of Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Countering systemic bias. List of Qassam rocket attacks has details, names, dates, charts, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to log as nominator that the nomination was simply that, a nomination of this article. I have no bias in this conflict, which I see as appalling, but have insufficient understanding of the two sides to hold a valid opinion of the rights and wrongs of each party in the dispute. It is the article in isolation that concerns me, not the conflict. Avoidance of bias is done by the creation of articles and deletion of articles without reference in those processes to the politics behind the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In your nomination your reason to delete the article was "Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Nor is Knowledge (XXG) a soapbox." I could see how one might think the article might be a memorial or a soapbox. It may need some work to be WP:NPOV. But I don't see it as a memorial in terms of Knowledge (XXG)'s definition. From WP:NOTMEMORIAL: "Memorials. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives." The topic of the article is notable in my opinion. As is List of Qassam rocket attacks. Because arguments about the violent attacks of both sides before the war have been frequently noted in the media. There is not enough room in Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. There is no room left in those articles for anything more. Many articles have been spun out. I help edit 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It was getting around 350 edits a day recently. It is unrealistic to cover much more in encyclopedia detail in those 2 already-large articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. That sounds more like an argument to delete List of Qassam rocket attacks and the other related articles than an argument to keep this one. These sorts of "list our side's grievances" articles seem more useful to POV-pushers than to Knowledge (XXG)'s educational goals of spreading neutral, encyclopedic information, which is better done in unified treatments like Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict than POV-forks of "bad things Palestinians did to Israelis" and "bad things Israelis did to Palestinians". See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Delirium (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see my reply higher up to Fiddle Faddle. Also, it is not necessarily POV pushing. At least not for me. It is just a matter of space. We could combine the violent acts into one article, but it would be huge. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That may be an indication that a comprehensive list of violent acts in a particular conflict simply isn't the proper role of an encyclopedia to document (as compared to the conflict itself and its context, which are good subjects for articles). For example, a list of every single bombing, artillery, or infantry action taken by either side even a single World War II campaign would be quite large and certainly couldn't fit into, say Battle of the Bulge or D-Day, but we don't break them out into List of German fatalities resulting from the Allied advance during the Normandy Invasion. --Delirium (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the prelude to World War II is covered by many articles. Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict does not cover the period preceding the war. It links to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Background. There is not enough room there to do more than cursory coverage of the background to the war. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No offence,but I feel giving the statistics of how many people died in a day are redundant for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it'd be better if only ranking officials were included with a total of civilians casualties at the bottom of the entry. EX :

January 1rst

Nizar Rayan senior commander Total civilian casualties - XX

--Roaring Siren (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Information For Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't see anything notable about this environmental action organisation. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)

*Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I wish to note that my struck comment was intended for a different AfD. I still feel that notability for Snowgum might be shown if awards sourcing is done. Schmidt, 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a source for one of the prizes . But I doubt it helps the article in any way. The prize at the film festival has is under public's choice and not a jury award. Moreover it was given to the film and the writer-director, not the production company. Plus the film shared this prize with another film. You also need to consider that this article comes more under WP:CORP, and needs to satisfy notability requirements as such. Sleaves 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And I am not at this time opining a keep nor a delete... as conecting the company and the notability of its projects would be paramount. Certainly smaller independents do not have the easy-to-source notability of their bigger cousins (IE: Sony, MGM, Fox, Warners, etc.), so if it can be somehow established that the company creates notable projects... it would be a step in the right direction. But as you point out, a shared audience jury-award does not quite do it. This is the biggest problem with articles about smaller companies. They exist. They create films. They get their films out there... All the same basics as the big boys. But fighting WP:NOTINHERITED, it is difficult to source an individual notability. I'd love to see an WP:RS that tells of the company itself. Schmidt, 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
There is lspace.org, SF Crowsnest, Snh.com, a similar story at theage.com, freelancing-gods.com, fantasy-fan.org, and Dreamers.com (google translation from Spanish), which are about the company in relationship (naturally) to their projects. And then we have a number of articles available about its founder. Gona be a toughie. Schmidt, 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per rescue. Company is getting coverage (minimal) for their work... and their works are themselves receiving coverage. Its a squeeker... but I think it now just tickles over WP:CORP without having the share notability. Schmidt, 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

This article appears to have a few problems: first, it appears to be promotional - the editor appears, on searching the name, to be a high-level official with the organization that this is written about, so there's a WP:COI problem immediately, and the article is more advocacy than information. Second, there are no sources; I ran through Google News and found no references to it. It's not written in a neutral manner.All in all, I don't think the program in question is notable enough to be covered here at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 11 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable soft drink produced by notable company. Should not be included in WP. Unable to find any significant English-language coverage, no significant Russian language coverage claimed. Bongomatic 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It is still included in practically all Russian coverage on market share (most recent ones are, quite naturally, not available publicly), but the whole line appears to be in decline, poorly distributed, and I won't be surprised if CC drops it quietly. Maybe you are right and one line entry in List of Coca-Cola brands is sufficient. NVO (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as per NOTPAPER. How can nominee claim "no significant Russian language coverage claimed" when there is page on the Russian wiki... (?). I would leave it to the Russians to decide what drinks there are notable. And what is a notable fizzy candy drink anaway, Wiki is not a paper. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Citations to Knowledge (XXG) are not sufficient as sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources? Bongomatic 22:58, 11 January 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) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion tended towards keeping the article. Xymmax So let it be done 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable operating system. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources (checked Google, Google News, Google blog search, technorati). Bongomatic 14:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Which of the hits generated by that search do you believe to be significant and from a reliable source that is independent of the subject? I was unable to find any (I didn't look through hundreds of pages, but the first hundred entries or so). Rather, there are numerous software download pages, some blog entries, a couple of pages from the publisher, and this Knowledge (XXG) article and clones of it. Number of Google hits alone is not an argument for either keeping or deleting in a deletion discussion. Bongomatic 22:43, 11 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
Many claims of lack of notability are ill-founded, and this is one of them. First I glanced at the article (I'm a layman here, and can only apply common sense). It is extremely factual, short, concise, to the point, almost terse - suitable for an OS article. I find absolutely no evidence of conflict of interest (COI), no canvassing, etc. Many different editors have contributed to the article.
  • The article is also available on other Wiki projects, the Spanish one is of somewhat better quality, someone took the effort to add an OS infobox, the Catalan (surprise!) page is as extensive as the English, the Romanian is a very short stub. But obviously some editors found the stuff notable enough to create these pages. I also note that there is no Dutch page on the thing, although the Spanish (and the other projects except the English) mention that is was developed there. This would lead me to assume some notability in that corner of pygmae OS system buffs. It certainly weakens claims of lack of notability.
  • Why shouldn't this terse information not be in an Encyclopedia like Wiki? What exactly would satify your thirst for notability. Yearly sales figues, market penetration and percent market share? Even if the system never made it to mainstream, wouldn't the sheer existence of the systems be worth of three lines on Wiki?
  • And yes, I managed to find a Google Scholar hit. Somewhere in this enormously specialized world, some tech buffs refer to the specific quirks of this OS. I have made no attempt whatsoever to understand it, but they discuss "every distribution from these two sets uses the APT package management system" and they are concerned about "collisions" (?). So perhaps it could be interesting to somebody, I don't know. But I don't see a collision with Wiki's notability criteria. Cerf, L; J Besson, C Robardet, JF Boulicaut (2008), Data-Peeler: Constraint-Based Closed Pattern Mining in n-ary Relations (PDF), Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Did I mention that the page has existed for 3½ years. On other projects they attempt to improve the article when they see it. On the English wiki the kneejerk reflex seem to be to attempt to delete it.
Power.corrupts (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
On the twist side of above commentary by Bongo: Merely claiming something isn't notable doesn't make it so. What did you attempt to determine notability, Schuym1? - Mgm| 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Power corrupts comment does not change my mind. Schuym1 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's not my responsibility to find sources to determine an article's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a nominator's responsibility, however. I paged through lots of possible sources of for any presumption of notability (as mentioned in the nomination), but did not find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did mention that, both in your first and second posting. There are two principal issues: The first is the trivial one, that it takes me an awfull lot more effort to find sources, than it takes for you not to find any. And admittedly, I didn't find much, only one "hard" article, and it could rightfully be said, that Knopperdisk is not the centrality of that article.
Second, I would strees that it is too simplistic to view other language Wiki project merely as "mirrors". Many will start as mirrors, and from the dates of creation, this appears also to be the case for this article. But the projects reach a new audience, and may grow in different directions. At the very least, I find it problematic, to AfD an article without consulting these other projects. I have just located the main Spanish contributor es:Usuario:Shooke. I think I will drop him a line asking what he thinks about this AfD. Let's see what happens... Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The mention in Distrowatch is precisely the sort of directory entry that does not demonstrate notability. Bongomatic 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does it "not demonstrate notability" ? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Outreach comment It could be interesting to take this a littel further, just for the fun of experimenting. I have left messages at Editor user pages at the other wiki project, and I will post a general message at the discussion pages there. I will also drop an email to Knoppedisk itself, they should have precisely the type of information Bongomatic is requesting - I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Let see what happens... Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Left this request at their webpage: Sirs, There is currently a discussion at the English Knowledge (XXG) concerning the so-called notability of your software. Apparently, little can be found at the Internet on third party, independent commentary on your product. I wonder if you would like to comment on that discussion, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knopperdisk#Knopperdisk. Remember that your answers must be highly factual and that any claims must meet Wiki's requirements of verifiability. Your answers must not be worded in a way, that they could be interpreted as advertising either. Sincerely, power.corrupts on en.Knowledge (XXG) Power.corrupts (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Bongomatic, how do you demostrate that some software is notable? You say "Unable to find coverage in reliable sources", is false because you "not found reliable source" not demostrate nothing Shooke (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject--like a full review in InfoWorld. See WP:ORG for more details. Bongomatic 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have received a reply from Sander Knopper, the developer of this Operating System. I am waiting for his permission to post it here, I could be meant as personal communication, and I forgot to ask in the first mail. He doesn't actively maintain it any longer, he has little interest in Wiki notability criteria, and he perhaps appears somewhat indifferent, if Wiki has an article or not on Knopperdisk.
I gave it some thought and took a second look at the notability guidelines. Bongomatic, right under you quoted lines the following criteria are listed: Significant coverage is "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"; sources are reliable, certainly verifiable; Independent of the subject - I would say yes to all of them. But above all, I think that Jimmy Wales' vision to "record the world's knowledge" is the guiding principle for me. The article is a factual as it can be, terse, the information is valid and verifiable. I cannot see at all how deletion of this information could add value to Knowledge (XXG). On the other hand, I find it conceivable that the article, if retained, might add value (albeit marginal) to somebody. Perhaps I'm leaning on WP:NOTPAPER, perhaps I'm a hopeless inclusionist, perhaps I'm just hopeless. May I quote from WP:Notability: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sander Knopper now greenlighted that his mail to me is posted here:
Well, if there's not much you can find on the internet regarding my project, than there probably isn't any. Quite frankly, the project is more or less dead, I haven't made a new release for years (I think) and there most likely won't be any in the near future. I use the name "project" on purpose as well here, since I don't think of it as a "product", therefore I also don't try to sell it or whatsoever. So if I can help you with any notability issues you might have, that's fine. But I think I can't be of much help since you seem to have searched quite thorough yourself, right? Anyway, like I said, I don't actively maintain it anymore, though from time to time I give some pointers to people who are interested in it and contact me the same way you have. So I don't really feel like investing that much time in it right now. Quite frankly, I have no interest in reading the notability rules or any other rules the wiki might have, but if you can put up some questions that would help notability, I'm willing to answer them. Best Regards, Sander Knopper. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, listing on Distrowatch is not an indicator of notability. The ability to cross-reference non-notable listings is not a rationale for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). Bongomatic 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Bongomatic, the two other editors appear to think that Distrowatch is an indicator of notability, you do not, either view appears subjective, bordering WP:POV, and neither view has been argued convincingly. I have no opinion on this, but would lean on the great variety of Google hits, that to me are indicative of "general interest". Power.corrupts (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Declined A7 speedy deletion nominee. The article makes no assertion of notability whatsoever, but falls outside the A7 specification. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: mere inclusion of a technology in the Microsoft Windows OS does not merit WP:Notability. There are probably hundreds of such products that have come and gone in such fashion. -- btphelps 23:32, 11 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge discussions (and they may well be appropriate) may occur outside of this Afd. Xymmax So let it be done 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Though an old book, I do not think this particular book is notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) based on WP:BK. It's great as a source, but what makes this book encyclopedic? The author of this Knowledge (XXG) page was involved in the "rediscovery" and "redistribution" of the book electronically, and for that they should be thanked. However, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia article it does not deserve. Use it as a source for fearsome critters, but an entire article devoted to a book so obscure that no copies could be located for a number of years? Also, no notable reviews, awards, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the statement that no copies could be located is hogwash, apparently meant to advertise the reprint. the orig ed. is in 35 university libraries DGG (talk) 22:37, 11 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: The reason why we should preserve this article, which is to say the very reason why I have devoted so much time on this book. Is that this book while seemingly vague as it may or may not be within mainstream literature it is quintessential within in its genre. Without this book we would know essentially nothing today on mythical animals of the United States and that entire field folklore which it covers, a piece of American heritage, most likely would have been lost. I have reworked the article and hopefully more on to the readers satisfaction. My gracious thanks go out to those who help to save this article from deletion. Kudos. --User:Tripodero (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist Anti Cult Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article nominated by Siru108 with comment "Hoax?". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The user who is trying to get this deleted (Siru108) is a member of one of the organisations listed as cults by the BACA. He says on his user page he follows Ole Nydahl's Diamond Way group. It is therefore no surprise that he wants this article removed. His opinion is far from neutral.
    • BACA is supported in it's decisions on these 3 groups by the Non-Governmental Organisation INFORM.
    • See the controversies sections on both Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way.
    • See the 'Separation from contemporary Tibetan Buddhism' section on New Kadampa Tradition.
    • Search Google for Edward Penney.
    • I do beleive this article will be built upon in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandizzle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. Irrespective of the motivation of the original nominator, in order for the article to be kept you'll need to demonstrate that the organization (a) exists in the first place (WP:V) and (b) has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, references in reliable third-party sources (WP:N) - and provide that evidence in the article itself. As things stand, you're not even over the first hurdle. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 14 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Hill (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOTE; I searched Google for this person and came up with nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Since this guy mainly performed in the 50s and 60s I wouldn't be surprised if he can't be found online. (I'm already seeing material disappear about notable stuff from things after 2000). Before anyone deletes this an attempt should be made to check paper sources (I'll contact the original author. - Mgm| 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep - Notability is not lost because the guy is pre-internet. I am trusting the original author on it. However, notability should be proven somehow.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 12 January 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 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like an unsourced obituary of a good guy - local personage, etc. - but not a notable one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: have not been able to turn up anything in the local library on comedians and/or musicians with this name from the mentioned areas. Nothing on the internet either. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wonder if this person may be a hoax. Although it is claimed that he died in 2001, well into the Internet era, no obituaries have turned up on the Internet. Furthermore, the article has virtually no specific details about his entertainment career even though that is supposedly what made him notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm beginning to think.. JamesBurns (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑