Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. This unreferenced WP:BLP should be deleted per WP:BURDEN. —S Marshall /_Cont 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The lack of sources is a serious problem, and I don't think this passes WP:AUTHOR - there is no Gnews hit at all and his books are apparently self-published according to amazon . Given the tone and the content, it might be WP:CSD G11 material, but I'm not very certain. Tim Song (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of coverage much less significant, no awards, no notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice as the article is a tad premature. If/when filming begins, it will make a nice addition to the prject. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Constantine II. Quick fix. Mandsford (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice per nom: shooting hasn't started yet. Cliff smith 04:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - post deletion a redirect per Mandsford might be a good idea, but the movie should probably take the namespace if it ever comes to fruition. Artw (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NFF Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No valid sources besides various dictionaries and phobia lists that such phobia indeed exists. (The reference included in the article says no single word about cymophobia.) In other words, it is just a word, and its place is in wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Either delete or redirect to list of phobias as it did in the past. - SimonP (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• delete unless someone can find a reference to any actual use, otherwise its one of thousands of potential phobias combining latin roots with phobia. (i couldnt find any in a brief search). if found, redirect to and add to list of phobias per simonp.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I searched PubMed, PubMed Central, and Merriam-Webster online, and cannot find the term in any of those resources. At this point, I would support deletion, unless someone can provide a reliable source. ---kilbad (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, in the absence of sources, it fails WP:V. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect: unconfiremd existence of the disease, and no sense to redirect to a page which does not explain the term. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary: lists are for wikipedia articles, not for dicdefs. Mukadderat (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The keeps failed to establish consensus in light of the arguments of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Album track / radio only song. Number 108 in the American Billboard Hot 100 is not notable. PXK /_C 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating:

• Gucci Bandana

• Keep as both songs appear to have charted, passing WP:SONG. DJ 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Both actually only got to the Bubbling Under Hot 100 charts, which are charts of 25 songs that haven't reached top 100 (ie, 8 in BU is 108 on the Hot 100) -- Jordan Payne /_C 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I' 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: per DJ. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't remove my damn !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Song didn't "chart". It was included in a "chart" whose criteria for eligibility is that is can't have made the Billboard Top 100. So it is a ranking of songs that didn't chart. Sort of like being the valedictorian of the special ed class. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the song has charted, and as much as Soulja Boy sucks dick and so does this song, i vote to keep it Str8cash (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to the album. It's a song that charted for songs that didn't chart? That really doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it may have "charted", there is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, per WP:SONGS. Remove the unsourced claims and all you're left with is 2 sentences. Not exactly substantial. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term.  Esradekan Gibb  01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Soulja Boy Tellem (song) only charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, a chart that Billboard no longer archives, making the verifiability impossible. Redirect Gucci Bandana to iSouljaBoyTellem, which charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs; any relevant information can be merged there. — Σxplicit 02:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect Gucci Bandana to iSouljaBoyTellEm. Delete Soulja Boy Tellem (song). The former is a plausible search term and should redirect to the album - the songs themselves do not have sufficient notability for individual articles.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Nominator removing another's vote, citing WP:PER, which is about getting an admin to edit a locked page for you. He meant WP:PERNOM, but neither mention removing votes. WP:TPNO and WP:TPOC do; they expressly forbid it. Add to this the insistence that the Billboard Top 100 is the only possible source to indicate that a song is notable, when the reason is right in WP:MUSIC:("Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.") From the article: "This is one of the four songs that were not released as singles, but were released to radio stations." It got to 108 with airplay alone. That's notability; the article could definitely go past stub, with elaboration on the means by which this was achieved. Therefore only the definition of 'unlikely', as in "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs", is in dispute. Anarchangel (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Holistic wedding planning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was prodded by RHaworth as "non-notable new concept / veiled spam". I supported the prod thus: "A trainwreck of an article. Original research, spammy, poor tone, etc.". Guess how many Google hits the phrase "Holistic wedding planning" gets. Three. Fences&Windows 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: A non-notable concept. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the above. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. BrianY (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Snow delete as nn. Tim Song (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, neologism, blatant advert disguised as article. Created by User:Vbolsoier1; And the Wedding Planner for cited website that contains the only reference to this term is... Vanessa Bolsoier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escape Orbit (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 August 2009

Good hunting. I tried Googling "Bolsoier" but didn't get anything useful. Fences&Windows 13:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Blackfish Publishing. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Non notable magazine. Jeni _(Jenuk1985) 12:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a mainstream magazine launched by a well known publisher/editor. Third party sources have been added, and as it is a new magazine, these sources can reasonably be expected to grow in number. This magazine is also widely available in the UK, and already as a circulation (sourced in article) that beats some other magazines (such as SFX. A similar prod was discussed for sister magazine Death Ray , the result was keep. There isn't any need to delete this article, it can and will be improved and added to as time goes on. At the very least, a merge and redirect to Blackfish Publishing would be better than outright deletion, then at least the page could be recovered if/when notability is less controversial. magnius (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Blackfish Publishing. The only workable source cited is this from the local paper of the town in which they're based. As user:Enric Naval has well-put the point, "local news sources are, well, local ... tend to cover local stuff by saying how inmensely good it is and how innovative it is, with no perspective of how small their local world is in relation to the global thing...." Of course, this is a new magazine, so we perhaps wouldn't expect it to be notable yet. It may go on to great and glorious things, in which case see WP:RECREATE, but for now, see WP:CRYSTAL. A merge and redirect reflects its status today while leaving ample room for an unmerge to reflect changed notability if the magazine prospers.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the fact that this official website for the film Soul Power has chosen to quote the magazine (in reviews section) help its notability? magnius (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gudlaugur Victor Pálsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously WP:PRODded, now recreated. The subject is a 18-year old youngster with no first team appearance at all, who was signed by Liverpool from AGF Aarhus, where he did not make a single first team appearance. Therefore, he fails WP:ATHLETE and is non-notable. Angelo (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, notable player; is in Liverpool's squad Eldumpo (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate when he plays a professional competitive match. Only media coverage so far seems to be for the fact of his signing for Liverpool and a bit of trivia (Steven Gerrard had to play in a young Liverpool team captained by Palsson in a friendly due to his court case). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 08:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete can be restored if he makes a first team appearance. Spiderone (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Dancing on Tables Barefoot. JForget 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable promo single, was also on a couple of albums, but never seems to have charted. Fails WP:NSONG. Drawn Some (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the nom sums up my opinion perfectly. Badger Drink (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dancing on Tables Barefoot. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @921  ·  21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to her album and delete fair-use image. Fails WP:NSONG, no charts/reviews/substantive coverage, only found trivial mention in hotpress. Hekerui (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Hekerui. Crafty (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

This was up for CSD, but it should be discussed just like the two related products. Copernic Desktop Search and Copernic Agent. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be merged, just like Copernic Desktop Search and Copernic Agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - really, I don't think there's anything to merge. This article is a laundry list of specifications and not-reliably-sourced descriptions. There's nothing that the main company article needs from here. --B (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Gnews has 2 entries for this article, both press releases. I agree with B that there's not enough information of value to even bother with a merge. -- Atama 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – At the least it would need a complete re-write. There are no sources except for the company web site, and I can't find any secondary sources. So there's nothing to re-write it from, and it's not notable. Rees11 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Teh current edition of the article is part advertisement and part product spec sheet with nothing useful to merge to the company article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is about a concept, "structured wiki", that doesn't seem to have ever been defined in a notable source. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to have caught on as a concept the way, say, semantic wiki has. I can't find any examples from scholarly works or the mainstream press that describe such a concept. This might be because the idea is nebulous: as the article itself notes, even a supposedly unstructured wiki like MediaWiki contains categories that can give it structure. It's also not obvious, either from the article or from other online sources, whether the term refers to wikis that contain built-in structures, like blogs and bug-tracking tools; or wikis that allow you to create your own data structures; or both. In short, it's a term that's never been clearly defined and seems to never have been in wide use in the first place. Yaron K. (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be original reserach. Triplestop x3 02:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. per WP:OR, WP:DICTIONARY, fails to assert notability. -- RUL3R 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be made up. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for made up violent acts. Triplestop x3 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete -- violates WP:MADEUP --mhking (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• This entry is not something is made up. I can think of at least 6 people that know of its existence. DO NOT DELETE!!! (````) — Forgetmyface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:MADEUP. (I know of no speedy deletion criteria that this satisfies). Jujutacular _contribs 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, or WP:VAN—your choice. Rankiri (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• While there is a real martial arts technique of the same name, this ain't it. Delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't think that someone with 'no notable achievements' needs an entry, just because he plays on a major team does not make him notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I doubt this will be deleted, he has played in games for two NFL teams. His injury lead to a rule change, the banning of the horse-collar tackle which is interesting to me and I don't follow sports. If I were nominating athletes for deletion, I would start with players who never actually played a pro game. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn per WP:SNOW.

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Graphing vertical transverse waves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

How-to essay, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: a deproded this a while back for transfer to wikibooks, which was done on June 18th. (See b:Transwiki:Graphing vertical transverse waves) I guess I forgot to follow up on that and remove the Knowledge (XXG) article. The page can now be deleted, turned into a soft redirect to Wikibooks, or redirected to a related article. Whichever that is deemed most appropriate is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This belongs better on Wikibooks than here. It doesn't look like we can speedy delete it per WP:CSD#A5 until we have an actual discussion, though. I don't see the point in keeping a soft redirect, though: the title is already too much how-to for here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I think Eppstein-San has the right idea here. More suited to Wikibooks. Crafty (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, for all articles. The core delete argument is that there are "no third-party indications of notability" and that has not really been challenged. One editor suggests keeping GG IV, but did not provide evidence of coverage in secondary sources, which is still required even for printed books. If such coverage actually exists, I'd be willing to userfy that article. If any of these works eventually are covered in reliable sources, recreating them could be reconsidered.

I'm not bothering to create redirects after deleting, and will leave that matter up to editorial discretion as to whether it's helpful to do that.

Also to Tkech, sorry if this was a disheartening experience for you, and don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if your have further questions about how this process unfolded. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Grantville Gazette V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantville Gazette VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantville Gazette VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantville Gazette X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantville Gazette XIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantville Gazette XV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantville Gazette XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette VIII, I am listing the following Grantville Gazettes for deletion. I am only focusing on the ones are available online only and without any print version, as that may be significant. Again no third-party indications of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all and redirect to The Grantville Gazettes. Ray 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete All per Ricky; good work. Things are looking up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom, most of them have C&P content about the Gazettes as a whole which can be found on the main Gazette page and the ones that are more than just a chapter list are borderline copyvio in detail. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to point out Grantville Gazette IV is available in hardcover. Do you still wish to delete that as well even though you are only focusing on the online versions? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll keep it here. I wanted to list I, II, and III as well, but if there doesn't seem to be anyone caring about the publication history, that'll clear that concern up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Grantville Gazette 76.66.202.123 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all EXCEPT IV - I think the series is notable enough that the Gazettes that are actually published can keep their own articles. There is no doubt that IV needs some work done to it, starting with deleting the sections on the series and the Gazette's in general, but that is minor. Also I was able to find third party sources for Grantville Gazette III and there may be more for the other published ones. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and clean it up. (I will bold some of my remarks, not to be taken as shouting, simply to emphasize some points.) I am not sure if it's wikipedia policy to discriminate against electronic editions of books. Electronic books ARE the coming thing, it's not something to be discounted or ignored. They are not less legitimate than hardcopy books. People are paying $6.00 a book for these, just like in the stores. I see these just like any other book article that is included in wikipedia, and I've seen hundreds. A story collection article typically lists each story and the author, and possibly a short summary. As far as notability, the Grantville Gazettes are a unique type of literature that hasn't really been done before: a collaborative universe, participation of hundreds of people online, interweaving of storylines between the novels and short stories, all written by different authors, and inclusion of factual articles about transplanting current technology back in time ... I believe these things make the e-books "notable".

I agree that there is some repetitive stuff in the individual gazette articles that can be removed. In the past I have only hesitated to scrub these clean because I wasn't sure if someone would feel strongly about me gutting them. I avoid turf wars at all costs. But if they are inactive enough for you all to be tossing them out left and right, I guess nobody will mind if I fix them.

In the meantime, I am extremely disappointed that 10+ 1632 articles have already been rammed through the deletion process with only a week's time allowed for voting. I was only notified about one of the votes, and several were already closed when I got the message. These seem to have been started on 24 July and closed on 1 August. Some have been started later and closed in the last few days. Is this a fair consideration? Don't know about you, but I don't log in here every day. Is that required in order to be heard? :-(

Already, the 1632 writers article was erroneously voted to be merged into the 1632(novel) article. Unfortunately, the novel was written by just one person - Eric Flint. The dozens of people formerly listed in the now-defunct 1632 writers article produced stories for 20+ ebooks in The Grantville Gazettes series. That's where they should go. Which will make the Gazettes far too long.

The 1632 plot threads article was also erroneously voted to be merged into the 1632(novel) article. Again, unfortunately, this particular novel touches on only one major plot thread, not ALL the plot threads. They apply to the entire 1632 series, both the novels and the gazettes. A fellow wikipedian has kindly moved them to the right place.

The first box at the top of the 1632 series page says:

"This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate. Please consider splitting content
into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject."

Is it helpful for us to be clobbering separate articles, if the main series article where they should be going is already too long and separate articles are recommended?! Lol!

Can someone tell me where to find other deletion nominations for other 1632/Grantville subjects, aside from the Gazettes listed above? I get the feeling that others may close before I find out about them. -.- I'd also like to know where to find the deleted article text, I know it must be in here somewhere.

I heartily agree that a lot of pruning is needed for this group of articles. While some deletions are necessary, I do not believe the right articles are being selected, and yet it's too late for me to do anything about it because they seems to have been rammed through. I am concerned that decisions are being made in the dark, by people who are possibly not familiar enough with the series to make logical choices nor evaluate what's "notable," without giving other wikipedians a chance to speak. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkech (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles get listed for seven days. That's been policy for a while now (it used to be five), and keeping it around for random periods of time based on whether certain editors get around to them isn't feasible. I'm sorry that you haven't been able to see all the discussions going on but the templates have been the bigger concern. As to whether electronic versions are more or less legitimate or "the coming thing", the requirement is that there be independent third-party sources for the articles, and these do not have them. As to the length, the strategy would be to merge everything and remove the stuff that is totally inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

we're most of the way through an eighth day ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

@Tkech: Well you caught my eye with “factual articles about transplanting current technology back in time” — don't worry, I'll not ask for a source on that.

re: the 1632 series being too long; ya. I cut 20kb out there quite easily and the next guy got 5 more. This whole walled garden was way over due for a serious pruning and progress was made. This is going to close as a <del>, too, leaving the books and the still way-overgrown lists of characters; historical and fictional, and a few Gazettes to still consider. And the historic characters are already covered in historical articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Had written my latest post before seeing yours - I seem to always get on just when someone else is around. If being published on paper makes a difference, please be advised that Grantville Gazette V is being released this month 11-25 Aug 2009 in hardcover. Citations (lol): http://www.simonandschuster.net/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=651310 and http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/f/eric-flint/grantville-gazette-volume-v.htm

I would personally rather see the character articles deleted and the book articles kept. The Grantville milieu has 3500 "uptime" person-characters available in the genealogical hierarchy created by Virginia DeMarce, based on the size of real-life town Mannington Virginia. (Tho obviously not all of these can be "notable".) I agree, historical figures are well-documented already - the fact that their actions differ in the alternate history can be more of a "major plot point" (such as King Gustav of Sweden not dying at Alta Veste, which has major ramifications). The lists of short stories in the books (plus a sentence or two on the plot setup) are what I want to preserve. With all of the junk pulled out, these would be manageable articles.

I lol'd about the factual articles. I drafted a reply but I guess it's off-topic for this discussion. :-P I *am* happy about the template deletions, they were impossible to work with. It sounds like the vote is complete in your mind already: "This is going to close as a <del>". It's not like I'm new to wikipedia, I just avoid stuff like this because it's usually not important enough to get into a turf war. But I am finding these deletions of more concern. Tkech (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

3500 characters? No wonder there are so many links to anchors that don't exist on those pages. The historical list should go as duplicative of the real articles and the other one pared way back. We're not here to regurgitate the plot of this stuff; what's notable is what the real historical figures did and such. The Gazettes warrant mebbe the one article on them as a batch — and we have that The Grantville Gazettes; these are full of copyvios, too: see here. My comment about the close was based on the preponderance of the opinions above and the fact that the close of this discussion is already overdue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See, I disagree with what should be coming and going here. I'm in process of gutting http://en.wikipedia.org/Grantville_Gazette_IV (although I realize that it won't influence anyone at all, I wanted to show what I felt the articles should be like.) The point of listing the Gazette stories is that each plot event grows and develops and becomes interwoven with the others. The same thing that makes a fictional character article impossible to maintain is what makes the Gazette story lists entirely manageable. There are now twenty-four volumes of the Grantville Gazette, and cross-referencing these back through the characters would be ... um, really hard. In the case of Grantville, I believe it's not the characters themselves that are important, but how they interact with the 1632 environment. I dunno, I guess I'm just spitting in the wind here. I wish I could explain this better. I realize that at this point I'm just perceived as some idiot who "just doesn't understand how wikipedia works". I know it's not allowed to point at dozens of other anthology articles on wikipedia that list the stories in them. I realize that none of you are required to have read the series, nor understand what is involved (such as the number of potential fictional characters I cited above, or any of the complexities involved in the decisions being made from an ivory tower.) I can claim that I understand what 'notable' means on wikipedia till I'm blue in the face, and am resigned that I'll get no more than a pat on the head ("now don't you worry your pretty little head about it.") It's quite discouraging. Tkech (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Ludacris. Content is retained for attribution and for when this is (inevitably) properly recreated. Keeper | 76 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources are given for any information. SE KinG. _Talk. 19:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No tracklist or references. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. --RadioFan (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Confirmed by both the artist and record label. Str8cash (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The title is confirmed, yes. But the producers and featured guests are not. SE KinG. _Talk. 03:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The only referencable information is the title and the artist's name. Everything else is speculation, nothing to retain here. It may be notable in the future but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect and protect. Redirect to Ludacris and fully protect as the title was confirmed, but aside from that, everything else is speculation. Can be unprotected once more information is revealed. — Σxplicit 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is confirmed, but the tracklisting, producers and featured artists are pure speculation. --Taylor Karras (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ludacris, per above, until additional details are available. Because the title has been confirmed and announced, it is a plausible search term. Vicenarian 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Largely unsourced, no track listing, no significant coverage by reliable sources and vague release date. Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes; NAC. POKERdance /contribs 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Tale of Laughing in the Dark (Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although the plot summary is expanded, this new article duplicates information already in List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. Tckma (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @846  ·  19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to the list of episodes. Fails WP:EPISODE. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect this episode is not notable. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Prod declined by IP, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN, Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. Jujutacular _contribs 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @848  ·  19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @848  ·  19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - a quick search hasn't found any sources to confirm anything other than that he's running. Will of course reconsider if sourcing can be provided to satisfy WP:GNG. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and is not covered beyond the campaign. Why can IP's contest prods, but not complete AfD's anyway? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability is not established.  Frank  |  talk  04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• weak delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN at present. Returns a total of zero google news hits If he is elected or if the situation changes we can undelete then. (The only reason this is weak delete is that I have some tiny preference for waiting until after elections to bother deleting such articles). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sources seem somewhat sparse and generally related to the failed campaign(s), but there is a reasonable argument that enough sources are present nonetheless to pass the notability guideline. Notability is perhaps borderline here, but there is no solid consensus to delete. ~ mazca 21:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The subject is a a banker who campaigned for U.S. Congress in 2008 and lost. He apparently did the same in 2006 and the article was deleted after that election. Other than routine local coverage and brief candidate profiles there does not appear to be any significant media coverage of his campaign or his life. The article was written by someone who says he worked for Ellman's campaign.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - subject is of no great importance (lost both elections), but I feel he does meet the GNG through sources such as FoxNews profile, Washington Post story about his 1st run, Arlington Connection story about 2008 race, and so on (see: , but note there are several false positives). Also was interviewed by California Chronicle which may or may not be a blog. Certainly there are many more notable politicians but I feel this one meets our inclusion guidelines, if only just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Changed to keep due to BrianY's expansion & other improvements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @849  ·  19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I am a big editor of House elections page. From previous AFDs, all failed congressional candidates articles have always been deleted or redirected. However, in this particular circumstance, there was a lot of media on this campaign and it had Tillson as the campaign manager. (the youngest person ever to take on such a job) BrianY (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you add the media coverage you found? The stuff that ThaddeusB linked to above doesn't seem more than any congressional candidate would receive.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? I shall get you more media coverage of Ellmore later today. In the mean time, why don't you look up Arizona congressional candidate John Thrasher and see how much media he received. (That particular article should be deleted) What about Greg Conlin of California's 12th congressional district? BrianY (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what point you're making. What about Conlin?   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • They are all (Ellmore, Thrasher, and Conlon) unsuccessful congressional candidates from 2008. Now compare the media coverage of all three. You'll find that Ellmore (as mentioned above from ThaddeusB ) has way more media coverage than Thrasher or Conlon. I could only find this on Conlon. So, if there is this much media coverage on Ellmore, it is worth keeping. BrianY (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks for that. But there are 435 members of the House, and so there are nearly that many failed candidates every two years, or abot 2,000 every decade. I don't doubt that some of them are notable, but I just don't see much coverage for this guy. If you can find more and add it to the article then that'd help establish his notability. The fact that this one has received a little more coverage than a couple of others doesn't seem convincing on its own.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Another reason to keep is his notable campaign attacks that various blogs and newspapers picked up. (The Washington Post) The article already mentions that. Candidates like Ethan Berkowitz, Jay Love, Josh Segall, and Dan Seals are all notable and they lost campaigns this decade. BrianY (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure why we'd consider Joshua Segall to be notable. Ethan Berkowitz seems to be a well-established figure in Alaskan politics and his notability isn't solely tied to his congressional run. Likewise Jay Love seems more notable for being a state legislator than a failed congressional candidate. Dan Seals (Illinois politician) appears to have received significnatly more media coverage than Ellmore. I don't think that being mentioned in blogs confers notability. If Ellmore has been discussed in newspapers then let's add those.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I am too busy to add information into the article right now. You can start with the ones ThaddeusB used including the Washington Post, Fox News, and Arlington Connection. Here are some I just found by googling his name: American Chronicle, Washington Post, The Next Right, Virginia Podcasting, Source Watch, Red Virginia, Bearing Drift, Blacknell Interviewing, Old Atlantic Light House, and plenty of more blogs and news stories to look at. This story (Mark Ellmore news) garnered 27,500 hits on google, while Dan Seals for example only got 26,100 hits. BrianY (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • • We already discussed some of those on the talk page and found them to be blogs. Of that list, the American Chronicle is the same as the California Chronicle, a sort of distributor of self-published opinions. Sourcewatch is an open wiki, Virginia Podcasting Network is a pod/blog, The Next Right is a blog, Red Virginia is a blog, Bearing drfit is a blog, Blacknell.net is a blog, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse is a blog. That leaves only the Washington Post. The piece in the WaPo is very short, it's not really about Ellmore, and for them this was a local race so I don't think it qualifies as national coverage.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • BTW, a narrower Google search brings in 310 hits for Ellman. Many of those appear to be summaries or lists of candidates.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You'll see my response to blogs on your talk page. I have used them and not seem to come into trouble. BrianY (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Some candidates are most often talked about on blogs. Does that make them unnotable just by themselves? By the way the Alexandria Gazette Packet has an article on the race here. BrianY (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If everyone and everything that are discussed on blogs got WP articles this encyclopedia would be twice as large. The Gazette Packet article is about the race, but it's not about Ellmore, and it says little about him beyond outside of discussing the primary campaign, and only about two paragraphs in total.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I added two external links. One of them (Source Watch) was considered against policy above, but is on another failed congressional candidates articles such as Josh Segall. BrianY (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails notability. Only mentions are related to his failed campaigns. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Sorry, Losing candidate with the only coverage by third party sources having to do with the election. The one he lost. Does not meet the primary notability criterion. If he wins in 2010, more than welcome to include here in Knowledge (XXG). Until then sorry. Thanks ShoesssS 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Failing to win an election doesn't automatically disqualify one, it just means you must meet the GNG, which appears to be the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - I’m sorry, it looks like you missed my comment on the Notability As it pertains to the primary notability criterion. , which I believe you call “GNG” In reviewing the references, I was able to find, I found nothing at all Unrelated from the election. In this case, unless notability can be established outside of “just running for office”, I have to express a delete opinion. Take care, and good luck to Mr. Ellmore's next campaign. ShoesssS 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  No I understood what you said, but there is no requirement in the current guidelines that say a person who was noted for running an election campaign, but lost is not notable. In other words, there is no requirement that coverage be unrelated to the election - as long as the coverage is about the person (in this case it is) - instead of the election in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - What you overlooked is that trying to establish notability under a failed run for office, and the coverage it generated falls under coverage based on one event. As policy shows, by following the just mentioned blue link: "...When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Hope this helps in explaining my view. Thanks ShoesssS 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  We're going to have to just agree to disagree. As it states "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." We don't have an article about the event currently, just the person. If there was an article about the event I might say redirect, but there isn't so I say keep. (Although there are actually two events here as he ran twice so far.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - LOL- absolutely right :-). That is what I love about Knowledge (XXG), you express opinions, and hopefully, you get the majority on your side. ShoesssS 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Media mentions as listed above qualify this article. I don't see what my work on the Ellmore campaign has to do with anything, as referenced by the deletion initiator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, at first (before some improvements) it appeared that many things that were wrote were not sourced correctly. Presumably, an insider would know his positions whether or not they were in the media. Check out this as well, though I don't think it's extremely relevant. BrianY (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Mark Ellmore lost two elections, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article on Knowledge (XXG). His running for the elections has generated at least two reliable sources. The first, from the Washington Post, is an in-depth article about his campaign. The second, from the Gazette Packet covers his victory in the Republican primary. These reputable sources allow him to pass WP:BIO, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable physician. Scholarly publications do exist, but they do not appear to rise to the level of WP:ACADEMIC, and notability is not otherwise shown by either a Google Books or Google News search. I do see a bunch of citations in the article, but they don't show notability. He may well have a bright, WP:NOTABLE future ahead of him, but I don't see it demonstrated right now.  Frank  |  talk  18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• ___this page should be kept_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karly2002 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - Could I ask you why you think the article should be kept? Favonian (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Only one cite. Karly2002 has edited only on this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• This page should be kept. I have worked with this physician. His research is actually very important. He is at the forefront of pancreatic cancer research and his lab has recently been awarded a major NIH grant. His case studies have been featured at numerous ACS conferences. Just look him up on Google. -Dr. Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.179.190 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.179.190 (talk • contribs) has edited only on this article. Xxanthippe

• Delete per nom. He may have done valuable research there are not enough secondary sources cited to back the claim to notability. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Subject requests deletion as written on Talk:Elliot Servais: I am Elliot Servais. While I appreciate the notion that someone feels I merit a page on this website, I would like this page to be deleted. The bulk of what is written is true; however, there is also misinformation on this page. Furthermore, I prefer the details of my career and personal life to remain private. I would kindly request the webmaster or other authorized administrator of "Knowledge (XXG)" to remove this page. To whomever put this up, please do not be offended and I do appreciate the notion. Thank you. (Diff). Lara 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and subject request. Lara 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Rationale: The closing editor does not find it to be conclusively shown that the topic is non-notable. Opinions about the weight of existing sources establishing notability are evenly divided. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ADVERT. Fails notability. There is one Times Online article that briefly talks up this company, and their name is mentioned in a bare handful of news articles reporting particular legal cases, but none give enough reason for notability. Dbratland (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I couldn't find coverage via Google News or Google Books either. tedder (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The Times Online article is sufficient for notability. One really good source is enough.DGG (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as this article is little more than a public relations exercise. A mere metention in two news stories is not evividence of notability. There is no significant coverage to indicate that this firm of solicitors has participated in a notable court cases, nor has it any notable staff or partners, nor is the firm itself notable in any way (size, history, development, campaigning or research), and falls well short of the requirements of WP:CORP. Articles based purely on news coverage fall outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG), especially news stories which are promotional in tone and content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The Times Online article doesn't really provide significant coverage IMO, it just cheers them for having a cute name and a nice looking webiste. Other than that, fails WP:ORG. Ray 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Found two articles of coverage relating via Google News. Notable with respect to its specialist and unique field of practice in serving an often misuderstood and maligned group of road users. To quote WP:ORG "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information...smaller organizations can be notable...arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations" Motorbike1 (talk) 11:21, 05 August 2009 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although bulk voting does not bode well with me. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aja (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject does not even come close to meeting any of the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor is there otherwise the faintest hint of conceivable notability. The article consists of a single sentence, one reference link to something called "the internet adult film database" (in order to establish she worked in adult films), and two External Links to porn sites, one of which is a dead link. Please check out this article yourself; I defy anyone to suggest it is notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. --Pstanton (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (see below) All sources are trivial. Jujutacular _contribs 21:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The Excaliburfilms page states "Aja won Starlet of the Year awards from every major industry organization at one time or another during her stellar career." If that can be substantiated, she would meet pornbio. Looks like she was also the subject of a comic book She's also been a director, for what that's worth. What's with the scornful, skeptical mention of the Internet Adult Film Database in the nom? The LukeFord link is archived It states she was "1988 XRCO and AVN Starlet of the Year" and "set up her own porn company, Golden Orchid Productions." Шизомби (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like there's been a history of poor editing of the article. diff removed her religion and diff removed most of the bio (even though the source was given in the list of sources, just not specifically tied to each piece of information) and recent vandalism diff| removed the awards. KevinOKeeffe, you might have checked this and checked internet archive for the bad Luke Ford link before nominating this, and on top of that ridiculing it... and you're running for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees?

Шизомби (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, I'm running for the Board of Trustees alright, and one of the reasons I'm doing so is because I'm frankly sick and tired of this site being abused by people who think an encyclopedia ought to be employed as a repository of data on their favourite pornographic film actors. Its absolutely disgusting that we have something on the order of 1,000+ porn actor articles, when there probably aren't more than a a few dozen (and I'm being charitable with that figure) who genuinely merit authentic notability. Unfortunately, we're constrained by the present WP:Pornbio strictures, which are far, far too lenient, yet even by those grossly indulgent standards, this "Aja" person's article doesn't even come close to achieving what is presently deemed notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, Luke Ford is not a reliable source. See Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pornography#Useful links. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. What 86.142.164.55 links above states "As a blog site, it cannot be used as a reliable source, except for its audio and video interviews. However, the site does provide links to some reliable sources." What is linked is a bio and printed interview, and it doesn't appear to be a blog posting. Is doubt being raised as to whether their printed interviews are reliable? As to KevinOKeefe's comment, way to make assumptions again! I'd never heard of Aja before. I was just able to easily determine that the article had been desiccated and that she meets PORNBIO as written; we can argue at PORNBIO as to whether that guideline needs improvement (I think it does). The timing of a one-time anonymous IP editor deleting on July 27 the awards that established PORNBIO (even described in the history as "(Tag: references removed)"!) and the July 28 proposal for deletion stating "The subject of this article does not appear to meet any of the criteria outlined in WP:Pornbio, nor does the subject otherwise appear to achieve notability" and the July 30 AfD emphatically stating she doesn't meet PORNBIO is mighty convenent, though not necessarily telling. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored, or anyway it's not supposed to be; I'm sorry you find it "disgusting." You might reread (at least!) WP:BEFORE (regarding the inappropriateness of your nom in this case) and WP:NOTCENSORED. If you're not willing to follow the policies and guidelines as written you might consider Conservapedia? Шизомби (talk)

• Comment Encyclopedias are not intended as storehouses for the minutiae of every minor adult film performer. Any person with a lick of common sense understands this implicitly. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said they were "storehouses for the minutiae of every minor adult film performer" (unless it's an encyclopedia of pornography, which Knowledge (XXG) is not). "Any person with a lick of common sense understands this implicitly."? Hmm. Шизомби (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Шизомби (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There is no inherent notability for strippers or performers in pornography. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Easily passes WP:BIO through her notable awards. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of her AVN Award satisfying WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sails through WP:PORNBIO at the first attempt due to winning AVN Award. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Based on recent changes. Policy is policy. We can't go by what we wish policy was. Jujutacular _contribs 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article can be cleaned up. It will take longer since the bulk of her film says were pre-internet. That doen not make it less noteworthy it just makes the research take longer. Web Warlock (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Three votes to Keep in thirteen minutes? Sounds like someone is violating WP:Canvassing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll venture a guess the Wikiproject notice might have brought people in. Regardless, far more than three votes to keep in thirteen minutes is hardly unheard of, and frankly that degree of involvement is desirable. It's regrettable when there is limited participation in AfDs, or when people participating have limited or no knowledge of the subject and/or have an open disdain for Knowledge (XXG)'s written policies and guidelines. I'd again invite you to participate more constructively in rewriting the guideline if you can conceive of and rationally argue for something better. I am certain the current guideline is not the best possible one, and I may even agree with your suggestions. I agree with you, for example, that there are many notable crackpots who should have articles on Knowledge (XXG), but don't. Canvassing? WP:GOODFAITH. Шизомби (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment KevinOKeeffe Please assume good faith when constructing your AfD replies. I have never been canvassed for votes in my editing life, and wouldn't pay attention to it even if I were. Thanks Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete - thiese articles are beneath contempt. nnot only is theyre subject matter unnotable (not everyone in porn is famous just because they are mentieoned in a database!!! thats like saying that every actor mentioned in imdb is notable!!!!) Unless someone can find sources that are actually still alive and arent user-generated repositories or dead links that no longer link anywhere, they should be deleted. save the articles to the ones that meet WP:PORNBIO that actually have some notability outside of internet porndstar databnases. Smith Jones 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Easily passes PORNBIO due to the award win. I Don't Like it is not a justifiable reason for an AfD.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Suggest an administrator look into the nominator's recent pointy nominations. Aside from evidence of the nominator's personal crusade, article meets basic notability requirements for inclusion. Chuthya (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Winning awards establishes notability. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with the awards. —Disavian (/_contribs) 07:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:PORNBIO. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, receipt of an award issued by a highly notable trade organization confers notability here just as it would for an article concerning a person not involved in the adult entertainment industry; a bare distaste for the article's subject matter does not justify the abandonment of our usual standards for inclusion. Erik9 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE like Callum Reynolds and other pages made by this user - Spiderone (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete player has not played in a fully-professional league. Thus fails WP:ATHLETE. Lack of any independent sources means he fails WP:GNG too. --Jimbo 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and reinforced by the extremely POV language of the article, e.g. "promising young winger who has come through the youth team ranks. Able to play on either flank. Sam has pace, flair and an eye for goal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskaton (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom RP459 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, played a number of games for one of the biggest teams in a notable league Eldumpo (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Conference is notable, yes, but not all the players there are notable. This has been discussed before. Spiderone (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am the creater of this page and think i have done a good job and have added a reference to his page, what harm is the page doing? Oxford United are a proffesional team and full time players so i think it should be kept.Bazzhard (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I see no reason for this to be kept and for other very similar Conference players' articles to be deleted. Spiderone (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment But is there a reason for it to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzhard (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment Yes there is, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Spiderone (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment Okay i understand that so this page may be deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hyphy. JForget 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability; the purpose of this article is probably promotional and not encyclopedic snigbrook (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hyphy. The ref states the only difference is the East Coast v. West Coast, and a quick search on Hyphey Movement (with the 'e') suggests that it is a common mis-spelling of Hyphy. Arakunem 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Arakunem, RP459 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect per other users. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. clearly obvious that the delete arguments are much more stronger, not to mention the WP:SPA as well JForget 23:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Apparently non-notable band. Third-party coverage looks rather trivial; apart from that, contains links to blogs and official pages of the band (Myspace, Facebook, Youtube etc.). Only one album released so far. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. I nominated a previous incarnation of this for speedy yesterday WuhWuzDat 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Altough non-notable, all content in conformity of what a particular article should have. 122.2.214.243 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — 122.2.214.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Above comment was originally place on the talk page of the article in question. I have copied it here to facilitate the deletion debate. I have no oppionion on this page myself. Feinoha 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. indie band notable. should be reconsidered.Colchisdelight (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Colchisdelight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep, notable underground. 122.2.223.50 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — 122.2.223.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep just consider. Notable as independent artist via search engine and local news article.

Malttexture|talk) 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Malttexture (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep.Well researched. Notable independent artist. Mymusictrip (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Mymusictrip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial coverage, meets none of the WP:N or WP:MUSIC criteria, not signed with any label, let alone a notable one, single album release, no evidence of notable tours or singles, etc. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. The band name makes searching for notability difficult (confusion with a movie called "Childstar" and many "child star" actors). A better use of keywords gets some searches revealing very little coverage, while a different search gets plenty of hits. Fishing between all the MySpace, Facebook, MP3, Lyrics sites, etc. there seems to be little in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources -the Manila Times reference is just one article, so I suppose that is not significant coverage. The references provided, might do more for the article if they were proper inline references to online sources that readers could use to verify the claimed notability. Astronaut (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsigned. End of story. Starczamora (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find evidence to prove that he's played for Orlando Pirates so he seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Joevannie Peart for proof as to why the Vietnamese club doesn't make him notable. Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep based on new evidence presented by Camw that shows this player has played in a game in a fully-professional league; he therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Article here mentions the player (Philani Kubheka) playing in a Castle Premiership match (name for the top level competition in South Africa from 1996–2007) for the Orlando Pirates. Camw (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, above link confirms he has played in South African top level Eldumpo (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Camw's findings. Athlete appears notable and passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gráinne Mhic Géidigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable member of state body who fails WP:POLITICIAN. No notability established from reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Non notable local councillor and unsuccessful election candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN No apparent coverage in reliable third party sources unrelated to his unsuccessful candidacy. Valenciano (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Potential discussion of a possible merge should take place on a relevant talkpage - not enough of a consensus here for a merge, specifically. Keeper | 76 05:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No notability outside of the Digimon universe. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  19:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per sources in Google News andGoogle Books. No evidence of WP:BEFORE attempts, flagging for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Which of those sources do you feel is reliable and substantial enough to confer notability? J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As you nominated it for deletion, it's your responsibility to go through those sources and explain why none of them convey notability. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'll start with today's edition of the New York Times shall I? First article doesn't mention Leomon... J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In case you missed my point, I can't prove a negative. Show me what you consider to be decent sources here, and they can be judged. Even better, improve the article... If you get some real-world stuff in there from a few decent sources, I'll happily drop the nomination. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--Pedro thy master (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Let this page stay. If he is a principal Digimon in any season, he shouldn't be deleted. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: He is a major character in the first three season storylines(1 and 3).Fractyl (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge it really makes no difference, as long as the full information is retained. The one thing not to do is delete. DGG (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and keep a redirect since the other group character articles likely took info from that main article. He's been a somewhat notable character (in respects to the series he was in) for four different anime seasons/series, and at least one or two mangas. This definitely warrants some kind of mention somewhere, but we lack some real world context to expand Leomon's coverage into something that would need a separate article. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He is quite a notable character in the series. Dream Focus 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per sources in Google News andGoogle Books. Needs referencing and out of universe info though. Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: These mindless assertions about notability are useless and do not help anything. If you're so convinced he's notable, provide some sources here (don't just link to lists of forums- yes, this rubbish was on Google News...) or, even better, improve the article. If he's as important as you're all claiming, it shouldn't be difficult to provide some out of universe stuff to the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge He's notable in the series and the fan community, but I doubt he's had enough of an impact to create the sources we're looking for. The only "source" I could think of was this, and I'm not sure that's what we're looking for. If he can't have his own article, then I suggest we merge it with some of his fellow Chosen Digimon. Gagbumon (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest possible delete. Seriously, stop pointing at Google searches and actually look at the so-called sources! There are a massive 12 Google News hits for +Leomon AND digimon, all of them fan forums or episode summaries, except this:, which is not exactly enough to write an article around as it is a brief mention. As for books, a whopping 14 hits, half of which are those damned computer generated Webster's books, and the rest of which look distinctly unpromising, but I can't access them. Transwiki anything you want kept to http://digimon.wikia.com/Leomon and delete. This character has no independent notability. Fences&Windows 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:...wikia is not your dumping ground, and you should really check that the wikia article isn't already better before suggesting as much. However, the article is a very likely search term for readers looking about information on Digimon, and should not be deleted but instead merged to List of characters in Digimon Adventure, Jeri Katou, and List of characters in Digimon Tamers, and then redirected to whichever is the most useful.08:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.192.235 (talk)
• Delete as non-notable, unsourced fiction regurgitation from a commercial franchise. Knowledge (XXG) is not a fansite. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

After two unsuccessful speedy deletion attempts, I'm putting this up for AFD because this "song" is of highly dubious existence. Google search yields no reliable, relevant results. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

VERY weak delete - There might be some references in a different language, the deletion should not take place if those can be found. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I'd like to nominate these articles for the same reason:

• Sexy Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mírame A Los Ojos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Provocative (Niurka Marcos song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Un Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Provocating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• La Emperadora Re-Evaluada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ámame Toda La Noche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• La Emperadora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all unverifiable Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

VERY weak delete on these as well. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete - Most AfD discussions that I've been involved in are debating whether the article subject is notable enough to merit inclusion based on the coverage in reliable sources. In this case, we can't even verify with confidence that these songs even exist! -- Atama 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not verifiable, not notable. Triplestop x3 18:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Need For Speed: XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Until the game comes with full press release. This game is not totally confirmed. This article can be recreated once it is "Fully" announced. SkyWalker (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. I fully agree. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. From IGN: While this game has been confirmed as a product in development, the game has not been officially announced for any specific platform and may or may not be planned for release on this console. Please check back for official info. — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the only thing we know for sure that the game is probably still being designed by Criterion Games. We don't even know such essential details as its title, platforms or approximate release date. — Rankiri (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply not enough info about it yet to warrant its own article. --MrStalker  22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above; title and release date aren't even verified yet. Cliff smith 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Burnout 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No official announcement. Everything in the article is entire speculation. Fails various guidelines beginning with Notability SkyWalker (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete until there is an official announcement or something. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this unverified speculation. Cliff smith 17:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. See IGN's Burnout Next (untitled): About This Game — Rankiri (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per crystal. --MrStalker  22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL--  Dspradau → talk  16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1) Consensus is that a category should be created. 2) There is no consensus as to whether the list should be deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of films about the RMS Titanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trvial list of Titanic movies that are all listed within Category:RMS Titanic already. Suggest deletion of article and possbile creation of dedicated category for films based upon the tragedy. magnius (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Convert to category. Having it as a list gives no added value vs having it as a category. — QuantumEleven 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Convert to category. Per nominator and quantum. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see what makes the list trivial. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing, & this list dooes--it will help people recall what film they have in mind. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Convert to category. per above. -- RUL3R 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Given that the sinking of RMS Titanic has been a favorite of moviemakers over the last 97 years, it's notable enough to be a topic. The suggestion of a "conversion" to category suggests that one has to make a choice between one format or another. I think we list people can show some tolerance and let people make a category in addition to this list, since there isn't one now. There's no reason that this can't we can add a category in addition to being a list WP:CLN. A category wouldn't include any information other than the name of a film, with no information about date of release, director, actors, etc, etc. While I think that categories are a grossly inefficient and slow way to navigate, and I've never understood their appeal, I recognize that some people prefer them to lists, and I will not nominate that in the "Categories for Deletion" forum. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN and DGG. Lugnuts (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Convert to category. Being the person who made this article, I can now agree that this should be converted to a category. I was an amateur Knowledge (XXG) editor at the time and knew little about categories. Superior1 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way about something you created, but there are other persons who have made improvements to this article over the last two years as well. I just don't understand why people who like categories seem (to me anyway) to be so intolerant of having information presented any other way. I seldom use the little category tags at the bottom of an article, unless there's not a page that has the info at a glance. But I'm glad they're available for people who prefer that method when they explore Knowledge (XXG). Duplicate this in the form of a category if you wish, but the only delete argument I've seen so far is from the nominator, on grounds that he believes that the topic is trivial. From what I can tell, Magnius suggests that it would be no less trivial for a category. Mandsford (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, but nothing wrong with having a category as well. The category doesn't annotate or sort the films in chronolgical order. The films covering the Titanic disaster were well covered in media when the 1997 film was released. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• You know, I change mind. Move. to List of films based on the RMS Titanic and have de category as well. -- RUL3R 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Convert to category. There aren't that many films about RMS Titanic anyway, and as such, I don't really think a list like this should be kept as an article. We might as well start making articles like List of films about the Tay Bridge Disaster. --Crablogger (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of opinion about whether seventeen films would be many or few. I'm hard pressed to think of another story that has been retold that many times on the silver screen. Has there been a film about the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879? I know there was a legendarily awful poem about it. Still, if it's not enough to merit a list, then it isn't enough to merit a category either. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Lists can organize information in ways that categories cannot. Edward321 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Nederlander Organization. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability and appears to have been primarily edited by a COI account made by the corporation. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The company has received some coverage ( ), but it feels very weak to me. The article does not establish notability. I will frankly admit that this is a borderline case, and the article will need some work if it survives AfD. — QuantumEleven 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect and/or merge - The article is a copyright violation of the company's web site, created by a COI account for promotional purposes as noted above. A Gnews search for the company shows 87 hits from major publications on the company, but there is already a Nederlander Organization article. I would suggest redirecting this article to that one, as they are pretty much one and the same. Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment is simply distributing the Nederlander company's productions overseas. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to deletion either, but I think a redirect is more appropriate since the "Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment" name is known and might be searched for. It might also be worth adding a small section to the Nederlander Organization article about their worldwide distribution arm. -- Atama 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I missed the OTRS notice on the talk page, so it's not a copyvio. -- Atama 15:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect and/or merge – Not notable on its own, and the text is all copied from the corporate web site. At most it deserves a paragraph in the Nederlander Organization article. Rees11 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• merge into the already existing article--a considerably fuller and better article. DGG (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per the above, easiest solution. ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge basic info + redirect to parent article = perfect solution. — Athaenara ✉ 09:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Forthcoming Britney Spears' studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. Referenced only by speculative fan sites and primary sources. Likely notable once released but not today. Delete per Knowledge (XXG):TenPoundHammer's Law RadioFan (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm skipping the prod step and going straight to AFD in anticipation of snow.--RadioFan (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm kind of new, I just stumbled across the page in recent changes, but I think it should be deleted (I wanted to speedy but apprantly it didn't fit the categories.) It doesn't have a name... doesn't that violate the cystal ball guidelines? Martin Raybourne (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a future album, or merge to her main page. JJL (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HAMMER Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: looks like another crystal ball to be hammered into oblivion. No title, release date or track list. Cliff smith 17:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUM. I'm not citing WP:HAMMER because it is an essay and not official policy. -- RUL3R 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with deletion, none of these are valid reasons for speedy deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no title, tracklist or release date firmer than "2010" means that this sign adequately sums up my opinion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. And I'll cite WP:HAMMER because it doesn't matter if it is an essay or not, it sums it all up nicely. Also WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY (Hammer's upcoming essay). Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I propose to delete the previous comment con WP:CRYSTAL...nah, just kidding. -- RUL3R 05:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Anyways, there isn't even a track list so it wouldn't warrant an article either way. talkingbirds 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Look mama! It's snowing! -- RUL3R 16:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As mentioned above, lack of sources. The source for the "confirmed" track is an unverified Twitter. Further, I don't see a need to create an article at this title at any point in the future. By the time the album is notable, it should at least have a name. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Frankly, I don't believe the album, when released, will be called "Forthcoming Britney Spears' studio album". Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS as blatant "fandalism". Cheers, TFOWR 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, no real sources yet. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Mixed - Plenty of albums have pages called 'forthcoming album', and have only news of producers. Then again "Spring 2010" is nearly a year from now and it'll be a good 4-5 months before we hear actual news of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.57.61 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment examples please?--RadioFan (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - HAMMERTIME! -- EA Swyer _{Contributions} 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Article on an online radio station that doesn't even try to to suggest notability or impact, not has a single reliable source attesting to anything at all. Created in 2007 and apparently overlooked in all that time. Calton | Talk 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7 - an article about an online service which does not indicate the notability of its subject.--Unscented (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article is currently a Good Article, which wouldn't be posisble if he didn't pass basic notability guidelines. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Original reason for PROD removed. The footballer has never played in a fully-professional match. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the sources provided from the Dorset Echo are purely trivial. I barely consider the 3rd level of English football notable - this guy played in the 6th! Vintagekits (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep satisfied the Good Article criteria. Easily passes WP:N, with the non-trivial sources provided. Ridiculous nom. --Jimbo 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, yes, loads of sources - but they all say he played in the 6th tier of English football infront of crowds of 50! oh yeah - and he played with Theo Walcott as a kid - you dont become notable by association. The sources are merely local paper dross, reports local matches.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• You're scraping the barrell there claiming the reports are dross and crowd figures (which are clearly inaccurate). He is the main subject of at least two articles passing WP:GNG. --Jimbo 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing editor sees no consensus either to delete, nor any conclusive arguments against notability. Does not exclude merging/redirecting to Russell Sherman or another appropriate article. This issue should be discussed separately. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wha Kyung Byun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion template removed by article creator. No indication of notability, Jezhotwells (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Some of her students have achieved some degree of notability, but she fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)#Creative professionals. — QuantumEleven 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment and Delete. The creator should not have removed the speedy tag. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment That being said, re-tagging for WP:CSD#G12 when the text is no longer a copyvio is pointless, and I have therefore removed the csd template. Neutral on deletion debate. MLauba (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but possible Merge or Redirect. Certainly, the Boston Globe loves her (). It seems she may be unusually well known among music teachers, at least. There is a suggestion that she skirts Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music), though I cannot be certain, since I can't access records of her musical career in Korea (having no idea how to read Korean or even how to search for the Korean spelling of her name). But even if she is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, she is the wife of a notable individual. At the least, her name should redirect to his article (Russell Sherman) (he has cited her as an inspiration and dedicated material to her). --Moonriddengirl 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: should this close "redirect", no merge is necessary at this point. I've made reference to her in her husband's article, so there's at least obvious reason why her name dumps there. There currently isn't much other sourced information to merge. --Moonriddengirl 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. There are many articles on the Boston Globe mentioning her, but most of them are trivial mentions as the teacher of someone else the article is really about. The two exceptions I found were both about the same concert in May 2004 , and I can't find any significant coverage of her elsewhere. I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Redirect to Russell Sherman would be a good outcome, as it appears to RS can be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. Non-notable amateur football team playing in the seventh tier of the East Sussex Football League, at about step 18 in the English football league system. Never played in the national cup (FA Cup), which deems clubs notable. Also fails WP:N, and WP:V due to no independent sources provided. --Jimbo 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. non notable club, achieved nothing, purely speculative, no notable coverage.--ClubOranje 11:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - essentially a pub team playing in a park. Unlikely to gain any media coverage whatsoever unless they get promoted about 9 times or something happens on the level of a UFO landing during one of their matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. No acheivements at either a sporting or a media level. GiantSnowman 11:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete probably written by someone playing for this non-notable club Spiderone (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Created by User:Powellm2 and one of the club founders is a Marc Powell. QED -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Spiderone. RP459 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely and utterly non-notable (but, considering that they're newly-created - and I can only think of AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons that are notable - that's not a surprise). Also, it was created by Powellm2 - the chairman and one of the founders is called Marc Powell - there's possible Wp:COI issues as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry: I meant "would have been notable at the time", not now - what with Milton Keynes in League 1 and AFC Wimbledon in the Blue Square Premier. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Contested, should not be deleted as is a start up foobtall team, affileated with the sussex county F.A. There are many teams listed on wikipedia to have never played in the F.A cup so therefore should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster 3001 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) User's first ever edit

In agreement with webmaster with this one, a team has to start some where and although there are minor COI issues I believe pages such as these can provide usefull info to the other teams in their league. Such as Team location and kit colors to avoid clashing on matchday. Just something to think about people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJG20o7 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) — NJG20o7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Again, user's first ever edit

Knowledge (XXG) is not a free webhost for minor clubs to give out info to other teams in their league, if a club wishes to do that they can easily create their own website. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia which requires that every article's subject have received significant coverage in independent, reliable, third-party sources (eg newspapers, magazines, websites which employ journalistic/editorial staff). Has this club received any such coverage? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This first came to my attention when User:Aviationstrategies requested an unblock due to the promotional nature of their username (and the fact that they refer to themselves as "we" and call this "our page"). When it was created in June, it was tagged as copyvio, but after some discussion on user's talk page, it looks like it was left to lie. However, on inspection it appeared to still contain massive chunks of the IAP website . I removed all the sections that were straight copies and attempted to wittle it down to a usable article. There's not much left now, and now I come to look at it – is it even notable? Key facts: Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme leads to a International Airport Professional certification, which is administered by Aviation Strategies International. There are various redirects which would have to be deleted, if that is the outcome of the case at hand.

• Undecided as nom. – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The only claim to "independent" notice offered by the article is a story in "Centerlines, Airport's Council International's Official quartely magazine". This is not really independent; it is apparently published by a parent or related organization, and even if it were independent it's still a publication of limited readership and circulation, and does not make the grade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- This looks like a professional qualification. If so, it is (presumably) notable. Even if the only sourece is a house mag, it should not be deleted: it should be tagged for independent sources. However, I am going on appearances: if some one, who really knows, asserts that this is an over-hyped minor qualification with little general acceptance, my view would be different. Nevertheless, there is a conflect of interest with ther creator. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads too much like spam and searches on portions of the text include direct copies of text on other sites like this one. So even if notable, which has not been established, it also may have copyright violation issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And that was after I culled 6kb of copyvio. Sheesh. I'm coming down on the side of delete now. Not least because I still haven't found anything to say its notable. And the original creator even seems to have lost interest now after I kindly unblocked them. :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete does not appear to be particularly notable and the article doesnt say what the programme actual is, I presume it is just a course with a certificate at the end although is doesnt actually say that. May be worth a one-liner in an article about professional qualifications in aviation (if it is a recognised qualification) or in the ACI article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dreams of a Playa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable book, fails WP:BK. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, book doesn't appear to exist. Essentially a vanity article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Non Deletion, the article does not appear to be for vanity, but rather appears as an ongoing project that could perhaps produce relevant information in the future

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.244.200 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment appears to be WP:SPA. Also, Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. We can't keep the article on the simple basis that "it could become important". If it becomes relevant in the future, which I doubt, then the article can be recreated. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete as either made up or utterly non-notable. No sources cited and there isn't a single mention of this book on Google. In a belated attempt to claim some sort of notability, a user has added some claims of notability. However, if true these claims would make the book one of the best-selling of all time and the author one of the richest people on the planet. The "picture" of the book included at the top of the article is taken from the book article, as shown by the fact that the book in the picture is written in German. This book has no claim to a Knowledge (XXG) article whatsoever. Hut 8.5 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've changed my mind. Now it's a blatant hoax, so it is eligible for Speedy deletion. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I reverted the edits that claimed that the book is widely popular (over 1 billion sold copies) because they are vandalism and obvious misinformation. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - No such book seems to be mentioned anywhere but on wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) postscript Nate Rosen is a character in a series of novels by Ronald Levitsky - who doesn't have an entry on here - and all the other references to Nate Rosen are on non-reliable sites. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:MADEUP. Possible G3 speedy. (When I first saw the title, I assumed it had something to do with a dry lake.) Deor (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• "You have got to be kidding me" Delete. "...much to the excitement of every male on planet earth." How come I wasn't excited - or even told? Also notice the lack of apostrophes and other tiny (but big) grammar errors. I find it hard to believe the person who wrote this article passed English class, let alone a book that is supposedly the world's best selling book ever. Xenon54 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Destroy. I agree on the speedy G3. — QuantumEleven 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete in the strongest possible strong terms strongly expressed. Clearly a WP:HOAX. ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo, you guys need to chill out. This is a valid book. I think you guy's are just jealous of Nate Rosen's ability to pick up chicks. - Ben Pollay

i agree, i mean what is up with this? just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean its not incredibly popular in sebastopol - Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielman7 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • You are joking, right? Don't do that. See WP:SNOWBALL. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are digging the article's grave right now by making more outlandish claims. These claims (plus the grammar mistakes you keep making that no self-respecting writer would ever make) only reinforce the fact that this book exists only in the minds of a few bored teenagers. Please, give it up. Xenon54 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• " Digging a grave, huh? Nice metaphorical language, but it really doesn't have any use in a forum like this. But that's ok, you can do what you like. Anyways,while a true editor might correct every error in a writer's piece of work, that writer doesn't care at all what's wrong or right, because either way, only an idiot wouldn't be able to comprehend what's written. How can thoughtless users on Knowledge (XXG) try and stopper the fledgling, blossoming minds of a few young adults? It's just not right. Especially when the article, which supposedly "must be destroyed immeadiately" pledges no harm towards the website. In fact, it probably helps people to learn more about Nate Rosen. You guys are digging your own graves.. *Please, give it up -- preceding unsigned comment left by 67.160.244.200 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The question isn't whether the article is harming Knowledge (XXG) - the question is whether it is notable. Perhaps in the future, this will become a world-wide highly regarded, important piece of work, but at the moment it is not notable, and by that criteria, an article about it does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). Thoughtless users on wikipedia are not trying to stop the blossoming minds of anyone - however, we have criteria for inclusion on wikipedia which do not include "Allowing blossoming minds to have a forum" - there are more appropriate places for this, such as blogs and the like. While the book is unpublished, and obviously has not received reviews and commentary from reliable sources, it remains unnotable from the point of view of wikipedia's criteria - this is not to belittle the work of the young adults working on it, this is just the policy followed here. My suggestion is to keep working on it, get it published, get into the NY Times (or London Times, or other world-reknown paper or website) best seller list - then no one will say it is not notable... but it is not notable yet. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Snow delete. No point dragging this on. WP:N, WP:MADEUP (as demonstrated by the "blossoming minds" quote). Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for developing the "fledgling, blossoming minds of a few young adults". There are plenty of forums and blogs out there for that. Tim Song (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• But The authors are attempting to ciculate the rough draft among the book for peer review throughout their high school. Knowledge (XXG), I'm sure, would be more than willing to allow the passage of information for scholarly review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.244.200 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for such things - when (or if) it becomes notable according to the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for notability it would be eligible for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG), but I would say that at the moment it does not meet the criteria required for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Fastily. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Brickell Bay Office Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertisement including photos from the leasing company's web site http://www.1001brickellbay.com/. Page was previously speedy deleted for copyright violations. Sophitessa (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: lacked news articles. Alexius08 (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your link only displays results for the past month. I'm not saying that any of these sources are relevant but you may want to take another look at Google News : http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Brickell+Bay+Office+Tower%22&cf=all — Rankiri (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as CSD G11 material. So tagged. Tim Song (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I did consider tagging it for speedy deletion. But it didn't seem to meet the criteria listed here. It was deleted before as a G12. So to be safe I listed it here. --Sophitessa (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill James O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost certainly bogus. Search terms "Bill James O'Donnell" and "Filthy Rich to Clean Poor" yield nothing. I could have just quashed it myself, but there are enough vague, random indications of notability thrown in there that I feel this is out of CSD territory. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Non-notable nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: practically non-notable. Alexius08 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - per RHaworth / Alexius08 Iqinn (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (already so nominated) per above. --Pgallert (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect to Adoption#Parenting. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Article has multiple problems, including being unreferenced and non-encyclopedic. Crucially, there is a section in the existing article Adoption that covers the broad area of this article, and does so with references. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into Adoption - although a lot of material needs to be cut, it reads like a self-help book. — QuantumEleven 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hold for 12h. This is part of an educational assignment and the student has about 12h to improve it. I'd suggest restarting the discussion after the grading deadline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issues with that - in any case, the AfD discussion would normally run for 7 days. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a webspace provider for school assignments. There's no such thing as "adoption parenting" incidentally, it's called "adoptive parenting." Student and teacher get Fs! Шизомби (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take it up with WP:SUP. And the term is notable: . That said, the assignment deadline has passed, and the article has not been significantly improved, although addition of some inline references make me think that some content is salvageable and thus merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Adoption. The content of the article is, frankly, worthless: a US-centric how-to guide full of semi-informed opinion that's presented as authoritative fact. I dread to think that some inexperienced adopter might implement this. It's frankly dangerous and needs to be killed with fire. But "Adoption parenting" is a plausible search term, so this should not be a redlink.—S Marshall /_Cont 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Thrice speedy deleted non-notable vanity article of creator. Articles contents are either greatly embellished or outright hoaxes to suggest notability. –– Lid 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom RP459 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't find anything about this person in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 15:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Nonnotable Iraqi researcher. Also, Knowledge (XXG) isn't the place to post one's resume. ThemFromSpace 03:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nom Mlh56880 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as fast as possible. Autobio spam. Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (so nominated) as spam. BTW, all three "sources" are bogus. --Pgallert (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

A specific sitting of a specific parliament under a specific party? No. We can have articles for specific sittings, fine (I've written one myself) but a broad generalisation of "list of parliaments in which party X was in charge" isn't particularly useful. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Whig_(British_political_faction)#Whig_supremacy. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• comment This is the beginning of a possible useful article that didn't go further. Since specific Congresses in the US are notable--generally with very extensive articles, listing every member articles, ditto for the UK--but amazingly, we seem not to have written most of them; for this period, see List of Parliaments of England. There are thousands of books to be used as sources--and at least two specific journals ( A summary list of those where one party was in power in addition--seems a good idea, but it would have to be developed further.)DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I can see articles being developed on the Whig Supremacy, and on individual parliaments (I've written a few myself) but not on Whig parliaments in general. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• The problem with the article is really that it simply has the wrong name. The 1679 Parliament documented here isn't known as a "Whig Parliament". It's known as an Exclusion Parliament, and it was the first of three such Exclusion Parliaments. (source). Collectively they and their accompanying General Elections formed the Exclusion Crisis. (ISBN 9780631213918 pp. 227) The third Exclusion Parliament, summoned in March 1681, is also known as the Oxford Parliament (1681). (ISBN 9780631213932 pp. 286) Uncle G (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 03:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Aside from the wrong name, the contents isn't actually useful even if the name were changed.. DGG (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• After reading Uncle G's argument, I think we have a choice between (a) deleting this article and starting afresh with Exclusion Parliament, or (b) renaming this article to Exclusion Parliament and rewriting the content. The difference between the two is in the writing credit, attribution and copyright rather than the practical effect, but I have a marginal preference for (b) because renaming and rewriting seems slightly less toothsome than deleting and starting again. I wouldn't mind overmuch if it were deleted, though.—S Marshall /_Cont 17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (which i prefer to rename). Certainly, if it must exist, it should be renamed Exclusion Parliament, but i think there may be too many issues to bother. No refs; the original intention behind the article (which was list-oriented) would be abandoned; what little writing there is is currently unencyclopedic; may be inconsistent with other naming conventions (how will/are articles on later parliaments named? For New Zealand they are numbered articles; for Australia there are elections by years and governments by PM name, but not parliaments; the nearest thing in modern UK articles appears to be articles like this: MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1997, which is really a different kettle of fish altogether). I think it should be deleted, and when someone takes an interest in writing about the Exclusion Parliaments as a group, that should proceed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- There is nothign of value in this except the final paragraph. English Parliaments do not have numbers and thus have to have names or dates. That paragraph might be saved as First Exclusion Parliament, but it is probably better to start from scratch. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. It has been confirmed in reliable sources that the university is accredited. Its small size and scarcity of Ghits are not reasons to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Silicon Valley University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deprodded; unclear why. Search on google for "Silicon Valley University" turns up nothing recent. Archive search turns up articles, but top hits are not for the proper name, but instead for the phrase, of which there is no apparent relation to this article. No indication of notability. Should be CSD candidate, except it's a school. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. They appear to be a legitimate school post secondary school. According to their website, attendence meets the criteria for those on student visas, which means the US govt. has recognized them to a reasonable extent. Their website is here: Niteshift36 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe but that's a simple primary source, and while I think that primary schools are given more leeway in terms of press coverage (although that's often easy to find), higher educational institutions need to sink or swim on the reliable sources. But I could be persuaded otherwise on that. In any case, I found no real sources. Shadowjams (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (in current state) -- I can find no evidence of notability. A national accreditation doesn't mean much, and there is a single source (of dubious merit). NiteShift mentions that they are "legitimate". Sadly, Legitimate doesn't mean Notable. McKay (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be something a bit suspicious about this university. Any genuine university in the Western Anglophone world would be expected to have hundreds of references in sources covered by Google Books and thousands in Google News, but this one only has a handful:. Most of those hits are coincidental juxtaposition of "Silicon Valley" with "university" rather than references to this institution. I'm not very familiar with US immigration rules, but I know that in the UK there are many unnotable language schools whose students qualify for student visas, so I would imagine that the situation is similar across the pond. Yes, the source in the article has a page and a half of coverage, but if you read through it it says that in 1999 (two years after its founding) it had fifteen students, and that at that time the book was written in 2006 the student body had more than tripled in size. I don't think that having more than 45 students is really a claim of notability, and all of the other Google Books hits that are actually about this institution are one line directory entries. I know that making comparisons to other articles is discouraged at AfD, but I'll ignore that and invite people to compare the notability of this institution with that of Ethiopia's first private university, with over 7,000 students, which an editor considered to be such an uncontoversial deletion candidate as to put a WP:PROD tag on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the past consensus has been that almost all high schools and colleges are notable. Is this a diploma mill? Bearian (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Would you please link to the discussion where this consensus was established? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing at all in Gnews (the term will throw up many results because Stanford, SJSU, SCU are all Silicon Valley universities - albeit small 'u') except a business wire piece. Just look at their class schedule, highly suspect for a university with an MBA program. Doesn't appear to be anything more than a diploma mill; now for original research - I'm close by, and no one I know even thinks of this place when they talk about SJSU or SCU. -SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that it has now been shown that it is an accredited institution, I'm changing to Keep. -SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As a degree granting university, but it needs a check about accreditation and so forth. At $1050/graduate course, it seems unrealistically inexpensive, & I see no statement about accreditation nor do I expect that it is. It's just as important to include the unaccredited ones, if they have a real presence. This one seems to. The ones we exclude are the ones that do not actually exist. DGG (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Degree granting" is meaningless without a genuine accreditation: such a degree might just as well be printed on toilet paper for all the good it does.--Calton | Talk 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

absolutely, and that's why good information is needed here about each one of them that has any significance at all. DGG (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. All the article establishes is mere existence -- not good enough, whatever handwaving one does about them being "genuine" -- and the signs are simply horrible: its address is listed as a suite in an office park in Santa Clara , and its accreditation agency's approvals are for things like the Golf Academy of America and Fashion Careers College. Without some actual evidence in hand, this is a massive Fail. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the ACICS. They are a US Dept. of Education recognized accrediting agency. That makes their degrees recognized. Here is the link to their entry on the US DoEd webpage:
    • Note - Many are unfamiliar with the ACICS. Their wikipage is at Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. As many have said, there's nothing all that special about a school that merely meets accreditation. Calton points out what the ACICS accredits. We've already established they are DOJ recognized. Calton has suggested, persuasively, that that accreditation is not all that persuasive. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not sure why there's discussion about the quality of this institution; I don't think that's relevant, nor do I think the number of Google hits is relevant. The article has a source from the Harvard University Press that discusses the topic directly in detail per WP:N. We should present the information we can verify and let the reader decide if these guys are legit. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - That book is solid third-party publication coverage establishing notability. I added to the article based on information from the book, and there's more information in the book that could be added. If it were not so difficult to distinguish ghits on this school from other ghits on the same search string, I expect that more coverage would be found. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - accredited degree-awarding institution. I have added the accreditation ref. TerriersFan (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

so they are, and at the Masters degree level. I said I'd be surprised, and so I am. DGG (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a little uncomfortable with only one real source that hints at notability. The other sources affirm the accreditation, but not the notability; since when has simple compliance with regulations been a claim to notability? There is one source here from the book (which is relevant and useful), a link to the school's own web page, and another that's shows it's accredited. That's one notability hit. So while that's good, I don't think it's right to proclaim the issue over. Calton's point is exactly right: this sort of thing needs to be notable; accreditation is not enough (my barber doesn't need to have his own wikipedia page). Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Educational accreditation is not merely complying with regulations -- it's not the same thing as a state license (although state licensing is usually a prerequisite to accreditation). Accreditation typically requires that the institution join the accrediting organization and successfully complete a review by a committee consisting of representatives of other educational institutions accredited by that organization. The reviews usually examine things like finances, academic offerings, and faculty credentials. There's no arguing that this school's accreditor (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools) is not among the most highly respected accreditors, but it is a legitimate recognized accrediting organization. The fact that SIU is accredited by that group helps to confirm that the university is for real and has existed for some period of time. SIU also is listed in a number of directories of educational institutions, which doesn't provide much in the way of WP:RS sourcing for an article, but does help to confirm that it's a bona fide educational institution. In my experience, it's often difficult to find online third-party sources for small colleges and universities that don't have athletic teams. The fact that this school's name is a string that appears in so many non-relevant search results compounds that problem. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say except for the last part: it's not that much more difficult to find reliable sources for schools without an athletic team. There are plenty of liberal arts colleges that easily meet this test. I realize this is a small school, but given that fact, its accreditation is less important and we should rely more on other WP:RS. Accreditation is a necessary but not sufficient cause for its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's "small" and there's "smaller" and "smallest." I have the impression that this school has fewer than 100 students -- that's in the "smallest" category, and a school that small isn't likely to get much news media attention. I've squandered a lot of time looking for sources for articles about educational institutions I had never heard of (for example, many bible colleges), and I've found that there is little online coverage of many small schools. They are listed in directories, and they may be listed on some ratings sites, and they get news coverage only when they do something to get on the sports pages -- like dropping varsity football. By virtue of being discussed in that one book, this school actually has more third-party documentation than a bunch of other apparently legitimate schools I've researched. --Orlady (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. It's not clear whether there's consensus for a merge, but that's a conversation that can continue at the article talk page.  Skomorokh  14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocene extinction event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a case of WP:Synthesis I bring it to AfD because the title is a WP:Neologism and the creator of the page is using this neologism to synthesise research to create an article beyond what the sources imply. This page should be deleted although some of the information within it could be placed elsewhere in wikipedia Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I feel obliged to expand on this rationale and say that this is also content forking under a neologism term. I am now spelling it out explicitly just because some people are getting bogged down with the whole 'someone has used this phrase so we should have a separate article on it' argument. Of course it has been used, but it is still a neologism and a content fork. It is so poorly defined across the very limited (not peer reviewed) sources that any definition here is an unavoidable synthesis. It is a content fork because there are better more appropriate articles in existance that can easily cover all of the research. Polargeo (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please show evidence or reasoning for Synth, and how it is "unavoidable". Fork was already contradicted in my edit of 10:27 3 Aug, at the end (requoted and expanded upon with reasoning below, in this edit). The central point of Neologism is the first thing I addressed, and, I contend, completely refuted. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep This term is being used in several reliable sources, can be found in google scholar and books. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I just searched for the phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' on google books and got zero hits. I got 1 hit on google scholar to the 2008 Wooldridge paper that failed peer-review. Looks very neologistic to me. Polargeo (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redir to Holocene extinction event#Ongoing Holocene extinction, merge any useful content. Vsmith (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You need to pick one rationale, too. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Our copyright licences forbid it. Either the content is deleted, or it is kept and merged. The two are mutually exclusive. Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Read what I said: "merge any useful content" - note the "useful", there are ref'd bits there which may be useful elsewhere, didn't mean to imply merging the OR synthesis stuff. Vsmith (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I had already read what you said the first time. Now read what I wrote, and consider that I nowhere mentioned verifiability or original research. I repeat: Merger or deletion. You can only have one. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's all explained at Knowledge (XXG):Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• That's a self-contradictory nomination. If the information in the article "could be placed elsewhere in wikipedia", then it must be verifiable and not original research. (If it weren't, it couldn't be placed anywhere in Knowledge (XXG).) If it is verifiable and not original research, it cannot be "beyond what the sources imply". Pick one rationale. Either this information is verifiable and not original research and supported by the several sources already cited in the article, or it isn't.

  While you are thinking about which rationale to pick, go and read this paper, this news story, this commentary, and this paper. Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a very subtle AfD. This article is a synthesis. By creating a whole article on a newly formed phrase on a theory that is still being defined and lumping together lots of disparate references this can become original research on wikipedia. I know we often just say "look there are some reliable sources" but that misses the point of WP:Synthesis. This information is being promoted far beyond the sources by making an unnecessary new article based on a WP:Neologism. We do not need an article entitled Anthropocene extinction event. This is something that hasn't happened and the Anthropocene isn't a completely accepted term. Any information that turns up can be very thoroughly incorporated into current articles, such as Holocene extinction event#Ongoing Holocene extinction. We are in the Holocene, the Anthropocene is not completely recognised by the scientific comunity so why can't we put any information in the holocene article and get rid of an unnecessary extra article on a neologism term which will only dilute wikipedia and detract from providing good quality encyclopedic information in the articles where it is most appropriate. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is also an article entitled Extinction_risk_from_global_warming which has been on wikipedia for 2 years. If this current addition is not a potential WP:POVFORK and an attempt to promote the neologistic phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' for environmentalist propaganda reasons then I don't know what it is. This is unfortunately what User:Andrewjlockley is using wikipedia for. There are no reasonable grounds for a separate article. Polargeo (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Then you should be at Knowledge (XXG):Duplicate articles, not AFD. You've written a whole lot of words, but you've yet to address the point that I made at all. So I repeat it: Either this information is verifiable and not original research and supported by the several sources already cited in the article, or it isn't. Either this is a duplicate of extinction risk from global warming to be merged, and you are in the wrong place, or it isn't a duplicate and your assertion that it is a fork is, by definition, false. Your rationales continue to be self-contradictory. Pick one rationale. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay I pick synthesis. Delete the article to get rid of the synthesis which is OR per Knowledge (XXG):OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. I stated this at the very beginning of my delete rationale. You then stated that the article contained reliable sources which completely missed the point of my delete rationale. This article should not exist, it is not a direct duplicate of another article. These sources can certainly be used in other articles but creating an article on a neologistic term by combining these sources creates a synthesis of the sources which takes the term well beyond its current very new use in the literature. This is not yet a scientifically definable term, so it certainly shouldn't be defined by AJL in a wikipedia article. The wikipedia article then becomes the definer of this term and of the science. Sometimes people do not realise the prominance of wikipedia, we should not let this happen. Bits from this article may exist in other wikipedia articles, not necessarily all in the same article. Polargeo (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
          • You then stated that the article contained reliable sources — No, I did not. Go and read what I wrote, again, properly.

            This is not yet a scientifically definable term — Then how do you account for the scientific papers that define it, such as Zalasiewicz et al. (cited in the article), doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36, doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1711, doi:10.1073/pnas.0802504105, doi:10.1073/pnas.0801921105, this, and this for examples? Uncle G (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

            • I said that 'Anthropocene extinction event' is not definable across the sources. Your first source is defining the 'Anthropocene' not the 'Anthropocene extinction event'. Your second source is talking about the 'sixth mass extinction' which according to the source is partly to do with continued land use. The sixth mass extinction is not just about the Anthropocene it applies to ongoing human actions including hunting and deforestation throughout the Holocene and has been used before the term Anthropocene was even invented. Your third source also mentions 'sixth mass extinction' and does not use the word Anthropocene. Ditto fourth, fifth and sixth sources. If we write an article entitled 'Anthropocene extinction event' and put these sources in as examples this is an incorrect synthesis. If we were discussing an article entitled 'sixth mass extinction event' I wouldn't have brought it to AfD. I would have simply said lets redirect this duplicate article to the Holocene article. I am sure that the authors of those papers who have been careful enough not to use the neologistic term 'Anthropocene extinction event' will be annoyed to find their papers cited as backing up the term which they haven't used for the very good scientific reason of poor definition. When you actually find a peer-reviewed scientific paper (ie not the Wooldrige paper which failed peer-review or the conference/colloquia papers which can be written in one afternoon and never checked by another scientist) that uses the term 'Anthropocene extinction event' and gives us a proper definition we might have a case for an article remaining here but at present we have only a synthesis where we put together several selected papers and end up defining the term here on wikipedia. This is completely unnecessary and should IMO be avoided at all costs. I haven't seen anything of value that cannot easily fit into the existing articles in some form. Polargeo (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
              • So this should go because we are content forking subsections and bits of other articles under a poorly defined neologism term and creating original research by synthesis. It is a silly and unnecessary thing to do and does not improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• keep The title term, and other listed variants of it, are well grounded in respected sources, some of which are cited in the article. The alternative holocene extinction event, is far less well grounded, with the only major reference referring back to wikipedia! Recent extinctions fall into two distinct events - the quaternary extinction event and the anthropocene extinction event, with the latter generally considered to have occurred after the industrial revolution. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The holocene extinction article covers the sixth extinction event. You are trying to make the sixth extinction event look like the anthropocene extinction event, which is mostly a predicted event in the future. The term you have created this new article around is a neologistic phrase with a neologism within it. The fact that you are trying to separate the sixth extinction event from quarternary extinction and holocene extinction shows that you do not understand what you are doing. It would be better if you edited the current articles and added this information into them without creating a load of unecessary articles and redirects. You are creating articles and modifying lead sections of existing articles without understanding the phrases that you are using. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's an opinion piece, and not a widely held one as far as I can see. I've been clear about the ambiguities that exist currently. The current extinction (post industrial revolution) clearly qualifies as an extinction event worthy of separate comment - as evidenced by the literature on the topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Firstly as to the holocene extinction event having no grounding, this shows you are basing your facts on rather poor google searches. Through my work I have access to the ISI Web of Knowledge which contains data on all major scientific journals. So I did a topic search on this and came up with the following results
        1. Holocene mass extinction 30 papers
        2. Holocene extinction event 16 papers
        3. sixth mass extinction 13 papers
        4. sixth extinction event 7 papers
        5. Anthropocene mass extinction 1 paper (A 2008 conference abstract - not a peer reviewed paper)
        6. Anthropocene extinction event 0 papers Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If you read the article you will find the sources there. FYI a term doesn't have to be in PR literature to be worthy of an article (not that that matters) Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Except of course that the articles references .... don't. For instance the two colloquium papers, which do not mention anthropocene at all. So: while there are references, they do not support the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient sources. I have no objection to a better title, but it is time to bring this material together into an article. DGG (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is it time to 'bring this material together' under a neologism when nobody has even attempted to add it properly to the articles which it should exist in? Surely this is a case of merge at least. The best thing is to get rid of this mess. Polargeo (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The article is about the terms used in the literature cited. I'm not proposing the terms, just describing them as they are used. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, i agree that this is a synthesis of sources using calling part of the Holocene the Anthropocene, and then taking references adressing the Holocene extinction event and making it into this article. Whatever useful material should either already be in those articles, or be merged. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• delete per Kim and Nom William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Uncle G has shown there are sources.Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Holocene extinction event. This topic is really a sub-topic of that one, and I tend to think such topics should generally be covered as a subsection of a longer article where possible. While the term does appear to have some use, I don't think it's notable enough (and sufficiently distinguished from Holocene extinction event) to have its own article. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question - I technically contributed to this article, but only in a very superficial way. My question is if there's a meaningful academic distinction between the Anthroprocene period and the Holocene period, for purposes of a modern extinction (caused by whatever, not just global warming). If there is a distinction, I think the article should stay. If the science makes no distinction, then I think the merge is appropriate. By the way, I agree that this is a subtle AfD in the sense that saying "there are X sources" doesn't resolve the issue. We could kick this around to one of the other million administration boards on WP, or we could resolve it here, or at the least, define whatever the central issue of contention is. I recommend we do that. Shadowjams (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To verify my position. There are sources that use variations of this neologistic term within them. This is different from properly defining the term. When I looked at the article I thought 'Can I write an accurate first three sentences for this article lead using the available sources?' I realised that because the term hasn't been properly defined across the limited sources that I could not and any lead section which I wrote would be a synthesis taking this article and the meaning of the various phrases beyond any of the sources individually. My synthesis would be far more accurate than the current lead section but it would still be my own interpretation of what this term means, hence original research. We cannot have an article on a neologism term that has in no way been defined properly across the sources.

    As to Holocene or Anthropocene, the mainstream view is that we are still very much in the Holocene and that this is ongoing and until it is widely accepted otherwise the Anthropocene is either not accepted or is within the Holocene. The Anthropocene is a neologism (first coined in 2000) but it is widely recognised and at least defined by several authors (although with widely varying definitions) hence an article on it. The problem with the term 'Anthropocene extinction event' is that it is not a properly defined or widely accepted term across even the very limited sources. Any information which is put into this article will be better placed in other existing artilces in the proper context. Any creation of an article on the term quickly becomes an unavoidable synthesis because we have to define what we mean here by amalgamating several sources. We are therefore unable to report on this in an encyclopedic manner. Polargeo (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Important note about the 2008 Wooldridge paper used as the first reference in the article and cited by UncleG. Firstly it is a discussion paper, this is a new type of paper which goes online for the scientific community to discuss and review prior to it being published as peer-reviewed. It is clear that this paper failed peer-review as the author's final comment on it on 2nd Aug 2008 shows (I have also published online with copernicus but my paper passed peer review so I know the process well). Secondly, Wooldridge mearly uses the phrase and does not explain it anyway. Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Merge/Redirect - How much of this content differs with the Holocene Extinction event article? If Anthroprocene extinction is a newish term for Holocene extinction they should be merged.

  We should be clear to distinguish if the dispute is over the name or over the article. Despite some peoples AfD philosophy, AfD is about the article, and if these articles are talking about the same thing, then redirect them. Forks invite discrepancies, errors, and create more work. If it's the same content, it should be in the same place. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The terms are different. The Anthropocene is commonly seen as starting at the Industrial Revolution. The Holocene is far, far longer. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Anthropocene (if you accept the term) is currently regarded as being within the Holocene. My problem is that "Anthropocene extinction event" has not been properly defined and does not exist as a phrase in peer reviewed science literature (for good reason as it is very messy to define). Therefore we have a rather poor content fork to a neologistic phrase where we end up dumping a few un-reviewed conference papers and a media interview which often aren't even talking about the same thing and we end up with an unnecessary synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All valuable matters to discuss in an interesting encyclopaedia article Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no consensus; more discussion is needed. Re-list? Bearian (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus equals keep Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Holocene extinction event. Discuss any scientific dispute there. LadyofShalott 03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Holocene extinction event with redirect. In the event that more sources, besides the one paper, are found, or the topic becomes more significant, the article can always be split out again, no worse for wear. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Holocene extinction event. I'm strongly of the view that these are one subject, and it's a great deal less confusing for end-users (as well as being much easier to police) if material about one subject is kept together in one place that interested editors can watchlist.—S Marshall /_Cont 10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Holocene extinction event with a redirect. It's already mentioned there, there can only be one 'sixth' such event and that's the Holocene event. At the moment I see no rationale for a separate article - if in time this becomes a scientifically accepted label for an even separate from the Holocene extinction event, that will be the time for a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep there's a significant number of relevant citations for this term, and the timescales are different for the two extinction events. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This appears to be your second !vote. Polargeo (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per the above comments. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge obviously. AJL is a known POV pushing wikilawyer. The fact that he insists that these things go through AfD even though AfD is not for merger discussions is beyond comprehension. -Atmoz (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid ad hominem attacks. 'Merge' was a minority opinion until AfD relisted. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• changing my opinion to merge and turn to redirect, as although mentioned the concept is not significantly different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Time to put this 'Anthropocene is a neologism' argument to sleep. "In 2002, Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize–winning chemist, suggested that we had left the Holocene and had entered a new Epoch—the Anthropocene—because of the global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development. The term has entered the geological literature informally (e.g., Steffen et al., 2004; Syvitski et al., 2005; Crossland, 2005; Andersson et al., 2005) to denote the contemporary global environment dominated by human activity. Geological Society of America, in a Google scholar search for Anthropocene and extinction which gets 382 hits (1,940 for Anthropocene). The word Anthropocene is defined by extinction events, so the title may be a minor but unavoidable redundancy, which would explain the low number of hits for the exact phrase. In no way are Holocene and Anthropocene synonymous, nor is the latter a subheading of the former. Anarchangel (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Anarchangel you miss the point the argument is not 'Anthropocene' is a neologism it is 'Anthropocene extinction event' is a neologistic phrase. It has not appeared in a single peer-reviewed scientific paper and all human influenced extinction including anthropocene extinction can easily be placed under the Holocene article or other extinction articles at present. I know anthropocene is not a direct subheading of holocene but majority scientific opinion puts it firmly in the holocene therefore information on 'anthropocene extinction' can fit perfectly well into the holocene article or the Anthropocene article or even Extinction_risk_from_global_warming. This is a scientific split to a new article on a named extinction processes that we are making on wikipedia long before there is any justification or precedent in the peer-reviewed literature to make such a split. Polargeo (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Essentially nothing you say changes the fact that this is a content fork. Partly from Anthropocene and partly from Holocene extinction event. It makes it look as if there is some new scientifically recognised 'EVENT' but in fact we are defining this event here on wikipedia and synthesising (as I have mentioned many times above). There is no peer-reviewed source that mentions it and no collection of non-peer reviewed sources that agree on what this 'event' actually means. When did it start, 8000 years ago or 50 years ago? Has it even started yet? Can we call it an event? What is its cause, hunting, habitat destruction, farming, pollution, global warming, homogenization through global travel? Is it truly separable from Holocene extinction? (This is very very different from the separation of the word Anthropocene from Holocene) This is one completely unecessary content fork and will end up as speculation on wikipedia when we do not have any proper sources on it. This is science, let us take the lead from the scientists and not do things the other way around by synthesising this stuff under a new heading when the scientists are so careful not to. Polargeo (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Polargeo, I commend to your attention the essay WP:BLUDGEON. Not at all for the number of times that you have responded to editors here, as I believe that it furthers discussion to respond to others' comments, but for the sometimes cursory and dismissive yet SOAPBOX way that you have done so, e.g. responding to, "sufficient sources. I have no objection to a better title, but it is time to bring this material together into an article" with, "Why is it time to 'bring this material together' under a neologism when nobody has even attempted to add it properly to the articles which it should exist in? Surely this is a case of merge at least. The best thing is to get rid of this mess."

Good grief. Had not seen this. "If this current addition is not a potential WP:POVFORK and an attempt to promote the neologistic phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' for environmentalist propaganda reasons then I don't know what it is. This is unfortunately what User:Andrewjlockley is using wikipedia for." This is less a matter for quoting AGF than it is WP:TRUTH Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a content fork. The definition on WP:Content forking: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject". The article immediately takes up the subject of PoV forks, only going back to the subject in the paragraph-long section "Accidental duplicate articles".

Trust me, I am more than aware of your attempt to require the entire phrase to be not only the focus of scientific research, but to be found intact in its entirety as a search term. This could potentially be the subject of a discussion on the talk page of a change in title, but is not a reason for deleting the article, so I ignored it.

Peer review, as Andrewjlockley pointed out, is not a requirement of articles. WP:N requires only reliable sources: "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."

Re: "When did it start..?" etc, the answers to your questions are what should constitute the content of Anthropocene, and as the rights to them are currently usurped by Holocene extinction event, they can be found in that article, if not Anthropocene...". My merest middling search, above, has revealed that it is a seven-year-old area of scientific enquiry.

Only eleven google scholar hits for the exact phrase, "Holocene extinction event". All Holocene extinction events are either Quaternary extinction events or Anthropocene events; if anything, we should be discussing merging Holocene extinction event into those articles, not the other way around. "These extinctions, occurring near the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, are sometimes referred to as the Quaternary extinction event or Ice Age extinction event. However the Holocene extinction event may be regarded as continuing into the 21st century, depending on whether the Anthropocene is considered as a separate epoch." - Holocene extinction event.

The primary trouble with this article is quite obvious, and would seem to be the elephant in the room, as no one has mentioned it; it has next to no content. I will AGF and assume that editors here are wise enough to not cite this as a problem, as it is not a reason for deletion. What AfD does, essentially, is delete the focus of an article. Content and title can be fixed with an RFC, on the talk page, or by WP:BOLDing. Please do not remove the focus of this article from Knowledge (XXG); it is a nine-year old (the article I cited above was mistaken, Crutzen coined the phrase in 2000) area of scientific enquiry.

Anarchangel (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If Crutzen coined the phrase in 2000, why are you adding sources from before 2000? From the 60s no less. -Atmoz (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Trilobites began to give evidence of their existence some time ago. It doesn't really matter when someone noticed that they had, for the purposes of saying that they did, does it? Or to put it another way, in an article about a physicist whose recent theory uses one of Newton's Laws to help prove it, citing Newton is not inappropriate, surely? Or to put it another way, the potential for the phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' has grown since scientists; much of the evidence for it is from the last Ice Age. Should I feel the need to give evidence of the date of the origin of the phrase, I will most certainly be looking for articles from when the phrase originated onwards, as I did for this very AfD, above (the GSA citation). Anarchangel (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No GBooks hits for "anthropocene extinction", one GScholar hit which in fact was for "impending Anthropocene extinction event". 211 Gscholar hits for "holocene extinction" and 166 GBook hits. I'm happy for the Holocene article to be renamed with 'event' dropped. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Original comment self-edited 09:09, 4 August 2009 Polargeo. Q is, is this the only one, or the only one I noticed? The proper format is to strike one's comments, not delete them as whimsy directs. This note added by Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is very unecessary Anarchangel and extremely rude. It is generally regarded as perfectly acceptable to make a quick edit to ones own comment, in this case 3 minutes after my initial edit, when no other editor has even had a chance to add to the discussion. I am disgusted with your wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller that we should perhaps have a more general article 'holocene extinction' droping the 'event'. I also don't believe there is a case for a separate article titled 'Anthropocene extinction' outside of the two articles Anthropocene and 'Holocene extinction' but that is not the present argument which is about getting rid of Anthropocene extinction event, otherwise named Anthropocene mass extinction. Polargeo (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You sure you wouldn't prefer to name it "Holocene", which gets 4,808 hits to "Anthropocene"'s 1,940? Oh, that's right, it's already an article under that name. The point I made was that Anthropocene is not a neologism. Debating over the name of the Holocene extinction event article on its talk page would save all of us here valuable time, whereas if you're trying to make this a contest about which geologic age gets the most Google hits, save yourself some time, it isn't relevant. Anarchangel (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you going on about "anthropocene", when the issue at hand is "anthropocene extinction event" (notice the difference). If you look up a bit, you will find that there is extremely little usage (1) of that phrase in the scientific literature, and overwhelming usage of "holocene extinction" - that is the crux of the matter here. Not whether "anthropocene" as a word is used. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That question was already answered by my previous comment.

I would like to return to an assertion I made earlier ("In no way are Holocene and Anthropocene synonymous, nor is the latter a subheading of the former", to show some of the reasoning behind it: The ages are defined by extinction events. Of the twelve divisions between ages, ten of them are extinction events. Crutzen did not so much invent the name or concept of the age, as bring it in line with the others. Holocene is a bland assertion that this is the current age; Anthropocene tells you what happened. I repeat this to avert a possible ambush citing of WP:CONTENTFORK by the closer. They are not the same concept, they are not the same content. Holocene defines the age as the most recent, wikt:Holo- for 'whole' or complete, ie, 'completing the timeline', or up to the present. I am sure you are all aware of the meaning of 'wikt:anthro-'; Anthropocene defines the age as the one in which humans became capable of influencing the environment. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made the error (the arguments for Anthropocene are compelling) of following the debate over whether Anthropocene or Holocene is a superior designation, which began as an irrelevant argument against my evidence that Anthropocene was not a Neologism. Knowledge (XXG)'s reason for inclusion and deletion, though, are quite different. Neologism, has been proven incorrect. FORK has been proven incorrect; the new assertion relies on the definition of the word 'appropriate'. Synth has been proven incorrect. These have been the only valid arguments for deletion (valid in the sense of Validity (logic), as in, if it were true, then we should delete). Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not proven anything. You went and made several edits to the article where you interpreted Anthropocene to mean the age of any human influence on the environment. This is a minority interpretation of Anthropocene, which is most commonly taken as from the industrial revolution. As you can see if you wish to put general extinctions into a time category (human induced or otherwise) you would have to put them into Holocene because the definition of Anthropocene is not a firm one. You are defining the term 'Anthropocene extinction event' on wikipedia by synthesis and very effectively proving my point. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge any useful content not violating WP:CRYSTAL] This article does make leaps beyong what is facutally stated in its sources, hence hits OR. Collect (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable product. Gordonrox24 |  02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Mlh56880 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep completely disagree with the nominator as well as the "per nom" redlink editor, whom, as of this posting, has made less than twenty edits to Knowledge (XXG). While I've never been one for the arcade, even I know about this game. It was a very popular game back in the day and already somewhat historical by the early 1990s. It's name has to this date been preserved in gaming history. Furthermore, it has been a very influential game much like Pac-man has been. Definitley notable, no questions asked and deleting it would be a dishonor to Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policies.--_{Sky Attacker} 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not bite the newcomers and, at the same time, do not level an editor for being a "redlink". MuZemike 08:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we are here to discuss this article's keeping or deletion, and at the same time, contribute input relevant to the subject's status.--_{Sky Attacker} 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice you should stick to yourself. I don't see how the fact that you know of the game makes it in any way notable and it is certainly nowhere near packman. I can't see how this makes it beyond a 'list of games that have existed.' But then that is IMO. Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was as famous as Pacman. I just said it was as influential. Also I don't need to stick my own advice anywhere. I know my own advice like I know the back of my right hand. The comment above by MuZemike made no mention to the subject we are discussing here whatsoever, and is therefore not adressing input relevant to Omega Fighter, the whole point and actual subject of this discussion. Just reminding the editor to keep to the topic.--_{Sky Attacker} 09:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I value your comment. If you can find reliable secondary sources to back all of that up, then we might reach a keep. As it stands I still don't see notability.--Gordonrox24 |  15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're more attacking the person's qualifications and status as well as the person's statement. While it's OK to note stuff like WP:PERNOM in deletion discussions, such additional ad hominem comments are unnecessary. MuZemike 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep if you scroll down to the game on this list you'll three scanned magazines waiting to be cited, thanks to Arttu Ylärakkola at solvalou.com. Verifiable and notable. Someoneanother 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Someone another. Those print sources mentioned easily establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 17:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The magazine pages at solvalou.com (,,) indicate passable notability. — Rankiri (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and add verifiable sources immediately. --MrStalker  09:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW - the article that was nominated no longer exists, and the current one has over 25 sources. I see no point prolonging this any further. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable "actress" whose sole claim to fame is her alleged parents: Marion Davies and William Randolph Hearst. (Are you really an actress if you've only played yourself?) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I tried to do some research on her and came up with about the same as the nom. Mlh56880 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete very much per nom too. WP:BIO states that being related to notable people doesn't warrant notability. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and expand and further source. Let's forget about the inapplicable WP:ENT and look toward WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Nice article really, with terrific potential. Though the relationship between Herst and Davies received more than passing notice in the 20s,Los Angeles Times 1928, Patricia Van Cleve Lake has herself received more than trivial mention in reliable sources for decades as she was actively involved in society, theater and film.News sources 1930-39, News sources 1940-1949, Google Books. Her death simply brought more coverage. Los Angeles Times 10/31/93, San Jose Mercury News 10/16/93. This one needs work through normal editing, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well... Lake's definitely not a one-trick pony. She has multiple claims toward notability. On a treasure hunt and feeling my Google-foo, I struck gold. When Penny Singleton left the radio show Blondie in the mid-1940s, Patricia Van Cleve Lake gave voice to the character of Blondie Bumstead for the remaining 5 years the show was broadcast, opposite her real-life husband Arthur Lake who voiced Dagwood Bumstead.. More to follow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll change my "vote" to Keep based on the points brought up by MichaelQSchmidt. The article has more content now, and is sourced well. At least give it some time to be improved further. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Still continuing research, expansion, and sourcing. Aside from 5 years as "Blondie" on radio, Lake also co-starred with her husband Arthur Lake in a 1954 television sit-com he created called Meet The Family. More to follow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Aside from the anonymous IP author, only 2 user accounts (besides myself) have made any significant edits to the article... User:Tjmayerinsf in July of 2007 and User:Oanabay04 in May of 2008. In appreciation of the nominator leaving a courtesy notice on the talk page of the author, I just placed a courtesy notice on the talk pages of these 2 editors. I am not seeking a pro or a con coment from either of them, simply notifying of this discussion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article looks good now....Vartanza (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: as currently constituted, I think the article meets our notability standard. Scog (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

No evidence or assertion of Notability over 2+ years' time; article appears to do nothing but promote a particular commercial product in violation of NOTCATALOG and SOAP.—Scheinwerfermann ·_C02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @133  ·  02:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This article doesn't hint at how this product has been discussed significantly, and it has no hits on google news search. It also reads like advertising. ThemFromSpace 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. For obvious reasons, and no notability. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as spamalicious. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Baek Ji Young discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of songs by Baek Ji Young, the only important parts, the album titles are already included in her article. there are no sources or meaningful content beyond the list and nothing to suggest it merits an article Jac16888 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Why isn't this page translated into English? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• It was listed at WP:Pages needing translation into English for a while, but removed. It was probably inappropriate for that page, which seems to be for articles that are in another language in their entirety. If there's a vehicle to request translation of parts of a page, I'm unable to find it. I could transliterate the titles. That's a tedious but essentially mechanical process; but I can't translate it. I'm a bit embarrassed that I noted this article for cleanup over a year ago and have had it on my to-do list for all that time. TJRC (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge back to artists page. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, or split to separate articles per WP:NALBUMS. Generally, each album released by a notable artist (and Baek Ji Young's notability is not at issue) has its own article. The only issue here is that those articles are combined into a single discography article. I would not object to splitting the page to individual articles, but it clearly should not be deleted. Also, I don't understand the assertion that the contents of the albums are unimportant parts. TJRC (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @125  ·  01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @134  ·  02:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @134  ·  02:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this (cleanup is not a valid reason). Sure the thing needs references, but it is highly unlikely that a successful artist with a couple of albums would never have been written about. I don't have any such sources--but the nominator hasn't proved there aren't any either. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I've also put a coi tag on the article because it appears that the editor the nominator is in conflict with may represent some kind of "management company". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is a poorly written publicity entry. I have made several attempts to make it more encyclopedic, but my changes are continually undone. As the article stands, it is not fit for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Notability can also be questioned, although this is NOT my reason for proposing deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Did you read WP:BEFORE? AfD is supposed to consider what the article could be like, not what it's like at the moment. "Poorly-written" and "publicity entry" are very clearly not reasons to delete.

  If the problem is that changes to improve the article are being reverted, take it to the talk page; if the reverting person refuses to talk to you, ask an admin to help.

  The notability concern would be a reason to delete, if it wasn't for all the coverage in national newspapers she's had.

  Overall, I'm going to go with snow keep because there's no chance whatsoever that this will be deleted.—S Marshall /_Cont 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, I did read WP:BEFORE. Thanks for the advice regarding resolution. The talk page already has some delete questions, which is why I chose this route. I'll revert the article back to my previous edits and we'll see what happens.Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Definite Keep, while the article is poorly written, there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources already to show notability. Article should be fixed not deleted. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep - No valid rationale advanced for deletion. The issues are raised are ones of editting and are not resolved by deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:NFT - A "fictional" musician that "two teenagers" created in 2009. Nick—/_Contribs 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nominator. It borders on being a hoax, although I suppose not really, as the article doesn't try to claim the person really exists. Either way, I think a WP:SNOW speedy deletion is in order. --Nick—/_Contribs 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeps failed to address the issues brought up by the delete votes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

WP:NN web content. Unable to find more than the sole citation (which is more of a gee-whiz) for in-depth coverage from WP:RS Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Findsourcesnotice}} turns up only bloggy type stuff. See article talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Probably notable in Ireland. Just needs more citations Dvmedis (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: We don't keep articles or delete them on probability. It either is or is not notable. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Not hugely notable but sources "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" (e.g. local newspaper 1, local newspaper 2, reliable website, RTÉ, etc.) As well as that, as noted on the talk page, it gets quite a respectable number of hits per day. Sources are an issue, and should be dealt with separately. But, as far notability, it reaches the target, albeit just barely. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Very well known in Ireland. Is also about to win the Storyland competition for RTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.70.172 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Depends what you mean by "well known". I'd say it's not at all well known in Ireland. Hence the only noteworthy coverage so far is the two articles in provincial newspapers referenced by rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid above. 86.44.22.183 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I haven't found the "significant coverage in reliable sources" which is prescribed by our notability guidelines. There are only ten hits on google news, none of them being about this program. So far this is just a collection of youtube videos and not an actual television program. The collection of youtube videos itself easily fails our notability guidelines. I also note that his myspace lists this very article as his website. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A small correction: about half of those ghits are abou the program. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: From the our notability guidelines: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." "Significant coverage" does not mean "lots and lots" of coverage. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - This show is less than a year old and has had a surge in popularity as of late. It is the overwhelming favorite to win the Storyland competition. The most recent episode on youtube has over 30,000 hits in just over a week.Justin5150 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Justin5150

Note: Popularity is not a criteria for inclusion on wikipedia - Notability is. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard K Weems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vague assertions of having written "numerous" short stories, which does not assert notability. Zero third party sources. It's been tagged for several issues since it was created over a month ago, and it has not improved in the slightest. I just sorted and categorized it, myself, albeit not so effectively. PROD was contested by the article creator, so I'm taking this to AfD. Enigma 01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  01:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: agree with the above. Patchy1Talk To Me! 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. He clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF, and I couldn't find any evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in view of above findings. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The World At Night (TWAN) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claims of notability. Very little encylopaedic information in the article as it stands. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Please have another look. Recent edits have significantly improved the entry. Thanks for your patience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onenightsky (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Of the four web pages listed as "sources" one is at The World At Night's own website, and the other three do not mention The World At Night at all. It may be notable, but so far there is no evidence at all that it is. (Incidentally, Onenightsky says "Recent edits have significantly improved the entry". Since all those edits were made by Onenightsky, this is scarcely an objective view!) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton |  01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Here are a few better references: International Year of Astronomy 2009, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Sky and Telescope. Ditch the acronym from the title if kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• keepThe Sky and Telescope link merely mentions that some pictures from The World At Night were included in an exhibition, but the other two look good, so I have added them to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Sourcing remains rather weak, but is now adequate. -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Article proposed for deletion due to the fact that subject of article is not notable, article seemingly created and maintaned by subject of the article. Milik (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added this article because I collect pictures & artworks by Oleg Buryan, Katya Medvedeva, Alexander Labas & others artists. Chelovechek (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is unsourced. Prove the subject's notability by adding references. And since it's in English Knowledge (XXG), most sources have to be in English. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniil, that's not true that most sources need to be in English. See Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Non-English sources. I am neutral on whether the sourcing proves notability, but the article isn't unsourced, it has several references to news articles. One thing to note is that his name is actually Oleg Buryan, not Buryan Oleg, which may affect searching. Fences&Windows 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. Yeah, Chelovechek worked hard to add references after the article had been nominated for deletion. Sourced articles are all good. 203.167.243.98 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

File http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Groza_v_Gorode.jpeg Was uploaded by Chelovechek, and was marked as copyright owner allowed this image to be uploaded. Blog, see article for link to blog, of Buryan Oleg has same user picture as image in the article the only difference is that image is lower resolution image. Knowledge (XXG) article also listed as a home page of the blogger, and by definition Knowledge (XXG) article is not a home page, but and encyclopedia article. I generally frown upon articles being created or edited by subjects of an article. Milik (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Buryan_Oleg for a message apparently from the subject of the article, who is not the same as the article creator. Fences&Windows 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded this picture to the comment added to Buryan's blog ( http://toy-marker.livejournal.com/328046.html?thread=1289582#t1289582 ) and Knowledge (XXG) (later) and deleted it from Knowledge (XXG) after receiving Oleg's request because of its low quality. Now you are speaking about a picture which is not found in the article in its present form. This seems to be an absurd reaction and demonstrates your biased attitude towards me and Oleg Buryan giving us a good reason to appeal to a grievance commission. Specially for Milike: have a look at the photo of the mentioned picture in my apartment: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Thunderstorm_in_My_Apartment.jpg Chelovechek (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any bias against you or subject of the article. When I came across this article following things attracted my attention: Article created and edited by one person (which is fine), but this person hasn't edited any other articles, article is written in style which is consistent, in my opinion, with self promotion, further, I failed to see notability. So I nominated this article for deletion after discussion. This nomination was meant to create a discussion, so other members of community can agree or disagree with me. I don't know, you, nor subject of the article. I'm concerned that Knowledge (XXG) may be used as a promotional tool, which it is not. Please nominate this file http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Groza_v_Gorode_for_Milik.jpg for speedy deletion. Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum. Milik (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrected and added according to your requirements: "...but this person hasn't edited any other articles": http://en.wikipedia.org/Saint_Petersburg_Toy_Museum "...I failed to see notability": "In 1989, O. Buryan was awarded a VDNKh Silver medal for his contribution to Russian culture". Chelovechek (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we use Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals as a starting point for this debate? Milik (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – Agree with Milik that Creative Professionals is a legitimate reason for inclusion. Also was able to find the following sources,() which lend themselves to establishing notability Thanks ShoesssS 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to ShoesssS for the idea of searching! Please see: Google Search+Books "Oleg Buryan"! Chelovechek (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources presented demonstrate notability. There's no need for the sources to be in English, but, in this case, even the English sources are enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chelovechek, to best of my knowledge creator of the work retains copyright to their work, and derived work(photographs) even if they see work itself. You may want to change copyright messages on images of work by Buryan Oleg, with his permission, of course, to something more suitable. take a look at this: Knowledge (XXG):Image_copyright_tags or this . Milik (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)