Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 18 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Ustream.tv. MBisanz 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

No notability. The only claim of notability is in founding Ustream.tv, and the information about their founding of the website can easily be merged with Ustream.tv. Outside of that website, there's nothing here which requires separate articles for the cofounders. VIX (Talk) 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages (Co-founder with John Ham, same reasoning as above):

Brad Hunstable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator, nobody !voted to delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 STS-119. MBisanz 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

neologism DougsTech (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't sign your name, that's one problem. But I'll take your advice-- I'm leaving. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the appropriate section of STS-119 if the article doesn't develop by the end of this AfD, although I think there will be a good chance it could have significant coverage as an internet meme by then.--ragesoss (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in the South West of England#Primary Schools. –Juliancolton 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stourfield junior school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability and doesn't appear notable enough to merge into another article. BarretBonden (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment – I undid a redirect to Dorset and the insertion of a sub section in that article. I wasn't familiar with the 'normal practice' for non-notable schools but I agree that a redirect to List of schools in the South West of England is the most appropraite solution. BarretBonden (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. This school is already listed at List_of_schools_in_the_South_West_of_England#Bournemouth. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unreleased albums (this is actually an unreleased EP) are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Seems to be lagely original research. The only source in the article refers to Preadolescence not a generation. neon white talk 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete although I've heard tween used to refer to people around 10-13, but I don't see anywhere where it is used as a generation. Delete as original research. Tavix (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace, deleting from article space without prejudice. The article is not simply or intrinsically “original research” — see “So cool! Tweens are emerging generation”] by Sharon Jayson of USA Today, 4 February 2009 — nor does the term or concept appear to be the invention of just ms Jayson. But there isn't presently sufficient evidence of “notability”. The principal author(s) of this article should be encouraged to work on the article in userspace. —SlamDiego←T 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete A misunderstanding from the msnbc.com article cited as a source, isn't surprising, since the author of the USA Today article "So cool! Tweens are emerging generation" apparently doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. One misuse of the word "generation" in McPaper is not the basis for an article. While those children born post-Internet might be classified as a generation by sociologists, they certainly won't be called "tweens". I note that Tween leads to a dab page that includes a redirect to preadolescence, and it wouldn't hurt to make something that shows up like "Tween (stage)" or the like. However, todays tweens, including Malia and Sasha, will, soon enough, become teens, then adults; and today's "preschoolers" will become the next "tweens". Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with that. I think it was a misunderstanding of what the article is saying. Largely due to the title. The article body actually simply explains about Preadolescence. A 'generation of tweens' is just using it as a word to refer to modern tweens as a group. It's not exactly a misuse it's just not intending define a new sociological generation. You could just as easily refer to a 'generation of 11 year olds' a 'generation of twenty-somethings'. I think such a subject would require acedemic sources. --neon white talk 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why, this subject has no relevence to that subject. --neon white talk 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam Byrn Tritt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional article for non notable author. I checked the ISBNs of the two books listed under the books section with WorldCat, and the first brings up no results for all of the US and the second shows only two libraries. The sptimes.com ref only establishes that he and some friends bought some paint once for $11 and put it on a wall. Other refs are not independent nontrivial etc. as required. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(books)#Online_bookstores for info on why a listing at Amazon in and of itself doesn't matter. DreamGuy (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Delete then. Recognizance (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:AUTHOR in every respect. Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. A quick look at his website reveals something interesting: "The "Get Adamus into Knowledge (XXG)" Contest", complete with prizes (down at the bottom of the page). Recognizance pointed out the Google books result, but there are only two books, not four; both books are listed twice. His first book is not carried by any libraries in the Worldcat listing; it was published by a very small press, is out of print, and the book's link on the publisher's site is a 404. His second one (the one available at Amazon) is carried by two, but it's self-published; "Smithcraft Press" specializes in self-published books. Many of his other "published" works come from Oestara Publishing, which is a writer's cooperative which distributes e-books. The 2006 Eppie prize listed is for an anthology in which he contributed several poems; it is not an individual award. Those poems are all listed separately as well; there is a lot of duplication, which inflates his actual output. Both of his books are listed under both books and published literary work, and the last three sections are fairly trivial: a locally produced play, a role in a 13-minute short film on MySpace, and a single instance of civic activism (which at least has independent sourcing). There is nothing here which indicates notability. Horologium (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mutapa weZimba reMabwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
in fact, I would be surprised if he had not appointed himself to any such posts available. DGG (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Material is game guide, and is not notable through present sources; if there is content to be merged (likely a mention of his "trademark" Silverballers which can be stated from a first-pass check of google hits) this can put pushed to the Hitman (series) article. The article itself here is an unlikely search term so I don't believe there's a need to retain a redirect. MASEM (t) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete an unverifiable and probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable film made by an unremarkable company (whose article was recently speedy deleted). Prod removed. Cycle~ (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician: could not find any references to "Charlie Shaabi" or "Charlie Hanna Shaabi" or "Charlie Shaabie" in reliable sources. tedder (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - no luck in finding any references to any of the claims made in the article; the "hit song" referred to doesn't seem to have been much of a hit, as I couldn't find anything on it, and the subject himself doesn't seem to exist anywhere I looked. Fails WP:MUSIC unless someone's search-fu is better than mine. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding Charlie Shaabi into this nomination, as it's the same article under a different name. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy, I found this one after the AFD on that one, didn't know if they should be merged or what. I was about to create an AFD on ElectrowaveZ (Band) since my prod tag was removed; can these be easily linked somehow? tedder (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Note the duplicate (Charlie shaabi) was recreated, with the speedy removed. Speedy and salt, perhaps? I'm not going to put in an AFD for it. tedder (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / userfied to User:Jarry1250/World Multiple Sclerosis Day, good chances it will be WP worthy in the near future, so why not having someone looking forward for it? - Nabla (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable "day". Four Google hits outside of Knowledge (XXG), no Google news hits. Speedy deletion tag removed by a "new" user whose entire edit history is to edit war to remove speedy deletion tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to google "World MS day" instead, which brings it up to 390 raw Ghits / ~40 good, unique, relevant GHits / 1Gnews (german). - Jarry1250 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That one Gnews hit is to Deutsche Multiple Sklerose News, not sure that's a reliable source. And of all of the links that I checked, all of them were to different MS societies and such, no outside sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Unfortunately there are no specific notability guidelines to try and follow, but my reasoning is that although there are no independent reliable sources (all are, as far as I can tell, in some way connected to the event), we are talking about what boils down to a future event, and hence the weight of international coverage may eventually tell. However, Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source, so I can't help feeling that it may be best to resurrect the article once the day has received the coverage it expects to receive. - Jarry1250 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would agree with the latter, but that it represent a COI is a bit of a non-argument here, surely? User:MSIF didn't create much of the content of the article, and it's now suitably NPOV etc. - Jarry1250 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I think this is a hoax. I cannot find any sources relating to the family. Even if it is true this is original resarch. It may even be that the list of notable people aren't related. DFS454 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yuri Osipov (chess) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A chess programmer of dubious and possibly false notability, according to some google search results. - 7-bubёn >t 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to The Presidents of the United States of America (band). MBisanz 05:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable early song by a notable group. Fails WP:NSONGS. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please specify what part of WP:NSONGS this meets. Notability is not inherited. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If it's notable, please explain how it's notable. Just because it's a single by a notable band does not make the song notable, whether it's an early single or their most recent. This song didn't chart, and I could find no significant media coverage from reliable third-party sources. Any song with its own article has to meet the criteria at WP:NSONGS, and as far as I could ascertain, this one does not. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Let it grow. People will expand on it. It may not have charted, but neither did many other debut singles. The fact remains that it was released by a notable band and re-released on a platinum album.--99.179.75.218 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closing - see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Charlie Shaabie Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician: could not find any references to "Charlie Shaabi" or "Charlie Hanna Shaabi" in reliable sources.

Not eligible for Speedy, user deleted prod. tedder (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del CSD:G5 - article by banned user. - 7-bubёn >t 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user User:Florentino_floro, and the article is about the blocked user himself. It seems his recent indefinite block on Wikinews has driven him to back here.

There is no notable information in this article that is not already covered in the Florentino Floro article. Further argument by User:Maxschmelling: "Per discussion at the Law WikiProject, individual cases are not notable just by virtue of being mentioned in the press. Notability in terms of individual cases is determined by the significance of the issue or the decision. Generally, it seems, cases need to be mentioned in casebooks or to be foundational in some way to be considered notable as cases. This one doesn't stand up. The defendent is barely notable himself and there is no significant issue of law at stake."

Also, I must pre-emptively warn that the blocked user is very likely to participate in this discussion with extremely long and rambling diatribes (such as this), under the guise of various sockpuppets or IP addresses. TheCoffee (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This is a hoax article. Google comes up with no hits, the London Gazette has no mention of him in any possible search configuration I could see. As a General and an MP he would be listed numerous times if this was indeed a real person. The only 5th division of the British Army was the 5th Infantry Division (United Kingdom), there was no Welsh one as far as I am aware. This combined with the article creator's name being Jimhilk (talk · contribs), this is an obvious hoax. Woody (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plot section (now removed) was WP:COPYVIO from Anime News Network, and character section just translated from JA wiki. Licensed in Chinese and that's it. No significant coverage in that language either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the tag at the top of that page. "This page documents an official English Knowledge (XXG) policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus." Normally, but not always. Use common sense and ignore all rules if necessary. Dream Focus 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
But it is policy, contrary to what you said. And you better have a reason to invoke IAR, as it just isn't used for everyday articles that fail the notability guidelines. That is the accepted consensus. ThemFromSpace 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dream Focus, plus, per Collectonian, series has been licensed and translated into Chinese. I can't read Chinese, so I can't look for any sort of Chinese review, but seeing as how its the most-spoken language on the planet, I'm willing to bet there's something out there that would satisfy the (ridiculous) notability guidelines. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Thus far, few series we've seen licensed in Chinese have had any Chinese reviews. No idea if they just don't do them or just not done in reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That still doesn't meet WP:BK as GHits are irrelevant (quick scanning, most of those links are either "buy me" links or personal sites) and a drama CD is not a major adaptation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No, its basically a "directory" type thing, like any bookseller/listing service. It doesn't cover anything just notes it was released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I have requested assistance from the WikiProject Japan to ensure presence or lack of a presence of reliable sources written in Japanese. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Asking_for_assistance_to_find_reliable_sources_for_Moe_Kare.21.21 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No one has even proven it was popular. That's a guess based on how long it ran. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, none of those support any possibility it was mentioned at a con. Those are all just personal sites/forums where the words appear on the same page. And the amount of copyright violating "fanfic" and scanslation has no bearing on any series notability unless its so great it actually gets mentioned in reliable, third-party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
O.K., delete then. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hajizadeh Elshan Mahmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the prod: This is someone posting a resume on Knowledge (XXG), clearly against what Knowledge (XXG) is not. I will also add that I cannot find any reliable sources that can establish any notabililty of this person; nothing but Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. MuZemike 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This article may require cleanup to be considered to KEEP

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Aas far as I can tell, there is no actual documentation that this category exists in NATO terminology. Therefore, this article needs to be deleted, or updated with the actual source. Note: I checked the STANAG 2116 online, and I find no reference to the ranks listed in this article, with the exception of Midshipman in the UK, which is considered OF-1. Kirk (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, all the NATO rank articles have tables with OF(D), and many have ranks listed which need to be changed. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andy Dill. MBisanz 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Article doesn't establish that the subject is notable Willy turner (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mrs. Fisher's, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only non-trivial reference found after good faith news archive search is feature on company in local ("metropolitan area" population < 300,000) paper. Bongomatic 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep for now (I'm willing to have my mind changed, though)—it seems to sell a lot of chips, and while I can't find much news coverage either I do at least see lots of those boring "business profile" websites or whatever. I know that kind of stuff isn't mentioned in WP:CORP, but I dunno, I just find that article not that terrible. And it's not vanispamcruftisement, which a lot of these articles often are. rʨanaɢ /contribs 14:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep – two RS, fairly large company, not written as an advertisement (after working on it). TheAE talk/sign 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep please note that Rockford's metropolitan area is over 350,000, in case that is important to judge the merit of an article about Mrs. Fishers appearing in that city's main newspaper. The company has been around since the 1930's - this is not a start up venture. Also, if an image can be used, the logo for the chips manufacturer would be of interest also. The logo is still very 1930's looking and iconoclastic, at least for people in the upper midwest where the chips are sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockford1963 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 March 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

No indication that the band meets the notability criteria. No mention of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources Papa November (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

comment: I didn't say anything about missing sources. The point is that the article doesn't say why the band is notable. Which (if any) of the notability criteria do they satisfy? Playing big tours/festivals and releasing albums isn't good enough. Did the albums enter the charts? Did they receive significant coverage (i.e. a feature, not just a review) in a major music magazine? Have they been nominated for any major music awards? Papa November (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
notability criteria #4 #5? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn nomination: Well done guys, you've added some good information to the article. I'm happy that it now explains the band's notability, based on

  1. Number 1 video on MTV2
  2. Significant coverage in notable independent sources.
  3. Collaboration with and recognition by notable musical artists.

I'm now happy for the article to stay. Papa November (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help out. Paul Erik 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#G10. wodup 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The article seems to be about a real enough person, but the only real content is about him failing at a reality show. He doesn't seem notable or important enough to be included. —LedgendGamer 09:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable political candidate fails WP:BIO. The article isn't sourced but you can read about him here. I also found this which mentions him injuring his arm as a youth leader, but this and other mentions are in passing. This is what the article's creator said at Talk:U P Joseph:

Agreed that a person doesn't qualify for the notability criteria just because of his candidature for a political election; but a person who is representing a powerful political combine, and has a chance of winning the election does deserve to be considered notable. This article is more of a work-in-progress article and you will find references and citations, and yeah enough reasons to justify notability in a couple of days. please hold on. thank you! - User:Leftnwrite 06:28, 18 March 2009

While U P Joseph has held various appointments, I don't think he is notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). I don't want to discourage this new user, but Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to advertise goods, services, or political candidates. - Boston (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I nominated this for deletion, but strongly disagree that there is no need to look at his past. The problem is looking doesn't reveal much. --Boston (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a hoax, Wycombe Wanderers' current number 9 is Matt Harrold, and there is no record of this player being on the club's books. Might be notable if he had played for the other clubs listed, which include some of the very top clubs in Italy, Portugal and elsewhere, but Google returns precisely zero hits on his name, so that seems untrue as well. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Silvio Lino Gouveia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who has never played professionally, article freely admits that he is only a part-timer and that his main job is working in his father's gardening business. Probable WP:COI based on suspiciously high level of knowledge of the player's personal life. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Irap_RMS_Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Note Looks like this article is less than a day old. Would it be appropriate to delete an article about software that has been around for a few years just because the article is just being started? Why not wait and see if the article shapes up first? Otherwise it would just look like somebody is just trying to suppress oilfield industry articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Walkhouse (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note Once again, I'll point out that this article has only been here for a single day, and according to the guidelines:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion
  • Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
That alone closes this AfD. A cleanup template has already been added by "Who then was a gentleman?" And I have started working on it. If you don't like the way it looks, join in and edit it. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note In reading the article and with a search on the web, It is clear to me that this software suite has been in active development for over twenty years and is being used in the field. I also see that mastery of this beast is worthy of mention in the resumes of professionals like this guy: C.D. (SAM) JOHNSTON, Seismic Interpreter So, it appears notability is not a problem and all this new article needs is a cleanup to justify removing the Advert tag. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Recommend userfication into the author's userspace. Then, even if consensus results in deletion, the author can remain working on the article until it is good enough to warrant inclusion. MuZemike 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I had considered that too but he may have left, disappointed by the quick deletion of another brand new article and the AfD on this new article before he had a chance to do any significant work. If Mafb09 never comes back, can I volunteer to adopt the thing? If so, can I also take that other one (RMS (reservoir software)) which was speedily deleted? Environmental concerns around the oilpatch are rapidly becoming a hot topic and this info could be needed soon by all sides. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article and removed the Advert tag. Gathering of more data and external references will come next. Do any of you folks consider this one rescued yet?  ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren Ober (formerly Savalan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined Speedy. Autobiograhy. There are very few GHits for Aren Ober and none at all for Aren Savalan. The publisher Cotter Books has no other authors and has no significant GHits other than its web page - it certainly looks like a vanity publisher. The external link is a mirror of the publisher's web page Porturology (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

O'Neills of Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Interesting family history, but hardly valid for an encyclopedia article. None of these O'Neills have been notable in their own right, and the sources are either blogs or genealogy sites, both of which fail WP:RS. We have Irish immigration to Puerto Rico; that should suffice. Biruitorul 06:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete Damn it is a nice article, too nice. It is a case of plagiarism. This article was pasted from here: Clan Abba Forums which has the following copyright: Copyright ©2000 - 2009. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: If I am reading that page correctly, the WP article came first - 3/14/08, whereas the forum posting appears to be dated 5/24/08. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, You are right, plus the author's name in the "Clan Abba Forum" is the same as the one of the User who created the Wiki article. Even so, the article does not provide inline citations as required by policy, which make it seem as if it is "original reseach". If not then the author should have no problem providing the citations. I mean the big question is where did he/she get all of this information? Tony the Marine (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that it needs work, but that's not a reason to delete. I'll e-mail the creator if they have it enabled, and do some digging. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I believe in the good-faithed intentions of User:Ukexpat and that he together with the author will solve the inline citation problem. Tell the author to provide that inline citations even if he must cite his work from "Clan Abba Forums", because it would be a pity to delete such an interesting article. I have retracted my "delete" with the hope that he will fix matters. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge "votes" do not address the fact that the material itself is spammy in nature. –Juliancolton 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Page seems to be little more than a hybrid of an advertisement and a list of instructions. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. No grounds for deleting this article stated in nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi, I do not know if this is the right forum for this discussion. But we have been asked by our client Citibank Philippines to remove their current page on wikipedia. Can you get the needful done? Is there anything more formalties that need to be completed for the same. Thomas db (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Thomas_Db


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable student organization. No references showing notability. Mikeblas (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. I will take you guys' word on it about notability, but I do hope to see some context added to the article so that is actually meaningful to people. rʨanaɢ /contribs 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't believe this subject meets our notability requirements. There are very few reliable sources in the article to establish Lau's notability; the few references that are actually about Lau are from the website of his own "clan" or training center (for example, this), and most of the rest seem to be about things other than Lau (for example, current refs 6–10 are about the accomplishments of a couple of his students). As far as I can tell, he doesn't fit into any of the inclusion criteria listed at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people). rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also: please note that a previous version of this article was speedily deleted in 2007 (log) for failing to assert notability. I'm not an admin and can't see the old version, so I don't know how much it has changed since then. rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The Martial Arts Project Notability Guide may be of interest.--Nate1481 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kirby characters . MBisanz 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This article asserts zero notability through multiple reliable sources. In-universe details that are important to a plot in any of the Kirby media, Smash Bros series, etc belongs to that respective article. « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While it appears highly unlikely if this somehow survives the title should be moved. It should be at Halberd (airship) since it is an airship named Halberd and not Halbered Airship as a full name. --70.24.176.215 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

King's Kids Johannesburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable organization that gets very few ghits and no gnews hits. All sources are primary no sign of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forward planning failure (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete--I was thinking maybe this should just have been merged, but I see no valuable information in that article that needs merging, or the value of a redirect. The information in the article is all anecdotal and of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedy/snow/borderlineG-11/spamvertisement StarM 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Buyacar.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy db-spam deletion because I can't rule out the possibility with a Google search that they have the notability they claim (but I couldn't establish it either, from Google or from any of the main menu links on their site); paring the promotionalism; taking to AfD; notifying WP:CAR. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player that has no claim of notability. Google news search returns just 8 hits, most of which are published by Univ of Michigan. Can be recreated when he plays at a level that previous consensus has accepted as substantial for notability or he otherwise gains notability. Grsz 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Although not very notable, a standard Google search provides 665,000 results, a good deal of which are about this baseball player. It looks like a person spent a great deal of time on this article, so I see no harm in keeping it. It's not like it's fancruft or anything like that. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, as you can see, I've voted to delete an article about a "drag king". If such an article should exist, then this article should as well.-Axmann8 (Talk) 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You might also wish to see WP:POINT. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Not only is your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument invalid, it's contradictory...you voted delete on the other article. Grsz 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With the comment that the part of WP:NFF that says ...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." refers only to films that have begun production. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete was tagged speedy for no context, but there is sufficient context to figure out what this article claims it's about. It's still WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as I have done a bit of research, and found that with the "other" spelling of "Casanova" (one "v"), and including the star Mohanlal, there is enough per WP:GNG to meet the requirements of WP:NFF through a Google search. I have sourced the article to show a bit of this coverage. It will benefit from further expansion and sourcing, certainly. I suggest that the name be changed after this AfD to bettr reflect the one most often used by English sources. Schmidt, 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note Per Google news search: Principal filming to begin in 3 weeks per Galatta, March 6 2009, "Arya's Casanova begins" (...has been scheduled to start rolling by the first week of April) and Screen, March 13 2009, "Tamil star Arya makes Malayalam debut" (..shoot will commence on April 5 in Vienna). With respects to the nom, with a diligent search under its alternate spelling, coverage meets and exceeds requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Filming is now imminent. Schmidt, 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm going to stick with WP:NFF here. Principal photography has not yet begun, therefore this film should not have its own article. I wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article after sources have confirmed that principal photography has begun, however. Matt (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR and the guideline instruction "best used with common sense and the occasional exception" seem quite cogently to apply here. We're talking about filming beginning in a matter of days, for goodness sake... not some date next year. HOWEVER, and that aside, the artilce indeed passes WP:NFF because of A) its exceptional coverage in RS that surpass the GNG, and B) the fact that it is sourced as being the costliest Malayalam film ever made to date. Even with filming not beginning for a few nore days, its already a keeper. Schmidt, 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Common sense that a film that hasn't even been made cannot have any kind of assertion of notability, nor can the fact that one can, by drawing boundaries narrowly enough, come up with meaningless superlatives imparts any real notability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

8Delete per nom and others: WP:NFF & ]. Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus to delete. MBisanz 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical Objects for C++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Software programming package, no assertion of notability. The use of the term "yet another" in the lead section is a sign that there is no notability to be found for this anywhere. Additionally, the package creator's name (Alexey Morozov) matches that of the article creator, and his e-mail address is included. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No, don't. Typical Objects for C++ is the one and only one realization of pure C++ introspection. Check demo application please. It's 100% notability. The C++ world should know about it. User:Alexey_Morozov - timed 17:53, 13 March 2009(Moscow)
    • Notability is not defined as "the world should know". It is defined as "the world already does know"". -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Now the world knows Typical Objects for C++. But after deletion it forgets about that. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
        • Exactly. The world does know because of a Knowledge (XXG) article. That's a misuse of Knowledge (XXG). The right way to use Knowledge (XXG) is, make your product known to the whole world, and then start the Knowledge (XXG) article. Do you really think Microsoft Windows became a world leader because it was first mentioned in Knowledge (XXG)?

          I have a feeling you don't have a clue what we mean by notability. Start the article once the product becomes well-known, not so that it becomes well-known. -- Blanchardb -- timed 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

          • Sure. The product is well-known already. I know it well for example.Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:31, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)


*Speedy delete (G12) as a copy-vio of. http://tocxx.110mb.com/. Tagged as such. Themfromspace (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment I don't think a speedy is appropriate here; the site you reference appears to have been created since the article in question. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure. I as the author created the page for demo application of Typical Objects for C++. Sources are not yet published but will be I hope. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Delete. No evidence of reliable sources discussing this framework. Appears to be original research. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • And that's no comment, BTW, on the quality of the research in question. I for one am intrigued by this, having used similar packages in languages like Java and C#, but having believed it impossible to produce one in C++ due to lack of language support for reflection. But until there are reliable source commentaries on it, and I have little doubt there will be some at some point, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It's wrong. Demo application at http://tocxx.110mb.com/demo.zip is enough reliable as source for discussing this framework. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • M. Morozov, you're the author both of this article and of the subject, so please first read Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest. You're also asserting that no sources have been published, so also read Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability. You're mis-using Knowledge (XXG) as a publisher of first instance for documenting the undocumented, so read Knowledge (XXG):No original research. You're asserting that without Knowledge (XXG) advertising your creation the world would have zero knowledge of it, so read Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox. And you're asserting that sources that you created yourself, documenting your own work, are reliable and evidence of notability, so read Knowledge (XXG):Independent sources, Knowledge (XXG):Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies, and Knowledge (XXG):Notability.

    You've come to Knowledge (XXG) for the wrong reasons. This is not the place for what you are doing. Your own web site is the place for this. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia, whose content must be verifiable, neutral, freely copyright licenced, and free from original research. Knowledge (XXG):Alternative outlets exist for publishing creator-written documentation of the heretofore undocumented and the heretofore unknown. One of those outlets is your own WWW site, that you pay for. Knowledge (XXG)'s remit covers existing human knowledge, not attempts by people to add to it by writing directly in the encyclopaedia. Such shortcuts around the proper process of publication, fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge are not allowed. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    • It's too edificatory. The page "Typical Objects for C++" is just a mention of a product. There is no conflict of interest at all. Has page something incorrect elements? If has - just change it. But do not delete - it'll be realization of conflict of interest. It's just a link. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Delete Topic fails WP:N; has no coverage in independent reliable sources like computing magazines, academic journals of computer science, books from reputable publishers, etc. cab (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There's no coverage for it in Bible too. Who needs all this coverage? The TOC++ works well without any paper blague. It deserves the notability. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:22, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)
      • Who needs all this coverage? You, if you want to demonstrate that this topic meets Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion guidelines. It deserves the notability --- you appear to be the only one with this opinion. If others felt it were notable, they would have actually gone to the trouble of noting it by giving it coverage in reliable sources. cab (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
        • What are you talking about? I'm not wiki editor spec and don't know it at all. Wiki editor is Hebrew to me. If there are some errors in wiki code - just fix it. Don't make insinuations please. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:59, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Speedy delete (G11) – User is clearly trying to promote his product here, which is what we call here spamming. MuZemike 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It was the user's interventions here, not the article itself, that made it clear that this article was written for promotional purposes. That's why I feel speedy may not be appropriate. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Promotion of what? Typical Objects for C++ is not a commercial product and never will be such. It's just a mention of possibility to implement some programming pattern. I'm not promouter but just software developer. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 9:10, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Relisted? You gotta be joking, right? -- Blanchardb -- timed 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone above, pretty much. In short: not notable, original research. I took the liberty, in the meantime, of removing the author's email address from the article--that's all too spammy, and it doesn't seem right to have that in a Knowledge (XXG) article. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no coverage for this, Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to establish notability, but the place to mention something which has already achieved it. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Digance Indulgence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously in October 2008. Eight half-hour episodes in 1987. Starred red-linked actor. Being broadcast on the BBC Radio 2 is not sufficient for notability. StarM 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep The actor was redlinked because his surname was misspelled -- it has been corrected and he is notable. Being broadcast on a national radio network is notable. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Being broadcast on a national radio network is notable. recent AfDs have said otherwise, especially this most recent one. Simply being broadcast on the BBC does not provide sufficient notability StarM 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I would think the other AfD's result is irrelevant to this discussion, as per WP:ALLORNOTHING. And for the sake of debate, why would a program broadcast on a national network with a notable entertainer as its star not be considered notable? Pastor Theo (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not binding but it's not irrelevant because it's relate don the same subject with the same arguments. It shows a pattern of recent AfDs and redlinks here and in the above-linked previous AfD]], which were subsequently re-nominated and deleted. All of which have closed as delete because there has been no evivdence of notability. Please also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability guidelines do not include being broadcast on the BBC because it's not sufficient when there are no sources. However we're now about to get hit with a flood of omg! I've heard of it. Notable notable notable despite there being no evidence of notability. So this one will close as no consensus. Sigh. So not productive. StarM 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sears Holdings Corporation. MBisanz 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to have any independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:NN Unable to find independent verifiable info. Self-promotion more than anything. Taroaldo (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would be happy to provide you with all supporting documentation, please let me know to what email address.

  • Please refer to WP:BIO and WP:V for some info. If there are verifiable sources, they can be entered directly into the article. Sources need to be accessible and visible to all users of Knowledge (XXG). Taroaldo (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded some supported information and checked these guidelines. I'll be uploading the discography soon. Please review the article and let me know if it is according to your guidelines. Thanks.

  • Delete. Two single-sentence mentions in the "what are our graduates doing now?" section of a music schools' magazine don't add up to notability. We need significant coverage that's completely independent of the subject. JulesH (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I'm uploading evidences from newspapers and magazines. These are obviously verifiable sources which you can check by requesting the original to the country of origin. The problem is I obviously don't control the copyrights to these so I would like you to review a few that i've uploaded, and the rest I would like to simply send them to you via email, so that you can review the info and verify that they are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivancillo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Plenty good enough consensus below and Emperor covers everything we need to look at policy and guidance wise. This is not a speedy candidate though, the article subject matter does not meet the crieria enshrined in {{db-inc}}. I don't see the value in keeping this open any longer, and I'd point out that proposed deletion might be a better venue for similar articles in the future. Hiding T 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability, and no evident sources to establish it. Very few Google Web hits relevant to the topic, none of which seem to be independent and/or reliable; zero hits on Google News or Google Books. Fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:N and also WP:V. I had a look round and could find very little on this (not even on the Bugpowder blog which covers British small press comics) so I'm reluctantly going to have to suggest it is deleted, pending someone coming up with good sources. It may just be new and looks interesting so there is no problem with recreating when the sources can be found - the creator of the article might want to work on this in their sandbox and I'll add anything I stumble across (as I keep my eye out for such sources). (Emperor (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
  • Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WereSpielChequers (CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete something made up in school one day apparently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think we all played some form of bingo in grade school to help with various subjects. The problem is sourcing this. I think it would belong better in an article about teaching methods. Beach drifter (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That depends. The 2 sources above are graduate level thesis about using classroom bingo as a pedagogical tool, and as such, I consider them to be much more reliable than 2 equivalent sources that are reported, for instance, in the mainstream media. -Atmoz (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. If notability here depends on two theses (there's one other mention in Google Scholar, and trivial, passing mentions here in Google News), well, that's not good. Then it's either cutting-edge research being done at Rowan, or it's really not significant enough to have been written about in the usual kinds of sources. It's not notable. The author could have done us all a favor by doing their homework first and by organizing that dense prose in proper paragraphs. Less classroom bingo (and fewer cliches--"ever popular," "fastest growing trend," "taken to different levels"), more grammar and style. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:MADEUP. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No independent RS document the assertions herein, despite the time and fervency of those arguing that it should be kept. I will provide a copy for userification and help coach someone who wants to make this meet Knowledge (XXG) standards, assuming that it's possible to do so. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic Johannite Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After some research, I have been able to find no indication that this church is notable. This includes an inability to find sources in specialist religious periodicals, including those that tend to cover NRMs and fringe religious groups. As the article asserts notability, CSD is not an option and thus I am raising it for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete The Apostolic Johannite Church appears to be the largest, most active international Gnostic Church, and one of the most prominent, authentic, public voices on modern gnosticism today. How is that not notable? Jikaku (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ecclesia Gnostica and L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches. Taken in combination with those particular churches in communion with them and the Thelemic churches, all others comprise only a very modest minority of Gnostic membership. Essentially, Knowledge (XXG) finds something notable when outside reputable sources have taken substantive note of the topic. Without substantial coverage in good references, we cannot fulfill out basic content policies. For the Apostolic Johannite Church, even venues that give a lot of attention to new religious movements, Gnosticism and other minority religious topics do not show any coverage of the church. Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have any sources to back that up? I could buy the Ecclesia Gnostica, since it's tied in with the OTO, but "L'Eglise Gnostique"? Which of the many tiny churches using that name are you referring to? And even if you counted all of them together, I still think you fall short of the international membership of the AJC. Exactly how many books need to mention the AJC, or be written by its members, for notability?Jikaku (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    I apologize for my bluntness, but it is obvious that you are not familiar with modern Gnosticism as a broader topic. The Ecclesia Gnostica is a prominent "English Gnostic" church, best known for Bishop Hoeller's work and gnosis.org. L'Eglise Gnostique (de France), or the Eglise Gnostique Catholique Apostolique, is the most prominent and oldest "French Gnostic" church. Both are in full communion with each other. Both are quite distinct from the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which is the church arm of the OTO. Regarding reliable sources, there is no set number, but member written books would not fulfill the requirement for independent sources. As a general rule, a few independent reputable sources will usually suffice for the purposes of deletion discussions. Vassyana (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    The claim that the Ecclesia Gnostica and L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches is factually untrue. The EG *may* have more active members (uncertain) but it has fewer active parishes. L'Eglise Gnostique has only a very limited existence, and is considerably smaller than the AJC by any measure: active parishes, active clergy, active members, budget, etc. Wbehun (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)— Wbehun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete The Apostolic Johannite Church is notable indeed as are the published books and liturgical works of several of its leaders. Our Interfaith churches in Florida and Texas and elsewhere are not associated with AJC in any way, nor are we Gnostic, but we do indeed draw upon the scholarship, works and considerable liturgical activity of AJC. This church is a notable force in modern gnosticism, both in N. America and internationally. Seems odd to want to want to ignore or minimize its existence. Perhaps a bit of anti-church bias is at work? KatiaRoma (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete. Despite a seeming lack of sources (I know they're out there, I've seen several instance of coverage in the past), this is one of a very small number of Neo-gnostic churches in a movement that has gotten increasing attention in recent years. I'm also confused as to why Hoeller's work is 'notable,' but the work of AJC members is not? Infinitysnake (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar enough with the modern Gnostic movement to know that the "L'Eglise Gnostique" is a handfull of people of questionable status with absolutley nothing notable about them - ecclesiastically or otherwise, whereas the AJC appears to be active throughout north america, parts of europe, is mentioned in several books, whose priests have authored numerous books on modern gnosticism, is a founding member of the North American College of Gnostic Bishops, whose annual conclaves draw speakers and participants from both the gnostic field as well as academia... what more do you want? It seems as though you have some sort of sectarian bias against them - I'd be much more comfortable moving forward with broader editorial participation in this discussion. Jikaku (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    Rather than dispute which church is prominent or so forth, let's focus on the crux of the matter. I have not been able to find substantive coverage of the AJC in reliable sources. If you are aware of reputable references that discuss the church, please share them. --Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    As noted in the discussion page on the article in question, the church is relatively new and as such has not been the subject of any extended scholarly discussion yet, nor has it been involved in scandals that would bring it to the notice of mainstream media. However, given its widespread and growing presence, certainly significantly greater than that of L'Eglise Gnostique in the USA (which at this point has, to my knowledge, two operating parishes at most,) the AJC clearly merits inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). The claims by Vassyana indicate nothing more than a bias toward other churches and a desire to tear down others in order to build up those churches to which s/he is predisposed. At the end of the day, this has already been hashed out on the discussion page some time ago.Wbehun (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was unable to locate any independent or reliable sources. Nothing reliable and independent in Google Web, nothing at all in Google News, nothing at all in Google Scholar, and only junk in Google Books - specifically two self-published Lulu.com books with no substantive content on the church (though if one was reliable it would be strong evidence that the church is not Christian), one computer generated Icon Group International "book" that can't evidence notability, and one Adventures Unlimited Press book (that may also be self-published) with no meaningful content on the church. In the absence of independent and reliable sources, we can't sustain an article on the church that adheres to the article content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V). Therefore, delete. In addition, I used to live in the specific town where one of these group's meets - due to my interests I'd have noticed it if it was at all visible in the physical world - but it wasn't visible. GRBerry 14:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    "Guardians of the Holy Grail" by Mark Pinkham (the "Adventures Unlimited Press book" GRBerry mentions) has an interview with the AJC's founder James Foster that goes for five pages or so starting at page 303 specifically about the church. The beginning of the interview is not visible in the Google Books preview I can see, but Foster is referred to as "Primate" in the visible bits of the interview. I don't think many current members of the church would agree with every detail of the interview, but the fact that there's an interview about the church and its history speaks pretty firmly to Notability in the WP:ORG sense. This premise of this proposal to delete is Notability, not WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V. The question is whether this organisation should be represented by a distinct page in Knowledge (XXG), not what the exact content of the page should be. There are measures other than deletion to handle content issues. -- Timbomb (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Do not delete: The AJC maintains 9 parishes around the world, providing outreach, pastoral care, palliative counselling, interfaith dialogue, advocacy for the homeless and mentally ill, and religious education. By running a seminary it assists in the formation of the next generation of Gn clergy. By having strong relations with other long-standing and significant Gn churches such as the Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum (30+ years), the Gnostic Church of Mary Magdalene, and the Alexandrian Gnostic Church, it contributes to collaborative projects such as the Order of Saint Esclarmonde (an AJC/GCMM sponsored lay order).
Speaking in my capacity as AJC clergy, I was cited in US News & World Report, and my book (published by Apocryphile in Berkeley and hardly a vanity press) discusses the mission of Apostolic Johannite Church and has been reviewed in PanGaia magazine and The Pomegranate (a journal of Pagan Studies). This is merely an example of how the AJC is making a noteworthy contribution to the Independent Sacramental Movement as a whole and contemporary Gnosticism in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanstratford (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — Jordanstratford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If you are aware of substantive coverage of the AJC in independent reliable sources, please share those references. The sources you refer to do not seem to do so. (For example, The US News and World Report makes absolutely no mention of the AJC, in addition to describing you simply as "a Gnostic priest who heads a small congregation in Victoria, British Columbia".) --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Do not delete: I support the Knowledge (XXG) principle of Notability and I think it's important to police it. The problem in this particular case is of a church which seems fairly active, but does not seem to have generated media or scholarly interest in proportion to its activity. I've edited the AJC page to include explicit references to the parishes. Consulting those parish sites makes it obvious that most of them clearly hold regular public services and talks, so I think it's fair to say that in their local communities they are not "Under the radar". I've also included all the books I could find (including those GRBerry thinks are not reputable) that make reference to the church and some material on Father Stratford, his book and a few mentions in the media. I've also tried to add some of the inter-church links where relevant to the text of the article.
On the basis that the church is young, but growing fairly rapidly, that it seems to have visible evidence of the viable, active local communities (so it's not yet another internet church) and that it has generated some (though admittedly limited) secondary interest in both media and books, I think it should not be deleted. Over the next couple of years the secondary sources will either multiply or not depending on the actual notability of the organisation - the evidence can easily be investigated again.
Full disclosure: I am a priest in the AJC and an occasional Wikipedian. Timbomb (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We do not act on whether or not sources will become available, but whether they are available. Additionaly, none of the sources added are independent reliable references that provide substantive coverage of the AJC. --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Gibbs and Pinkham books are independent. You could argue about reliability. I realize that no-one has yet produced an ideal gold-standard secondary source about the AJC. I'm leaning on the criteria that multiple less reliable sources can also indicate notability. Timbomb (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The following is written by Hexalpa:Hexalpa (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) ***Do Not Delete***' The AJC, while small in comparison with Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic branches of Christian tradition, is one of only a handful of Gnostic Churches sharing in the "catholic" sacramental tradition, and posessed of a lineage of apostolic succession tracing back to the time of Christ. It a well-known denomination within the modern sacramental Gnostic movement, and certainly one of the fastest growing.
  • Do Not Delete 21 March 2009 - Kenosis_AO - One of the few independent Sacramental Churches that has a standardized distance seminarian training program, holds regular services and attends the poor. The Clergy all hold regular jobs - many have post-Secondary degrees from accredited sources - but do not have time on top of their reg jobs, Church work, and social work to write academic articles. The standard that you are holding this church to is that established by the mainstream churches for their own aggrandizement. Of course, the early Christian Church didn't have a lot of published articles in accredited Jewish journals of the 1st & 2nd centuries either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.50.86 (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.73.50.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Jordan Stratford calls shenanigans. Pete here obviously has a bias ("L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches" - a completely and demonstrably false assertion) and therefore we need an impartial editor to assist in this discussion – someone without an axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:ORG. ThemFromSpace 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    care to share your reasoning, themfromspace?Wbehun (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into Johannite Church which seems to be the parent of this church and whose article could use an infusion of material. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    This would be a good suggestion, but would be somewhat misleading, because while the AJC does continue the work of Fabre-Palaprat's church, it is not the sole inheritor of that tradition, and operates in a very different manner. Wbehun (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Fabre-Palaprat's church had been non-existant, as such, for over a century. Since then, it has merged with various Gnostic churches (most notably Doinel's Eglise Gnostique de France) and experienced schisms. Its successor churches have also experienced numerous merges and schisms. The AJC is no more Fabre-Palaprat's church than the Lutheran church is a Roman Catholic church. --Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sure, but the mere addition of the heading "Successor Churches" seems like it would overcome that objection. Timbomb (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, the claim that Fabre-Palaprat's church was merged into the Eglise Gnostique de France was merely a claim made by that church, and is far from an undebatable fact. No representative of the Fabre-Palaprat church accepted the claim that they had been "merged." If the Roman Catholic Church now claims that the Church of England has been "merged" into it, does that make it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.55.238 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Independent of whether the article fulfils the criteria for notability, if it were in its current form after the edits of the last two days, I doubt it would have attracted any attention as a candidate for deletion. Why not take a simpler route and simply tag it for { { importance } } or { { notability } }. In it's original state, this seems to me to have been a logical first response rather than hurrying to deletion. Timbomb (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jordan Stratford seems to fulfil notability criteria as a person (written a book via a reputable publisher, interviewed as an expert in his field several times, quoted in a college religion course). A portion of Father Stratford's reputation derives from being a priest in the AJC. To stick to the letter of the rules, the solution seems to be to make a page for Jordan Stratford and then put the existing AJC material on that... but that seems kind of silly, since a lot of other people are involved in the church. Timbomb (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I would argue relativism: "...Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia...." I think you've lost the forrest through the trees Vassyana. This church is notable not only because of its relative size, but because of the uniqueness of its practices. Knowledge (XXG) users should be able to find information they require now, not three hundred years from now, when there are enough scholarly articles written about a topic. Of course there aren't enough scholarly articles written about this church at this time, you can't expect to find as many when compared to other mainstream religions given the individualistic nature of gnosticism. It's true that gnostic churches tend to fly under the radar and avoid media attention; the fact that you can find ANYTHING written at all about the AJC makes this church a notable one amongst the gnostic churches. Try finding anything published about contemporary catharism and you'll get my point (as they are also a large group currently flying under the radar of both media and scholars), plenty of scholarly documents about the cathars of 700 years ago though, but that's not the information that I would be looking for. Cristina ma (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • definiteley delete Not a single reliable source, and no verifiability? Ergo, no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    Please note the number of reliable sources that have been cited (e.g. US News and World Report, PanGaia, The Pomegranate, and books by non-affiliated authors.) Wbehun (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that's a false claim. The US news articles do not contain the words "Apostolic Johannite Church." All of the rest of the sources are blogs or selfpublished or don't mention the "Apostolic johannite church" beyond in passing (for instance the haverford course syllabus for religion 222a mentions that an expert on gnosticism runs this church, but has no content about it (and in fact, is quoting the expert on gnosticism from his own self-published source).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't a false claim. The claim that the rest of the sources are self-published is patently false, however. The reason Father Stratford is considered an authority is not merely on the basis of his excellent work (not self-published) but also on his position within the Church. It's a bit like saying that a reference to a prominent Catholic theologian doesn't constitute notoriety for the Catholic Church. Wbehun (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG, WP:RS. The "do not delete" sockpuppets should be aware that such a strategy never works and indeed tends to backfire, causing previously sympathetic or neutral voters to be disinclined to save an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    I haven't seen any sockpuppeting here: please check the IPs before making unfounded accusations Wbehun (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    Oops, busted! (note: please imagine the "game lost" sound from The Price is Right accompanying this comment. Thank you.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    Uh, inviting people to join a conversation isn't sockpuppeting, Andrew. Sockpuppeting is when a single person uses several accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices. In fact, this suggests that the many voices in support of the article are in fact different people who have joined the conversation as a result of that invitation. Guess you're the one who's busted. Wbehun (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    WP:TEAMWORK is part of the sockpuppetry policy. --Vassyana (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    Vassyana, the very policy you mention starts with this: "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Knowledge (XXG) policies." This clearly has not happened. If you have evidence that any of the voices in this discussion are fraudulent or deceptive, please present it. Wbehun (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ahem, that said, Vassayana, I see that the policy does cover the blog exhortation to participate. slap on Jordan's wrist for that one. Wbehun (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. With so many people arguing "do not delete" I would have thought that at least one of them would have come up with an independent reliable source, but that hasn't happened, whether to support this as an article or as a redirect to any other article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Phil, GRBerry's analysis specifically does not include those sources that I have mentioned above as independent and reliable. If you do a quick comparison, you'll see that GRBerry's analysis does not include the following: a) The US News & World report mention b) the texts published by independent presses (e.g. Apocryphile) or c) the independent magazine mentions (e.g. PanGaia.) Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away I'm afraid. Wbehun (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So that evidence would be: a) The US News & World report that doesn't even mention this church , b) texts from a publisher that specialises in "apocryphilia" and publishes about four print-on-demand books a year , and c) A supposed mention in a web magazine from this outfit. Some reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• So according to some, USN&WR is not independent and reliable. An established and respected theological press (Apocryphile) is not independent and reliable. PanGaia magazine is not independent and reliable. This sets an impossibly high bar for *any* NRM to be noteworthy if the work done by individuals in the name of the organization is to be consistently excluded. The question is, how useful does Knowledge (XXG) want to be in researching contemporary Gnosticism or New Religious Movements altogether? Seeing as every available survey of contemporary Gn includes reference to the AJC, who is served by its omission here? There's an active dialogue going on in the 9 official bodies of the AJC, in many more informal groups discussing AJC materials and theology and praxis. Gnosticism in general is generating a lot of published work and scholarly debate. Does Knowledge (XXG) wish to be a relevant resource in this legitimate arena of research? In which case, the article should stand and be expanded. If not, it needs to begin deleting a host of less active, less populated and less vocal organizations within modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement. What's it going to be? - Jordan Stratford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I submit that Jordan's summation above cuts to the heart of the matter. The spirit of the notoriety policy which we all as wikipedians endorse is ensure that wikipedia is a useful and reliable resource for those seeking information. What qualifies as notoriety within the small sphere of modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement is different from what would qualify as notoriety for, say, a scientific breakthrough, an historical event, or the entertainment world. I think it behooves us as a community therefore to retain the article and continue to expand it. I would also mention that the controversy and strong feelings that this discussion has engendered is in itself a statement of the importance of this article. I think I've said all I need to say, so in leaving this to the editorial staff I say thank you especially to Vassayana and to Juliancolton for their input. Wbehun (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

notability of this band is not established in the article. Rtphokie (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DeYoung Family Zoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing to suggest that this zoo is notable either in wiki terms or in zoo terms. The article contains no refs and although not much more than a basic stub what is there is written along the lines of an advert. WebHamster 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep appears to be a notable medium-sized zoo, big enough to have lions, tigers, and a total of 125 species according to the article. I also found this story about their aquiring Siberian tiger cubs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As of yet, undecided. Reliable sourcing is thin, with the link Starblind found standing alone amidst tourist guides. The fact that their website demands that I have a user-id and password preestablished (how would I do that?) makes me even more dubious. Are others able to visit the site?—Kww(talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep--weak because I'm hardly blown away by the references; keep because there are some references. I don't know if zoos are inherently notable if they have more than a certain number of animals of a certain size (or a combined number of big predatory claws?), but this passes WP:N for me, even if barely. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Needs significant coverage, need sources to show she "has worked to “make a difference” on many fronts" in some kind of notable position. Beach drifter (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. I am not even sure what the exact claim to notability: most of the article claims ("senior level positions in banks, financial institutions, public multinational corporations and the U.S. government"; what bank ? what MNC ? what positions ?) are vague and, despite appearances, currently unsupported by reference. The claim of her being "first woman Hindu Pujari" is also unsupported by linked article and highly dubious. The only secondary source seems to be this soft-news bio in "Little India", a publication of unknown reliability (their About Us page is blank), which is insufficient to establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ultimate Fighter 5 Finale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page should be merged into The Ultimate Fighter 5. We don't need a separate article covering just the finale. Antivenin 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: I created all of these articles as a result of the discussion I noted above. I will hold off on the remaining three until a decision is made, however I still would like to stress that the articles should be kept for a couple reasons. The UFC website categorizes the finales as a mma event: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.eventResults, not just part of the series. Also, many television series on Knowledge (XXG) have a separate article for each episode. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The TUF finales are as deserving of their own articles as any other UFC event. A few weeks ago, I was wondering myself why they didn't have their own articles, as the links on the MMA record boxes of the fighters who fought in the finale would lead to an article about an entire season of a show that they had nothing to do with. I was glad and supportive when Drr-darkomen took the initiative to make the articles. Rather than just being a finale for a show, these events were fully sanctioned MMA events that happened to feature the finalists, among other fights. --jhanCRUSH 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep When the proposal was first made on the MMA Project discussion page I wasn't convinced it was worth separating them. However, a comment made above convinced me. There are participants in the Finale that are not part of the regular season. Linking these participants on their page (and their record boxes) to the TV series' season page may be confusing, even if linked to the bottom of the season's page to just the finale. Having a separate article for the finale can also be potentially beneficial to discuss issues with the finale card itself that does not include the season's participants (as is happening with the season 9 finale and a match that on-and-off). --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, they are events that happens to be related to the series. If it was only fighters from the series it woudl make sence but their are fight that have no link to the rest.--Nate1481 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

lacks significant 3rd party coverage (article lacks any references at all), is co-script coordinator credits on a TV show enough for noability? Rtphokie (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose -- Jamie JCA 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment could you expand a bit on your Oppose comment? As the page creator you may have some more insight on why this person is notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. This article was also tagged for {{notability}}, {{advert}} and {{unreferenced}} as it seemed to be promotional in tone. There's nothing to indicate notability here. Rodhullandemu 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination was withdrawn. Subject has now played professionally. StarM 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete A non-notable youth player. He played in 1.Liga but not in the scope of fully-professional league. Secondly, there is no prove he played for Swiss U21 as no name in official stats. in the 2008 matches. Matthew_hk tc 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrew due to Germanier made his professional debut after the afd process. Matthew_hk tc 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so national games suddenly become non-notable when the players are below a certain age. (<-- sarcasm) That's not consensus, that's age discrimination. National games and players who meet WP:GNG should be included as WP:ATHLETE isn't the only inclusion guideline. You should look for reliable sources before branding something non-notable. - Mgm| 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment I found it on www.football.ch. Matthew_hk tc 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

There are a few reasons why I feel this page should be deleted, but I'm not certain that this is the case. The page seems to be advertising for this person's company, Diamante Pictures, especially in the last few sentences of the biography section. I suppose this can be rewritten, but the person may not be notable enough to qualify for WP:NOTE. The article makes no reference to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," that the notablility guideline states, and I also fear that such coverage does not exist. It has no references that illustrate this point; the only working external link is a link to the company's website, and the IMDB link does not work. Moreover, it was created by User:CreativeCross, and when the userpage's edit history is examined, it is clear that this user is Benjamin DeJesus or is affiliated with Benjamin DeJesus. This could be a conflict of interest, as someone may have just created the page to make them appear notable when they aren't, possibly even to use as a way, when communicating with clients, to make themselves seem more well-known. Maybe this is not enough to make the article qualify for deletion, but I still think that it deserves to be listed and discussed. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rubi. MBisanz 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rubi (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystalball article. ABS-CBN had not yet confirmed if this show will eventually air or had begun production. -danngarcia (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Rubí.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

article about a new newspaper, lacks circulation numbers or other assertion of notability (author removed prod)  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, cannot find a single source about this newspaper that isn't a press release or job advertisement. I thought that could be because all its sources are in Norwegian, but the newspaper is written in English, so I'd assume at least one independent English source would mention the newspaper if it were notable? Somno (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I did a similar search myself and failed to come up with anything.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I have just contacted our editor-in-cheif Chris Hopson and he will find English or international sources confirming the launch of Recharge. Meanwhile, I would ask you to consider the fact that NHST Media Group have other global pulications such as Upstream and Tradewinds in our portfolio - both of which are world leaders in editorial coverage in their respective fields (oil/gas and shipping). Please advise me in what to do in this matter. Would you like me to post some online metrics? User:nicholaytehrani March 16, Oslo | Norway
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. I have read the WP Spam and COI articles. As far as I can see there are no elements of spam in the article, the same goes for conflict of interest. We have tried to compare the article to "benchmark" newspapers such as The Guardian, where the language used is more or less the same. I am more than happy to edit the article or add/remove content, but I would truly appreciate if you could point out exactly what makes the article not valid. Thank you for your kind help. User:nicholaytehrani March 18, Oslo | Norway
  • The correct procedure is to delete for now, as there are no reliable sources available to verify claims to notability. This very well might change (even within a few months), in which time the article can be re-created with sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. The launch of a new journalistic product by a media group that is losing money might seem to meet some of Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria in a time when closings are the rule. Recharge's notability, or that of its parent, might be more evident if Knowledge (XXG) contributors would take the trouble to read the languages relevant to the articles they propose to delete. There are plenty of mentions of Recharge -- not all sympathetic -- by non-conflicted sources in Norway, including the keenest Norwegian competitor of the parent company. -- That being said, the contributor who appeared above lobbying to keep the article might want to include reference to the controversy over whether starting new media products in the current climate was a smart move. --Mstarli (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fast food. MBisanz 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete - any claim of notability is tied to the lawsuit. Subject is not notable beyond a single event and there is no justification for a separate biographical article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename - I agree that Barber is significant only because of his lawsuit, but it seems clear that the lawsuit is significant. It got massive press coverage in 2002, and Nexis shows continuing discussion of the case in the global media in 2007 (article in Business Day of South Africa) and 2008 (Nation's Restaurant News). I find references to something also called the "Stella Awards," which are some kind of award given to an outrageous or ridiculous lawsuit filing, and Barber's suit seems to have won one. Uucp (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion on renaming can take place on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Notability not established, no references, uncited, very vague - could refer to various games made up in school which are not called Penny football GTD 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Production Products Company (PPC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No verifiable sources found for an encyclopedia article. A Google and Google News search turned up only a few sealed sites referring to random court cases and a notice that the daughter of an owner of PPC had married someone from NBC News in New York. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they are the originators of the Magnavox line, as their web site claims, that's also fairly notable. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Strip mall with only a couple stores. Sources comprise dead links, a primary source, and a store locator. Seems to entirely lack coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn and incomplete mall; if it ever become a million sq. ft. facility it can be recreated. Several links in the refs. are broken. JJL (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The mall, combined with a similar mall across the street is notable for being the largest lifestyle center complex in the state of Illinois. Sources will be updated. The mall is not a "strip mall" by any means. The mall is still under construction and will eclipse the Algonquin Commons (currently the largest lifestyle center in IL) in size once completed. It's already average size for a lifestyle center, and is only 1/3 of the way done. No need to delete and then bring back when people are seeking information during its ongoing construction and when stores are already operational. Abog (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's not even built, it's hard to imagine what can be written about it, nor am I seeing enough--nor can I imagine there being--independent sources that discuss it in enough depth to provide more than a listing of stores. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, you're wrong. It is built. It's not finished yet, but many of the buildings are constructed and all the stores currently listed are open for business now...some have been open since as long ago as 2006. And there's plenty to be written about...its planning and construction, the delays, the opening of businesses, the size of the project, etc. I will try to find more sources or fix the current ones from the local papers and business news websites. Abog (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: I've added several more sources, so just about everything in the article is referenced now. The local newspaper has written dozens of news articles about the center. Additional papers in the area have written about the center too, but their archives don't go back as far. Abog (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

almost three years after the fact the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it's made them worse. people wantonly violate WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and cite this article. for example, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc (do a search for colbert on those pages to see the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violations). per WP:POKEMON, the solution seems obvious - remove this article per WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. the citations are all for naught, as well. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run had lots of citations and it got deleted. rightfully so, too - citations alone are not enough. if this article was deleted no one would care enough to recreate it in this depth because the recentism appeal wouldn't be there.

that this was a former front page featured article is of little consequence - Talk:Torchic was a former front page featured article and look at its fate. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. The cited policies do not seem to apply; the speech in question seems to have risen above a temporary news item to the point where it was still receiving comment in major media sources six months later, so I don't see how WP:NOT#NEWS is relevant. WP:RECENTISM is only an essay, and cannot therefore be used by itself as grounds to delete an article (as it quite correctly notes itself). I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant in the slightest; this article clearly describes an event that was quite important, a comedy performance that has achieved critical acclaim. In this regard it is no less discriminate than any other article on entertainment events. This particular event has quite clearly received much discussion in the press, which is one of the measures we use to determine whether the inclusion of something is indiscriminate or not: describing something that is notable is not considered indiscriminate; by the rules described at WP:N there's a clear presumption of notability for this event. Unless there's a good reason to consider those rules wrong in this case (and I don't see one in your deletion argument), I see no reason to delete the article. Very few after-dinner speeches are notable, but this one seems to make the mark. JulesH (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, Barry Bonds 714th home run was a 2-sentence article with 2 references, which was merged to a 52k article (i.e., when combined, about the right length for an article). This article is a 5,000 word/47k article with 76 references and the logical merge target being a 68k article (i.e., when combined, well and truly in the "almost certainly should be divided" category according to WP:Article length; in fact, even before merging this article in, Stephen Colbert is in the "probably should be divided" range, so we should be looking at moving content out of that article, not into it). Merging is not an option here, because the parent article is already too long. JulesH (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • that Barry Bonds 714th home run only had 2 references is immaterial - there are over 7,000 references available . and whether or not Stephen Colbert's article is too long is also immaterial - the fact remains that this article should, at worst, be a footnote, and at best, be deleted. your assertion that the event "was quite important" is a WP:NOR violation. It did not create profound change in American politics nor was it something that changed the outcome of an election. this dinner is no more notable than the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud and look at the article on that. oh wait - it doesn't exist, even though it, too, is still discussed in the media. see for instance (do a search for "o'donnell"). Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • The point about the home run article is that it was short, and there was no reason not to merge it into the medium-length parent article, which is what was done. This is a long article, its parent article is already longer than the style guidelines suggest for most articles, therefore merging is not an appropriate action at this point. The assertion that the event was important is not original research; it is merely a paraphrase of some of the content that is quoted in the article from reliable sources. Besides, I'm not aware of any policy that prevents us from using original research to decide whether or not a topic is notable, WP:NOR only applies to claims we make about a subject in an article on it. JulesH (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —94.196.217.102 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

* Keep: Per JulesH's logic (very well put). DP76764 (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    • see WP:JUSTAVOTE. if you cannot contribute to the discussion other than to endorse another persons opinion, you should not be contributing at all Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Woah, seems like an unbiased admin or editor should make that call, not the nominator. I think it's perfectly fine in a deletion discussion to have the same opinion as someone else. Did you want him to just copy and paste the same argument, or say "I agree with Julesh"? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Note- I am unstriking DP76764's !vote that I think was stricken unfairly. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I didn't stricken DP76764's vote - he did, per your link. Although that said, I still believe it needs to be stricken all the same. The point of an AfD is to build consensus towards inclusion or deletion. ie. the best argument is what decides the outcome - not the number of people who voted to keep or to delete. DP76764 did not make an argument and so his edits should be removed. personally i believe that redundant arguments ought to be removed as well (a good argument only need be made once - to make it multiple times serves no point other than to overload the closing admin), but i am willing to concede that is logistically more challenging (unless someone does a direct copy / paste, it can be difficult to say whether or not an argument phrased one way would achieve a different effect than the same argument phrased another way) Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I struck myself (and am re-striking) after reading the 'justavote' piece (though I think WP:PERNOM would have been a more appropriate label to have used). AfDs will be very short, if the only posts allowed are unique items from each person. But that might be a good thing. DP76764 (Talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Contrarian delete under WP:NOTNEWS as the sources are from the weeks following the event and therefore establish no lasting significance. WillOakland (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Two of the sources are from 6 months after the event, one is from 7 months after the event, and one is from 13 months after the event. This is a lot longer than one would expect from something that is simply a news story of no lasting significance. JulesH (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A well-written, thoroughly-sourced article that establishes notability using over 70 separate reliable and verifiable sources. I am very disturbed by the collective misinterpretation of WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS as rationalizations for deletion, and only further disturbed by the nominator's removal of contrary opinions. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Deleting a featured article is absurd. It's well-written and researched, comprehensive and factual, neutral and unbiased. Perhaps most troubling, the nominator's rationale sounds less like "this isn't an article we should have on Knowledge (XXG)" and more like "I'm tired of losing AfD debates because of this thing". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • AfD's are not a contest, however, that does not change the fact that this article is oft cited in violation of WP:POKEMON and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. further, being well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, factual, neutral, and unbiased has nothing to do with its notability. i'm not proposing this article lose its featured article status - i'm proposing it be deleted. besides, how can anyone honestly say "we can revisit this again in a few years" if, a few years from that comment, people will say "it was notable now because it was deemed notable then"? maybe there should be an entry addressing this in Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. besides, consensus can change.Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • First of all, WP:POKEMON and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are essays not guidelines, so articles can't be in violation of them. Second, I have concerns that you've nominated this article for deletion for the wrong reasons. Much of your rationale for deletion in the nomination focuses on this article's role in other AfD nominations. That's a bad reason to propose deleting any article, and a horrible reason to propose deleting a featured article. If you think there are fundamental reasons why an article shouldn't exist - whether they be moral ones like BLP, legal ones like copyright, or policy ones like NPOV - then by all means nominate that article for deletion. But in this case, you did not justify this article's deletion on those grounds. Your nomination more or less says this article should be deleted because it's preventing other articles from being deleted. For that, I cannot oppose this nomination enough. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • i did start the afd off with the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it ceased to have an impact on what the media was covering 2-3 months after the fact and now it's just a footnote in the annals of irrelevant history - a bit of trivia, if you will. that said, i will concede the point that i may have harped on this articles impact on other afd's too much. although it has had an impact that is not relevant to the discussion at hand (rather what it's relevant to are my motivations for targeting this aticle amidst all the other articles on wikipedia; not that that's relevant to the afd process) Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, first of all it's hardly a forgotten event. The dinner took place in April 2006. The magazine New York clearly remembered it at the end of the year eight months later, since according to our article they called it one of the most "brilliant" moments of 2006. The press corps and media clearly didn't forget about it since, according to our section on the 2007 dinner here, the WHCA's choice of Rich Little was interpreted by many as a direct response to Colbert's performance. And finally, when Craig Ferguson was announced as the headliner for the 2008 dinner, one of Britain's biggest newspapers described Colbert's speech in an article about Ferguson as having "achieved instant classic status" and Colbert as having "demonstrated perhaps the greatest courage of any White House dinner speaker, subtly and hilariously ripping the heart out of the Bush administration, and the US press corps which has failed so dramatically to hold him to account." If a British newspaper still remembers a speech by an American comedian at an American political dinner two years afterwards and speak of the event as a "classic", that might be a signal that the article's about a valid topic. The article itself could perhaps use some updating and revision, but deleting it is completely uncalled for. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I'm not going to bother citing a bunch of policies. I'll just say (a) it meets content guidelines; (b) WP:NOTPAPER; and (c) I'll leave it at that. Taroaldo (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • A vote to keep that doesn't cite guidelines carries about as much weight as a vote to delete that doesn't cite guidelines. If we ignore guidelines, anyone can make up whatever guidelines they see fit. also, WP:NOTPAPER does not excuse articles from abiding by predefined notability standards. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I respect your opinion, but I don't believe that the deletion arguments hold any water in this case. I stated that in my opinion the article meets the content guidelines. I could've cited a bunch of ]'s, but I really don't see the point in this case. My !vote is pretty clear as is. But if it is to be disgarded that will be up to the deciding admin, not you. Taroaldo (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - if this article were deleted, I would care enough to recreate it at its current depth :P rst20xx (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Trim and merge with Criticism of George W. Bush - Here's my analysis of this in no particular order. (1) The fact that this is a featured article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If we made a mistake in the past, and that mistake makes it to FA status, does that mean the mistake shouldn't be corrected? So this is a FA, but that is irrelevant. (2) The nominator asserts that this article is used in WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments elsewhere. This is also irrelevant to this deletion discussion. If editors cite this article whilst making an erroneous OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument somewhere else, then they should be educated; it is not grounds for deleting this article. (3) Essentially, the nominator's argument for deletion boils down to WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. In other words, the question is: is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article?. Remember, this question is independent of the number of sources in the article. We already know this uses reliable sources and is verifiable. So the question stands, is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article? I could go either way on this one. For example, a Gnews search shows that as of today, March, 2009, people are still discussing and referring to the event. This would indicate some degree of historical significance. On the other hand, I think having a full-blown encyclopedia article on it might be blowing it out of perspective and giving it undue weight in the encyclopedia. For example, which event is historically more significant: Bush's inauguration or Colbert's 16 minute speech? I would say the inauguration is a more historically significant event, yet look at the disparity in the length and depth of the articles. In conclusion, this article is sourced, verified, and the subject to some degree notable. But to satisfy the neutral point of view policy that we have, we should not give this undue weight. I recommend we trim this down to a couple of paragraphs and give it a section in Criticism of George W. Bush. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • First, your comparison to Bush's inauguration is a false one. This article's viability shouldn't be judged based on the relative quality of another article. That's just silly. Second, there is no NPOV issue here. The article's not some big tirade against the Bush administration, but rather a factual and blow-by-blow look of the event. I won't deny it couldn't use a little work, especially in terms of updating it now that we've had two more WHCDs, but saying there are NPOV issues is unrealistic. Should we merge Court-packing plan into a "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article? Should we merge "Lewinsky scandal" into "Criticism of Bill Clinton"? Third, your merge idea fails to take into account that he also criticized the media. Moving it wholly into Criticism of George W. Bush is ignorant of the event itself. Fourth, it appears that the Criticism of George W. Bush article will soon be merged into Public image of George W. Bush, where this article barely fits in at all. Fifth and finally, undue weight applies to parts of articles, not articles themselves. It's not like this has four or five subpages dealing with Bush's reaction and the media's reaction and Jon Stewart's reaction. It's just one article. It's not unduly weighing the encyclopedia down. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - well sourced, passed AfD at the time and has maintained notability since. It was arguably a career defining moment for Colbert, and there's enough content to warrant its own article, not just a section elsewhere. The logic of the nominator is also faulty, in that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways - if "X should be kept because Y passed AfD" is invalid, then "X should be deleted because Y failed AfD" is equally invalid. Orpheus (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a feature article and is well sourced. "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic", WP:NTEMP. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.124.103 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as pointy nomination. Nominating a featured article? Outright abuse of the deletion process. AfD does not exist for you to take random swings at things you don't like. It's all the more inappropriate to try to delete one of our best articles because you perceive it as standing in the way of deleting other content you dislike.--Father Goose (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments above. Also, I call snowball. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:POKEMON is just a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    Technically, it's a variation on WP:WAX, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's the most infamous example of "Well, what about ?" It just happens to be obsolete, now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the nom has a point. I don't think the nom has done a very good job of making it, and I don't think this AFD is a good place to explore it, since it's a general issue and not one specific to this article. (WP:N currently places undue weight on one-time events that make the news.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I will speedy close this tomorrow barring any very convincing point for why an article with over 70 references might fail WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see where the nom mentioned WP:N at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The depth and diversity of the coverage seems sufficient to meet WP:N and move beyond the article being a news report. It wouldn't have reached FA status if sourcing had been inadequate. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not just "an event", but an event which received lasting coverage and commentary from several political commentators over an extended period of time. Almost inclined to call this a speedy keep. If an article has successfully gone through a featured article process, it seems rather improbable that any major concerns over the topic being unencyclopedic wouldn't be catched. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    It has happened. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    The differences between that article and this one are vast. First, Torchic's sources ranged from such esteemed sources as "pokedream.com" and "pokemonelite2000.com", whereas this article only cites such obscure sources as CNN, Reuters, the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. Second, Torchic is about a fictional anime fire bird thing, and this article is about a notable event in which a well-known comedian and satirist criticized both the President of the United States and the American media to their faces. A comparison between this article and Torchic is completely unfair and unreasonable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, possibly Snowball. Even after reading his arguments, I'm not entirely sure what the nominator's point is. On one hand he claims that arguments that it is important is original research, even there are over 70 sources that prove it received substantial, non-trivial coverage from mainstream reliable sources. As one user pointed out, it was even named one of New York Magazine's most important events of the year. Apparently it had some lasting effect, then. He also cites WP:Pokemon as a counter-argument to the fact that this article was a front-page candidate, neglecting the fact that the deletion of other front-page pokemon candidates were part of a sweeping policy change for Knowledge (XXG). it also seems clear that the nominator didn't even READ WP:Pokemon, as even the header of the page (which is an essay BTW, not an actual policy) says "This page in a nutshell: The Pokémon test is moot, now that almost all the individual characters have been merged into a list of Pokémon. This essay describes the historical context of this test.". Besides, the speech itself was released as an audiobook on iTunes and was the best-seller for months, if not years after release. Surely THAT would suggest it is notable, no? The nominator's arguments for deletion are asinine and completely missing the point. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability. Being featured in an article on maxim.com is not enough nor is being a reporter for a TV show that's not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article (XLTV). The (non existent?) Wall Street Journal article does nothing to establish notability either per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NPF, etc. Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • KEEP: I've seen her in not only Maxim but also Guess Jeans ads. Upon further googling, she's been in quite a few other major ad campaigns as well and therefore should at least have an article here, I'll see if I can't add some more sources/online ads to the page later. Another-anomaly (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • i cannot comment on sources that have yet to be added, however, appearing in a Guess Jeans ad does not make one notable anymore than it makes the table that appeared in the ad notable or the cloud that appeared in the ad Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based just on the references and external links she meets the General notability guideline criteria. Untick (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • which ones in particular? her myspace.com page, perhaps? after all, everyone with myspace account should have a wikipedia page, shouldn't they? maybe her website is what makes her notable, WP:SPS be damned! i've already addressed the (non existent) Wall Street Journal article Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The Wall Street Journal article the page links to is missing due to a major site change since the article was published - just google/wayback the link and look at the cached text, and apparently the updated article has not yet been found. Also, your comments borderline on breaking WP:CIVIL, so please watch your tone when discussing this. Another-anomaly (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I've replaced the broken link with the findarticles archive. It's a MarketWatch story actually, which is a sister publication of the WSJ. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here by the way - we're not claiming notability because of a single event. If the article said she was famous because of the mentioned event, that would be different. Orpheus (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑