Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 15

< 14 December	16 December >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken riggies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has remained unverified since 2007. News content referenced in discussion page is all local papers. Previously was candidate for speedy deletion.

Fails WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleaa (talk • contribs) 2009/12/16 01:48:39

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a minor local specialty, but then so is Horseshoe sandwich and probably a hundred other things. Described in a cookbook here and mentioned in Fodor's New York State here. There's also a Rachael Ray recipe here. From what I've seen, this is considered a legit local dish. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is full of such food articles, which from my reading of WP:N are not notable. I think editors should respond very specifically as to how Chicken riggies does or does not meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Right, sorry if I wasn't careful enough. WP:GNG states that a subject is presumptively notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I've given three, and here's another, Home Plate: The Culinary Road Trip of Cooperstown by Brenda Berstler, stating that "Utica is as well-known for this chicken-rigatoni dish, as Buffalo, New York is known for their wings." These are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I think coverage is "significant" when a book describes a dish and provides a recipe. So, I think this subject is presumptively notable, and none of the rebutting circumstances in WP:NOT applies. Therefore the subject is notable. It's not Beef Wellington or Peach Melba, granted, but it's a notable dish. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I think coverage is 'significant' when a book describes a dish and provides a recipe." Thanks for that explanation. I wonder if others agree, or if this has been discussed at WP:Food and Drink somewhere. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this is clearly a regional specialty, thus explaining why references are in local press, it is more than simply a local recipe, as it is notable enough to have an annual contest for the best creator of the dish. The event, called Riggiefest, is in its fifth year, and garners coverage from local newspapers and TV. This is not your typical bar challenge, as it raised well into six figures for charity. The article was originally poorly written, with a plea to track down information embedded in the article itself. While I'm not about to claim GA status, I've cleaned up the ugly parts, and added five references.--SPhilbrick T 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the two "keep" voters above. Airplaneman ^talk 02:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirogane tunnel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 'haunted place' in Japanese urban legend - according to a single unreliable looking book. Definitely doesn't meet notability guidelines. Fences&Windows 23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Fences&Windows said, there is no reliable source for the information which, incidentally, is packed full of weasel words. Meguro Ward's website isn't a reference. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that this has ever been mentioned in the article about Meguro in Japan, and I don't see any reason to merge it now. The source is legitimate, and I'm glad that the author at least referred to one, but even then the scary tunnel rates two sentences [[1]] in Catrien's book ("Agonized faces have appeared on the tunnel's pillars, and the number seen seems to be increasing," p.122). The usual outcome is that there have to be at least one hundred reported appearances of agonized faces on the pillars before a scary tunnel can become notable. Even the Pont de l'Alma tunnel doesn't rate its own page. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Caveat - I don't read Japanese, so I was unable to review the website, however, one extremely brief mention in a not obviously notable book is a long way from notable.--SPhilbrick T 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to indicate that there is significant, reliable coverage, or even anything to substantiate the article's claims. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sean Salazar U.S. Senate Candidate 2010, Washington State

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created by a person with a COI, as they added images which they claim to own copyright to. In addition, every single reference is a campaign reference, there are zero independent sources. I have added a blpsources tag to the article. Woogee (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources can be added. Google searches yield very little--you'd never know he was running. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @036 · 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG as failing general notability, as well as for failing verifiability, as a politician, as spam, as a fringe candidate, and as a soapbox. Wikipedia does not publish original material, and is not a webhost. There have been literally ZERO news articles about this person, and a search online reveals no real reliable sources about this person or his campaign. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes, this should not have survived in the mainspace for three weeks. This is pure WP:ARTSPAM – that is, it is promotional in nature but disguised as a legitimate article. The article was created by someone with a conflict of interest, seeking to promote their preferred candidate in a Senate race, and so fails WP:NOT, particularly WP:SOAP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability; only recreate if he gets significant coverage or wins the race. Just curious, though — how is this guy a fringe candidate? Major party candidates aren't what we generally call fringe. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd be surprised how many fringe-type candidates run in major-party primaries. I don't know much about Dr. Salazar's politics, but he's clearly one of many candidates in the GOP primary, most of which don't have a prayer of winning. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- what Willoughby said. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried searching for Sean Salazar, without the honorific, to see if I would get more hits. I did, but (scanning) none seem to be this person. Perhaps later there will be notable coverage, but at the moment, nothing.--SPhilbrick T 22:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - manifold issues with this article, as others have pointed out. Where to begin? First, it doesn't read (to me) as WP:NPOV. Next, as stated before, are WP:SOAP concerns. If, somehow, this candidate wins, or becomes the focus of significant coverage, then by all means, recreate. However, as this is not currently the case, I must move for deletion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately not seeing secondary source coverage. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that some clever and successful "hacking" is taking place to the benefit of Senator Murray, and to the ultimate damage of Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable information source. All of the references to Senator Murry's potential opposition seem to be effectively disabled or besmirched. I have found nothing equivalent when reviewing Democratic opponents to Republican incumbents. Is it Wikipedia's goal to allow 'contributors' or commenters to drive away half of the US population from its pages by permitting such drivel? These are postings of information about 'political' candidates, yet the commenters complain that articles are 'promoting' the candidate? Do they expect a candidate to post articles demeaning themselves or besmirching their own character. Of course not. This is a cheap way to deprive the public of information, which seems contrary to the very essence of Wikipedia.

The elimination of all bias destroys all information. The hiding of bias "in the name of fairness" is the worst form of deception.— Alkem7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I'm not an American (and am non-political) so I could care less who wins a Senate or Congress seat. Non-notable. Candidacy does not confer notability. Just out of curiosity, not that it will affect my !vote, what is he a 'Dr' of or in? And who is the Rev. Perryman? Notable? If so, it still doesn't transfer. All in all, looks like a normal politician's hand-out. Peridon (talk)
Comment to 'Dr Salazar' Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be 'about' not 'by'. It is not a place for you or any other candidate - or established politician - to promote your case. This is an encyclopaedia which has its own rules. If you don't like them, either start your own, or use aboutus, linkedin or similar sites where promotional material is the norm. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna van Beethoven

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I deprodded both and brought them here (early in the process) because while notability isn't inherited, I imagine some people might object to these being deleted. There are sources but it's a question of the historical context which I'm not well qualified to answer in this case.

I also deprodded/nominated Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven

Please comment separately for each individual Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual's only apparent notability is relationship to Ludwig van Beethoven; this is insufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED, and most of what is notable about her can be covered (and probably very nearly is) in his article. While she may also be notable for being involved in a difficult custody dispute, it's not clear to me that's sufficient either. Magic♪piano 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No personal notability established. Also, her husband appears to be his own father...! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note DGG and I have corrected the links: Karl van Beethoven is in fact a redirect to Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven, hence he appeared to father himself... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a rousing chorus of I'm My Own Grandpa. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Magicpiano. --Klein zach 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Keep She was a major player in the notable lawsuit with LvB but that notability is borderline and the information could be mentioned within his article as well. During my search for sources I did, however, find enough information to assert notability on Kasper, the son of Kaspar Anton Karl and Johanna, so that might be the first place to head if anybody want to build up articles on the Beethoven family. Them From Space 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might use Johann van Beethoven as a starting point to hang your finds on. If it gets too big or unwieldy, the stuff on his descendents can always be split out. Magic♪piano 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Switching to keep. There's enough cited info here for it to be a deficit if we lost it. Still open to the idea of a central article for the Beethoven family. Them From Space 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. As stated above notability is not inherited. Additionally the court case has weak reasons for it to stay up. Cablespy (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<a>Delete: Notability isn't inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we perhaps create an article like Family of Ludwig van Beethoven? Even if his family members didn't do much of significance, I'm sure many people would like to learn something about them, and I'm sure at least a decent amount of information is available on them. I've always felt that NOTINHERITED should be relaxed when dealing with the close relations of top-tier historical figures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That might work better actually, but we might need to rearrange the order of the title to help searches: Ludwig van Beethoven's Family --Jubilee♫clipman 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Johanna. See my note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven. (the argument is that there is a significant, tho probably incorrect, theory that she was his lover). Yes,we could create a section and do it there, and this is what I would recommend for a merely notable composer or other artist. But for the few who are the very most famous ones in all of history, a more expansive treatment is indicated. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency to treat all notable subject as if they had the same importance, and it's time we overcame that. The depth of coverage should be proportional to the importance. (provided, of course we have source; for LvB and his family and associates, we do.) DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Johanna. Sooner or later we will include more detail in our treatment of Beethoven biography. For better or worse, his custody struggle with Johanna over nephew Karl is very informative about Beethoven as a person and should be treated in detail. There isn't enough room in the main Beethoven article, and Johanna's article is a sensible place to put it. Please note that our coverage of Haydn and Mozart is likewise distributed to some extent into the articles about the people who were important in their lives. Opus33 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How do a custody battle and a (probably spurious) affair establish personal Notability for Johanna? And why do these not fit into Ludwig van Beethoven? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heavens' sake. You didn't even read what I wrote. Could you please just go away and leave our Beethoven coverage alone? Opus33 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would your concern not be addressed by the proposed "Family of" article? Magic♪piano 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magicpiano, The problem is that each member of Beethoven's family related to him in a different way; it's not a natural grouping of topics. If we kept the article separate, then a nav box at the bottom of each individual article would suffice to permit readers to find all of our coverage. Opus33 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that: articles are only acceptable for people who have personal notability. That needs to be established first. If that can be done then (and only then) the articles can stay. But even then, there is an an article which links all the notable members of Mozart's family: Mozart family. Could that not be used as the basis for any Beethoven family article? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opus33: You wrote (my emphasis): "...his custody struggle with Johanna over nephew Karl is very informative about Beethoven as a person and should be treated in detail". Thus you actually prove that this is to do with LvB specifially and should be in his article. It does not prove personal notability for Johanna herself. The other half of my comment was directed at DGG who said "...the argument is that there is a significant, tho probably incorrect, theory that she was his lover..." That too belongs in LvB's article. What do you mean when you say "There isn't enough room in the main Beethoven article..."? Johanna's article is only two lines long and fails to mention even these facts. OTOH, the LvB article goes into considerable detail already: Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Custody_struggle_and_illness. Seems to fit OK as far as I can see... Also, the various members of Mozart's family that have separate articles have had personal notatability established, at least by the inclusion of an important portrait (his sons). I haven't checked Haydn yet, but I strongly suspect the same is true. BTW, I am an editor involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers: you are only involved in the former, so how is this "...[y]our Beethoven coverage..." alone? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I meant "the community of Wikipedia editors". I remind you that we are trying to produce a really complete and thorough encyclopedia. People like you, who evidently want to cut back coverage simply because they personally can't imagine a topic being of interest to other people, are a big threat to the quality of our encyclopedia. So please cut it out. Opus33 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I am a member of "the community of Wikipedia editors"... I have stated my position exceptionally well, I feel: neither Johanna nor Kaspar have had their personal notability established. If you are able to establish it, great: do so in the articles. I am only going by what is written in these two articles not what is written in LVB's. For Johanna the sum total is this: Johanna van Beethoven (1786–1869) was the daughter of Anton Van Reiss, a prosperous Viennese upholsterer. Her mother was the daughter of a wine merchant and local mayor. On 25 May 1806 she married Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven, younger brother of Ludwig van Beethoven. Their only child, Karl van Beethoven, was born September 4 of the same year. Worse still, neither of the two referenced websites seem to be particularly reliable or useful. If you know Johanna's biography well enough and have reliable texts to hand then please expand the article and add reliable sources to establish Johanna's personal notability. If there are none, she does not warrant a separate article. It's people like me (and hopefully you) who are interested in maintaining Wikipedia's standards of Verifiability, Notability, Reliability, Citation etc (no need to link those topics since you've been here from the start...) A really complete and thorough encyclopedia means nothing if it is poorly written and badly sourced, as you well know. I can't actually for the life of me figure out what I've said to elicit your recent comments. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the content of the article was slightly larger until December 9, when Cablespy removed the uncited (but probably fairly easily citable) paragraph about the custody dispute. Much (but not all) of the removed content is in the main LvB article. Magic♪piano 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True: I forgot to mention that here, but did so later (below). I think the best solution is to come back in a month. We may have viable article(s) then. My problem is the lack of verifability not the veracity of this article. Manifestly, notability is not presently established. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm the nom and I commented to this effect on the sister (no pun intended): I think the best compromise is to merge both articles to Family of Ludwig van Beethoven or something similar. All of the ancillary family members, whose sum is notable, but who alone might not be, can then be explained in a full context, instead of in isolation, which requires lots more effort, more vandalism patrolling, more confusing search results, etc., etc. There is a downside to too many articles, but in a case like this I think the information is important. I think a family article is the best of both worlds. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is the best solution. How about Beethoven family as per Mozart family? Much simpler than either of our suggestions (see above for my other one). --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose closing this AfD and, if necessary, reopening in a month - The reason being that the article does not in its present state establish any personal notability for Johanna. (Review this edit.) I suggest we give editors time to expand the article to establish her notability and add reliable secondary sources to verify the information. If this cannot be done then renominate. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Opus33 (at least) is editing the article to try to bring it up to WP standards. Lockwood and New Grove are acceptable sources and the article is taking shape. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
I have relisted because the discussion shifted markedly from delete towards merger, with a number of the earlier ccommentors appearing to change positions. Please clarify your current positions. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been extensively revised and referenced to help establish her notability. Addendum: If it is felt that notability still has not been established then merge into Beethoven family --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Beethoven family. Magic♪piano 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete or add to an article about Beethoven's family. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems good enough for me. If people still want to merge the info, they can take the discussion to a project page or an article talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just read the article, subject seems relatively notable. I imagine that readers of the the Beethoven article would appreciate a blue link for johanna so they could come to this article and find out more. I would encourage but not enforce a merge with other relevant articles. --Brunk500 (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability isn't diminished by having a famous relative, either. - Nunh-huh 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG is right about increased depth of coverage for the most important figures in history. So we wouldn't have a separate article on a relative of, say, Pierre Monteux who was involved in a bitter suit with him. But as a person gets more important, it's right for our coverage to get deeper. Notability isn't inherited, no, but the brightest stars cast more light on those around them. In the grand scheme Johanna is not that important, but losing this, or shoving the information elsewhere, would make Wikipedia appreciably less encyclopedic. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - As nom I agree with this. I want to be clear that my nom was mostly procedural. I do not want a non-admin closure, but would prefer an admin close, but think its notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Jubilee♫, --Klein zach 06:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glenfarclas. Much improved article, clearly notable, does not need to be merged. Please keep. DBaK (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Day The Music Died (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film which fails WP:CRYSTAL and isn't even listed in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @036 · 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources to assert notability. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFF. Warrah (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:RS and also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. --Bsa dow ski1 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film is yet to be released and article is tiny + no sources --Brunk500 (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased and no evidence that the production has been covered in reliable sources, so the article is operating on pure WP:CRYSTAL. --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The golden anniversary of "the day" came and went in February 2009, so I have a feeling that this one's hopes for reaching the theatres passed quite a long time ago. Nobody notices the 51st anniversary of anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources and clear crystal-balling. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike, and just about everyone else.--SPhilbrick T 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. One of "sources" is a MySpace page, which does not bode well for reliability... Cocytus [»talk«] 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brownies Growing Strong, Vol. 3 (Melinda Caroll album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album made primarily for Girl Scouts. An earlier PROD was contested. Wolfer68 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @036 · 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUMS, as I can find no in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I deprodded both and brought them here (early in the process) because while notability isn't inherited, I imagine some people might object to these being deleted. There are sources but it's a question of the historical context which I'm not well qualified to answer in this case.

I also deprodded/nominated Johanna van Beethoven

Please comment for each individual separately Shadowjams (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To repeat my reason for proposing deletion, this individual's only apparent notability is his relationship with Ludwig van Beethoven, which is insufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED. I strongly suspect all that really needs to be said about him can be said in his brother's article. This is in contrast to e.g. Johann van Beethoven, who held a somewhat notable position in his own right, even though he is probably best known for being Ludwig's father. Magic♪piano 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No personal notability established. He also appears to be his own father according to his wife's entry... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note DGG and I have corrected the links at Johanna van Beethoven: Karl van Beethoven is in fact a redirect to Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven, hence he appeared to father himself... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Magicpiano. --Klein zach 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for sources to rescue this and couldn't find sufficient information to meet WP:N; although there was a nice summary of him in The Family van Beethoven, an article written by Donald MacArdle for the Musical Quarterly. Basically, he lived most of his life in the shadow of Ludwig. As a musician he published only about three dances, and after that he took on a nonnotable clerical position. A mention of him in Ludwig's article would be sufficient, and an article on the Beethoven family itself may be warranted, but not a stand-alone article. Them From Space 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little uncomfortable with this rational for the reason below. Shadowjams (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to point out that notability is about the individual's notability, not whether or not the individual did anything notable. It's a subtle distinction, but it gets glossed over. Also, just because there are sources that mention their subject that doesn't mean they are in fact notable. On the other hand, there is probably a lot written on the subject so if someone finds something that does indicate notability, I'll keep an open mind. Shadowjams (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Fpr Kaspar: If he is is discussed significantly in the books on LVB, it are notable enough for an article. (this applies only to the most famous people, and only in those cases where we know enough to be able to write an article) The reason why he is so discussed, as an individual, and the thr reason why he is notable, is that the influence of the immediate family on the most important political and artistic figures is important. He was also a significant musician in his own right, and in that capacity, was LVB's first teacher, and that also is notable. (again, not that this applies except to the most famous people). (Btw, Kaspar and his son were both called Karl, which seems to have led to some confusion) For Johanna, there is a special reason: the hypothesis that she was Ludwig van Beethoven's mistress--she plays that role in the film Immortal Beloved--see the article there (I had to add some information, because, as typical for Wikipedia plot sections, the material given was only a teaser, that goes to considerable pains not to disclose the ending.) The article here on the film indicates briefly why there might be some possibility of it, it also indicates that the possibility is discussed in detail and refuted in Gail S. Altman's book, Gail S. Beethoven: A Man of His Word - Undisclosed Evidence for his Immortal Beloved, Anubian Press 1996; ISBN 1-888071-01-X. This book necessarily gives a considerable treatment of her; she should also be discussed in the reviews of the film. I will try to add some more references, DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, based on reading a few books about LvB, is that Kaspar Karl, while obviously having some influence in LvB's life, is not sufficiently important to merit his own article (in contrast to, say, Anton Schindler, who, in addition to being influential, wrote a biography of LvB, tampered with the historical record, and held music director positions). It's also not clear to me that all of the candidates for Immortal Beloved are notable enough to merit their own articles -- that subject should be addressed in an article dedicated to the topic (currently poorly covered in WP). (Also note that links to Johanna Reiss at Immortal Beloved (film) go to a different (incorrect) page.) Magic♪piano 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course he is not as important at Schindler; but I do not see what that has to do with it. For a figure like LvB, probably all the significant people in his life are notable because as with all artists, they affect his work. The rule is notable , not "the most notable ". DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is Kaspar one of the most famous people in history? Few people other than Beethoven scholars and university graduates will have heard of him. Perhaps you could redraft the article to establish personal Notability? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we perhaps create an article like Family of Ludwig van Beethoven? Even if his family members didn't do much of significance, I'm sure many people would like to learn something about them, and I'm sure at least a decent amount of information is available on them. I've always felt that NOTINHERITED should be relaxed when dealing with the close relations of top-tier historical figures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I think this would be a welcome article, and an appropriate place to redirect the individual personalities. Them From Space 23:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent compromise, so long as there is enough material to get a skeleton framework started so that others can build on it easily. These two articles could go there almost as is to begin, but some basic listing of other family members would be good too. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might work better actually, but we might need to rearrange the order of the title to help searches: Ludwig van Beethoven's Family --Jubilee♫clipman 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Beethoven family as per Mozart family? Much simpler than either of our suggestions. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose closing this AfD and, if necessary, reopening in a month - The reason being that the article does not in its present state establish any personal notability for Kaspar. I suggest we give editors time to expand the article to establish his notability and add reliable secondary sources to verify the information. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
I have relisted because the discussion shifted markedly from delete towards merger, with a number of the earlier ccommentors appearing to change positions. Please clarify your current positions. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fam of LvB Gosox5555 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work to establish notability, but I suspect that can be achieved by experienced editors. Addendum: If notability cannot be established then merge into Beethoven family. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Beethoven family. Magic♪piano 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is for now. Maybe consider merging to a Beethoven family page in the future, but such a decision can be decided outside of AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmy opinion remains as keep, and that he is sufficiently notable in his own right for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

Merge into Beethoven family with a coherent and complete review of LvB's relationship with his family.MaynardClark (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Climate ethics. Clear consensus, reaffirmed after the rewrite, is that the article is unsuitable for inclusion. Consensus appears to be that climate responsibility should not be a red link, so redirect is the logical outcome here. If anyone thinks there are sourced, policy-compliant material to merge, it may be recovered from the page history. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate responsibility

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists of one author framing a debate in his own image rather than writing a reference article. Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox. No original research. Wikipedia is not a link farm. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you.

Quality is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Enough said. I have NO investment in this page being at Wikipedia, and you could remove it pronto, if you wish. m MaynardClark (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Regardless of its quality, this is not a proper venue for what you've written, just as a scientific journal isn't the place to try to get your review of a Broadway show published.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. The topic might be notable, but the entire contents of this article is a WP:NOT#ESSAY violation. Looks like an early draft written by someone in junior high. Might as well start from scratch. Further, the topic could be covered at Climate ethics, which isn't terribly long, but has similar issues. No need for two crappy articles on the same topic. Pcap ping 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge any useful content to Climate ethics. Redirect would be useful I believe. Not much mergeable that I can see, however. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Climate ethics; I don't see anything much worth merging. This article is, in fact, an essay that violates WP:SOAP. WP:LINKFARM isn't exactly applicable here, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I posted this nomination, the article consisted of much less text than it does now, followed by a list of links to analyses and opinion pieces, as though the article was intended to serve primarily as a portal to the readings elsewhere. Afterwards, I deleted those links, so granted that WP:LINKFARM no longer applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I guess, although I'm not sure it'll be a particularly useful redirect. The article as it stands is just a long OR POV essay as described above, in fact the very title "Climate responsibility" implies a point of view. I'm afraid I don't see much that would stand merging either. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Climate ethics. This is entirely an an essay. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clearly an essay. The opening sentence even makes it clear this isn't an existing phrase, but one the author wants to introduce. Given this, it isn't even obvious that it is a natural redirect, but I won't fight the tide, if that's what people want. BTW, I'm assuming the comment at the end of the section above (Warren Baker) was intended for this discussion.--SPhilbrick T 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep It has been definitely rewritten to a point which would not have elicited the above comments.MaynardClark (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The very first paragraph is a mass of rhetorical questions, so the article starts right off with the tone of one person communicating a message to others. In the third sentence you refer to it as "this analysis", so you are aware that it is an analysis—one man's analysis—rather than a reference article. The whole article is your synthesis. It is full of your subjective evaluations as well as trivialities: "discussions ... are current and vigorous"; "talk about responsibility is complicated"; "the debate, when sophisticated"; "in that scenario, the developing world would profit incredibly"; "this could be read"; "the widely-accepted [sic] answer seems to be"; etc. Then there's the digression into vast sections on much more general topics such as basic moral questions, ethics, responsibilities, and inequities, which wouldn't belong in an article on any specific ethical debate. The bottom line is that this article remains your personal effort to frame a debate, rather than a factual reference article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur. Pcap ping 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious original research. Edward321 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkiate society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research, term does not exist in google scholars or books. Source cited has no quote or reference and looks like a primary source (a lexicon). Russian, Sassanid, Abbassid,etc. empires have never been associated with such terms. GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no sources at all to verify the content of this article. Therefore (and with a nod to the appropriate sentiment) I am inclined to agree with the nominator's assertion that this is WP:OR and should be deleted. Crafty (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I originally was a merge (I proposed it) I am now going to say delete because, as the nominator said, the one source cited is not used. Gosox5555 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one source is apparently by Mahmud al-Kashgari and from the 11th century. LadyofShalott 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I also agree that assuming good faith is vital, the original editor has a history of creating content forks and other unusual splits of articles. Combined with the nominator's findings of no mentions at Google Scholar et al, I see no reason to keep this article, even as a redirect to Mahmud al-Kashgari. — C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. An 11th century source doesn't disqualify the subject, but the fact that there are not more recent mentions of the topic is telling. No objection to a keep (with cleanup) if additional sourcing becomes available - maybe some offline book unavailable through Google, for example. But I see no evidence of that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe article is based on saying of someone in 11th century. Hitler was also talking about great Germany, but that can't be called Germaniate Society. Nothing in the name of Turkiate society has ever existed in the whole history. علی ویکی (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turkiate society and Persianate is analogous to eachother and proposal of existance of Turkiate society word is dated to 1000 years ago but Persianate society word is proposed in 20th or in 21th century, but WHY you do not say this for Persianate society article? Are thies Discrimination to Turks? I Request you allow this article remain and after short time you will see that thousands of lines and handreds of references will be added to this article. Arattaman (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)— Arattaman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you point us to these hundreds of references? LadyofShalott 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete Here is wikipedia and it is FREE encyclopedia. I am agree with arattaman. Please ALLOW this article remains.Jimmycardiel (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)— Jimmycardiel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Free" does not mean anything goes. LadyofShalott 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not completely based on Khashghari text ,and he as a medieval writer was not aware of Parthians and Scythians and etc. His ideas , regardless of wrong or rightness , can be add to his own article (Khashghari) , and other parts that are not the Khashghari's sayings , may be deleted as the original research .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is opposite of almost other wikipedia articles.--Iroony (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a fast look to the references of this article to reveal some cheating:

Reference No.1: The sentence is exactly copy/pasted from the Persianate society article, but the reference is AlKashgari pont of view that is only limited to turkish Langueges.

Reference No. 2&3 are only external links, not references.

Reference 4(=5), can be against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.(however, to be honest it can be acceptable on the other hand.)

Reference No.6 says: some scholars believes that presence of prototurk peoples in Middle East goes back to six thousands years ago.; But reference include the name of only one person that is only a Poet (not a historian), who falsely claimed Sumerian are ancestors of Turks.(see:Olzhas Suleimenov,Sumerian language)

Reference No.7: It's claimed that Tegriism has affected the zoroastrianism. but this is mentioned in the reference.(see Tengriism&Zoroastrianism)

Detailed information is available in the discussion page of the article. Aliwiki (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is basically Original Research. It may have some useful information to provide (when corrected) but those can be put in related articles. It is important to have title of articles based on the specialised works. Xashaiar (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HazeMD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://info.sonicretro.org/HazeMD Gilo ö 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a speedy tag on the article for that and the admin that declined it said that the linked site copied info from Wikipedia because the Wikipedia article was around longer. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @037 · 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the copyvio mentioned by Gilo1969. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said above, there is no copyvio. Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HazeMD is the MAME equivalent of creating a Wikipedia article in userspace: Working on something until it's good enough to go into the main project. It made a small impact in the "community" at the time, but it has no long-lasting claim of independent notability even in that small circle. Now, it's just a part of MAME and doesn't deserve it's own article any more than the Musashi 68k CPU emulator does. scoops[tk ] 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all product articles without third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 19 December 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 no consensus. Near even spilt, with neither side enjoying a clear advantage. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-zilla (suffix)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the prod was contested, so i am nominating this for deletion. the 'internet phenomenon' appears to be non notable, as it lacks third party, reliable sources. the current sources are either irrelevant to the internet phenomenon, or not reliable sources. notability has simply not been established. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

comment the 'internet phenomenon' was renamed to 'suffix': 21:03 (Move log) . . Cyclopia (talk | contribs) moved Zilla (Internet phenomenon) to -zilla (suffix), i suppose in an attempt to make the article match the only semi relevant sources. this is still not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia Theserialcomma (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I contested the PROD on the basis of sources, and since then I did some edit to improve the article. It has been moved because "internet phenomenon" was way reductive -it seems to be an English language suffix used also away from computer stuff, like in bridezilla. The suffix however is documented, and it seems to have been also at the center of ~~a lawsuit.~~ a couple lawsuits. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @037 · 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, it's about a word ending. 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree, but the fact that it has been at the center of two lawsuits seems interesting enough to bring it here, too. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-zilla. I don't know if this belongs on Wiktionary, maybe... maybe not. Being the center of a lawsuit is not, by itself, a reason to keep any article on Wikipedia and this is no exception. We need non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Where are they? JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The -zilla article starts with the false statement that -zilla is an English suffix. This statement should be removed not because it is false, but because it is undocumented. There is a list of Names of internet related entities and one English word, bridezilla. None of these was formed by adding a suffix to a root word. They were all compounded from a root and the hind portion of the name of a fictional beast. Proper names can be formed by whatever means the owner of the entity so named desires. The resulting name means only the thing so named. There is no definite meaning carried by -zilla. If those who name their entity including the letters zilla are pleased to have some association between their name and monstrous or big, that is their concern, it does not make -zilla an English language suffix. Bridezilla is a humorous reference to a bride overly concerned with matching a difficult to achieve ideal in her wedding and seemingly oblivious to the fact that not everyone necessarily shares the full extent of her eagerness and joy in playing wedding. This does not give -zilla a definite meaning and does not make -zilla a suffix. Lawsuits about owned Trademarks do not make English language words either. They are not a suitable reference for notability.--Fartherred (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually it is documented -see [2] for example. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cyclopia. Needs work but has potential for expansion. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly merge with Internet-related prefixes. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Copyrighted and trademarked names are ephemeral. Dozens can be produced during a week and they can disappear as fast as they are produced. English words are produced by acceptance by a significant portion of English language speakers. Trademarked and copyrighted names are not translated from English into French or Italian when they are part of a translated text, because they are not part of the English language in the first place. There are two common nouns referred to in "Verbivore's Feast: Second Course" which are claimed to use a suffix -zilla. Both of them neologisms. Momzilla is used to mean a mother who has a quarrel with the father and refuses to see him on this website[[3]]. In "Verbivore's Feast: Second Course" it is claimed to mean the mother of bridezilla. There are many well established English language suffixes such as -able, aceous, -ment and -pathy which do not have their own Wikipedia articles because they are not particularly notable. They are documented in most of the English language dictionaries ever written, but that does not make them notable. They are only ordinary suffixes. The much less established -zilla used in a couple of dubious words does not deserve an article. According to WP:NOT#NEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." My vote is still delete.--Fartherred (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That the names of various things are (arguably) based on a back-formation from Godzilla does not make a list of those names encyclopedic. (Note, too, that Mozilla was allegedly formed by blending the words Mosaic killer, not *Mo and Godzilla. Many of the other names may have been formed from Mozilla, not Godzilla. I don't know, and there are no references currently cited arguing either way.) It is not even obvious that this is a suffix, as I can see no shared meaning among the various names. The content on Toho's lawsuit against Davezilla might be merged to Davezilla. The 'List of -zillas' is trivia with no attested notability or significance. Cnilep (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand the information about the lawsuits. Godzilla is a well-known part of modern pop culture across the world, and it's obviousl where the suffix is coming from, even if it has no definite meaning. Would agree with Cyclopia that this should go to Wiktionary if not for the lawsuits, but the prominence of the name--and the fact that it's kinda its own thing, separate from Godzilla (and wouldn't really belong in that article)--should keep the lawsuits covered here. ~GMH talk to me 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Marriage Protection Act (2010)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. It is consistently the case that Wikipedia deletes articles about proposed ballot propositions without sufficient signatures to make it to the ballot, and does so even when the proponents are far more serious than these are, regardless of the degree of news coverage. If this ever gets on the ballot, then the article can be restored. If it doesn't, a wacky news story that happened to be mentioned in the "Isn't this strange" news a few times isn't encyclopedic. THF (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Also, if the "majority of its following is on Facebook" and someone's webpage, I don't think this has any political significance (even though it has gotten minor local press attention for its humor value). Peacock (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until someone introduces a bill or gets this on the ballot, it's just talk. Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above, and because this is an encyclopedia, not a newstand. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a curiosity and publicity stunt, but ultimately a non-notable destined-to-fail piece of pseudo-legislation -Drdisque (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at present; no prejudice to re-creation if it ever proceeds to getting on a ballot. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasonable established guidelines, although if it gets enough notable press, that would trump the usual rules. However, the press coverage does not yet appear to be sufficient.--SPhilbrick T 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 autofocus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autofocus assist beam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable photographic related definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod removed by User:Phil Bridger with note of "Contest deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary definition." however it seems clear to me that it is in, indeed, a dictionary definition with no notability as a topic itself that would not already be covered in autofocus or camera in general. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've checked the article for 'autofocus', this would slot in quite easily as a section there. Also autofocus is a shorter article than you might expect, adding this wouldn't make it too long (it could do with more detail). --Brunk500 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree it is more than a dictionary definition, but it has no references and is an exceedingly narrow subject. I agree it would be a nice additional section to autofocus.--SPhilbrick T 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to autofocus, as while it is not notable enough to stand alone, it would complement autofocus. Airplaneman ^talk 03:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Petisce

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local disc jockey, article does not meet standards of WP:ENTERTAINER, largely relies on primary sources and forum postings for references, only coverage in reliable sources appears to be of a recent move from one daypart to another. Dravecky (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The web page for the station has not been edited to reflect the change but will shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.136.26 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Eeekster (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NatureCare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable product. There don't appear to be any sources independent of the manufacturer that establish notability. Proposed deletion was removed by the original author. The article also makes claims that are not supported medical science: homeopathy is recognized as pseudoscience and Wikipedia shouldn't be making such unfounded claims. My attempts to remove these claims from the article were also reverted by the article's sole author. Deli nk (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no reliable sources and we don't have articles on individual brands of something except for notable rare exceptions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference provided. The Nature Care site contains nothing at this time. The author doesn't even properly describe homeopathic dilution.--SPhilbrick T 23:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all products with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep, Notability: of limited notability, but still notable, and becoming more widely recognized, hence the need for this article. Please note that sourcing has been dramatically improved. The healthcare world is full of effective low-pH products. This is the first topical skincare cream with antifungal and anti-infective claims, other than acne products. There are enough examples of individual brands on Wikipedia, which I feel negates this argument, brand include Neosporin, OxiClean, Kaopectate, Metamucil, Tylenol, and many others. Since this is not an article on homeopathy, there is no reason to discuss in detail homeopathy, the dilutions, history of homeopathy, why homeopathy is effective, or why some may feel it is not real science. The healthcare arena in the US is regulated through the FDA, with some congressional actions thrown in every few years. The FDA describes products making homeopathic claims as pharmaceuticals, and regulates them in the same ways as Rx and OTC pharmaceuticals, including manufacturing and product quality testing guideline, with very few exceptions. Whether someone feels homeopathy is science or psudoscience does not belong in this discussion either, but rather more appropriately under homeopathy. The actions of most drugs and why they are effective is not known, and the FDA, the US agency that regulates drugs, is not interested in how drugs work, but rather is the drug safe and effective. If the FDA requires homeopathic products to be regulated as drugs, then they must be, by definition, effective^[1]. Also, NatureCare.com site is not the site for the products, but rather http://www.rowelllabs.com. I had asked for help creating a drug box for the NatureCare listing, but none was given thus far, and an editor removed the drug box that had been created. I feel that the article should stay.

--Billybluesky (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)--[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Wknight94. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pallet Town Prep

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally tagged this article for G3 as a hoax. At the time, it contained a line stating "No transportation is given, most students just fly on their Pidgeots." After a hangon template was added, I had a brief conversation on the article's talk page with the creator, who insists that its a real school. They linked to this source to verify that. Besides the fact that the source looks made up to me, does anyone else think of Pokemon when the competitors names are Ash and Gary? In my opinion, this is still a speedy delete case, but I thought with the claim from the creator, it should go to AFD for that decision. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that the creator has now been indef blocked for being a VOA. I'm going to restore the speedy deletion tag. I think I'm too trusting sometimes... --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. John Heinz IV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP should be deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED. It is obvious from the content of the article that his only achievement is being part of a famous family. Angryapathy (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is notable because the Washington Post writes about him. Polarpanda (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, while the stub should be expanded, reliable sources including the Chicago Tribune, 'Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the USA Today all have on-point coverage of the subject sufficient to establish notability. - Dravecky (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to H. John Heinz III. It looks like this is a curiosity, something like a Rockefeller taking a vow of poverty. I agree entirely with Angryapathy that this person would not be noticed at all except for happening to be the son of a late billionaire. That factoid is worth a sentence in the Heinz article. Mandsford (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57 varieties of reluctant keep. Washington Post and Oakland Tribune[4] articles devoted to him (slow news day?) tip the scales. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, there's not much, but there is something. Puzzled that with all the editors of the article, no one has yet managed to add a reference.--SPhilbrick T 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appear to be sufficient sources to establish notability.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden Hotel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Breaks Wikipedia is not a Travel guide guideline. No references other than its own site and does not satisfy general notability guidelines. Grim²³ ★ 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should have looked for sources before nominating the article. Five-star hotels invariably are the subject of multiple reliable sources. In this case, here are articles from The Times and the Daily Telegraph: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/where_to_stay/article5874018.ece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/londonandsoutheast/722077/Paddy-Burt-The-Covent-Garden-Hotel-London.html -- Eastmain (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning its existence but its notability. I did read the those sources and couldn't find anything other than reviews which didn't reveal much other than travel guide like details. Also I couldn't find who awarded the hotel five star status the AA and Visit Britain haven't. (btw sorry for my late answer, I had to go out unexpectedly) Grim²³ ★ 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Keep per the sources above demonstrating passing WP:N. It took me 10 seconds to find the sources Eastmain found. The quickest I've been able to start an AfD is 1 minute. I've said before, WP:BEFORE should be a requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:BEFORE, although I'm new to this area and still learning. Grim²³ ★ 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm a 5 star hotel in London, a city which has a number of the elite hotels in the world . Not notable? Maybe, but sources are abundant and the article is barely 48 hours old. Is this nomination done in good faith or it is another WP:IDON'TLIKEIT? Article could be expanded (fully). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources demonstrate compliance with WP:ORG. In general, top-end hotels are notable because they are extensively written about. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably a joke nomination.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another one where a quick Google search would've come up with some good sources. fetchcomms☛ 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- looks rather too close to advertising to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article looking close to advertising is an article improvement issue, not a notability one.--Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated in the article's own references. WP:NOTTRAVEL is meant to exclude trivial or subjective sightseeing information, not to block articles on notable establishments. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this a joke? I don't know or care, but the subject looks notable. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in reliable source--SPhilbrick T 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems as if there is enough notable, reliable 3rd-party coverage; a simple Google search indicates that there are sufficient sources (to me). Perhaps some point of view issues, but this is not grounds for deletion, as the subject is notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zadyma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Foreign dicdef. A Polish slang term, with no currency in English language - Altenmann >t 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 18:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure if this would be an appropriate article on the Polish Wikipedia, but it certainly isn't here. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DICT. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May belong in Wiktionary; not here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki, as appropriate. No encyclopedic, as opposed to dictionary, content. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--SPhilbrick T 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Educational internet advertising

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable neologism, primarily used by one company, whose press release is the sole cited reference. PRODed by me (as an IP), and prod removed by article creator. This is a recently created article, but a Google search reveals no helpful references or information to expand or improve this article, or demonstrate notability of the term. Most Google hits are to uses that do not match the sense in this article, which seems to confirm that this sense is not notable. DES ^(talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 December 2009
delete per nom ErikHaugen (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable concept, WP:NEO. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no practical use. It is a very specific form of advertising, might as well be merged into Advertising or Online advertising if anyone cares. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thinly-disguised WP:SPAM and other reasons above. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind Wand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable structure of undefined purpose WuhWuzDat 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable Public sculpture. I've added four references - plenty more out there. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources for notability, and it doesn't have to have a purpose, it's Art! JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could use a good expansion, but the sources that have been added prove there are reliable sources out there that could lead to such an expansion. Deletion wouldn't be at all appropriate. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 20:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who cares what it's for, the sources are good and the simplest of searches shows some more. Cheers to WSC. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, gSearch comes up with a lot of usable material. fetchcomms☛ 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant both as local landmark and work of notable artist. No problem with sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N. Art is its defined purpose.--Oakshade (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to qualify for inclusion, as it is evident that there are sufficient significant, reliable, non-trivial third-party coverage. Passes notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Adams (actor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, only had two minor roles listed in IMDB, can't vertify nothing else Delete Secret ^account 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Motorsports

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable racing team, whose greatest accomplishment seems to be a recent string of failures WuhWuzDat 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If they actually competed in the Sprint Cup Series then they may be notable per WP:ATHLETE. Needs expansion/references/results table. Someidiot (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPYou obviously have never heard of the great Morgan Shepherd. The fact that he owns and drives for the team make Faith Motorsports notable in itself. Regardless, its performances in both Cup and the Nationwide Series is plenty of notability for it to belong on Wikipedia.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any team that has performed in any of NASCAR's top three series for a substantial amount of time should been represented on Wikipedia.--Face the ace (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Morgan Shepherd. The race team is his creation, has precisely one driver - Shepherd - and, almost more importantly, has gotten very little coverage in reliable sources. The best articles I can find, this 2007 article and this 2009 write-up, focus on Shepherd. Given that, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to add a section for Faith Motorsports at Shepherd's article, since he is a co-owner. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with Merge. This appears to be the organizational equivalent of WP:BLP1E, as while the team owner/driver certainly has notability, the only notability his team has is its owner/driver. WuhWuzDat 16:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient reliable sources, raced in all of the upper 3 NASCAR series. It had 4 wins in the Nationwide Series (then the Busch Series). Disagree with merge because you'll notice that the team had 3 other drivers. Other driver/owners have separate articles. Royal broil 05:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Dynasty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the material in this article is attributed to secondary sources, and no secondary sources analyze this plot element of a science fiction series. Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support deletion of this topic include WP:OR, WP:PSTS, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N. Merging is not necessary, since all material that has secondary sources (and some that has only primary sources) can be found in Catherine Asaro#Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This article is written largely in in-universe style, which is not itself a reason to delete (rather to re-write) but is often a tip-off that excessive, non-encyclopedic detail is being included on a fictional topic. Drtailed Wikipedia coverage of plot elements of a fictional work is IMO generally not justified unless there is impact outside the work itself, sometimes called "Real-world impact" or unless the work has significant cultural impact of its own. In either case secondary coverage of the plot element is highly likely. Without such coverage WP:OR is very likely involved, at least a synthesis from the fictional work. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is mostly a list. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it could be sourced, do we really need an article about any fictional entity ever thought up? No real-world notability. --Crusio (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the above, and the article issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London City F.C

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax. There is no such team in the Conference South, or indeed in any other notable football league. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sunday league team [5]. Nanonic (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't seem to be the club described in this article, as the names of the chairman and manager don't match, the badge is different, and the website says that that London City has been active for over 8 years. I think this article is just an out-and-out hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable team. Giant Snowman 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable team/hoax. Not only that, the article creator has amended, (badly), Conference South so as to shoehorn in this team--Egghead06 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable team that is becoming a hoax Spiderone 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be a team called London City, but this isn't that one. (They also can't be in the Conference South having been formed last year - it simply isn't possible. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Ridiculously blatant hoax. -- Big Dom 10:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. Oh, and I'm not just saying this because of the policy. It is SNOWING!!! :D WFCforLife (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really really speedy delete. This was created by a guy with a history of introducing rubbish into Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The One & Only Fools and Horses 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryum Jameelah

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been deleted before and the new page has the same issues as the last one, namely, it does not cite any references or sources, the use of peacock terms and has failed to demonstrate notability. It still gives her no better claim to notability than "Jewish American woman who converted to Islam".Codf1977 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - WITHDRAWN - It is clear that the article now meets the requirements, thanks to Abecedare and since no one has objected, I see no reason to prolong this.Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR as a notable author and activist. See, for example
- Makers of Contemporary Islam, a chapter on her in a book published by Oxford University Press.
- Maryam Jameelah papers, in the New York Public Library collection.

Hundreds of other sources are available on Google Books alone. The article should be moved to Maryam Jameelah though, since that is the more common transliteration of her name. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and kudos to Abecedare. I would argue that if there was a problem with notability and reliable sources, they could have been searched for prior to nominating the article for deletion. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence it was while doing that, that it became obvious that the article had been deleted before and then I decided to list it again. It was not my original attention to AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was understandable in light of the previous AFDs and deletion, and you don't need to apologize for your good faith action. If you would like to withdraw the nomination now, we can close this AFD - if you would prefer to wait for more comments, that's fine too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she is notable enough. Further, this kind of person is why Wikipedia exists, because Wikipedia can be more inclusive than even large printed encyclopedias. People who read about her or read a review of one of her books or read one of them or are interested in women with her kind of story will find articles like this invaluable and interesting. Wikipedia is big enough to include this article handily and usefully. Agree on kudos to Abecedare, and on proposed title move. Hu (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was in my opinion a weak keep the previous time, but there are additional references now to her. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Fisher (radio)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete previously deleted article. Notability tag has been on for a couple of weeks, but still little to show he meets WP:Notability (people). Prod was removed. Boleyn3 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources to establish notability, and accomplishments pretty thin. He is on air only once a week, on Sunday afternoons, according to the radio station's web page. The Island festival that he supposedly organizes does not mention him anywhere on its web page that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Silva Entertainment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a concert production company that does not appear to meet general notability, or specific notability for companies. There are no reliable sources writing about Bill Silva Entertainment that I was able to find. The article was marked for notability and sourcing but the tags have been removed with no actual sourcing provided. The article lists many notable artists whom they have booked but notability is not inherited. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the requirements for notability but I am somewhat confused as to how to cite my sources for this article. While some of the information was obtained online, most of it was found in an in depth interview with Bill Silva from Pollstar's "2009-2010 Talent Buyer DIrectory". Pollstar is an esteemed source in the music and concert promotion industry, but this article cannot be found online.

How would I go about citing a directory? I have the publication but can find no publishing information. This business (Bill Silva Entertainment)has influenced the music business as whole from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco to New York and it deserves to noted on Wikipedia. Please help me tie up the loose ends on this page so that it may remain on your server.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzleemusic (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Grizzleemusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sources do not need to be online. Printed sources are acceptable. Refer to WP:CITE for information on how to cite your source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have made some changes, please let me know what else I must do to prevent this important page from being deleted. Thank you.

Grizzleemusic (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)— Grizzleemusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As linked in the nomination statement, WP:N, and WP:CORP represent the inclusion guidelines that would need to be satisified. And WP:RS provides guidance on what represents reliable sourcing. For the purposes of establishing notability, using the company's own website will not establish ntoability as it is a self-published source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still nothing from reliable sources, and the only involved editor has an edit history that reeks of COI and intention to promote. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per OrangeMike and the lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarian Brothers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think there is any more notability to be found for these guys, so let's delete them or take the tag off Polarpanda (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. --Blargh29 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google finds only a few blog mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RazorCMS

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product. Author has COI issue. Was not able to find any significant third-party coverage, and article gives none. Haakon (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an an open source content management system, unlikely to ever be a household name. Google News gives one sourceforge link in Japanese, and that's it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per google failure. Polarpanda (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why?: Never going to be a household name?, like quick, pivot, pluck, their not house hold names but there allowed??, can't find significant coverage?, there is plenty of links into the razorCMS site, around 980 at last count, it comes on first page of google for flat file cms search, COI??, no not at all, just bringing to light this software, goggle failure??, what are you talking about, I never created this article I just edited it, so please get your facts right, how could this be a conflict of interest if I never started it. Why not try helping people to correct there issues if they do really exist instead of just going DELETE DELETE DELETE, or is this place destined to be like DMOZ, and you will all no what i mean, I used to be an editor there. I guess if you want to delete then go right ahead, I will not waste time and effort playing your games, go right ahead delete the listing if you must. 192.93.164.23 (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)smiffy6969192.93.164.23 (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 07:49, 16 December 2009 (GMT)[reply]
Delete. One link in Japanese to Sourceforge does not cut it. The rambling directly above is giving me a headache. JBsupreme (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What?. One link in Japanese to sourcefourge, what the hell are you on about, rambling above giving you a headache, take some tablets, you know what, I get 3% traffic from here, go ahead rip it down, from razorCMS lead dev... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.164.23 (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where, Who, and How? Just to get them out of the way. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I meant to come back and delete this non notable software a while ago after I tagged it. still not notable. 16x9 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Berardinelli

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obscure, self-published, nonprofessional Internet film critic whose sole claim to fame has been very brief praise from Roger Ebert a few years ago. The subject wrote a pair of equally obscure non-notable books that don’t meet WP:BK requirements. Google News searches only finds him cited among groups of critics rather than as a single authoritative entity – there is no single media profile of him to be found. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:RS (nearly all of the article’s information comes directly from the subject’s self-published site). Warrah (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added, as sources to the article, four mainstream newspaper articles mentioning him. One (the one in The Ledger) is a trivial mention, but the other three are not. I think he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might disagree -- the Wired and LA Times coverage only includes him in a couple of quotes as part of coverage of a wider topic. Both articles acknowledge he is a self-published amateur. Warrah (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a published author with enough independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability in my eyes. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per David Eppstein and MikeWazowski. He may be a self-published amateur, but a prominent and notable one. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, established amateur, 2 books, used in Rotten Tomatoes aggregate. --Step hen 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AD HIPT

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

speedy declined per "software"-rule. Nothing found on google or elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this even exists at all. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't indicate notability. Armbrust (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OMG. This fails Wikipedia:Notability (software) rather miserably. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Łaciak

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, did not play higher than in the Polish third division, and doesn't even have his own profile at www.90minut.pl. Silvermane (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The Polish 3rd division is not a fully professional league therefore the subject fails WP:ATHLETE, and there are no sources to otherwise prove notability. Bettia (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost all of the Google News hits for Łaciak are trivial mentions of his play in the third level (or lower) of Polish football. I did see one article in a November issue of Dziennik Polski related to his coaching career, but I can't access it for some reason. Overall, article appears to fail general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong about the sources. Main source is from official Proszowianka club web site. This is very reliable source. Please tell me are these articles Jim Lawlor and Martin Ferguson (football scout) have got better sources and why they are notable? I saw that artiles about Manchester United coaches, scouts and physios are existing on wikipedia without any complain. That's why I decided to create an article about goalkeeping coach from Wisla Krakow (champion of Poland), and used informations from official club website where he was manager twice and played for 8 years as a footballer.--Oleola (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in not a valid argument for keeping this, only for deleting that.--ClubOranje^T 10:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail GNG with trivial coverage only, fails ATHLETE--ClubOranje^T 10:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calicut Medical Journal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quick delete. No independent reference(s) to comply with GNG Nahrizuladib (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nahrizuladib (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nahrizuladib (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After all the e-prints of this journal are removed from Google Scholar results[6], there are still quite a few results. Also, I assume that "Kozhikode Medical College" is the same as "Calicut Medical College", there are a few English articles from Indian sources.[7][8][9] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Calicut Medical College and Kozhikode Medical College are the same. Salih (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources found by John Vandenberg. Somebody should add them to the article (which is not very good at this point). --Crusio (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Crusio (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cursory search shows notability. Listed in general lists of medical journals. Collect (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would being listed in general lists of medical journals make this medical journal notable? Abductive (reasoning) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of medical journals for reference use generally do not include ones which are not notable or usable as reference. They are, if you will, a reference for which medical journals are accepted for reference. They are definitely more discriminating than WP is as far as notability goes <g>. Collect (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't know what lists you refer to. Could these lists be considered secondary sources? Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as they represent decisions by third parties as to notability, I suppose so (they would be secondary sources). As lists in themselves, they would be tertiary sources (WP definitions in such cases seem to fail), so an article should not copy lists from such sources. Collect (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what lists? The article doesn't mention any lists. Abductive (reasoning) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrene quiamco

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable industrial designer. Declined A7 CSD. References in the article do not reflect reliable sources and I cannot find any to support assertions of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Also the article creator has a Conflict of Interest. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for for lack of notability; also, author/subject repeatedly removed speedy-deletion tag after being asked not to do so. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not punitive. it is not the author's conduct which is to be examined here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I declined the speedy tag as the A7 criteria didn't seem to apply, but I will agree that this article doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. I can't find any coverage of her outside of blogs and social networking sites. -- Atama頭 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which shows us the biggest problem with A7. Anyone can make any random claim and get an article kept here for X days. If the claim to notability isn't sufficient nor reliable enough to keep an article here, it shouldn't count..but I digress..--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an article kept for 7 days isn't really an achievement. I can think of plenty of A7 declines which have gone on to be rescued (urgh) within the week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then that means the claim was reliable/sufficient. My point was about claims that weren't reliable/sufficient, yet still count as a "claim" and thus are declined. Obviously the claim made in this article isn't sufficient and we're on our way to deleting it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we are still meant to assume that the author simply didn't do a good job of referencing the article in the first place. Wasn't there an experiment only last month which showed that too often articles which are seemingly viable are getting deleted too early in the process? I'm not exactly opposed to having firm notability guidelines, but it's important that we don't articificially raise the barrier to entry by A7ing anything which doesn't spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus. Again, not that it necessarily applies here, but the three-step process exists precisely to give people a reasonable chance to work an article up to clearly notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and didn't that experiment drive away several new page patrollers? and no, it didn't really show that at all. it provided zero useful objective data. Not being referenced isn't the same thing as providing something which doesn't stand-up to scrutiny. Which is what is happening here. But if a claim is being made about an individual who is alive today and we can't google up their notability within a very short time, then chances are it should be failing A7 and deleted as such.--Crossmr (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caveat is that the claim must be a credible one. If a biography for a Chinese architect says "He is renowned for his expertise in the field and famous in Asia", that might be possible. If a biography for a high school student says, "He has been the president of Uruguay since age 10" then that isn't credible (and likely a hoax). -- Atama頭 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like an advertisement and doesn't fit within our notability guidelines. Anyone commenting here should keep an eye on this article, since the user has now attempted to remove the AfD template. AniMate 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion of a NN person. Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches reveal no Scholar or Books hits, 1 minor News hit, no reliable Search hits. No evidence of notability found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said it before, I'll say it again -- please try not to use the phrase "non-notable" in AFDs, especially when living people are involved. "Could not find evidence of notability" is much more accurate. After all, if you looked, you probably couldn't find evidence of notability for me, but I happen to think I'm quite notable, kthxbye :-) Not really directed at you, Steve, just a general rant... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't think I tend to use that phrase much for people - but you are quite right to point it out! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Kaparova

It's vandalism, this person advertising herself. She also added her name on other pages connected with kazakhs. This person never titled as Miss Kazakhstan 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila kz (talk • contribs) 2009/12/10 11:31:24

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really care about this, but here's a little research: Miss Kazakhstan 2007 is Alfina Nasyrova. The girl in question (Dana) did indeed represent Kazakhstan at the Miss World contest 2007 (don't ask me why), never won, and didn't even make it into the semi-finals. Go ahead and decide... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete from everywhere on Wikipedia. Someone not the least bit notable is trying to use the English language Wikipedia for self-promotion. The Scythian 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OggConvert

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a simple and non-notable tool. Completely unsourced article of three sentences. Miami33139 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non N free software. Mattg82 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dime-a-dozen conversion utility. No evident notability to be found. JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama, the Musical Episodes

It has no confirmation or any references. They have not been confirmed and has nothing to do with the season as shown by the trailer. Beth is not in the season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakotacoons (talk • contribs) 2009/12/13 18:40:49

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only three episode titles have been released by a verifiable source and they, along with references, are listed in the parent article, Total Drama, The Musical. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obooko

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the WP:GNG; Nothing worthwhile-looking on a search of google news and google books Polarpanda (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can;t significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak clutter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined. Have a look. Seemed like incomprehensible no context to me.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - either a hoax or a poor attempt at subversive wiki humor. Kudos to the article creator for supplying an example of peak clutter with an article titled "Peak clutter". But there are better places for this type of social commentary. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something made up. Polarpanda (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Protoneologism. Abductive (reasoning) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha ha ha ha he he. Delete --Brunnian (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Develop Anyone who has worked collaboratively with a group of people using wiki pages to document ideas and prepare draft content to be transformed into solid, final content has likely encountered peak clutter. Wiki pages get bogged down with such a significant amount of information that their utility is compromised by the sheer weight of everything. This tends to lead to some pruning and re-tasking of wiki pages to improve clarity. Peak clutter is far from nonsense. In fact, the process Wikipedia itself exists to combat peak clutter. Ageless (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Develop This idea seems sound to me, could benefit from more users adding to the article, what's the rush to delete? --Albinopigeon (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Albinopigeon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As the sole listed source shows, this is a neologism. Based on the reliability of that source and the lack of other sources, that shows it is a non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Newman(Singer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsigned artist. 'Top 60 in NZ Pop Idol' is as close to notability as he gets. Delete TB (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No notability (yet) and this article is pretty much a repeat of his MySpace page. Having a page there does not justify duplicating it here. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio if it's really a repeat of the MySpace page. Polarpanda (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or ~~WP:ENT~~ WP:MUSIC standards for inclusion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I found zero coverage from reliable sources; fails WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This may be the first time I have ever nominated a page I created for deletion, but a degree of animosity toward the subject matter makes me think that perhaps the community would be the best judge of what to do with this page.

I split this off the Iowa class battleship page some time ago on WP:SIZE grounds; the Iowa article has grown to over 100kbs of info, and removing the bulk of the debate information from the reactivation section allowed for a more in depth analysis of the issues surrounding the gunfire debate stateside. Since then though I gotten a sense that people do not feel the article is needed on grounds that battleship will never come back. While that is in all probability correct, the fact remains that there are people who are unable or unwilling to let the battleship go. Type in battleship reactivation on google and you'll find any number of sites ranging from yahoo answers to military bluff blogs full of people ready to debate the points.

By the same token though if the battleships are not coming back then this article could be interpreted a number of different ways. It could be considered OR, it could be considered WP:NOT (INFO grounds), it could also be CRYSTAL from a certain perspective. The fact that most of the article outlines a debate that few if any care about combined with the fact that the information here could be summarized on both the Iowa class battleship article and Zumwalt class destroyer article makes we wonder if the article is still needed here (or if it was ever needed here in the first place.

That is why I am taking the advise of Hcobb (talk · contribs) to heart and nominating the page for deletion. What happens to it from here is entirely up to the community. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —TomStar81 (Talk) 08:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well-written, has 57 refernces, and asserts notability. - The mere fact that the debate is now over is no reason to delete it. Much of WP is about old history anyway - should we delete all of them too? - BilCat (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BilCat. Also the debate about the debate might itself be an item of historical and encyclopedic interest for those interested in the topic. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close/keep Vast amounts has been written in reliable sources on this topic, so it easily meets the various inclusion guidelines. Given that the article has only attracted a handful of edits since January and Hcobb's talk page post is both only the third post of the year on any topic and the first since October 2008 to discuss the value of the article, I don't think that it was at all necessary to nominate this article for deletion. Discussing Hcobb's concerns on the talk page first would seem to be the best way to handle this. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Armbrust (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though article isn't very good, it could be improved so that it explained the arguments of all sides properly. The article is not original research. This was an important issue. Defence thinking is centred around capability rather than platforms. It therefore makes sense to have articles that are capability centred.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The debate did take place and was notable. This article is about what happened. Cla68 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lots of reliable sources, and definitely notable. Could be improved, but definitely not worth deleting, very interesting debate DRosin (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is well-sourced and neutral, and the topic meets our notability guidelines. I'll let another admin handle it, but I was strongly inclined to close as a Speedy Keep per the above - the nominator does not actually advocate deletion of the article, but seeks rather to discuss its future, which is a discussion best kept on the article's talk page, or with a related Wikiproject (MILHIST comes to mind). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per reasons given above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Naval Surface Fire Support and merge in Naval gunfire support. The debate is a small part of the overall subject. The problem is that the debate is overshadowing the facts on the ground. Hcobb (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my thoughts echo Nick-D's. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/do not merge Do not merge, because this is a US centric debate, and naval gunfire support is not a US article. Keep, because it is a major politicking point in the United States, and large battles have been fought over the battleships. 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Major battles fought "over" battleships are important to the US - we just had the aniversary of one of those battles on December 7, though it was quite one-sided. Seriously though, those are good points, especially on the US-centric part. Globalize-section tags would probably be added soon after any such merge.- BilCat (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlap

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. "Remote Link Access Point" has two hits, neither relevant. Searches like "RLAP" "OSI layer 2" provide further evidence this is not notable (if it exists at all). Glenfarclas (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per google failure. Polarpanda (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think Glenfarclas said it all. Nothing to establish widespread, significant third-party coverage to merit inclusion. On this basis, I feel that deletion is suitable. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW and WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax - there is absolutely no news confirmation, and the image camera data shows that the photo was taken five years ago. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Car Burn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Either a hoax, or just not notable, as I can find nothing whatsoever in the news or elsewhere about this purported event. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTNEWS at best. No sources or evidence of being an encyclopedically notable event. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Polarpanda (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hilarious article, but sadly delete. No notability at all. Definitely award the article creator for a sense of humour though DRosin (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. There is no way that this event would have gone unnoticed or uncriticized. I can't even find mention of it in blogs. The photo is dated to Dec 29th, 2004. Abductive (reasoning) 14:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I also think it is a hoax, but even so, why would you put a speedy tag on an article already running an AfD course?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One answer would be to speed up and free resources (people's time) for something more important than a snowball case. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IronE Singleton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor, does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDb does not list any credit whatsoever for The Blind Side or Remember the Titans, despite article's claim that he "starred" in them. Has a decent number of Google hits, though many seem to come from the same promotional machine. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor actor. Article is peacock promotion, listing various past and future "starring roles" that IMDB doesn't know of. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above. Obvious promotion. Main concern is lack of independent and reliable sources. If the sources were improved this could be a keeper if the tone was cleaned up but as it stands it should be deleted DRosin (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed a userspace draft of this one per request at WP:FEED. I thought notability and tone were iffy then, and I have not been able to find any better sources since. So, fails WP:BIO. Creator's usename also raises COI issues. ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete I really appreciate all your feedback especially those who have taken time to provide feedback on how I can improve this article. I am IronE's Manager, Technical Director/Developer and coincidentally his wife. I hope that is not a problem as I am the one who always handles his website updates. It is my goal to make whatever modifications to the tone of the text as possible and leave only the factual, non-biased, non-promotional based information. I would like to inform the world about this talented man that is gaining national exposure at warp speeds recently and am honored to have that opportunity on sources such as Wikipedia. We were informed about 3 weeks ago by several sources that IMDB had errors in IronE's credits. He was listed on The Blind Side page for months and then the credits suspiciously dropped off. We have submitted corrections and complaints to IMDB as well as his agent and are pending contacting Alcon Productions to help us resolve as it is obvious that this error is problematic. IronE is IN FACT the lead villain in The Blind Side with several scenes and appeared on the second screen of credits in the movie. Further, he appears in all trailers as well. He was only a featured extra (football player) in Remember The Titans so we are not so concerned about that missing credit. If you could consider letting me know how to further clean-up the wording of the text and putting his article in clean-up mode until we can resolve things with IMDB I would greatly appreciate it. Thankfully CS-Rbsingit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.133.87 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you can edit the article so that it demonstrates notability per WP:BIO, and isn't promotional in tone per WP:SPAM, please go ahead, but also please read WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for your invaluable input!! I am on it and will work hard to make the necessary corrections tonight. I know your time is valuable and you've much content to cover, so thanks for checking back and helping to bring this article up to code.

Delete I spent considerable time Googling IronE, and can find nothing but promotion. He is categorized as a " film director," yet even his resume lists not a single credit for film direction. IMDB, same thing. Agree with Ukexpat - article fails WP:BIO and is transparently and exclusively promotional. Suggest linking to some actual reviews or articles of the artist's work, written by third parties. Rudybowwow (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you as well for your considerable time researching IronE. During your research you may have noticed that all of IronE's resumes list "IronE The Resurrected" as well as "White Man Black Man Jew Man" which IronE wrote, starred, directed, and produced. Though both are "independent" projects, I think they are still worthy of being noted as accomplishments of relevance to his career. I did note two 3rd party reviews on "IronE The Resurrected". I will double check the accuracy of the links. I'm sorry that you feel that the content of this article is "promotional". I will work harder as user Ukexpat has suggested to bring things up to code. Truth is, as I've researched other actors on Wikipedia, I've noted very parallel article tone. In fact, I was inspired by several. What I have found that separates their articles from this one is that their credits very closely align with IMDB. I, IronE, his agent and many others are working to have that resolved and hope that IMDB takes care of it sooner rather than later. 20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment IronE is categorized in this article as a FILM director. I went back to IMDB, where not a single film credit is listed. You say he is a director, fine. It looks to me like he has directed some theatre. That would make him a STAGE director. If these plays were reviewed, I would invite you to link them to the article you admit to having written yourself (which as others here have pointed out raises definite WP:COI issues). IronE is also categorized as a "Shakespearean Actor." The only Shakespeare I have been able to find on his resume (or anywhere else on the internet, as it relates specifically to his body of work), is a bit from Richard III included in the body of his one-man show. This does not make IronE a Shakespearean actor. Inflating his credits only hurts your article. Notability and credibility are the issues here. I again respectfully suggest that you rewrite the article, providing citations for statements and linking to some actual reviews or articles of the artist's work, written by third parties. I hope this is helpful. Rudybowwow (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urimajalu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a local family. PRODded and contested, subsequently changed family to "family name". Nothing in reliable sources to support anything in the article. People with the name exist, but that's all. Delete -SpacemanSpiff 07:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, this is not particularly notable surname as such, and I agree with the author that this seems to be about just one (non-notable) family, mentioning their house "on the Puttur-Vitla road" and so on. Fails both notability and verifiability. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article--Sodabottle (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Craig Murray. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadira Alieva

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Known for being the mistress/girlfriend/wife of Craig Murray ; Relationships do not confer notability. As a budding actress she also fails WP:ENT. Rootless Juice (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not independently notable - anything that can be said about her can easily appear in Craig Murray's article instead, which is where she confers any notability she might have from (and should be a redirect to).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Several news sources dedicated articles with her as the full, main subject, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13].--Cyclopia ^talk 19:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all of those articles make it clear that any interest in her derives from her connection to Murray. The events in her life that are discussed do not make her notable. Rootless Juice (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to judge why someone is notable. WP:NOTINHERITED means simply that if you're only a relative, you're not really notable. Here we have several news sources about her life and her theatre work: she's not just more the wife of Craig Murray. The fact that she is surely helped put her in the spotlight, but these sources are about her life and work. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Right now this is wp:BLP1e. If she remains in the news, we can recreate the article when notability outside of the event is established. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Craig Murray. No independent notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Francisco Giants minor league players. Wizardman 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Pichardo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does appearing on a 40-man roster at one point make you notable? That is the question. He may or may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Alex (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players as per WP:BASE/N.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players as per WP:BASE/N. BRMo (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bushism

The result was WP:SNOW keep Pcap ping 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, POV fork, unencyclopedic topic, BLP issue, as well as poor sourcing and OR. William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is relatively neutral, so it isn't a POV fork. Also, the topic is encyclopedic, considering the existence of relevant hits on Google Scholar, and the publication of several books on the topic. Additionally, not much has changed since the previous nomination. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:POV fork can be written in a neutral manner, it is still a POV fork. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please address the BLP issue and the precedent set by the Obama article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no privacy concern here, Bush is a well known figure, and the material is thoroughly sourced, even if it is not favorable to the subject, so there's no BLP issue. The precedent argument is a classical example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that? Wikipedia should be consistent when dealing with U.S. presidents. Also, regardless of whether it is a well-known figure, the information is used simply to defame the subject, thus a BLP violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation involves false information; Bushisms have been thoroughly reported by reliable sources, and as the BLP policy I linked above indicates, negative information that is reliably sourced belongs in an article, even for incidents the subject would prefer be buried—otherwise you'd break the neutrality policy by whitewashing. Besides, even Bush himself laughed about it.... and no, we don't have to be consistent if situations are dissimilar. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that it is reliably sourced. Other than this very poor article, opinion pieces and unreliable websites are used. The statements themselves are attributed to transcripts, which means it is being synthesized from primary sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really can't understand why this article has been nominated for deletion- its well written + sourced, maintains NPOV, and it is in relation to a very notable issue- i live in australia, and "bushism" is a very well known and used term. All i can think of, is maybe the person nominating this article has an ideological axe to grind? Brunk500 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written? It's simply a list of comments made by the US president as an ad hominem attack. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres the axe-grinding i mentioned. But i will clarify- by 'well-written' i dont mean its perfect or at feature article status- but its good enough for the writing not to be an issue at all.Brunk500 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but transwiki the quotes to WikiQuote. This could easily be categorized as a coatrack in current form. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:29, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- This is wikipedia's "coatrack" definition "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"."
- So while i guess a case could be made for having less quotes, i don't believe its reasonable to say that these quotes are only 'tangentially related' to the articles subject- the subject is bushism's, and these are examples of bushism's. Brunk500 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could be right. This article is more blatant about its bias, so coatrack might not technically apply. The same concerns that apply to a coatrack article are there though -- the article promotes the bias that Bush is a moron and invites a collection of examples to show that. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:26, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Keep in some form or another. There have been calendars produced that are filled with Bushisms. Publishing a President's own words hardly constitutes a BLP violation, nor is it anything new. Back in the 60s, there was a parody of the Mao Zedong book, filled with quotes from Lyndon Johnson, in a red cover, and titled, Quotes from Chairman LBJ. What this has to do with teleprompters (which have been used by Presidents for decades) is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rubbish article (barely more than a collection of quotes), but clearly notable topic. Bush's problematic relationship with the English language was a key feature of pop culture's view of one of the world's best-known people. Incidentally, given the nominator's involvement in this ANI thread, the prominence and political significance of Bush, and the fact that little has changed since the second AFD nom strongly decided to Keep, I suspect a WP:POINT violation. Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting AfD, I agree with most of the above. Very well-written article with lots of good sources. Not sure why it is in the AfD DRosin (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is here because the nomihnator is making a point in this AN/I discussion. Not sure about !voting at the moment myself, will have to take a look at the article in a bit and see. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of more than one published book, notable enough. Oh, and I know consensus can change and all that, but the last AFD was 15-to-1 to keep, so it's pretty clear the community has made their decision on this already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant form of U.S. political malapropisms for most of this decade. Warrah (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Newberg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's fairly highly regarded in the realm of trainers, but is a AAA trainer notable enough? I'm leaning towards no... Alex (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not many google hits that make me feel that he passes WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public menorah

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this is a very nice thing that people do, it is not notable. It seems to be a shill for Chabad sites. The sources cited are primary sources about the topic, not about coverage the topic has garnered. If it stays at all it should me a section under Menorah_(Hanukkah) Joe407 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it odd that you think it's not notable. Did you bother doing a basic Google search? Google has 28,000 hits. The concept receives massive press coverage every year, almost entirely from non Chabad sources, and keeps growing in popularity. True Chabad started this and are the main ones doing it today, but that does not make it any less notable. Shlomke (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomke, it's still only an article about a type of menorah, nothing more and nothing less with all its press coverage, and as such it is a violation of WP:POVFORKing and belongs in the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article. Chabad has taken many things and elaborated on them, but that does NOT always make the subjects worthy of new articles. Thus even though Chabad has instituted serious Public tefillin or Public Shabbat candles or Public Four Species or Public Jewish music or Public shofar or Public Chabad messianism etc etc (and you can find notices in papers about that happening), it does NOT mean that those are subjects that are somehow "new" and "deserve" articles apart from the regular Tefillin or Shabbat candles or Four Species or Jewish music or Shofar or Chabad messianism etc etc articles, because if so it would all be violating WP:POVFORK especially when it's an OBVIOUS attempt to promote solely Chabad-Lubavitch activities from a Chabad-slanted WP:POV and in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST because, simply put, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The article is much more then about a "type" of Menorah your trying to make it be. It is about public lighting, to which thousands attend every year (how many people attended your Menorah lighting?), about spreading the miracle of Chanuka to the greater world, about making the Menorah and Chanuka a medium for spreading Judaism to Jews - Kiruv, and Non-Jews - Noahide. It is a major event people come to and take their children to, and for all of these reasons it gets such major coverage in the press. Since you seem to be a Lamdan you surely understand that this is taking the concept of pirsumei nisa (spreading the miracle) to a whole new level, which was never done before mainly because Jews did not have the opportunity to do it on this scale. Your argument about this being just a type of menorah sounds similar to saying Gefilte fish is just a type of "fish" and should thus be merged into the Fish article, or the Shabbat article, because we eat it on Shabbat. The article could definitely be made more NPOV, but the article is absolutely notable and merits its own space. Shlomke (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomke, you are mixing up categories and not following logic. Thousands of people go to Macy's every day and windowshop at it's fantastic catchy displays, but that doesn't mean that there should be an article about that like Public Macy's because it's all part of what Macy's does. And you only add to the confusin by saying this is a medium for "kiruv" because it proves that this article was written for "kiruv" and not for Wikipedia. Playing of ball games on beaches is also a major event, but gaining the attention of a crowd on beaches does not make the subject of the crowds watching those games significant nor does it change the definition of the ball games being played because the location of the game/event does not matter. It also does not matter if anyone is a "lamdan" here, but you disprove your own argument by saying this is about "pirsumei nisa" which automatically means this should be part of either the Menorah or the Chanukah articles. Your comparison of "gefilte fish" (a food) to actual fish is both foolish and illogical. They are of different categories. One is an ancient Ashkenazi Shabbat food, and it is categorized as such but the word fish denotes something far different and much more important, as anyone knows it's about those billions+ of creatures that swim in the sea. And the point is, that there is just not enough significance to make a "public menorah" WP:N because it is no more important than any other type of menorah, such as "children's menorahs" (with over Google 234,000 hits) or "antique menorahs" (over 2,500 Google hits) or "modern menorahs" (over 11,000 Google hits) or the Israeli named menorahs: "Chanukiah" (over 63,000 Google hits) etc etc. Finally, gefilta fish could be merged into Shabbat as Shabbat foods, but gefilta fish does not and is not what Shabbat itself is about, it's a spiritual and concept and day of rest that is not related to food as such unlike any public menorah that is of the same logical category, reality and Halachic definition of any other type of menorah. Otherwise, what you are advocating is any time Chabad, or any group, decides to take an ancinet Jewish custom or law and then to do things a little differently it should allow for a new Wikipedia article. This is like Chabad following the Lubavitcher Rebbe's diktat to blow Shofar in public so should there then be another article for Public shofar above and beyond the regular Shofar article and in this way anything Chabad or any Chasidic or religious group does something slightly differently there should be articles about that, like Reform Judaism Shabbat because they do it differently, Conservative Judaism conversions etc etc and split off topics needlessly like that instead of keeping things more focused within one coherent article and have sub-sections WITHIN that article for the varying points of view, unless it's something too large or obviously vastly different which in this case it is not. IZAK (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, funny that you think I'm mixing up categories, because that's exactly what I think you're doing. The reason that there are no articles about the thousands of people going to Macy's everyday, that people attend ballgames on the beach etc., is because people dont find them notable.While thousands of people do find public Menorah lightings notable as can be seen from the massive press coverage it gets every year. Get it?? a public menorah is not just a "type" of Menorah, as anyone with common sense knows, but everything that goes on with it. The ceremony, the lighting, the speech, the Latkas, the Chanuka Gelt, the immense joy and pride of being Jewish (I know, you're really cringing now...), as well as spreading the miracle "pirsumei nisa" on a scale that has never been done before, spreading Judaism to Jews and Non-Jews alike. So tell me again now, is it just a certain type of Menorah like a glass Menorah, ice Menorah, clay Menorah, childrens Menorah, brass Menorah, etc.? while many of your "type" Menorah's have Google hits, they dont get press coverage, people don't get excited about them, the Governor won't come to light them, and they don't end up in supreme court. It makes no difference why the article creator started the article and if he had "Kiruv" in mind, but whether the subject is notable and deserves it's own space. When public Shofar blowing becomes so popular as Public Menorah lightings that it get's the same amount of press coverage, then yes, we should have an article about it too. 'Nuf said. Shlomke (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomke, there is a huge difference between objective press coverage and staged events designed to attract the media's attention in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the obvious pro-Chabad editors who do not even hide it anymore. It is Chabad itself that instigates, creates and manages the events, and then you expect that "presto" with that it somehow means that Wikipedia must roll over and admit such events into this encyclopedia when the lighting of public menorahs is nothing but huge Chabad-generated PR stunts meant to get the public's attention and maybe there should be an objective article about Chabad media campaigns. Therefore, the lighting of a public menorah is no different in Jewish Law than the lighting of any other kind of menorah. A private individual does so and his neighbors may see it in his window, and when a local community Chabad rabbi does so by hiring a cherry-picker crane to light a fiften foot menorah it is nothing more than a Chabad PR stunt (you can refer to it as a greater pirsumei nisa mitzva if you like, but Wikipedia does not and cannot measure spiritual phenomena) or it's merely a regular menorah lighting but on a larger scale. To follow your adhesion to this topic one could come to it in another way: Large menorah which then only brings us full circle that a large menorah according to Jewish Law as expressed in the Talmud a menorah is KOSHER as long as it follows this: "If the Chanukah lights are placed at a greater height than ten 'tefachim' (handbreadths), but less than twenty 'amot' he has still fulfilled his obligation, although not in the ideal manner. One 'amah' is a length somewhere between eighteen inches and two feet; therefore, twenty 'amot' is somewhere between thirty and forty feet. If the lights are raised above twenty 'amot,' he has not fulfilled his obligation." (from OU.org). So NO menorah can be kosher if it is above twenty amos meaning even the largest menorah, no matter where it is placed or by whom, is still a menorah, cannot be higher than 30 to 40 feet. Thus ALL Chabad public menorahs fall within these parameters. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, you keep revealing more and more of your anti-Chabad bias here. You are essentially saying that when Rabbi Schneerson told his followers to light public Menorah's, he did it as a publicity stunt. Your about the only one that expresses such views here, at least openly. What a Shanda. Although you may hold your own views (and I think I know why), writing this on Wikipedia is Original Research and I must remind you that that is against WP policy of WP:NOR. The facts remain that the ones reporting Public menorah lightings are independent Journalists in independent newspapers, with no connection to Chabad, and sometimes even generally anti religious ones. They still find it interesting, fascinating, and above all notable to write about. This makes it notable for Wikipedia too and thus it can and should be covered here. Regarding the Halachik Issue of large Menorah's, it is generally accepted that 20 amos is at least 32 feet. I'm not sure why you are getting into this here, are you trying to get into a debate of whether these Menorah's are Kosher? In any case that is not for a AFD. Shlomke (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pointiness of IZAK's opinion is proven by this edit on the WikiProject Judaism talk page. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content into Menorah. I don't see any evidence that a "public menorah" is anything but a menorah that happens to be displayed in public. This is the same reason we don't have Public Christmas tree. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I don't recall hearing or seeing Christmas tree lightings in the news. The only one I've heard about is the one at Rockefeller center, and there is an article on that too: The Tree at Rockefeller Center. Shlomke (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Come on, this article is still just a stub. Yet again people are zealously recommending articles for deletion before they've had a chance to be developed. Leave a "this article needs to be expanded" tag. As for its notability, a public menora is quite different from the regular Menora that each Jew traditionally lights in his house. Rather, it is a new practice spearheaded by the Lubavitcher Rebbe for the purposes of publicising the miracles of Chanuka and outreach to Jews and non-Jews. It has also garnered much public attention in the USA because of the religion and state controversies surrounding it being displayed publicly. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: It could certainly use a section about the litigation in the USA. There should probably also be something about public menorot in Israel, where the practise is long-established, and probably a pic of the giant one on the Jerusalem-Tel-Aviv highway. If after a few months it seems that the article still belongs as a section of Menorah_(Hanukkah) then we can reopen the merge discussion. -- Zsero (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an issue outside the scope of the general Menorah article, being that it is 1. an event that is organised around the Menorah lighting, 2. extensively covered by media (so the claim by the nominator that it is not notable is fairly ridiculous, see e.g. Emanuel lights National Menorah at White House, AP), and 3. part of a series about Chabad. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chabad article on outreach, or part of the menorah article. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a controversy section to the article, which proves that in the US, the constitutionality of displaying public menorahs was challenged by the ACLU, and it went to the Supreme Court. This surely proves the independent notability of this article. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means we may close this Afd per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be wrong; there isn't only a single option being put forward here. AfDs run for seven days. pablo_hablo. 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW applies to Afd as well. I have seen it being used a few times on WP:CFD also. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, you should read it. pablo_hablo. 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Perhaps I will. :) But for your convenience I am willing to agree that I am only predicting that after the edit Yehoishophot Oliver is referring to, this will turn out to be a WP:SNOW case. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely notable. As stated above the topic gets massive press coverage every year. 28,000 Google hits. I cant think of one reason this is not notable. Shlomke (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FORK article, salvage some information into Menorah (Hanukkah) and Chabad. This is similar to having a separate FORK for a 'Public Nativity scene' article, even with some juicy 'controversy' section (controvery = legitimacy?). Anyway, 'Public menorah' is a new phenomenon that the vast majority of Jews do not 'practice' and most other rabbis 'deprecate' in importance by discouraging the main lighter from saying the blessing with God's name, in contrast to the public lighting of the Hanukiah in the synagogue. And in this day and age, 28,000 Google hits is nothing special. --Shuki (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Barack Obama is also "new", nor do most American "practise" the presidency. Nevertheless he has a huge Wikipedia article. 2. Lighting public menorahs has been an active campain for I think some 15 years by now. 3. It follows that your opinion to delete is a result of your prejudice against the public lighting of menorahs, and not a matter of rationale application of Wikipedia standards. Sorry, but your problem with Chabad you had better leave out of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Shuki has actually strengthened the argument for the independent notability of the article from the general Menora article, by confirming the claim made early that "'Public menorah' is a new phenomenon", and that, at least in his estimation, many rabbis oppose it. May I add that anyone perusing the google results for "Public Menorah" will see that not only are these ghits from blogs or the like, they are from reputable news sites, as public menorah lightings are regularly reported in the media as a notable public religious event. And they have received much recent coverage of late after Moldovan Christians tore one down. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, by the way, had nothing to do with Chabad, so it would be ridiculous to discuss that incident in an article about that movement. -- Zsero (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article because: (1) This whole notion of lighting and pushing "public menorahs" was an outright brand new very recent WP:OR invention of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, it was never practiced by any Jewish community for 2000 years in exile to go and place huge menorahs in public squares, even though there is a custom to light ONE'S OWN menorah outside one's house, weather permitting, and it does not look nice that his disciples have the audacity to act as if Wikipedia is now Lubavitch territory in violation of WP:OWN! (2) There is no such thing as a "Public menorah" in Jewish law or that is in any way notable above and beyond a regular dinky menorah in one's home since if that is so one could create articles about Apartment menorah, Rooftop menorah, Hallway menorah, Bedroom menorah, or for that matter Clay menorah, Gold menorah, or Ashkenazi menorah, Sefardi menorah etc etc etc -- all of which are valid topics even in Jewish law but there is no point in splitting hairs for this: (3) Clearly violating WP:POVFORKing. (4) Thus it violates WP:POV-pushing because if, as in this instance, there is major significance that Chabad Lubavitch places on this subject, and it clearly does, then that subject matter should be moved to the pro-Chabad article about Mitzvah Campaigns that really have nothing to do with menorahs as such but are aimed at furthering the Chabad world view upon everyone. (5) Violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST because Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org! Happy Chanuka to all! IZAK (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these arguments are nonsense and almost self-refuting. (1) The Lubavitcher Rebbe was certainly qualified to do original research! What has that got to do with the WP article, which contains nothing not found in reliable sources? (2) Public menorahs certainly exist — you can see one not far from wherever it is that you live — and are the subject of much coverage. How OWN is relevant is beyond me; it seems more like your opposition is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (3) It's not at all clear to me; no POV is expressed that couldn't equally be expressed in Menorah (Hanukkah). (4) It is one among many activities in which Chabad is a major (but far from exclusive) player; why should they all go in one article? Especially since not all public menorot have anything to do with Chabad. (5) Huh? I can't even parse that one; it sounds like the SOAPBOX is under your feet. -- Zsero (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zsero: Do you even know what WP:NONSENSE means? Check it out. (1) Regardless of what the Lubavitcher Rebbe was allowed or not allowed to do, and outside of Chabad-Lubavitch the Orthodox rabbinical establishment did not follow him, in fact they opposed him and his drive for hegemony, therefore by a Wikipedia editor adopting a unilateral directive of the Lubuvitcher Rebbe and then posting and foisting it on Wikipedia, that editor has taken ownership of the subject and is thereby himself guilty of WP:POV-pushing a WP:NOR subject simply because: Lubavitcher Rebbe=pro-Chabad Wikipedia editors. There is NO consensus in the Orthodox world about public menorahs and the ONLY ones who push it are the Lubavitchers for only ONE reason, because their Rebbe ordered them to do so, and they do so robotically and unthinkingly, so this is then part of Mitzvah Campaigns and has zero to do with any types of menorahs be they public, private, communal or hidden. (2) Actually I like ALL menorahs including public ones as a curiosity item, but I do not think that because one group runs around and as part of its mindless creed pushes it, that I or any editor on Wikipedia needs to agree with having an article about it when the main Menorah (Hanukkah) is fair, open enough and will do just fine. (3) So just put this information in the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article or have your druthers and plop it into Mitzvah Campaigns where it more strategically belongs. There really is nothing special or significant or even WP:NOTABLE about having huge outdoors menorahs sponsored by Lubavitch only to go up in competition with outdoors Christmas trees, and there is no article for Public Christmas tree either and rightly so or articles for big floating air-filled balloons or blimps of Disney cartoon characters, like having Public Mickey Mouse displays on public parades. (4) Simply because there is a rule on Wikipedia of WP:POVFORK -- read up on it, you may learn something about Wikipedia policies. (5) Good joke. Have you noticed how a small band of pro-Chabad editors has been relentlessly creating articles on Wikipedia in the spirit of Chabad.org and they then violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR whenever any serious editors oppose them with rational, logical and factual arguments, this being a clear-cut case in point. Get real, you're fooling no one but yourself. Shalom. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Izak, it's amazing how in everything you wrote, aside from lots of utterly blatant POV-pushing (e.g., that you don't approve of Public Menorahs from reasons a,b,c, and since some rabbis disagreed with some things the Lubavitcher Rebbe said, therefore his widely followed directives shouldn't be considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and certainly not to be given independent articles, and one who does so violates ... WP:OWN!), you didn't give even one cogent argument to respond to the claims for this article's independent notability, such as the fact that it is 1) new and different historically from a private menorah (as you yourself point out (and Shuki before you)!); 2) the entire community is invited to ceremonies for public lightings, where famous dignitaries are honored with the privilege to kindle the Menora, and these ceremonies have become widely accepted in communities all over the world as an occasion of note, leading to the fact that 3) ceremonies for public Menora lightings are reported regularly in the media all over the world; 4) the issue of displaying a public Menora reached the Supreme Court, which had far-reaching implications for constitutional law. May I add that no one took "ownership" of a subject; we are writing on a topic that we think is notable, and in fact, there is now also a controversy section to create what some might call "balance". Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoishophot: The point here is very simple, everything you say is very nice but basically not to the point simply because the notion and existence of placing and pushing king size public menorahs in pulic today is 100% the invention of an idea and command that came from one man, the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe, so that you may in fact even want to merge the article to its true and accurate source Menachem Mendel Shneerson. I have stated the views to merge and redirect very clearly, and it serves no purpose to go round in circles. Let's see where this AfD discussion leads. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The concept of public Menorah's was started by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, just like Kiruv was started by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and later adapted by other Jewish denominations (Oorah, Aish Hatora NCSY etc.). And this passed the notability test because of all the press coverage it receives. To redirect public menorah to Menachem Mendel Shneerson would be like redirecting Who is a Jew? to Jew. Your readily apparent dislike for Chabad and the Lubavitcher Rebbe is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Shlomke (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the main Menorah (Hanukkah) - For all the reasons that Izak cites. He is simply correct in his analysis. Now, I happen to sort of like Chabad's public menorah displays, but my personal taste has no effect on Wikipedia article policy. And since we do follow article policy, this kind of information must be merged into the appropriate article as Izak says. RK (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion. While I'd like to go on record against IZAK's tone of voice, he has some good points. As per IZAK and RK, I'd like to suggest that the info in this article get merged into both Menorah (Hanukkah) and Mitzvah Campaigns. It would also be the start of a much needed expansion of Mitzvah Campaigns (IMHO). Joe407 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of the information presented in this article wouldn't fit in the basic Menorah article, let alone the Mitzvah Campaigns article. For example, the recent anti-Semitic attacks against public menorah lighting (moldova and vienna). While I'll admit that this isn't the most important topic, I definitely recognize its notability as strong enough to have a Wikipedia article. Breein1007 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This is not about Menorah lighting itself, which is only done in one's own house or in synagogues. The fact that the public lighting is only practised by Chabbad does not make it less notable. It is disputed by Jews and non-Jews alike, for various reasons, and serves as the background for many an antisemitic scene. All this should be expanded on in the article. -- Nahum (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + redirect to Menorah (Hanukkah). pablo_hablo. 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we need a new article dealing with the conflict between religion and public policy. There is the issue of public displays of Christmas trees, menorahs and the ten commandments. As well, I can recall hearing about conflict regarding the use/display of mezuzahs and wreaths in apartment complexes, and there was a recent case which went to the Illinois Supreme Court regarding a man who disinherited several of his grandchildren because they married non-Jews. --Eliyak T·C 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or may as well create an article Exhibitionism in religion or just simply redirect the article to Exhibitionism and be done with it. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many innovations in Judaism begin as projects of one Jewish movement or another (the chavurah and Jewish renewal, for example) and gain wider acceptance over time. The fact that Chabad is currently the chief, or exclusive, sponsor of public menorot does not diminish the notability of the subject. The article has been suitably expanded since this AfD began that it no longer seems like a POV fork. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Malik, yes all menorahs are notable and not because any one group, besides ALL the Jews, use them, it's a serious rabbinic commandment of over 2000 years and specified in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch that makes it notable so what's the "innovation" here? The Jewish sages of 2000 years ago said that ANY menorah is a pirsumei nisa/"publicization of the miracle" of Chanuka. So that if someone said go set up big ones at street corners, that's a craze not an "innovation" in Jewish law, it's ONLY a menorah. It's just a menorah placed in a public place. It would be like advocating for articles about Seaside menorah or Countryside menorah or Basement menorah etc etc -- no matter where they are placed, they are menorahs, hence this is a violation of WP:POVFORK plain and simple. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to get into an argument with you, IZAK, but if somebody started a new tradition of lighting menorot on beaches, and the subject attracted both news coverage and lawsuits, Seaside menorah would satisfy the notability guidelines and might merit an article (or a section within Public menorah). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... or a section within Menorah (Hannukah). pablo_hablo. 20:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose one could say that's nice to see people paying attention to Menorahs at the proper season. (some irony is intended) This particular aspect is independently notable, because of the controversy involved. The article however is still not neutral, and does need some attention.--in particular there needs to be a search for earlier and other proposals or adoption of the idea outside Chabad. The proper coverage of major topics requires specialized articles, not lumping all under a few headings. (It is also true that a topic should not be split into as many possible topics as possible--I'm a little startled at some rather general topics in the Chabad navigation box, which does sort of imply a tendency to take credit for various good but nonspecific things in Judaism, but I will discuss this elsewhere. I should mention there there has been some off-wiki discusion of this in various directions, and I find some of what I have seen rather deplorable. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns with a "see also" under Menorah (Hanukkah). The Chabad menorah is more a public-relations tool than a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah of lighting the menorah. I'm sure all the Chabad rabbis light their own menorahs at home first :). Speaking of public menorahs, why doesn't the article mention the electrically-lit menorahs that Chabad posts at street corners in major Israeli cities, or the Chabad cars that drive around Israeli cities with an electrically-lit menorah on the roof, one light for each night? Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "The Chabad menorah is more a public-relations tool than a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah of lighting the menorah" is a blatant POV statement, considering that public menorahs are lit with a blessing, making them a fulfillment of the Mitzvah of lighting the menorah. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've just revised the article to reflect a npov and to include some non-chabad lightings. I still feel that it is not notable and should be deleted. Let's see what consensus this AFD brings. Joe407 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to 407: Avoid updating/improving an article that you have voted for deletion and certainly one you Afd'ed. --Shuki (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting advice to Joe 407: the AfD process doesn't mean that the article must remain in a state of stasis for 7 days; editing can continue and is usually a good thing. pablo_hablo. 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your advice. I do understand the wisdom of not improving an article that one wants removed. On the other hand, I have no personal issue with the article and no vested interest in removing it. I'm looking for WP content to be of a certain quality level. If we can move closer to the quality level by deleting an article or by improving it - either one is good. Joe407 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you bother with an Afd?? Slap an 'improve' template on the top, canvass other relevant editors to improve the article, post a note on the Judaism wikiproject, anything but the extreme 'last resort'. Afd which means deletion, not merge. Are you softening your tone on purpose now? --Shuki (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the article up for AFD because I think it is not notable and should be deleted. I chose AFD because it is not a CSD and would not fit PROD. Joe407 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge either is acceptable, my preference is to keep it. if consensus goes towards merge, the target should be Menorah (Hannukah), definitely not Chabad. menorah are known by the gentiles, but Chabad is not. information should go where readers will find it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge. Should be dealt with in context, not in a standalone article. JFW | T@lk 20:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article name is a made up term (a menorah is inherently "public") and the article includes a bunch of WP:SYNTH. The topic of the First Amendment vis a vis these "public menoras" is notable and if formatted correctly worthy of its own article, but this whole WP:OR/WP:SYNTH article started off on the wrong track.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Public Menorah" is one used in countless news reports, as a google search will show you. And although many light their private Menorah in a window, for those who light it in the inside of the house in the doorway, a Menorah lit in a house is not public, in the sense that it can only be seen if someone is peering in the doorway at a certain angle. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Inherently WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: See similar AfD and issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. IZAK (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. We have an entire Category:Individual Christmas trees with articles on 10 different public trees; we certainly can have one article covering public menorahs. --agr (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This proves the point of delete. Bordering on OTHERSTUFF, but if any of the Chabad hanukiot were notable, then perhaps a seperate article would be legitmate for that location. You example proves that there is no Public Christmas tree. --Shuki (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of covering a topic in 10 articles vs. one is an editorial judgement and has nothing to do with notability. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, not the personal opinions of editors. There is plenty of such coverage for public menorahs. There's even a National Menorah in the U.S. that gets enough regular press coverage to justify a separate article parallel to National Christmas Tree (United States). The one in Boston generally gets covered by the Boston Globe. Controversy surrounding them generated numerous lawsuits and made it to the US Supreme Court. They were an issue in the confirmation of one Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito. All of this received extensive press coverage. That editors chose to lump this material in one article does not make it less notable, quite the contrary. On the other hand, this is a very recent phenomenon and giving it more than a mention in Menorah (Hanukkah) would be undue weight, so a separate article is totally appropriate.--agr (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is kept, should it be renamed "Public menorah lighting"? This would reflect the fact that there is no distinction between a public or private menorah. As pointed out above, a menorah is inherently public. This article is talking about a public lighting. (BTW, I still think it should be deleted.) Joe407 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name should not be changed, because although the lighting ceremonies are a significant part of the public menorahs, and they receive much press coverage, the menorahs are displayed throughout the 8 days of Chanuka, and it is that very display and not the ceremony of lighting as such that was considered by the ACLU and co. problematic, which has led to controversy, etc. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would have no problem with such a rename. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK asked me to comment. Probably notable enough to be handled somewhere; I have no strong feeling about whether it belongs (1) in an article of its own, (2) merged to menorah, or (3) at least in part, in an article about the U.S. controversies over placement of religious symbols in public space, which is the main context in which I think it is notable. The U.S. had a long tradition of public Christmas trees (vaguely Christian) and creches (very Christian), and on the whole Jews wishing to place menorahs comparably prominently were the first of several other religious or anti-religious groups who objected to this exclusive Christian prerogative to challenge it by asking for equivalent treatment rather than by the removal of these Christian symbols. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into relevant articles. So is my humble opinion, without spending a PhD level study on the subject. These questions are quite confusing because there are always reasons to either side. But the intuition is that it is more a chabad related sub-topic than a stand alone one. Besides, the fact that there is a strong motivation by Chabad related parties to create special entries for them, creates the counter-intuition as a default (like whereever there is a strong related party). I hope this argument to be understood on both sides. No need to make wiki a warland about minute definitions. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by all means, it is a very reaction of Chabad to the "Happy cholidays" and "Maccabee Festival" things, to keep the "jewish flame" on, in others words a sheer act of kiruv !--'Inyan (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S: I don't visit this page often, should you leave me a message, post it at fr:Discussion utilisateur:'Inyan[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Daniel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor actor, seems to have had one small role in a direct-to-video film (see [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3040366/ at IMDb). Does not meet WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely and utterly fails WP:ENT. Sources only indirectly cover subject, and are mainly about things related to him in some way, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER on all three counts: 1.) No significant roles; 2.) No cult following/large fan base; 3.) Nothing innovative contributed to the field of acting. I wish him the best, but at this time he does not meet our notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacons (law firm)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one is probably a tough call to make. I am listing this for AfD because

a) The only sources given are the firms own website while the other links are dead (notabiliy?)

b) It reeks of self-promotion (spam?)

c) It has been the target of some rather obvious, possibly socking, SPAs (COI?) (see article's history)

Please give your opinions. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 160 attorneys and a 150-year history, this is a fairly significant law firm, and from what I can tell the deals it handles are pretty important ones. But the "Significant Achievements" sections reads like a corporate brochure and needs to be cut down or eliminated -- significant in whose eyes, I wonder? That's a loaded issue right there. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with a lot of the nominators comments, but I think notability is demonstrated. I would think the first step should be to reduce it to a stub, getting rid of the 'achievements' and 'areas of expertise' sections. For one thing, prose is generally better than a list, and I would like there to be some independent coverage. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge in the area could comment on how significant the achievements are - these business awards are often two a penny. Quantpole (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with above, it is a notable law firm, but the article needs a lot of cleanup as it is written like an advert as it stands. DRosin (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. I agree that it needs clean-up. But the AfDs are busy enough--it really shouldn't be used as a mechanism to prompt others to clean up the spam, etc., in an article that clearly is a keep. Part of the problem of course may be the COI of user:202.82.152.15, who is at the firm.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Clearly notable, but much of the article is marketing puffery. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Internationally well-known law firm, plenty of cites exists, see Findlaw.com, Martindale, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator suggested looking at the article's history, but doesn't seem to have done so him/herself. When I removed the WP:PROD tag from this I added these sources to the article, with an appropriate edit summary, but someone has removed them since. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat and Dog (comic)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comic lacking Ghits and GNEWS. Originating editor removed PROD. ttonyb (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be either a joke or some kid's (unpublished) comic strip. Not verifiable, no encyclopedic value. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polarpanda (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, maybe even Speedy delete. I couldn't find any sources for this, seems like it was just made up DRosin (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a hoax or profoundly non-notable. The article doesn't even bother to tell us what sort of "comic" this is... comic book? newspaper strip? webcomic? The name of the author gets just one Google hit, an obituary of a relative, and even that might just be someone else with the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article and creator's user page User:Tigermyboo suggests this is a home-made comic about the family cat and dog, which isn't really encyclopedia material. Best of luck with it though. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP or WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^^^. JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think Joe Chill said it perfectly. Either it was made up, or it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Either way, delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complicit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:DICTIONARY Shazbot85^Talk 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article that elaborates the legal concept of complicity, not a definition of the vernacular adjective complicit. Most of the 100+ pages that link to it are other criminal law articles. Not a very good article, to be sure, but a necessary underpinning of these other criminal law articles. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and Rename) Per Yappy2bhere, it's an established legal doctrine, and the article just needs to be improved (a lot). A title change to something like "Complicity" or "Complicit (legal term)" would probably help, within article naming conventions for this field. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable legal concept, per the above. Agree that some cleanup may be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Davis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in the Majors, is not an inherently notable first-overall draft pick, and the article cites no other sources of notability or heavy amateur notability (outside, perhaps, PAC-10 Freshman of the Year, which is uncited). Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Keep per below.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, per full profiles in the Hudson Valley Times Herald-Record, WICZ-TV, the New York Post, the Treasure Coast Palm, and this year's Baseball America prospect guide (subscribers-only link, where he's ranked as NY's #4 prospect). Also notable for being a member of the gold-medal winning Team USA during the Baseball World Cup competition this year (Sports Illustrated link describing his play in the competition). I wish people would bother to do at least a minimal amount of research before nominating articles about minor league players for deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that information is provided or cited in the article. If it's added, keep sure, but as it stands now the article fails all standards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." Perhaps, by way of aplologizing for wasting our time with this inappropriate deletion discussion, you might consider adding the sources to the article yourself? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. The key clause there, BTW, is "if it is likely". These non-notable minor leaguer articles get made all the time. I apologize for not knowing this Mets prospect appeared in an international baseball tournament when it goes unmentioned in the article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GD: "Before nominating an article for AFD, please...first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." As a fellow administrator, might I suggest that your review the applicable policies and guidelines before nominating any other pages for deletion? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HBWS, participation in Baseball World Cup. Spanneraol (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HBWS and plenty of coverage over this past year as a top Mets prospect. Rlendog (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak Goldstein

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax. No one at Harvard Philosophy by this name. Only one Google hit besides this page for "An essay concerning objective morality", probably a post by the creator of this article. Probably speediable as a hoax; I prodded this in the name of assuming good faith (as it reads it's not blatantly a hoax), but the prod was declined, so here we are. Possibly a confusion with the writer and rabbi Yitzchak Goldstein, (someone has added a reference for him in the entry) but he's never been a Harvard philosopher either.Hairhorn (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book Shoah: A Jewish Perspective on Tragedy in the Continent by Yoel Schwartz and Yitzchak Goldstein exists although it's also listed as by Yitsḥaḳ Goldshṭain (probably a typo though) and here it's listed as edited by Yitzchak Goldstein. The variations of the names probably point more to carelessness on online bookstores. However, there is someone by the name Yitzchak Goldstein (and as Hairhorn points out, there is a Rabbi by that name). Unless verifiable evidence of Yitzhak Goldstein can be provided, this should be delete.freshacconci talktalk 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, as are other contributions of its creator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. What a bizarre hoax to create, though. These always surprise me. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX. Why would someone go to these lengths? Odd. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nenguke

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nonnotable zimbabwe family name. Unsourced content about a handful of nonnotable individuals. Cannot even turn into a redirect or disambig page. - Altenmann >t 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. If this can't be turned into a disambiguation page, it's of no real encyclopedic value. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unsourced family genealogy of a family that appears entirely non-notable. Pcap ping 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced family tree of non-notables his the nail exactly on the head. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Survivor: Fiji. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andria "Dreamz" Herd

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andria "Dreamz" Herd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable person per WP:1E, this person did nothing notable outside of the Survivor Universe. Tavix | Talk 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Nothing there outside of Survivor other than a paternity suit (which is a bit WP:UNDUE). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Not even sure that coming in second is really that notable itself! Cocytus [»talk«] 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Adams (baseball)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer. Wizardman 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY – no sources provided for minor league player/manager other than his statistical record. BRMo (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:BASE/N.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Find

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Has a CNET review [14], which was listed under "external liks", but it really is a 3rd party reference. Probably more can be found. Pcap ping 11:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A small review on CNET, but I couldn't find much else for it. In the scheme of things it doesn't seem to have a particularly large number of downloads. Quantpole (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the one aforementioned CNet review. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EsoTalk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Forum software with no independent sources, fails WP:GNG. --Zvn (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only one of four sources is from the official website itself, and it is much famous than a half of systems on the list. If this were not good for Wikipedia, why don't you ask to delete some articles like MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums?--Meow ✉ 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other three sources are also self-published: software developer's advert on Youtube, esoTalk forums and the third one a blogpost by Meow, that is you. --Zvn (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is just your reason, please also delete MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums. They absolutely don't have independent sources, and some of them don't have any source.--

Meow ✉ 02:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF; theoretically all those articles can be nominated for deletion at some point if no independent sources are found, but that would need separate review and deletion nominations. When WP:COI of the article's creators becomes apparent, it only works as a catalyst because Wikipedia is not for promotion or to "spread the word" about your new product.--Zvn (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums? I also can't find significant coverage for them.--

Meow ✉ 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping save this article at all. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just urge for the justice.--

Meow ✉ 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for great justice. The references are a blog post, a forum posting, a broken link, and a YouTube video? Okay. Looking further, this still doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:V. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was reviewing the article in the time that Glenfarclas took to write his post, and I totally agree his findings. All 3rd party references, blog entries, forum entries, youtube videos, are self-published. I did a search myself too, but was unable to find anything above that level. So, it fails the WP:RS part of "reliable secondary sources" in WP:N. Pcap ping 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrix Robots Building System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined (by two other editors). Searches reveal the primary sources, and a few things that appear to be press releases. A google news search finds two hits, one of which is a PR Newswire release (press release) and another is a robot building camp that uses the robots (I think). Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge. I can't find substantial independent coverage for this to justify an article. The references in the article are all company material. It may be worth mentioning it in one of the more notable related products e.g., Lego Mindstorms NXT. Pcap ping 12:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community-based Biodiversity Conservation Films

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously PRODed article; PROD removed by what appears to be a sock of the creator; article does not establish notability and fails WP:CORP. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that a general WP:CORP argument is the way to go here, and propose a look at the more specific WP:CLUB. This group does come up on the web pages of similar organizations and their work has been described at the international level. But there is a shortage of independent, third party news coverage. I'll leave it to the community to decide the notability question, but a quick look at WP:CORP in general may not be fair. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M-Log

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable product WuhWuzDat 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Per Joe Chill; easily fails WP:N. There is also no support for WP:PRODUCT since there is no company notability. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability; I can't find secondary sources that aren't blogs. It seems like a small group hardware project or similar; see [15]. Could have been prodded instead I think. There parent "Owl Project" doesn't seem notable either. Pcap ping 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:BAND. Notability of Atomic Rooster does not make this later band notable. If there is any unique information, it could be merged to John Du Cann. Ash (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be completely made up of original research- does not feature any external links or references. Band appears to have low notability- did not release any recordings. Mention is made that the songs they worked on became the basis for the first album by Hard Stuff. I checked the article for Hard Stuff- basically all the important information in this article is already covered there (word for word in some instances). I would recommend that this page be turned into a simple redirect going to the article for Hard stuff (or just deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunk500 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. Since band achieved little more than demos while together, the text of this article should be merged with John Du Cann and/or Hard Stuff and simple redirects should be set up accordingly. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge the delete !votes, I only think Line Delete is the way to go.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Unitsky

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN artist who fails WP:ARTIST. Both the DPRP award and the PROGaward are online, unscientific polls. The "Museum of Computer Art" is a web site where artists can self-publish their work. Toddst1 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral, weak keep~~ Please note that Toddst1 has removed most of the articles content. While a COI (the artist in question) made this article look rather terrible, it is notable, and easy to clean up. This artist has designed cover art for several notable progressive rock bands (DPRP is very much a reliable and "scientific" award, as it is considered the top honour for modern prog bands, who don't get the kind of coverage that mainstream bands get. To say DPRP is not good enough would be like dismissing all the underground death metal charts because they don't have a national chart). He is notable along the same lines as Storm Thorgerson, just without the multi-platinum band under his belt. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, when I intervened on an edit war on this article, I removed a lot of unsourced information and claims like "He is touted as the modern day Salvador Dali." and "Many seem to believe it is inspired from the Divine." along with a long list of unsourced credits. None of which belong in the article, some of which has been added back without citations. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADLINE, patience grasshopper. There was no edit war. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines (online poll based awards are usually not notable). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, perhaps not, but valid, certainly. The Italian prog awards are definitely notable. If not, wikipedia has a bias against any genre that isn't commercially flaunted, and that bias must be changed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is ~~an on-line poll~~ this website a reliable enough source to pass one of the 5 criteria of WP:ARTIST? Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an online poll, its just an online website. There are set judges for the Italian Prog Awards. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see there is a "jury" (my italian is rusty). However that still leaves the matter of passing WP:Artist. I guess 4(c) "has won significant critical attention" would be the closest thing that would fit, but the key word there is significant. I'd be hard pressed to defend this web site as being "significant critical attention". Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think thats putting an unfair bias on areas of music that are still immensely popular and notable, yet don't receive commercial critical coverage. I leave my keep argument at the fact that he is the artist for a good number of albums with their own Wikipedia article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but that's really a different discussion which should be played out on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). If you feel the criteria are wrong, you should work to change them. But in the short term, WP:Artist is the criteria we have to work with. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after flushing out a few sources and cleaning up the article. Notable along the same lines as Storm Thorgerson: has done the artwork for several dozen albums that have their own article on wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from Andy Tillison [Po90], [the Tangent]

Hello ED.

I do not think your page should be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not a member of Wikipedia and I have never contributed anything to the page. The article about my band The Tangent has been done by someone else, I do not know who, I do not like the article because I think it is far too long for a band of our status and far too anecdotal. It is not encyclopedic enough and should be far more factual

I have read the arguments involved and believe that the member Floydian is correct in protesting that DPRP polls etc are not invalid, as these polls have been established for at least a decade and require a certain amount of input from the user rather than a tick box system. The fact that this is not a TV poll like the X-Factor does not invalidate the importance thereof. As an industry worker I know that nearly all progressive rock musicians take a very serious view of the DPRP poll (it frightens me to hell!!). As the winners of this poll are likely to quote from it in advertising features in commercial magazines this does indicate a certain industry respect for the poll

I think the proposer of deletion is taking an attitude of "I've never heard of him or this poll, so why should it be on here"

I suggest that you contact member Floydian if you can. You may copy this mail to him. Although progressive Rock music's fortunes are nowhere near as well reported by mainstream media as they once were, my personal view is that your contribution to the current scene is well respected among the vast majority of those who follow the genre.

I am sorry that someone has taken this attitude against you. other than this mail of support, there is very little I can do. i think that for Wikipedia to delete your article wouod be detrimental to Wikipedias astonishing grasp on the variety of contemporary culture.

Andy Tillison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Unitsky (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr. Tillison can provide ANY recognized magazines or advertisements where a band quotes a DPRP poll, it would provide some sourced solidarity to the validity of them, and may help in getting them acknowledged as a notability criteria. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see Floydian's argument that it's unfair to dismiss obscure, under-the-radar polls on the ground that they're not nationally recognized. Well, yes, awards which lack reliable sources testifying to broad support for their significance and notability fail most Wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability. I just don't see that as a bad thing. If Unitsky has genuine significance, there'll be reliable sources saying so. When those appear, I'll change my mind regarding his notability. RGTraynor 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There are notable sources, thats what the DPRP is. It's just not notable to you. In its industry (which is where it matters) it is a VERY reliable and respected source. Wikipedia just needs to wake up and smell the coffee with its criteria for notability almost exclusively limited to historical, and pop/rock/top 40 chart toppers. Asinine. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it will remain non-notable to me, and to Wikipedia at large, without reliable sources testifying to its notability. You've been on Wikipedia far too long not to understand that that is how it works. Wikipedia has never been a publisher of first instance, and we need more than your assertion that this poll is recognized as an authority in its field. That there's only one other article on the English Wikipedia mentioning it doesn't bode well. As it happens, the Dutch Wikipedia neither mentions this poll in its progressive rock article [16] nor has an article on Unitsky himself. [17]. So far the coffee's smelling mighty weak. RGTraynor 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I don't see how the Dutch wikipedia not having an article means something. It's an English website as well. Also, it's not my assertion, but that of professionals in the industry. I will try to find interviews in commercially popular magazines that are apparently reliable because the editor read them, to satisfy the community. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, wouldn't a reasonable inference be that if this Dutch website was all that notable, the Dutch Wikipedia would go so far as to mention it in the article on the type of music for which it's purportedly an arbiter of notability, if not so far as to deem it worthy of a standalone article? RGTraynor 20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the dutch article says, but I imagine that like the English article it is centred around those 5 or 6 bands that really broke big in the 70's, and the 2 or 3 modern prog bands with coverage by the mainstream media. In other words it was written (for the most part) by someone who isn't aware. Again, as I said, I will try to find some coverage in a reliable source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem notable, & refs too low quality. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond comprehensively this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.65.199 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs suck, so nn. a note: the main person defending this article in this discussion just does not understand fundamental Wikipedia concepts. don't waste your time arguing. use the time to find references. if they don't exist then accept it is not an appropriate topic for wikipedia and walk away to spend your time improving other things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 503rd Chamsol Scout Club

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local Scout unit. No sources, nearly no content. The claim "one of the oldest scouting clubs in South Korea" is unrealistic since Scouting was introduced to Korea in 1922; for details see Korea Scout Association. jergen (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was speedied as 503th Chamsol troop. --jergen (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN WP:ORG per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are very few articles on Scout Groups and this one is nowhere near as notable as they are. There have been a great number of attempts to write articles on Scout Groups that have been deleted or merged. I see no place to merge this, so delete. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Osborne (writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author, per WP:CREATIVE. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added sources that demonstrate that the subject passes WP:CREATIVE criteria 3 and 4(c). Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up - I can see that he meets notability. but the peacock language must be remove. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the project, but it's still a mess. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Bearian, needs some cleanup but notability is firmly established DRosin (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability question has been resolved due to the list of sources added to the page that talk specifically about the subject. The article could use cleanup and expansion, but at present shows no problem signs as far as BLP goes. Mrathel (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion for it's inclusion after 14 days. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local Baron

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though this term has been used in Romanian politics for some years, I couldn't find a reliable source to define it. The article has an external link to a self-published source giving a definition, but this definition differs from the one on the wiki in significant ways. The only thing that comes close to a source is the English translation of a magazine article which contains a Romanian psychiatrist's opinions on the typology of local barons. Alas, he has every elaborate theory about what causes something he doesn't bother to define, except vaguely as Nouveau riche.

The wiki article also had a boatload of WP:BLP violations added by anonymous users over the years, which I've removed version before. None of the source that could be checked even referred to those guys as local barons. So, this article is a libel magnet too. It's not too hard to find one Romanian editorialist or another call one politician or another "local baron", but as far as I can tell what they mean by that varies from one writer to another...

Now, the term baron (without "local") is defined in a 2007 Romanian slang dictionary to mean "member of the Social-Democrat Party that autocratically dominates the economical or political life of a city or county". But many journalists use it outside this context, so big YMMV if an article can be written without WP:OR at this time. I should add that even the Romanian Wikipedia doesn't have an entry on this topic (it should be at ro:Baron local) Pcap ping 11:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the term is widely used, including in reliable English-language sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Whether a valid, full-fledged article can be built around the topic, I'm not sure. Ideally, we should revamp the article on the PSD and mention the term there, although there are a few potential PNL (Dan Ilie Morega, Relu Fenechiu) and PDL (George Scripcaru, Antonie Solomon) barons as well - perhaps even UDMR (Attila Verestoy). So I'm undecided for now; perhaps at least a redirect is warranted if nothing else. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further OP comment - after looking through some sources are not about Romania (just clicked on the links at the top), it's clear that "local baron" is a juxtaposition of words common in English and used in many contexts outside Romanian politics. E.g. it's used to refer to mayors in Western Europe or Asia. The contemporary Romanian application does not appear unusual, not even in its metaphoric aspect. So, I'd say delete as mere WP:DICTDEF: people understand what the attribute local in front of baron means. Even adding this info to baron seems totally superfluous. Pcap ping 10:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnington Truce

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a band that does not met the general notability guidelines nor music notability guidelines. There are no reliable sources covering this band. Whpq (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [23]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bonnington Truce and likely was meant to be on this page. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the verifiable internal and external references, then reconsider deleting the Bonnington Truce subject page. Postdigi (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowyat.net

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reasonably firm evidence that this forum is notable, and the article didn't come with any references. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought I had looked carefully enough through the history; I didn't notice it had been at AfD before. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonably famous techie website and forum in Malaysia. Outside of the country, only people accessing the website and forum are Malaysians living abroad. However, the article itself has been non-informational and has been vandalized again and again. I believe this article should be taken down until they learn what and what not to do with wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.50.44 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've declined the speedy; the first AfD was sparsely attended and was over a year ago. No harm in letting this run the full week. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are some google news hits but they don't discuss the topic in detail. Polarpanda (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion for it's inclusion after 14 days. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polite Sleeper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [24]. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as "significant coverage", the best I can find are reviews for their latest album here and here, and others at some blogs. I don't believe this meets WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Borodavkin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. only 2 hits in gnews [25] which includes Finnish coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahnawaz Farooqui

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist. Notability is not established via independent third party sources. A google search (sans wikimirrors, facebook, blogs) shows only 244 hits). No third party coverage from reliable sources can be found on the subject's notability. Ragib (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Google News search linked above finds several sources describing the subject as "renowned", "prominent", "leading", "noted" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us why he's notable? Refs? --Ragib (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:notability and [26]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildOfMidnight. Repeatedly described by sources as "renowned intellectual". cab (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And sources which describe the subject as "renowned" do not satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG. To satisfy either one, there must be reliable sources which "discuss the subject in significant detail." These G-News articles quote Farooqui, but they're not about him. Does anyone have any which do to submit? RGTraynor 13:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Powers Lake, North Dakota, given the weight of the commentary from the non-SPA accounts. –MuZemike 17:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a cursory browse of Google reveals plenty of noteworthy stories about the church. Rosselfossil (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rosselfossil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. It is notable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bookworm857158367 started the article as a one sentence stub. Racepacket (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Finding news sources, but it seems this church's biggest claim to fame is it's association with Fr. Ryan St. Anne Scott, a "rogue" priest. However, if that meets WP:CHURCH #6 (it need not be a positive formative impact), then keepVulture19 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT My mistake, WP:CHURCH is not a guideline. Vulture19 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incidental mention in the Ryan St. Anne Scott controversy is not significant coverage for establishing notabiliy. I don't see non-local coverage of it as an institution. Racepacket (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Powers Lake, North Dakota, where it is: this is usually a good solution for local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are certainly G-News articles concerning Scott that mention this church, but as we all know, notability is not transferrable. Are there reliable sources about this church, as WP:V requires? I don't see any. RGTraynor 13:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the place where it is. Polarpanda (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though I would say the entries should all be sourced, at the list page, itself. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British mobsters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a BLP violating uttery unreferenced list accusing people of being mobsters. Given that we already have Category:British mobsters, can we remove this list as a liability without an upside? Scott Mac (Doc) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of this type must have a clear definition of what makes some one eligible, plus have every entry sourced. CitiCat^♫ 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BLP requires that we do so. JBsupreme (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP issues. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and mostly indiscriminate list that's not much better than a category. It's noteworthy that we do not seem to have an article about "organised crime in the United Kingdom", something that I hope will be written. But a list of "mobsters" isn't that article. WP:BLP problems are obvious; the mention of John Barrie implies that two men mentioned on that disambiguation page, one an actor, the other a snooker player, had some secret second career. Stuff like this was accepted in 2006, but not really acceptable then or now. Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish American mobsters--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and source. Having a category does not preclude having a list. Also, if a list should be deleted due to BLP concers then the category would also have the same concerns. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP problems are a reason to cleanup and source the list, and remove unsourced material on sight. No grounds for deletion of the entire list. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to clean it up and reference all the items? Because, if not, I give notice I will remove all unreferenced items at the close of this afd, which will leave NO items remaining.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking through I'm not seeing any unreferenced articles on the list - If you spot any I suggest they be removed. Artw (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list I don't see any referenced entries whatsoever. References on another article will not do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could duplicate the references on the article pages on the list, but it would be pretty crufty and IMHO pointless. I'm not seeing this done on other similar lists (for instance the majority of items in List_of_Irish_American_mobsters). Whether or not we put the cites on the page is also extraneous to the AfD argument. Artw (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pointless whatsoever. We do not use other wikipedia articles as sources, full stop, even if they are well sourced. For a completely different example, I have recently been working on List of people from Leeds, which was cut down nearly completely because none of the entries were referenced. Quantpole (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup any redlinks, remove anything bluelinked that does not unambiguously qualify for inclusion on the list from article content. Artw (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep all bluelinks indicating a WP article can have references in the artiicle; redlinks need references in this list. This is how many, many lists are handled. If this is kept and an editor goes in and deletes all the bluelinked items, it should be considered behavior unworthy of an honest and honorable WP editor, pushing their agenda above that of the group. Hmains (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, here's an idea: Instead of arguing about deleting entries which are sourced at their own articles, howzabout taking time to copy one of those sources over to the list? There are such things as British mobsters, and we have sourced articles on those British mobsters. There is no reason not to have a list of them. Totally spurious AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are there, they are just indirect. Wikipedia is fortunately an electronic resource, so they are trivial to find. We cannot include sas much in a list articles as we do in the individual articles. To satisfy those who for some reason do not yet realize this, there's no harm in copying a key one over for each individual. And the ones without articles either can be written with sources or should be removed DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to be consistent. I once nominated Category:Rapists and all subcats, which by nature is always an unsourced assertion, and the consensus was to keep. While I think we should be cautious about labeling and categorizing people, I don't agree that our BLP policy currently requires all such labels to be sourced. If it did, then we'd need to get rid of most negative categories and lists that serve to label living people. We may indeed want to do that at some point, but I don't think there's consensus for it right now. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that we wouldn't need a source that someone is a rapist to put them in a list of rapists? Quantpole (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in the list article. In the main article, yes. Categories always use this sort of "vicarious sourcing", since it's impossible to source categorization. There's some precedent for it for lists as well. If the list article makes further claims other than mere inclusion, then those facts should be verifiable of course. Gigs (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very interesting AfD, I think Gigs comment is relevant, if we have a category for rapists, then why not have this one? Would need to be checked though from time to time though, after my experiences with Vodafone I would be tempted to add them to the list DRosin (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Borowsky

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. article looks like a resume. hardly any in depth third party coverage. [27]. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The awards seem to indicate notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, appears notable, but needs better references! Danski14^(talk) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not notable classical performer. Eusebeus (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment born 1983 so she has a long way to go to establish herself... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if she was good enough to participate in a concert series that Cecelia Bartoli was artistic director for, I'm sure we'll be seeing more of her. http://www.genovapress.com/index.php/content/view/23035/63/ Other Google News coverage is weak, but not so weak as to require deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improve references first. If none are available then revisit, however there is an implied notability that cannot be dismissed without investigation. SGGH ^ping! 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I don't see how being one performer in a month-long series of concerts makes for notability, however illustrious the artistic director of the series. No other sources have been presented showing any potential notability. Yes, the article is well written and makes lots of implications of notability, but there's no substance there. So the subject has performed at famous venues: well, each of my children has performed several times at the Royal Albert Hall, and my daughter also at St Mark's Basilica and the Cathedral of Santa Eulalia, but that doesn't make them notable because these were specifically youth performances, as seems to be the case for Ms. Borowsky's claims to fame. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more evidence of notability is provided. --Deskford (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Judging by press quotes on her agent's website, she is notable, but these need to be properly cited. --Klein zach 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Young American Virtuosi. No evidence that she's been subject of any direct detailed coverage in reliable sources, or that she meets any of the criteria in WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young American Virtuosi is also up for deletion at the moment and not looking too good either. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conflict of interest by Violineb (talk · contribs).--Canniba loki 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibaloki, note that there's no inherent ban against creating articles about yourself or your organization, provided Wikipedia's guidelines are followed. tedder (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There're millions of musicians with careers like hers. Not every professional musician deserves an article here. As I see it, she's made no impact in the classical music world.--Karljoos (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rationale for a directoral merge, though a redirect can be created if desired Wizardman 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Fork in the Road (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film that seems to have had no impact on its release (not to be confused with the 2007 movie that actually has some ghits). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Kouf. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article indicates this film hasnt been released yet- the author can always create an article once the film actually exists. If it was say, an eagerly awaiting Star wars installment it might be notable enough to have an article prior to release- but that doesn't seem to apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunk500 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Kouf and allow return once the now completed film gets release and some coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty Check

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article containing hypothetical information and rumors about an album to be released at some unspecified point in the future. Not currently notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No information, WP:CRYSTAL --Fbifriday (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is the best I can find as far as "significant coverage", and I don't believe there's enough information to support an independent article, not to mention a lack of a release date or track listing. This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above by gongshow, Glenfarclas etc --Brunk500 (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL says it all really DRosin (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Municipal solid waste. So Why 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of MSW

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An interesting subject, but this looks like someone copied and pasted an engineering paper. Wikipedia is not a textbook or a scientific journal. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve at a subpage of the talk page of municipal solid waste and delete the resulting redirect. There probably is information here that would be useful for editors seeking to improve that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of this information into Municipal Solid Waste. It's actually an interesting article, but it reads like a municipal public works study and seems to be a synthesis of original research. Also, I've never heard of a page called "Properties of X." Seems like that's what the article on X should be about. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the merge proposal, or add as subpage to talk page per Smerdis. Some potentially interesting material, but with a single inline reference, so needs work before it can be pulled into the other article. That would also help alleviate the concern about a possible copy and paste.--SPhilbrick T 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good solution, but if we're going to delete the redirect (which also seems reasonable), then presumably a history merge will be needed, which could get ugly because the two articles have overlapping histories. --RL0919 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Currently consensus is in favor of deletion but also in favor of allowing recreation once the subject became sufficiently notable. If someone wants to have it userfied or incubated, please contact me. Regards So Why 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Earth 2010

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was PROD'ed but the author removed the PROD claiming that Google will yield an image on IMDb; however, even with that, I believe it still fails the WP:NF guidelines as it has no good sources (IMDb is speculative) and it's full of WP:CRYSTAL (it's going to come out in 2010?). —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I substantially editted the article to wikify it, and now it is more of a stub to reflect the indie nature of the film. There is a California Chronicle article that describes the film at length. Right now I say keep, and see if the film gains more notoriety. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Cman7792 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This film has information on online and in many newspapers, especially in connecticut. as the film gets closer to being released, more information on the film will be released as well. so for the time being, keep this article.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual title of the film is "Another Earth," not "Another Earth 2010," according to the two New Haven Register articles I found (there was a third, but it was just a passing mention). No mention of the film in the Hartford Courant. I don't have access to the Connecticut Post via database, but a search of their website only brings up one of the Register articles, so I'm guessing they haven't covered it. I added the two good Register articles as citations; The California Chronicle is a mirror of the 11/23 article in the Register, but I didn't know the protocol about adding a link to another paper's website. Note the dates on the two Register articles: October 3 and November 23 of this year. They were filming just a couple of weeks ago. That part makes me a little nervous. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little coverage, from non-notable production company. Oct 3 and Nov 23 Register articles more about filming location and director, respectively, than about the film itself. Delete and wait until closer to release to re-evaluate notability. --skew-t (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indie film that doesn't meet any of the elements of WP:NOTFILM even were it released, which it has not been. Of the three references listed by Some Jerk, as he says, one is a mirror of a second, which is an article on the director of the movie, not on the movie itself, and so fails as a reference. This leaves a single reference, which doesn't satisfy WP:V. Beyond that, the general criterion on WP:NOTFILM holds that only "full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers " (emphasis mine) counts as valid refs. The degree to which the New Haven Register, with only a third the circulation of the Hartford Courant and isn't even widely circulated beyond its home two counties in Connecticut, is a "large circulation newspaper" I leave up to your opinions, but I wouldn't think it was one myself. Ravenswing 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate I gave the article a cleanup, and feel it will benefit from incubation so that it might receive continued attention and sourcing before a return to mainspace upon release and additional coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The little coverage that has been found is mostly passing mentions in articles on other subjects, except for one local paper article about the production. Incubation would be reasonable if there was a high likelihood of the film becoming notable in the future, but it is an independent film by a seemingly non-notable director (the link to his name in the article goes to a different person named "Mike Cahill", unless the director also happens to be a retired professional tennis player), with a cast of non-star actors. Perhaps it will break through, but many small films do not. If that happens, a new article can be created or the old one revived via WP:DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only reason cited in favor of deletion was WP:LISTCRUFT which is an essay and as such does not reflect community consensus. Our deletion policy requires policy-based reasons for deletion though and such reasons have not been mentioned. As such the outcome cannot be anything else than keep (see also WP:ITSCRUFT for a longer explanation why simply saying something is "cruft", without further explanation based on policies and guidelines why this is a reason for deletion, is not a good argument in favor of deletion). Regards So Why 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cruft, akin to a article like "List of Saturday Night Live guests". A IP removed the PROD with no explanation. TJ Spyke 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good search item. Enough reliable sources are in existence to sustain notability, however the issue of listcruft could be debatable. Either kept as a seperate article or moved to WWE Raw is how I feel it should go down. Now maybe turning it in a prose section of WWE Raw with the list would be nice.--WillC 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The info has been deletd from the Raw article several times precisely because its listcruft. The general agreement was to include mention of the guest host idea and a link to WWE's page on it. TJ Spyke 16:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WWE Raw. Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT on it's own, but I don't think it should be deleted outright. !! Justa Punk !! 04:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke. You are exactly right, we don't have a List of Saturday Night Live guests because that would be ridiculous. Might I remind you, we are an ENCYCLOPEDIA people. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Justa Punk.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Also per Justa Punk. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Also per Justa Punk. Armbrust (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem with merging and why it shouldn't be done (at least with the Raw article, although it shouldn't be merged anywhere): it opens up a floodgate. These guest hosts are no different than any other acting and 1-night GMs. You would have to add in the Spirit Squad, Maven, Randy Orton, that Make-A-Wish kid, etc. Basically anyone who was made GM for the night. Take a look at Professional wrestling authority figures#Temporary General Managers for all the people. The GM list on Raw should only list people who were full time GM, not one night. TJ Spyke 15:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TJ Spyke Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - notability is easily established with reliable sources; expanding the article to give information about the reason, the effect on ratings, the promotion, the Donald Trump "purchase" and resulting false press release, would make for a very useful non-crufty article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I agree with Gary. Couldn't have said it better myself, and that is true because I failed to above.--WillC 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been done by now or while being nominated. Right now I don't see how anyone can think the article should be kept, its nothing more than a table of the guest hosts. TJ Spyke 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and recall that this is for a show that is not known for Guest Hosts which has garnered considerable promotion.--WillC 01:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good time to re-read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it. The fact that is hasn't yet been improved is a surmountable problem and not a good reason to delete. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to giv your opinion on the current state of the article. Based on the pathetic article, I don't see how anyone can say Keep, and the only original material here is cruft. TJ Spyke 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is keeping the List of Authority Figures tidy by putting all of the participants into one entry and avoids the issue raised by TJ. Flyingcandyman (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Same as Gary's reason was above.--WillC 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to TJ Spyke: You definitely do not have you give an opinion based on the current state of the article. In fact, it is harmful to Wikipedia to do so, and the instructions on the main AfD page remind editors that "the potential of the topic should be considered" (emphasis added). If the subject is notable, the subject is notable, regardless of whether the article currently has sufficient sources to establish notability. The purpose of deletion discussions is not to get rid of bad articles, but rather to delete articles without potential. If the potential exists for an article to become worthwhile and establish notability, it should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the potential in this article. It's cruft now and I don't see it being more. Someone can work on it on a sandbox, then propose it be re-created. TJ Spyke 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't see the potential, please see my comment from 00:53, 13 December 2009. There is no valid reason to delete the article, as it meets the notability guidelines. The "cruft" argument is easily dismissed, as WP:CRUFT defines the term as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". Based on the mainstream media coverage (Trump's purchase, ZZ Top's hosting, etc.), this obviously doesn't qualify as cruft. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TJ Spyke. Also the list is an orphan nothing really goes with it and you could just go on and on with this list and it's cruft. Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Add-on Also not really important.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you have any valid arguments, per WP:AFD? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He did, and I could ask the same to those saying Keep. TJ Spyke 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notability of this can easily be established, publications of details listed here can easily be referenced by Magazines, Newspapers and Sites in and out of the Professional Wrestling Business, this article can also be vastly expanded on I'm sure. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but people can do that on sandboxes. TJ Spyke 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with the idea of doing it on the article? Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe because it's CRUFT? It's the same reason articles on people get deleted and the article creator told they can continue working on it in a sandbox and later submit it to be re-created. The article is nothing more than a list of hosts, it's no more notable than any other show with guests (I could probably find more sources for SNL hosts than this article, maybe the same for guests on talkshows). TJ Spyke 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the opening argument, given Saturday Night Live hosts. I know, wp:OSE, but using the lack of something as an argument falls flat when the something actually exists. I won't argue that WWE is in the same league as SNL. However, the potential for the WWE list to be more than a raw list is there—editors should be encouraged to follow the SNL model and beef up the article.--SPhilbrick T 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do plan to work on the article and not just on the sourcing, I feel much more can be said about how this began what impact some of the Hosts have had on the stories (eg Cuban getting put through a Table was a part of the build up to the TLC PPV, and there has been some documentation on the ratings which can be meddled about with, overall I would think this can be improved dramatically. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sphil, the SNL article talks about the record for most times hosting, youngest host, the importance they place on the host, etc. It's not a list everyone who has hosted the show. TJ Spyke 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although !votes are discouraged, it seems to me that when the reason for deletion is specifically cited as a poor argument for deletion discussions, there has been no proper assertion that the article should be deleted, and therefore there is no reason to expound on a keep !vote. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are not familiar with AFD's, let me explain something. The nomination reason is valid, and the closing admin will usually ignore comments like yours (which are just votes with no reason given). TJ Spyke 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reckon I know a little more about AfD than you do. You do realize that WP:ITSCRUFT leads to a page called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, right? And while we're at it, you do realize badgering every !keep voter isn't helping your nomination, and makes you look like a brat, right? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care anymore. If it keeps the cruft off of the WWE Raw and Professional wrestling authority figures pages, then fine. TJ Spyke 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a nominator withdrawl, can someone close this then? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it's not. I think you'll find that TJ is tired of arguing with people who clearly in my opinion don't understand WP:LISTCRUFT. !! Justa Punk !! 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, you mean that opinion essay that isn't even a guideline let alone a policy? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You're not making any sense.--Curtis23 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It shows a list of every guest host that has been general manager for WWE Raw for the night. The Spirit Squad, Maven, that Make-a-Wish kid and anyone else who has been a guest host for one night that is not listed, should be listed as they were guest host, not from when Mr. McMahon started the guest host for the night at the end of June of 2009. If the argument is that every guest host shouldn't be listed because there isen't a list of guest hosts on SNL, then the list of General Managers, Color Cominators, and Announsers on the WWE Raw page should be deleted as well. If the List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts page gets deleted, the list of General Managers, Color Cominators, and Announsers on the WWE Raw page should be deleted as well. Gibsonj338 (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is overwhelming support for keep, and the deletion arguments are incredibly weak. LISTCRUFT is not policy, and the other arguments amount to asserting that it is trivial, ill-defined (people known due to their YouTube videos is not ill-defined), or preferring a category (lists and categories are not mutally exclusive). Fences&Windows 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "celebrity" is extremely subjective and is branded around left, right and center. This article appears to simply be a list of anyone who's appeared on YouTube and been called a celebrity by local newspapers, obscure websites, blogs etc. (Granted, some are from legit sources, but the majority fail WP:ONEEVENT and have a lack of multiple independent sources to warrent a mention). If a person is notable enough, they should have their individual article. Otherwise, this list should be deleted. WossOccurring (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as WP:LISTCRUFT with WP:SALT, WP:SALT, and more WP:SALT. Gosox5555 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, etc. a category would be sufficient for entries with genuine notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and above. Kyle1278 02:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Warrah (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too trivial for the standards of wp... --Travis Thurston+ 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intended function of this article is already handled by Category:YouTube_video_producers --Brunk500 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay. It's not a policy based reason for deletion, no matter how often it is cited. It's surprising to see that all but one !vote in favor of deletion cite an essay and no one cites a policy or guideline (one does not even cite anything). So there is no valid reason for deletion mentioned so far.
2. The nominating user mentions WP:ONEEVENT but the guideline in question is clearly in favor of this list. Since the guideline says that articles should be avoided for such people, a list can be used to include information about them instead. WP:BLP1E uses a similar language.
3. Problems with incorrect inclusion can be addressed by editing not deletion.
4. To respond to Brunk500: Per WP:CLN, the existence of a category should not be considered a reason to delete a list. Instead, per WP:LIST such a page listing people based on a attribute they have in common and to allow inclusion of people in this way who do not warrant their own article (per 2.) above) or where no article has been created yet. A category thus cannot replace the list adequately.
As such, there are no policy-based reasons to delete this list but several reasons to keep it. Regards So Why 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One cannot argue that the subjects of this article are notable but I think this would be better served as a category than a page itself. There's no page for Movie celebrities or Music celebrities and I even think those would be more founded than YouTube celebrities. OlYeller^Talktome 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the current subjects of the article are notable is irrelevant (some of them certainly are but only for one event and some of them meet WP:BIO). But the list itself serves a purpose a category cannot serve (list subjects not worthy of an article for themselves but notable nonetheless or list those worthy of an article where none has been created so far). Regards So Why 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - SoWhy pretty much said it all. The call for salting the article is rather inappropriate considering it has not been deleted and has survived 3 AfD already. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yawn. I agree with the 'category' idea, categories are more powerful than lists. --Brunnian (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nom, there is no standard for what constitutes a "celebrity", and I don't see how such a standard could be developed (even allowing for some gray area that could be discussed on a one off basis). So I don't think this can be resolved through editing. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason for deletion (no matter how many numeric "I don't like it" non-arguments an article gets, the policy based reasons for keeping ultimate trump them), but add references to really notable ones, i.e. those that make Countdown with Keith Olbermann or Attack of the Show, or make a category for ones notable enough to have their own articles. The sources are notable, at least: New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, Wall Street Jorunal, etc. show that the topic has received mainstream attention. We should also keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable concerning only celebrities, only celebrities from the internet, and per our other policies only those covered in reliable sources). Given that you see occasional countdown shows on VH1 and E type networks of best internet celebrities and the like, a good case could be made for widespread mainstream interest in the phenemona. Heck, South Park had a whole episode on the subject! The list also serves a navigational/table of contentsesque function as well as a well-organized gateway to other blue link articles for which millions of our reader have an interest. Indeed, over 50,000 readers come to this article a month and over 1,000 IPs and accounts have edited it for the past three years! Finally, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination) closed as "keep" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination) closed as "speedy/strong keep" consensus clearly supports this article's existence when we take into account total number of participants across an unnecessary four discussions and in multiple months. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this article deserves a space just like any other wiki article! down with fascist wikipedia! every article deserves a page. fight for what wikipedia used to stand for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.134.98 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but there should be restrictions for inclusion (restrictions seem to be working at Honorific nicknames in popular music), for example, the person has to have a Wikipedia article (not just the meme, but the actual person). If the term "celebrity" is too subjective, than change the name.--kelapstick (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, this is WP:LISTCRUFT. I also agree that categories would be better and more manageable. That said, however, I have had probably a dozen proposals for deletion rejected on these exact same grounds. I see no reason to make one exception here so I am voting to keep purely for the sake of consistency. JBsupreme (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I contacted all of the editors in the last AFD (3rd) about this AFD, and a few of the major contributors to the article. For some reason the User:Erwin85Bot, described here has not contacted these editors yet. Ikip (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a far better article than the last time it was nominated. I can't say that I agree with any part of the nomination ("extremely subjective", "local newspapers", etc.). Every item on the list is sourced-- a rare feature in a Wikipedia article-- and it's hard to accept the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc. as local papers. And I just don't get "If a person is notable enough, they should have their individual article. Otherwise, this list should be deleted." If someone is notable enough for their own article, why shouldn't that person be on a list? Some of the delete votes indicate that they think that this is notable enough for a category, but they don't like lists. If you're a vegetarian, that's great, but please don't tell anyone else what they can eat. Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like it could use some cleanup but it is pretty well sourced. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a line or two of commentary makes the list far more user-friendly than a category. The fact that some entries may be sourced to crap sources doesn't warrant the deletion of the whole thing: editorial action to remove or properly source these is what's warranted. This list, when well-maintained, is a substantially more useful way of browsing the topic than a category, and sources are provided on the face of the article in order to demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per over-achieving in its meeting WP:STAND. Not at all trivial, being a well sourced list that meets the inclusion criteria set by WP:GNG. Not only does this list lead readers to more expansive articles, but it makes an assertion of notability and is itself properly sourced per guideline and meets the requirements of WP:LIST. Essays rarely trump guideline or policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of non-notable things or people are by definition, non-notable, whatever the ARS block vote thinks. Windhover75 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may be true, since most of the people on this list have stand alone articles, this is not a list of "non-notable people", it is a list of notable people. --kelapstick (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comments of block evading sock account per [28]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too many arguments which do not focus on specific reasons for deletion. BTW, a list of non-notable items in themselves and survive AfD as being notable as an aggregate. Individual nicknames of Presidents are "non-notable" but the list is notable. I am deeply distrustful of any false consensus from canvassing in any area of WP, but the solution is to discount all !votes which simply state "per someone" as indicating that the person is more interested in the !vote than in furnishing new and possibly superior reasons for deleting or keeping an article. Let this AfD be decided on merits only -- if that means "no consensus" so be it. I have no opinion on this otherwise at all. Collect (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; In my opinion, the argument by the nom seems more appropriate if they were calling for the deletion of the individual YouTube users' articles rather than the list itself, considering that their main points are notability and WP:ONEEVENT. Even though the list is amplifying that the article's subjects are solely notable for being YouTube "celebrities," all the articles on the list (as far as I can tell) are about a subject who is either very notable because of their YouTubing, or being on YouTube has played a role in making them notable. If there are any persons on the list that aren't notable, then sure, remove them, but not everyone on the list lacks notability. If the term "celebrity" is causing a problem, a page move could fix that, but that would not be grounds for deletion in itself. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of unremarkable nobodies is, by definition, not notable. Crafty (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a reason for deletion, especially when not true as it has clearly been shown that these people are covered in multiple reliable sources, i.e. per the wikipedic definition actually are notable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course you would say that. ;) Crafty (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're comparing a (nonnotable) apple and (nonnotable) orange :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There's no reason to delete this page. PokeHomsar (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several have, in fact, been given. Can you say why you think they are invalid. This is not a vote, and you've given absolutely no rationale for your opinion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all such subjective lists. One man's celebrity is another man's nonentity. Being called a "celebrity" by some journalist does not make you notable. Further, this looks like an unmaintainable article - that's evidence by the ugly big template telling us that it will require protection until June 2010. Hell knows what they expect to happen in 2010 that will change this - the rapture?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, are these really "you tube celebrities"? Or are they really just people who've come to prominence via internet videos uploaded to variousplaces on the internet (of which youtube is obviously the most popular). I see, for example, Jay Maynard on the list, but he's actual already on the List of Internet phenomena and his "fame" seems as much due to slashdot and Fark as youtube. I'm really not sure we should give credit to a trademarked name like this - that seems to slightly skew the realities. (Although I'm sure the owners of youtube will gladly take the credit and thank us for the publicity and marketing)--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the individuals on the list have their own articles for their having met the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG, it does not matter what they "did" that allows them to meet notability standards. To opine otherwise seems to be stating that notability guidelines be applied subjectively rather than objectively. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting point, but I didn't mention notability at all. Can you address the point I did make?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Easily done. A person can be listed in more than one place on wikipedia. If a person has been described in a secondary source and youtube has been described as wholly or in part either the vehicle of the aforesaid fame, then the person goes in the list. Whether they are on twitter/fark or wherever else is irrelevant for the purposes of defining the list. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If there only connection between the fame and youtube is that youtube is a secondary source, then we are indeed into WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Otherwise, can I create List of Daily Mail celebrities?--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, Daily Mail is one of a bevy of newspapers - hence that would be arbitrary. Youtube is much more a uniquely notable and definable entity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, problems with the title can be addressed by renaming the article. "List of notable internet video artists" for example could be used instead (I understand the "YouTube" concern).
    The concern of being unmaintainable based on the protection is unfounded. By that logic we would have to delete every article that is indefinitely semi-protected since they are all "unmaintainable". No, the list is a logical target for countless YouTube personalities who are non-notable and trying to promote their non-notable videos using Wikipedia - that does not mean we cannot have a list of notable people of said kind though. The list is maintained quite well compared to many other articles we have and is well sourced.
    The list has two inclusion criteria: a.) All people on it need to be notable (which includes people notable for one event which by policy are allowed to be mentioned on other articles if they do not warrant their own article (and most of them do)) and b.) their notability needs to come from internet video sites. If people are on it incorrectly, it can be addressed through editing. If the name is incorrect, it can be addressed through moving it to a better name. But nothing you mention is a reason for deletion. Regards So Why 12:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we are going to rename it to remove the youtube bit, then why not merge with List of Internet phenomena?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because that would be too big and too nebulous. Sorry, I like my 'pedia with a bit more depth to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. But do you want to respond to the substantive point that these are not "youtube" celebrities - they are, at best, people who have become famous variously through internet video exposure. "Youtube" is simply the best-known platform for those videos - and indeed with some of the entries, although they have videos on youtube, the reason for their "notability" is merely tangential to youtube.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Casliber is right, also List of Internet phenomena would be fitting for the videos but not really for the artists. But I am not opposed to renaming the article to something like List of internet video artists if this closes as keep. When the article was created in 2007, YouTube was pretty much the only popular site and other portals were only just emerging. Things move fast on the web and I agree that today it's not appropriate for the name of such an article anymore. But that we can discuss on the article itself, it's not a reason for deletion. Regards So Why 13:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think my question is: is this a list of people who are celebrities because (or mainly because) of youtube, or people who are celebrities who happen to be on youtube (as anyone famous for an internet video will be). Is the existence of youtube significantly connected to their fame, or is it just that youtube was an essential media at the same level as their videos were probably uploaded from a MS Windows system. If the article is taken to be the first (more restrictive) definition, then I withdraw my deletion suggestion. But I suspect most of the content of the article would also be questionable. I suppose if it is the first view, then people made famous by the Daily Mail would be an equally legitimate, is probably quite short list. If it is the more open version, then I'd say the list is an indiscriminate collection - as it is really a list of "internet celebrities" where youtube happens to be a source of the spread of a video, but indeed the individual's noteriety results from the video and in no real sense from youtube. However, this is now an interesting debate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's legitimate to say that most, if not all, entries on the list are people who are notable because of videos they uploaded to internet video sites, mostly YouTube and the references are verifying that their notability comes from this activity. As said above, the name "YouTube" itself is open to debate as is almost anything but I think there is not much doubt that "people who are notable because of their contributions to internet video websites" is not a indiscriminate list. For example, the first reference on the list explicitly talks about how the videos on YouTube made their uploaders famous (and nothing else), i.e. that their notoriety is a result of this kind of video distribution. Regards So Why 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, might need trimming though. But there is no reason to delete it, and almost every person in this list has an article of it's own. No reason to delete. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just given some above. Care to respond to them?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom's rationale is no different than the delete arguments given in the previous AfD's, and all the article needs is clear inclusion criteria, such as every entry having a stable article. A nobody who uploaded one video certainly does not qualify as a "celebrity." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not cleanup. The content issues are easily fixed, the nom even suggests the best starting idea, listing only people with an article (which is what Lists of People actually says). A category is no replacement either, it removes info and doesn't even solve the main issue - agreeing on the inclusion criteria after you restrict it to only wiki notables. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete it, just needs a little work! smithers - talk - sign! 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the fact that not all named on the list would have their own pages (and in some cases, I believe, would never have more than a stub page), a category does not work. Regarding other users that mentioned about this article surviving previous AfD's, this is a prime example of that not being a valid reason for keep... Oh, you want my position? Keep - even if the list needs trimming, it shouldn't have to be restarted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the list parameters are (a) appearance in 2 secondary sources and (b) youtube appearance is their claim to fame, then the list is definable and manageable. article quality is not a reason for deletion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the things on the list have their own article. So notability is established. Listing everyone who is notable through YouTube, is a perfectly fine Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 04:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per concensus.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. --Milowent (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep well referenced and notable, meets all requirements for a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would this discussion be speedily closed, when a number of concerns have been expressed which keep voters have not addressed. Neither the referencing nor the "notability" have been called into question - so that's not relevant. Can you please address the issues that have been raised. I'll give you that you've done a little better than the two useless contibutions above (and the "delete listcruft" non-arguments too).--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because calling it cruft doesn't mean anything, there is no way to respond to it. Do you want me to say it isn't cruft? All Wikipedia cares about is notability and verifiability and those issues are met. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to ignore the "cruft" argument. However, I raised other concerns above that are not about notability and verifiability - they are about relevance and accuracy, things I also hope we care about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that "cruft" argument has little weight, then the article is clearly at a "keep" consensus. Again, I am not !voting. Collect (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Em, consensus is judged at the end of the debate, when we've looked at the issues - it is not a rationale for a !vote. I have presented some concerns with this article, it is a pity few are willing to address them. Actually, this whole debate one of the worst AfD's I've seen in a long time. We are getting rubbish rationales on both sides - and few, if any, are engaging with the real concerns that (some) delete voters have expressed. The closing admin would be entitled to discount most of the contributions here are being irrelevant.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including your point above scott which is pretty easily remedied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your remedies don't stack up but ymmv. However at least you and I are having something of a debate, which is what this afd should be about. People express concerns, and we see whether they can be met or not. My dismissal is not of such attempts (even if I disagree with them) it is with people on both sides that !vote in quite meaningless ways - "delete listcruft" "keep it's notable" rather than trying to understand what the concerns of other users are and address them. Deletion arguments based on "cruft" are unworthy of debate, keep arguments which respond to things no one is arguing are similarly pointless. "Keep per consensus" or "delete per consensus" are simply begging the question.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) Which is why I stated above that even if the list needs to be trimmed for it to be maintainable, there are reasons to include some. Their individual articles may not have enough information - and that is exactly why we put them on a list. Or are you saying that all those individual articles need to go? By the way - one person's celebrity may be another person's nonentity, but that does not mean that notability isn't established. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability is the point. The individuals may be "notable", the question is, is that notability specifically related to youtube, and, if you want to make it about notability (whatever the Hell notability means), then the question would be is that connection, in itself, notable. However, a better question would be is the connection between the items on the list sufficient to avoid the charge of being "indiscriminate"? I might be persuaded to agree that it might be, if the list were trimmed to those specifically related to youtube, or broadened by the removal of youtube from the title.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your point is correct, that's out of the bounds of AfD, normally. Trimming, etc, is left to the talk page and really not suitable for here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral about the article's mood. But if it'll get deleted, all of the people listed on the article should be listed in a suitable category (I know that it's already available but the category should be more active). Onur T^contribs 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable list. Using "look at the freak!" Feature articles to show that individuals are celebrities as opposed to embarassed by their fame or their notoriety is transparently a violation of BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Very useful list and obviously highly notable per sources. Don't see any members that dont seem to be courting fame and therefore there is no intrusion on privacy. Any exceptions can be individually removed. As for the noms suggestion that celebrity is subjective, that's true but on the same level so is notability itself (it ultimately depends on human choice, not on objective fact like 2 + 2 = 4 ). For our purposes though neither are subjective as per our policies we merely report what the sources say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Clean-up the nominators comments are completely true. The term 'celebrity' used in the article title, and the fact that most things on the list are lacking more than one source. Both issues need to be addressed, otherwise relist for deletion again. Nominator should've attempt to address these two issues themselves first. Most of the keep arguments seem to be from here.--Otterathome (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on grounds of illogical AFD nomination. Individuals that are not notable or fail one event should be removed but has no bearing of the article which clearly does have multiple notable individuals. If you want to rename article then discuss in the talk. SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with SoWhy on this one. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:SoWhy.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Celebrity is a subjective term and how do we "judge" which youtube account is notable enough? Sorry but in my own view such lists have no place in an encyclopedia. It is such lists which indicate we collect every single bit of entertainment trivia imaginable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about using the guideline we have to judge whether someone is notable? It's not as if anyone suggested using a different standard for that list than for all other articles. And of course, as said above, the term "celebrity" can be discussed and changed without deletion. Regards So Why 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:SoWhy. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs cleanup, most definitely, and possibly renamed to remove problematic 'celebrities' title. But if the individuals listed are notable enough for articles of their own I can see no logic to deciding that a list of the same people isn't notable and should be deleted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kharitidi

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. The previous nomination (back in 2006) ended as a keep for the sole reason that her books are available on Amazon, which is not a criterion for notability as far as I know. All the refs are her own work, and I can find no evidence that she has made a significant impact on higher education. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant secondary coverage either. Smartse (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sometimes I see an article about an author with a recent book, and I wonder whether there will soon be coverage in reliable sources, but her books go back over a decade. If she isn't getting any RS coverage, then merely having published books doesn't make her Notable --SPhilbrick T 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be any significant, reliable coverage by third-parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a non-notable neologism. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lala Mui

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, offensive neologism Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per WP:NEO. Angryapathy (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Basic google reveals usage in modern times. Maybe there is something to this offensive term. Kind of like geisha in japan? I would hold off, have someone experienced check for reliable sources, and of course if legit total rewrite and wikify. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable sources. Most of the Google hits are blogs and similar sites. There are no Google News hits at all and apparently no relevant Google Books hits. Surprisingly, Urban Dictionary doesn't even have an entry for this term (not that that would be a reliable source). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion. As the term does seem to be in actual use, it may be more appropriate for an entry in Wiktionary.WQUlrich (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Simulation Project

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an interesting piece of software, I wish it well, however at this time it does not meet verifiability requirements. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it the same as this one described by ABC News? SharkD Talk 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind. The project I linked to is not a piece of software. SharkD Talk 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A google search reveals references to the game on several websites, I don't see why it should be deleted.Sturm55 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the websites independent, reliable sources? All I see are sourceforge, blog, and directory hits. Marasmusine (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I see a lot of directory hits and several primary sources but I cannot find a good reliable source providing significant coverage. Polargeo (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A bit of IAR here. I note a consensus to merge, however the material already exists at the merge target, and I am highly reluctant to leave a redirect from a business name that was really another victim Kevin (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Teds Nursery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original rationale was, "Little Teds Nursery is not notable in itself. This article is just a WP:Coatrack for a child abuse case, that also does not seem to have wikipedia notability." SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original PROD, (as original PRODer). This article is not about the nursery, but about the crimes that took place there, and is thus a WP:COATRACK. Little teds nursery is not notable in itself. If the original author wishes to create an article about the crimes, then it should stand on its own merits. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa George, an article about one of the people involved has also been deleted. Martin451 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total coatrack article. The nursery isn't notable; the crimes probably are. One of these days I'll get around to writing an article about them. Fences&Windows 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I feel we should have an article on the crimes themselves, even if we don't have one about Little Teds Nursery, as the case has been very notable. Rapido (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if someone were to start an article on the crimes, we could merge and redirect this one to it; else, delete.LadyofShalott 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very much a stub at the moment. 2009 Plymouth child abuse case. Martin451 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - by all means, merge and redirect to that article. LadyofShalott 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. LadyofShalott 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2009 Plymouth child abuse case. Rapido (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a winner to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as previous contributors. The nursery is only notable for that event. Otherwise (one hopes) it is as NN as 1000s of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked and could find no mention of it in reliable sources outside this case. The only other mentions on the web are in web directories or council websites. Fences&Windows 01:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If there's anything in the article not already in the Plymouth article, though it loooks like there's not much to merge. Nice catch Rapido.--SPhilbrick T 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeSeems a bit sickening to have such an innocent name as a redirect to a child abuse case but it is all over the web so it is the correct thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by me! Fences&Windows 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Grace

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried to source this bio and I failed. She's been in a lot of TV and radio series, but I didn't find any sources about her even in passing. All I can find is mentions of her roles on websites. Fences&Windows 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V short BBC Radio bio:[29] Fences&Windows 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn, I'm closing this. Thanks for the sources and arguments! Fences&Windows 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I can tell, Sally Grace's main contributions are in radio. Annoyingly, there's no equivalent to IMDB for radio so this can't easily be listed, but I'd say her long-standing contributions to a highly-notable Radio 4 programme, her frequent voice contributions to other radio drama and her occasional voiceovers on television is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject portrayed the prime minister for eight years in the UK's foremost satirical radio show.[30] Reviews from the 1980s are unlikely to be available online but it is inconceivable that they wouldn't exist. This, along with the other roles and the description by a leading newpaper as "the best impressionist in the business",[31] at a time when the competition included the likes of Rory Bremner and Alistair McGowan, indicates a pass of WP:ENTERTAINER. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrFTPD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no proof of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non N freeware; fails on WP:Advert. Mattg82 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially interesting concept, but if there's anything to it, there would be or will be coverage in reliable sources. Until then, this looks like advertising.--SPhilbrick T 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all products without third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete - I have been unable to locate any significant, reliable, third-party coverage in order to consider this article as meriting inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. The only reason why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place was because the nominator mistook a vandalised version for the real one. No arguments for deletion (or for anything other than keep, for that matter) have been presented. JIP | Talk 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Goes On (TV series)

No text or delete or add--Many baks (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been vandalized but not restored; I've done so, so you may want to rescind this nom.— TAnthony^Talk 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was erroneously written directly on the AfD listing, I've moved it here. I don't vote for anything here. JIP | Talk 06:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the article nominated was a vandalized version of the current, properly referenced article. Withdrawal by the nominator is also an option. - Dravecky (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with the article once vandalism has been undone. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074360.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074360.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]