Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 15

< 14 February	16 February >

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Nuclear Materials Management

Blatant advertising Mion (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up. The article is a mess, but the organization is legitimate and notable as a technical and professional organization that has existed for 50 years and is respected in its field. I did a little bit of cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Orlady. The article is a mess, but will benefit from Cleanup and improve Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other two editors. I think this article can be saved. The organization exists and much of the data here is factual. I think that it would be much more useful to create a to-do list than deleted in its entirety. Specifically, I think the intro section could be worded a bit more neutrally. As currently written, it assumes that the organization actually accomplishes the goals in its mission statement and gives the impression of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwheaton11 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orlady above. I did a bit of cleanup too. MuffledThud (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a mess, but it isn't advertisement. An article full of potential, just not expanded enough. It's notable (I don't really care about notability), and it doesn't meet any criteria for AfD. --Mark Chung (talk) 12:46, 19 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar Ginsberg

Contested prod - non-notable - possible hoax —G716 <^T·_C> 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entire claim to notability seems to rest on the citation for the Fox Point Gazette, a publication that apparently does not exist . . . and of course on claiming authorship for several books which also do not exist. --Dynaflow babble 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claim from the Fox point gazette quick google search and I cant find anything on it. Corruptcopper (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Books are written in Hebrew and only available in Israel, therefore one would have to search in Hebrew at google.co.il to find such books. About Fox Point Gazette- some person edited it in, I deleted it though. No records of such publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.130.177 (talk • contribs)
Keep- I speak fluent Hebrew, and i've read those books several times, and I have to admit that they are fascinating. This kid's story is truly amazing, also considering he is only 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.66.171 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I'm 16 years old and I live in Israel, close to where Itamar Ginsbeg was born. I've read the first book, and I have to say that I have every intention to read it again. I really feel that i can relate to this guy and the things he talks about in his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.66.171 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet your IP shows you to be editing from Milwaukee. How very strange. --Dynaflow babble 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Used to live in Israel, heard about this guy, and my friends liked his books. Read his article on women's rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.130.177 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you too. Also on a Road Runner IP out of Milwaukee. And then we have one of the main contributors, 72.128.79.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at the end of Road Runner pipes as well -- in Hartland -- and the other "contributing" IP on a Charter connection in West Bend. It's really a small world. --Dynaflow babble 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Also, has anyone else noticed a faint whiff of feet?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I just undid five revisions to this page that were intended to disrupt the discussion.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for the sake of keeping things proper, the sum of the changes reverted is viewable here. I have a cold, and thus wouldn't be able to smell feet if I wanted to, but I definitely sense a good quantity of WP:MEAT in the vicinity. Subsequent readers should look carefully at the above discussion and note that the four "keep" !votes above this point were left by only two users, both from the same city where the article subject is reputed to live. I'm adding WP:HOAX to my reasons to delete. --Dynaflow babble 02:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly unlikely biography. None of the books, not even the english language ones, are in WorldCat. when the only Ghits in any language are in Facebook, the conclusion seems rather obvious. Speedy delete,perhaps, as nonsense. DGG (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, failure of WP:V—it doesn't really matter. Even if everything in the article were true, it would still not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:HOAX. Note that all four of the Keep votes have been from the same two IP addresses. Livewireo (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article was moved from Itamar ginsberg to Itamar Ginsberg part way through the discussion. I have amended the links here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX and comment what --Dynaflow babble says. Someone should tell them that its not the amount of votes that count, but the reason. 100 Keep he's my friend loses to just 1, he's not notable WP:BIO. Artypants, ^Babble 17:52, 18 February 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 deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney the Bowl Cut Sloth

This doesn't seem to technically fall under the CSD because the article is not about a non-notable person, but rather a non-notable sloth. The references consist entirely of pictures, with the exception of a short Youtube clip of what we are apparently to assume is the sloth in question. The article is generally silly and hoaxish. The only reason I would hesitate to call this a hoax is that hoaxes usually have at least some element of reasonable plausability. --Dynaflow babble 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G3 vandalism. "Blatant and obvious misinformation". Ka renjc 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obviously vandalism. Ottre 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Pure vandalism. I highly doubt that a sloth can become addicted to heroin. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like something they'd need, does it? I can totally understand the poor, lumbering creature's rumored crack problem, though. How else is a sloth supposed to keep up with Will Ferrel? --Dynaflow babble 03:23, 16 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Datarati

WP:NEO. Ghits: Datarati -"dat arati" -"datar ati". --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, i will call it neologism rather than nonsense but it was made up by the article's author. Say no more. -- Sgroupace (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is great term to represent those of us data types that work in campaign optimisation. This should stay in my opinion. The datarati are an offshoot of a similar group of people who are also often referred to as the Numerati [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.118.153 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NEO and explain how this term is not a neologism or even a protologism. How much you and/or others like the term datarati is not going to factor into the decision whether to keep or delete this article. See also WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT for things you made up in the office one day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a recently coined term that does not appear to have spread in usage -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 18 February 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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash Sun Records discography

All of the information in this article is either unsourced, redundant to Johnny Cash discography or flat out irrelevant. The whole Sun Recording History section is nothing but an indiscriminate session list that can't possibly be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've actually wondered what this was for. Both are linked back to Johnny Cash. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Johnny Cash discography. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced & redundant. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information in the "Sun" article isn't the same as the other article, so it's not redundant, and you can't get much more notable than Johnny Cash. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Johnny Cash discography - however all the Sun singles are listed, so it might weight that article a little too much, after all, most of his notable work was on Columbia and more recently American. pablo_hablo. 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was this not broken out from the main discography article? And it seems to have valid sources, just not inline notations. I agree with ChildOfMidnight in that it's not the same information at all. Unless I'm missing something. Is this a POV fork or something? §FreeRangeFrog 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant as Johnny Cash discography exists. JamesBurns (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johnny Cash discography. Sourcing is available - it's just a matter of incorporating it (Goldmine magazine, for example; Rolling Stone also releases discographies on a regular basis), but since this is already in the discography article, a redirect would be the worthwhile move, despite the long name. B.Wind (talk) 05:33, 19 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Chandra Sinha

This article was restored as a contested PROD. Please see Talk:Ramesh Chandra Sinha for details. The Police Medal for Meritorious Service may seem to confer some sort of notability, but it also appears to be very widely awarded. I have edited the article to cite the medal correctly, but I am not satisfied that this gentleman meets the notability criteria to have an article here, and am thus seeking a consensus view while arguing myself for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, delete because the medal is not enough in itself to demonstrate notability. It is not like we have articles for all other recipients of this medal. However, if somebody can add proof that he is "noted" and had a significant and recognised role in police modernisation then that will save it. Note: I tried to Google the subject but it seems that there are some other people with the exact same name, including a plastic surgeon from Bihar who was involved in a well documented court case. This makes it much harder to search for the subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notability. If there would have been a list of people that have been rewarded this medal, just enter him. Since there isn't (and this is also an indication of non-notability) - delete. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the very long list of 2003 recipients would indicate this is a minor award. By itself, this is not sufficient to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 18 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 404

The references for this article are all either form cnet or the participants (i.e. not independent) with one exception, a forum post. It's just a random podcast of no objectively provable significance. The bar to publishing a podcast is essentially zero, so we would need robust independent sourcing to establish notability just as we do for any other self-published content. Virtually the entire article is the work of WP:SPAs, as well. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete: Yup. Pretty spammy lookin' too. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 404 is very popular, well known, professional podcast. It's referenced in other communities (ie. Buzz Out Loud), have good guests and content. I see no reason to have it removed. thomas askwho (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above comment is from the article's primary author (see WP:AfD guidelines, section "How to discuss an AfD", 3rd bullet point.) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Guy presents no evidence whatsoever that the podcast hasn't been covered by independent sources, article has only existed for two days. Ottre 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP doesn't follow a "notable until proven otherwise" philosophy; per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Don't lecture me. The fact this is a premature nomination (article clearly shows potential) overrides WP:V. Ottre 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    - If you feel the WP:V policy should have exceptions for articles which clearly show potential, as you put it, please feel free to gather a consensus to amend it. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent, reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find references to this from other online communities and websites, it also has some notable guests. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have them then. Hope they're reliable. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failure to demonstrate notability through use of independent, reliable sources. If it weren't for the mention of Cnet, it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:BURDEN is on anyone who would claim that a self-promotional article has potential. I did a bunch of google digging, and the closest I could come is some "about the presenter" boilerplate from what smells press-release-y. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources not sufficient to meet WP:N given that they're mainly from a related website and blogs. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.50.1 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)— 84.93.50.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Its an official podcast that has a daily show. I see no reason that it could not have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.176.170 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) — 71.239.176.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. CNET is well known and this is one of their daily podcasts. Under WP:WEB they are notable as they are produced by CNET. Sljaxon (talk) (contributions) - Fighting Vandalism Since 2006 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Lacks independent RS Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' CNET Networks is a highly respected and highly notable reference. The 404 has had many, again, notable people on. This includes Olympic snowboarder Shaun White, Martin Sargent (of TechTV fame), and Veronica Belmont (the host of PSN's QORE and co-host of Tekzila on Revision3). She was on recently as well. I do have to agree with the fact that the page looks bit erratic, but the cleanliness of it will never be improved if the page is constantly deleted. People keep claiming the 404 is only notable by the association to CNET. This is not true. I pose this question: If the 404 was not notable would these figures have agreed to an interview and appearance on the show? I think not. The 404 is a valid source and should remain a valid page. PacGamer (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)— PacGamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CNET is a corporation that creates a number of works, some of which are article-worthy and some of which are not. Martin Sargent has volunteered to be interviewed on personal blogs of nobody of note, and Veronica Belmont is scarcely more notable. As for Shaun White, I have no idea how generous he is with his time.

But let's not chase your red herrings. What verifiable facts that are from a non-CNET reliable source can you offer about this show? If the answer is "nothing", then indeed Wikipedia should refrain from comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 404 is a production from CNET who is owned by CBS, it is in no way a "spam" or an un-notable topic. For those who tried to Google for The 404 and got little answers as to what the show is and then say that this entry needs to be deleted, you are a hypocrite to what Wikipedia is about. Without this page, many of you would have no idea what The 404 is, this wiki page is meant to help you learn what it is. Veronica Belmont is not notable in her own rights, nor is Natali Del Conte, they are just the hosts of tech shows too, why are their pages not up for deletion? Does this mean we can put up pages in regards to the three host of The 404 individually and it will not be deleted? The 404 is a professional show broadcasted from the CNET office in New York in an actual studio. This is not something put together with swap meet mics and your mother's garage. The only thing that should be deleted is the "Jokes" that were put it as they were a little unprofessional and can be omitted User:Mikenopolis 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)— Mikeopolis (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ah, so there are no other sources (other than CNET pages) that discuss what this show is? Wikipedia makes a practice of not being the first to cover something; WP:V and WP:N and WP:NOR are all executions of this idea.
At the risk of bordering on ad hominem attack, the entirety of your edits are to articles about CNET shows or CNET hosts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - podcasts are inherently non-notable per WP:V and WP:RS. There are no reliable sources independent of the 404 to demonstrate notability. The show's existence is not enough - there must be some evidence of outside coverage not involving self-publication, fanzines, or the like. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. There has been no independent AND reliable sources provided. Perhaps a redirect to CNET at best. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia can maintain a page on The View, The 404 should be kept. CNET is a significant source of news and entertainment, and frankly, if ever a show needed explaining, it is The 404 User:Wallet55— 152.11.189.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Wallet55 is not a registered Wikipedia username. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
KEEP The 404 is from CNET. They are number 8 on itunes list of audio tech podcasts. above DIGGNATION and Buzz Out Loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.126.50 (talk • contribs) 20:26 19 February 2009 (UTC)— 75.67.126.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: CNET has a network of podcasts that provide information, news, opinions, etc. in a similar manner as Leo_Laporte. The TWiT Network aka Leo's podcasts each have their own page and so should each of CNET's podcasts. Both "networks" are equally relevant in their genre with the shows they produce and deserve equal treatment.onetowerone (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)— onetowerone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep: As the show matures and enters into its 300th episode, it is inheritently apparent that it has a strong community following. Evidence of this may be its inclusion on engadget and in Itunes. The argument to keep can basically be broken down to this: as the podcast matures, the community supporting it will only become larger and stronger. At this point, there are no independent sources who have reported on the 404, but these things take time. A website will not spend time and money covering something it believes to be fledling and passing. So what I propose is a monitored continuation of the page. With the sheer number of people who help put this together, the page's features will improve over time, including the looks and sources. To immediatly shut it down will do nothing to help the situation. This article does not need to be a fight between wikipedia and the 404 community, but rather a partenership to help each other.Frebel93 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been advertised on the latest 404 news post, the 404 twitter feed, and likely elsewhere. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like to save this article, I would recommend that you find reliable sources (publications with some sort of editorial review, like magazines or the online equivalent) independent of CNET that have had some sort of substantial comment on this podcast. Writing your own blog posts, your own iTunes reviews or citing other blog posts is insufficient, as is any sort of assurance of the 404's popularity or future or whatnot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:06, 19 February 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. Fails WP:BAND Tone 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Bullet Solution

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Nuff said. De728631 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BAND. --Dynaflow babble 21:21, 15 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thermassager

This device, by the article authors' own admission, has never been manufactured and is just a student project among many others. I feel it fails notability. Katharineamy (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product. Nothing points toward any sort of notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product concept. Even if this product did actually exist, an article would be hard-pressed to show notability. As it stands, this looks to me like a completely routine class project. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic "something made up in school one day". Anaxial (talk) 22:07, 16 February 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 (A7). SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feeble Fetus

Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: as not even laying claim to some kind of notability. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, concur with speedy nomination. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:38, 16 February 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 culture industry. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture industry thesis

I tried to explain the user that a much better article is at Culture industry, and have tried to make this a redirect a couple times, but he keeps reverting it. -Zeus-^u_c 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Merge Duplicate page. Subject already exists. --neon white talk 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with culture industry. The phrase "culture industry thesis" is too specific to be useful, but the material in the article does not fully overlap the culture industry article. Given that culture industry is rather short, I don't see what harm TsangA8 could see in applying his/her efforts to merging the two and making a somewhat longer, better product. There are most likely copyvio problems in the Culture industry thesis article, as far as the images are concerned. In any event, without the merge, I see little hope for this article's survival. J L G 4 1 0 4 01:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt that seems like the only way to do this that makes sense. --Buridan (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge again. Usually, this is a case for dispute resolution and not for AFD. Revert-warring can be reported to WP:AN3, and page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP to protect the redirect if necessary. If it's also regarding only two users like it is here, a third opinion is also open if editor assistance fails. MuZemike 17:59, 16 February 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. WP:SPAM Tone 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xen Hosting Providers

deprodded page. Not encyclopeadic, simply a directory of commercial hosting suppliers. As such this falls foul of being either spam or at best a directory. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know why my speedy was declined in the first place. Moreover the author has meanwhile created another, better article: XEN hosting service. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete wikipedia is not an advertising directory. Probably could be speedied under G11: blatent advertising. There is no other purpose to this page. --neon white talk 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) (edit conflict) as blatant advertisement. This is apparent as the links all point to web pages offering others to buy their products. Hence, an attempt at spamming. MuZemike 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- the whole article is nothing but SPAM. Raysonho (talk) 21:44, 15 February 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. Alexf^(talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of future football stars

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL - how does one know who a "future" star is? Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, impossible to maintain and vulnerable to POV/COI issues. Ironholds (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective, unverifiable, unmaintainable. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this isn't an instance of WP:CRYSTAL, what is? (The title made me laugh, though.) --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; perhaps speedily. It may be snowing soon. Obvious violation of WP:NOT, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" clause. Antandrus (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now just snowing, it's a blizzard! Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant violation of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (and perhaps other policies and guidelines). Delete, obviously. (In fact I originally speedily deleted the article, but I think the debate ought to be allowed to run for at least some time - I won't object to another admin closing it early, though.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious delete imo, Crystal... and Snowball — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. By the way, is it snowing now? --Angelo (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the comments pointing out the crystal ball violation. King of the North East 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valuable resource, thoroughly researched, and a clearly referenced collation of key information for anyone with any interest in the sport. Nah. Delete as the antithesis of everything I just said. Kevin McE (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please, for the love of God, delete this artcile - nothing but speculation and crystalballery. Giant Snowman 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention "and puffery, possibly self-promotion." --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone who got here first, and for not including my son (actually he's not interested in football at all, but it's a good line :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really need to add anything, other than we're now experiencing blizzard conditions... Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Today, Wikipedia should expect snowy conditions. (And where's my friend Olivia's brother, who plays for a youth team in Morecambe?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:58, 16 February 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. X clamation point 06:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly bob

Contested PROD based on the claim that the band is notable on "the West Yorkshire music scene". Fails WP:MUSIC. A search [2] returns nothing that could be construed as a reliable third party source. A detailed biography was created for the lead singer, and the PROD contested as well based on the band's claimed implied notability. §FreeRangeFrog 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the band nor the singer seem notable enough for articles.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All No indication why either is notable. --neon white talk 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:28, 16 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Wicke

References cited in the article yield one mention of one exhibition in a local paper. I don't think that counts as notability. Certainly seems not, according to Wikipedia:Notability (artists).

pablo_{20:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete suprised it was denied A7. There's no claim of notability. --neon white talk 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconci talktalk 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedy decliner. Yeah, I wouldn't have lost sleep over deleting it, but it does have that one mention in an independent RS. I don't think she meets WP:CREATIVE at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstration of general or specific notability. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above....Modernist (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Simple not notable under WP:CREATIVE right now. Vartanza (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:11, 18 February 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 as CSD G4. User:LinguistAtLarge was doing something with this; I've userfied it to User:LinguistAtLarge/Captain obvious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain obvious

Unreferenced slang term. Prodded; deprodder removed the unreferenced tag but did not add references. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or transwiki to Wiktionary as an alternate) – This looks like this would be a notable enough of a term for inclusion in either Wiki. MuZemike 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Wikipedia article on this topic has previously been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination)), and Wiktionary has a good definition already (wikt:Captain Obvious). EALacey (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Powers ^T 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:32, 16 February 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. X clamation point 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kompromat

Russian infomal term (abbreviation for komprometiruyushchiy material), unused in English, with two similar actual meanings: "incriminating evidence" and "defaming evidence" - 7-bubёn >t 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~, or perhaps redirect to blackmail~~. No English dictionary I've consulted lists this word, which means that it is simply a transliteration of a Russian word. As such, it fails WP:NOTDICT and should go.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
- No redirect: it is not blackmail, although it may be used for blackmailing. - 7-bubёn >t 17:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a foreign language dictionary definition -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 18 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco de Miranda

Autobiog article. Claims some sort of awards, but no refs supplied. Only searches show WP:SPS or just articles with comments by subject, not about subject. Triwbe (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little or no RS coverage, and what the heck is an architect in the clubbing business? Quantumobserver (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some independent media coverage.[3] Just not enough for WP:BIO.--Senortypant (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some passing mentions of him as bar manager, and quoted a few times, but in total, not enough to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 18 February 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 close. This was already considered, and redirected, via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Movement (Jumping Biz). This is not the appropriate venue to consider expanding back from a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the Hours

Ok what is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs) 2008/12/14 01:40:49

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, someone boldly redirected the article based on a previous bundle nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entry has more than trivial information which makes it worth to keep it as a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per the other previous non-single tracks. JamesBurns (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MacGyverMagic. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, this generated discussion but it was never listed at AFD and thus never came to attention of the community. I listed it in today's log so that this can be discussed. Note, this was deleted as a bunch at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Movement (Jumping Biz). Regards So Why 19:31, 15 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Heinrich Landrock

There exists no indication of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original nomination was not complete and overlooked. I listed it for today's log and completed the nomination. Regards So Why 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources will be difficult to find, but I think we need to err on the side of inclusiveness when dealing with historical subjects. There appears to be one usuable French source on the Rudolf Franz Lehnert page that deals with both Landrock and Lehnert. I think that in itself provides evidence of notability. freshacconci talktalk 15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've often found these essays by Tyrenius, User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias and User:Tyrenius/Historical artists useful when dealing with topics such as these, as both outline some excellent points when faced with a lack of sources on historical figures. freshacconci talktalk 15:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 22,200 ghits for "Lehnert & Landrock" [4] is enough for me, with plenty like this [5] from which both varticles could be improved. A merge might be an idea though. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search finds loads of sources, such as this one published by a major academic publisher that describes the subject as one of the two leading photographers of North Africa in the early 20th century. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 16 February 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 Adam Phillips. Strong consensus to merge (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarus (language)

I love Adam Phillips and his work, but I don't really think that his "Sarus" language has really gotten any press or notability beyond his works. Remurmur (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Adam Phillips--Peephole (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original nomination was not complete and overlooked. I listed it for today's log and completed the nomination. Regards So Why 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Adam Phillips or possibly Constructed language. JJL (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would not support merging with constructed language. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adam Phillips (animator). No individual notability for this conlang. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adam Phillips. Not a notable article, but the Saurus content could be credited to him via the merge assuming 3rd party reliable verification. - DustyRain (talk) 06:15, 19 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Trust the Gospels?

Appears not to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). I tagged this page in August 2007 as needing third-party references, and still only a single review has been provided. (It's favourable, but doesn't seem to assert that the book is particularly important.) I can't find any reviews listed in the Google News archive, Books in Print, or the ATLA Religion Database. The author has no Wikipedia article. EALacey (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Lexis Nexis and JSTOR and find no reviews. If a book has multiple reviews, especially in scholarly journals, then an encyclopedia article can usually be supported quite well... but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Movingday29 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you for checking these sources. In the interest of fairness, I should point out that JSTOR's coverage lags behind publication by a few years (deliberately), so it isn't likely to include many reviews of books published in 2007 regardless of notability. EALacey (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to meet WP:BOOK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book. less than 100 recorded library holdings, which is insignificant for popular works on this topic.DGG (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation, per DGG and the fact that this looks more like a book review than encyclopedia article. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 17 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mulholland

WP:N. I can find no significant coverage outside of QPR fansites and blogs Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lack of significant coverage; he mostly receives short mentions[6] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Didn't realize he had played for QPR's first team... --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He passes WP:ATHLETE because he played in a Football League Championship match (second level of English football), but coverage of the player specifically is sporadic beyond match reports of that one game, meaning there is a concern re WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Football League Championship match. -- Agathoclea (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he fails WP:N, and passes WP:ATHLETE just because of one single game. I don't think 21 minutes of Championship football are enough to turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. --Angelo (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a FL player. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though he passes WP:Athlete, he clearly fails the general notability guidelines (#1 - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail) None of the sources (including others I found online) address the player in detail, describing him only in terms of coming on as a sub. Has not achieved success at any other football league side; suggesting that the player will not meet notability requirements as a footballer. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Needs improving though. Giant Snowman 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although it passes notability with the Championship match, it does need a wider variety of sources. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really can't believe the difference we get in reactions to AfDs about American sportspeople and others. We get people arguing for inclusion of articles on amateur American footballers, but here we have a player who has played in a league that has two more fully professional levels below it, and there are people calling for deletion. WP:ATHLETE sets a useful pragmatic notability level that avoids us having to spend ages debating every individual case. Let's keep it that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it really need sources, thus it fails our notabilty guidelines, which trumps WP:ATHLETE easily. Sources were searched for, but couldn't be found, so this isn't a case of (find sources and cleanup). Also I'm one of the few who vote delete for those of American sportspeople. Sources are everything. Secret ^account 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article that passes WP:ATHLETE still needs to additionally pass the general notability guideline, doesn't that render WP:ATHLETE completely redundant.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

both are guidelines. Agathoclea (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ATHLETE, like BIO is used as a additional guideline for borderline WP:N cases, it still needs to meet the sourcing guidelines. Secret ^account 13:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes WP:ATHLETE (just), although the article needs improving. The soccerbase reference is sufficient to show that he did play professional football at the second highet level in England. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:40, 18 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intimidated (album)

I cannot find any verifiable sources that are reliable or otherwise to back up any of this content. After searching for almost an hour, not even fansites could acknowledge it as an officially scrapped allbum (none of them acknowledge it to exist at all) and the only websites that do list it are illegal MP3 download sites and blogs that offer unofficial compilations for download such as this and this (which also lists The Unreleased (Britney Spears album) that has been recently deleted in Afd as being WP:MADEUP). The original creator of this article had added to The Unreleased article (before it was deleted) saying "There are numerous other albums like this, such as "Can You Handle Mine?" and "Intimidated"." so this would lead me to believe that this too could be a WP:MADEUP album (as either being fan-made or a non-notable MP3 bootleg) as no official/reliable sources (or fansites that list every single release by Britney) can verify it as ever being planned for release. AngelOfSadness talk 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly as WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a made up no notable album. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources to confirm existance. JamesBurns (talk) 06:41, 17 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparision of online remittance services in United Kingdom for sending money to India

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a comparison site. Nancy ^talk 17:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am sure that the author is trying to be helpful but this does not belong in an encyclopaedia. If allowed to stay, it would very quickly become out of date (and maybe attracts spam from financial organisations less legitimate than the ones currently listed) and hence do more harm than good. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Delete. This is not an encyclopedic article. If someone were to write an article about online remittance services in general, and not just from the UK, that would likely be an acceptable article. Note that there is an article on remittances and another on Send Money Home, which is a service of the government of the UK. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 19 February 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 discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Burrows

While his early death is tragic, Mr Burrows does not meet the notability criteria as defined per WP:ATHLETE. Wikipedia is not a memorial Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Burrows is the world record holder for fastest goal so that alone should meet requirements. The feat was reported on BBC Sport as well as TV news. His untimely death was also reported on the BBC website as well as reported in written press & TV. Prof bed (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I have already stated on the article's talk-page, whilst his playing career is by no means notable in terms of level played at, he is the scorer of the fastest ever goal scored in association football, as verified by the Football Association. As such, his feat and later death were deemed important enough to be carried by BBC News. Grunners (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although his playing career was indeed non-notable, his feat in scoring the sport's fastest ever goal has garnered enough media attention to make him notable in my opinion. Giant Snowman 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GiantSnowman. His various mentions by the BBC and the FA's confirmation of his record is enough to be deemed notable. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While Burrows' career level itself was not notable, having scored sport's fastest goal meets our notability requirements. FlyingToaster 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a world record holder. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mergetosomewhere as he is a bit WP:ONEEVENTish and most of the keeps are based on him having scored the fastest recorded goal in the sport (albeit unverified by accurate timing mechanisms or video confirmation)... what happens when someone scores a goal in 1.8 seconds - does Burrows then become unnotable? Perhaps instead of Burrows having a page his feat should be merged with Goal (sport) or some such, maybe a football records and statistics page. He wasn't deemed notable until he died last week and the BBC picked up on a local rag human interest point. WP:NOTMEMORIAL--ClubOranje^T 00:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of media coverage. Oranje notes that he wasn't deemed notable until last week, however older articles from BBC would suggest otherwise - [7] [8] [9] Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty? All three are the same article (slightly rehashed) from the same source about the same WP:ONEEVENT That second web ref from Nfitz may be found here if your BBC settings don't allow you to view it --ClubOranje^T 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cowes Sports F.C.. He scored the goal while playing for them, so that would be a logical alternative location for it. I agree that this appears much to be WP:ONEEVENT, with perhaps a bit of WP:RECENT since that one event only appears to be getting coverage right now due to his untimely death (which is certainly sad, but not enough for a WP article). -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is in the Guiness Book of Records and is a world record holder. In the funny old world of Wiki soccer notability he was not notable as he was only an amateur footballer but surely to merge or delete this article would debase Wiki for what it is afterall, an encyclopedia?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Cowes Sports F.C., and also Merge to History of association football. While his acheivement is pretty darn notable, it's the only thing he's notable for which would be a violation of WP:BIO1E - do we have articles for other such unique record holders? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and don't merge/redirect Common sense indicates that Marc Burrows is notable despite not having played in a professional league. His 2.0 seconds fastest ever goal transcends Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. ♠TomasBat 16:20, 18 February 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 with the caveat to clean up or risk another AfD nom. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons in science fiction

This article is a bunch of original, meaningless generalities and fluff. Every assertion is preempted by "tend", "may", or "generally". This article contains no real information, and I can't imagine that anyone would get anything out of it. It's hard to fault anyone for this; the concept is so ridiculously broad that any generalizations would necessarily be wildly inaccurate.

For those looking for a specific reason: Violates WP:OR and WP:NOTE. Mintrick (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I think it might be possible for there to be an article around this general topic (e.g. "Views of Weaponry by Futurists" etc) but such an article would have to be about compiling sociology or theoretical engineering research, citing published scholarly works on those subjects. This is very much NOT such an article. This strikes me most under the heading of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as it's clearly original research from beginning to end. Rayguns have their own article, as to several other objects and topics linked in this arbitrary compilation, so no one is losing information by deleting this. -Markeer 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some nice new work on it, good job. -Markeer 03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:OR to me, and is unsourced. As a topic, it's a bit random/haphazard. I could see wikipedia having a page on this topic--if and only if there are multiple quality sources that have written specifically about the topic as a whole as a topic in and of itself--and not just mentioned various weapons in science fiction in isolation. Cazort (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the topic does not seem to be notable. This is OR, synthesis. I can't find sources to justify it as a topic :( ...I was going to have a go at shaping this article up myself. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark for cleanup. Science fictional weaponry is a clearly notable topic, and there are plenty of sources which could be used to improve this article and fix OR conerns, e.g. Hamilton Weapons of Science Fiction ISBN 1596799978, the entry on the topic in Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Doubleday 1979), another entry on the topic in Prucher & Wolfe Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction ISBN 0195305671, another in Stableford Science Fiction and Fact ISBN 0415974607, Snelson, Hersch & Krasnoff Science Fiction Weapons ISBN 0931064139, Seed American Science Fiction and the Cold War ISBN 1853312274, and many many more appropriate sources. JulesH (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that the article as it stands is unacceptable? Then I would suggest that this article be deleted, not all future incarnations that might have something in common with it. While Wikipedia is a work in progress, that is true for both article creation and article deletion. If a new article is created, using sources like those you've suggested, it would have nothing in common with this mess of platitudes like "Weapons feature extensively in science fiction". If a new article is produced in the same page space, then make no mistake, this article should have still been deleted; such a thing would be a wholly new creation. Mintrick (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a lot of work. I don't agree that there's nothing salvageable in it. User:The Anome has already made quite a few improvements to it, and there's much more that can be done. JulesH (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "weapons feature extensively in science fiction" is an almost identical concept to the first sentence in one of the sources I mentioned above; I think it was Prucher & Wolfe, although I'm not certain now, so is an example of some text of the original that could be kept. JulesH (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(At this point, a new version of the article was rewritten from scratch)

Rewrite, then keep. I originated this article in 2003, and although it has so far failed to come up to scratch by today's verifiability and sourcing standards, I think a proper article can be made out of it, as per the previous comment. I've made a start on a new version of the article, providing cites for the origination of each type of weapon in science fiction. At the moment, it's still a bag of text: I'll start structuring it into the shape of an article in a moment. -- The Anome (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've now done an initial rewrite: it's not a great article in its present form, but at least it's a start, and should now pass WP:V and WP:ATT. It now needs lots more cleanup, fact-checking and expansion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to clean-up. Clearly significant topic. Original author and SF Project shoud be given a chance to address deficiencies before any action taken to remove article.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something like this is better suited as a list than as a rambling essay. Mandsford (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, come on, be reasonable: this rewrite has as yet only been in existence for a few hours. It's clearly about a notable subject, and there is substantial literature on the topic, and clear connections between the themes and ideas of science fiction weapons and real-world concerns. Might I suggest that you improve the text, rather than vote for its deletion because WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Hmmm... did I use the word delete somewhere? I don't remember. However, when it does get rewritten, it needs to be more to the point than it is now. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, there could be a rationale for a list of weapons in science fiction (there are, after all, huge numbers of the things, from the chainsword to the drillger), but the deeper concept of the unsettling effects of new weapons and kinds of warfare is so deeply woven into science fiction (consider: both the iconic science fiction modern science fiction films The Terminator and Blade Runner are based on the idea of animate weapons) that it needs a detailed article to review the considerable literature on the topic. (See also User:JulesH's comment above for more on the literature on this.)

See Talk:Weapons in science fiction#Restructuring for some ideas about how the current structure of the article might be improved. -- The Anome (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has undergone significant improvement, and now contains tons of sources. Great job by those who are working on it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shameless WikiProject plug --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A notable topic that needs some cleanup. No problems that can be solved by deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Jules indicated, this can be improved. (Not that anyone really should have doubted it, as this is the core material of SF & there's an immense mount of material available) We do not delete articles that can be improved. Deletion is the last resort, for those that cannot. Even had it not been considerably rewritten by now, as long as sources can be shown for potential improvement, there is no reason to delete. We have no deadline. DGG (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improving. I feel the general consensus here is that the article has notability and can be made encyclopedic, but is just stumbling over the best way to do it. This then becomes a matter for discussion and cooperation on the article's talk page and between editors with WP:CLEANUP and continued improvement. A deletion would not improve wiki. A better article will. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and starting to get sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify - Nuke from above all the unsubstantiated OR generalizations and flowery language. But generally, keep it. Fixable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a good article, which I found interesting to read. It has sources. It shows how bestselling science fiction novels and popular series have evolved the weapons used, and where the idea came from first. I remember reading it months ago, and thought it a great article. Dream Focus 18:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is unencyclopaedic and proves that Wikipedia is mainly edited by teenage boys. However it seems well referenced, there's not as much OR and Synthesis as I expected, and I believe those bits can be trimmed out. As ever I support anyone going in there and removing the Synthesis. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPLIT. Hopelessly broad, but covers some reasonable topics. The main issue here is synthesis, and we can easily resolve that by spitting this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the article both useful and well-sourced Vartanza (talk) 03:37, 17 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blaqstarr

Sources are extremely thin, all directories or namechecks in articles about someone / something else. Original creator was the WP:SPA Rstempler; Robby Stempler is the name of the subject's manager. What a coincidence. Some work on it since, but still falls well short on sourcing, nothing above directory standard.. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources since the nomination was made. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the additions made by Paul Erik, the article now meets WP:NM. DiverseMentality 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews in Billboard, the Washington Post & Pitchfork mean the artist meets the notability criteria. --Megaboz (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets notability requirements.--Michig (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article started off in bad shape, but the article has massively improved in terms of reliable sources and meets notability criteria. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:04, 16 February 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. X clamation point 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Long

Not notable Abacab (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7 (person). Gives no assertion of his own notability, only that he has worked with notable people. Firestorm (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an assertion of notability, though. It might not equate to notability but it's still an assertion. --Movingday29 (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Strongly NOT Speedy Delete. Let's not jump the gun here. Porn stars are a tricky subject because the lack of openness surrounding porn tends to mean that porn stars don't get covered in mainstream media as much as people in other professions. Have you exhaustively searched what's out there to determine that this guy definitely is not notable? I think a more careful/thoughtful discussion is warranted. Cazort (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:48, 16 February 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 – nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). —Snigbrook 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Andalurkavu

I haven't found evidence that the subect of the article "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", hence I believe the article does not pass WP:Notability. In fact, I could gather no regular, News, or Books Ghits for the subject. A source has been noted on the article, but I suspect it could (though I can't be sure, since I do not understand the language it is written in) not be independent of the subject. Allventon (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Also, I have been informed that a precedent may have been set whereby places of religious worship are notable. If that is the case, I believe the lack of reliable sources to verify the article means that the article does not meet WP:Verifiability. Allventon (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some references to the temple - if you search without the word 'sree' (holy or respected). One is at http://tripatlas.com/Dharmadam and there are others. I must confess to being mystified by the http://andalurkavu.com/ site. I would think it's a home site for the temple. It's in Malayalam, but I can't really see how it works anyway. May not be complete yet, or designed for IE only. (I'm not going into IE to try this out.) It's as notable as many of the articles on small Christian churches that survive - possibly more. We could do with a Malayalam reader checking out the temple's site. Peridon (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment http://tripatlas.com/Dharmadam is a mirror of a Wikipedia article, as noted by the disclaimer on the website: "This article provided by Wikipedia." As a result, I do not believe the assertion on the website that the temple is "a famous temple in Dharmadam ,during the festival of this Temple thousands of people used to make their devotions from different parts of Kannur and Calicut District" can be considered reliable. Thank you for showing that "Sree" was not needed in a Google search; I didn't realize that. I could only find 5 other Ghits beside this website using the word "Andalurkavu", 4 of which are restricted photos for me, and 1 a PDF document I am having trouble accessing for some reason. With regards to churches surviving AFD, I am afraid I wasn't aware of that precedent, so I am willing to dismiss my argument that the article should be deleted per WP:N. However, I believe that the lack of reliable sources to verify the subject of the article means that the article could be deleted per WP:V. Allventon (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I didn't notice that that was a mirror. I can get into the pdf, but if you can't, try the 'open as HTML' option (doing it this way enables using 'Find in this page' which doesn't work on pdf's. This is Firefox - don't know if IE does it.). It's on page three - refers to a sacred grove and the ecological value of these groves. Probably the grove is associated with the temple. Hard to tell. The churches survive SD rather than AfD and aren't worth pursuing further, it seems. 'Because something else exists' isn't actually a Wikipedia criterion in practice - that was more of a comment from me! Wait and see time now, I think. No-one else may come in, or there might be a queue. Peridon (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you very much for your advice on how to open the page; I have done so now. As you have said, the PDF doesn't directly refer to a temple; instead, it says with regards to Andalurkavu that it is one of a number of "sacred groves of northern Kerala". I do not believe this verifies the article on the temple. "Wait and see time now, I think." Agreed. Allventon (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possible Merge/Redirect to Dharmadam (???) It appears the temple is in Dharmadam...is this correct? I found it mentioned in these two sources too: [10] and [11]. Esoteric to a westerner? Yes, but I am getting the impression that it is notable in the global scheme of things and should stay. Here's another link that's probably not the most reliable source but does call it "one of the very famous Kaavus in northern Kerala": [12]; the same site seems to have a lot of videos of the place and would be good to add in external links. Also...at the very least we should merge/redirect instead of deleting. Cazort (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the links. From what I can tell, the temple is in Dharmadam. With regards to the first link you've provided, I am having trouble accessing PDFs for whatever reason atm, so I can't comment on that source. Regarding the second, I couldn't find any mention of "Andalurkavu" on that website; is the mention on the PDF linked to on that website? As for the third, I do not believe it is reliable. I am open to a merge with Dharmadam. Allventon (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for Andalur Kavu or Andalur Kaavu gives several seemingly relevant hits; I haven't looked through them yet to see if they are enough to establish notability, but it would be good if we can keep the AFD open till someone has looked into this. Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the number of Google Book hits for Andalur Temple. I think it should be easy to establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Books hits found by Abecedare demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn I agree that the GBooks hits prove notability. Thanks Abecedare. Allventon (talk) 19:32, 17 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorielle London

fails wp:bio and wp:music. only non-notable appearances in TV-shows Helfender (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. She has been featured on German television shows. I'm not sure if the shows themselves are notable, and if so, whether her role was notable enough. If somebody provides evidence one way or another, I would change my !vote.Firestorm (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a classic case of famous for being famous rather than for actually doing anything, but there are plenty of sources from which an article can be written. —An gr 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete She failed at the German Version of American Idol. She reached nothing! --Doc-London (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the German version of this article. Just a translation from German to English would likely establish notability and this article should be allowed to grow. There are 16 sources in the German version! Scarykitty (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the sources in the German article there are plenty more here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 16 February 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 speedy delete as A7. So Why 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water for my Clementine

No third-party reliable sources appear to demonstrate band's notability. Author (or author's sock) appears to be turning the article into a joke as well (armless National Association of Armless Peoples?) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of third-party sources show band does not meet notability guideline. Current and past content also represents a possible hoax. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7 (band). Gives no assertion of notability. Firestorm (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, no assertion, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:53, 15 February 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. X clamation point 06:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Brommann

This article (as well as numerous others by the same user) cover people whose sole claim to notability is that they recieved at WW II medal which over 7,000 other people received as well. I don't think that that qualifies as sufficient notability for an inclusion in an encylopedia. Passportguy (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest award for bravery of Germany during World War II. Passportguy is correct over 7,000 were awarded but to a force of over 20 million which I believe is 1,000 recipients for every 3 million in the German forces of WWII. At least two of the recipients Eugene Vaulot and Henri Joseph Fenet have featured as DYK articles. We also have at least two Featured Lists for Knight's Cross recipients List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service which achieved Featured status because all of the recipients had their own articles. If we are going to purge Knight's Cross recipients are we also going to purge Victoria Cross. Medal of Honour and even George Cross recipients as all they are notable for is they recieved a medal ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two lists you mentioned have signifantly fever people on them (tens or low hundreds). The problem with the above page is that he recieved an award which was given to thousands. If you add all people at recieved such a wide-spread awards in some army of the world, we are looking at hundreds of thousands new pages on people with no other notability than recieving an award. A list listing all recipients may be ok (although even that is rather questionable with 7,000 names) but individual pages are not warranted. Passportguy (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Victoria Cross has 1,356 recipients the Medal of Honour has 3,465 recipients just because the Knights Cross had 7,000 does not make it any less notable. Recipients are also more notable then members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) who were depicted in TV programme. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to advocate including a person here just because he recieved a Knights Cross either. However notability does correlate with the rarity of an award. No noble prize winner is notable, a school science fair award winner is not. the more common an award is, the less likely it is to qualify a person as notable on its own. Passportguy (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate to summarize these people in a list or a series of lists, but not create 7k stubs. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two lists you mentioned have signifantly fever people on them (tens or low hundreds). The problem with the above page is that he recieved an award which was given to thousands Just because thousands were awarded does not make it not notable. It can no longer be awarded being a decoration of Nazi Germany where as the VC and MOH are still awarded by there respective countries - who is to say how many will be awarded in the future when teh MOH gets to 7,000 do we delete all the articles ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MisterBee1966

First, I want to refer to Notabilty guid of the military history project. I suggest that notability of the Knight’s Cross is taken up with the Military history project. My understanding is that the notability of Knight’s Cross recipients has been established before. Deleting an article without the consent of this community seems most odd.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that the notability guidelines refer to "Recipients of a country's highest military decoration" which the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was not. The highest award was the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross.

The article also fails the other three guidelines :

1. People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant +portion of one) in combat.
2. Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff).
3. People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works.

Passportguy (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Using the above argument we would have to delete all the Victoria Cross articles as the highest award in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms is the Order of the Garter limited to 24 recipients at any one time Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Receiving a country's highest award for military valor in a major world war is a very strong argument for notability. As for the "thousands of stubs" argument, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Using that criterion, we'd have to delete a majority of the 3400 United States Medal of Honor recipients, or members of the United States House of Representatives or British House of Commons, not to mention most of the geography articles in WP. Rklear (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was not the highest award ! Passportguy (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the highest award for bravery the Grand Cross was awarded to victorious Generals Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was awarded to exactly one victorious general, Hermann Göring. Rklear (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. The question of the highest award does not hinge on eligibility for it. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very sad that this person fought for Adolf Hitler, THE MOST EVIL POLITICAL LEADER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. However (I am assuming what is written in the article is true and accurate regarding his actions and the sources) he did play a notable part in the war, which has been documented by reliable secondary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"he did play a notable part in the war". That's exactly my point. He did not, as is there not notable enough for inclusion in an encylopedia. Passportguy (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he destroyed over 100 enemy tanks or guns, and was awarded 8 medals. I hate Nazis as much as anyone, and my father killed many in WW2. However, rewriting history because we don't like something that happened is exactly the kind of thing the Western allies were fighting against. And I think Brommann is notable for what he did regardless of the medals, if a Union officer in the Civil War had done the same I don't think there would be any question about his WP notability.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual and award are notable, and pass MILHIST notability guidelines. Fail to see a problem here. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received the highest award for military valor that an enlisted soldier was able to receive. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creater I presume my vote is taken for granted - but just in case Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won multiple awards it seems, far more notable than the average soldier in WWII. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If the majority intends to keep this article, I don't have a major problem with that. I just have the impression that most people commenting here are not aware wehat that means : If the president of Guinea-Bissau were to bestow a thousand people with that countries highest military honour, then all would qualify as individualWikipedia entries !!

I am just saying that we should really think twice before setting a precedent which would seriously expand the scope of what is included in this encylopedia. Karl Brommann was a tank commander which did what many tank commanders did in the war : destroy tanks. There is nothing in the article to suggest that he did anything extraordinary, e.g. set the world record for the most tanks destroyed in a war or that he took a leading role in a famous military operation. The only reason he is on Wikipedia is the fact that he received a medal that 7,000+ others received as well. Passportguy (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, all that the Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross recipients did was kill people (Insert tanks/aircraft/rescue people etc where required), which is what lots of other soldiers did in the war, and often didn't get recognized for it. And you can see how that is dodgy reasoning. Skinny87 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was also mentioned specifically in the Wehrmachtbericht. Surely he's notable enough. Also, we're nearly to 2.75 million articles; another 7,000 aren't that big of a deal Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per guidlines (was a recipient of his nation's highest award), and has several published sources that mention him. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reconsider the apparent granting of inherent notability to anyone in the world who received his country's "highest military honor." Each recipient , to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, should have received significant coverage in multiple reliable abd independent publications. This would likely be so for many Iron Cross recipients, and the resulting articles, with the required references included, would be better than stubs which mirror some governmental database. Not everyone given a Hero Medal by Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe or Saddam Hussein should automatically get an encyclopedia article.Some dictators such as Hitler or Joseph Stalin gave out some Hero Medals to non-notable kissups, yes-men and political hacks. By 1945, Hitler and his henchmen might have just been giving out medals like candy for propaganda, in a vain effort to bolster morale. This guy PERSONALLY "destroyed 65 tanks and self-propelled guns along with 44 artillery pieces and 15 vehicles?" Edison (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the key phrase in what you just said was "might just have been". If you don't have proof that Hitler was giving out medals like candy, then it's just as likely that he wasn't as it is that he was since we don't know. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If the sources state he destroyed that many vehicles, then it's likely he did - god knows there were enough Soviet vehicles to go around by the end of the war. Skinny87 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - More comments Maybe this is irrelevant to the discussion here but over the past two to three years I've been trying to contribute to the Knight's Cross, List of the Knight's Cross recipients and individual recipients articles here on Wiki. I own over 100 hundred publications related to this topic, I visited the German National Archives and have access to some of the files myself. I run into these generalising statements like "they were handed out like candy" many, many times. My personal belief is that this is wrong (maybe there are exceptions to the rule). My perception so far was that Wikipedia provides a forum to objectively collect and present all verifiable information regarding people of notability. So the question that seems to be answered is the Knight's Cross a "candy award" and thus irrelevant for establishing notability? This is a chicken and egg question. If we don't let the individual actions of these recipients speak for themselves than how are we going to establish lasting notability for this award? That doesn't mean that I cannot be convinced otherwise but it will take more than a generalising statement about a "candy award"! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the fear that someone will create 7,000 articles (for each winner) realistic? Vartanza (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this section from the Battle in Berlin article shows they were not given out like candy That afternoon the last two Knight's Crosses of the Third Reich were awarded one when to Eugéne Vaulôt who had personally destroyed eight tanks and Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzig the commander of the 503 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion. Two others received less prestigious awards for only knocking out five tanks each.ref name=Beevor-352.Beevor, [#References|references] p.352 ref Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why is that a fear? I hope people will do exactly that, and similarly for other orders of this magnitude. NOT PAPER. This is a notable accomplishment, regardless of the nature of the government. More specifically, judging by the article, this was not in any sense an award given for unimportant accomplishments. DGG (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets notability guidelines by getting the highest award for military valor for his country. Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exactly the kind of subject that one would expect a non-paper general encyclopedia to cover. If 7000 people received this award then that means that we should have 7000 articles about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for all the reasons mentioned by other keep voters. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability guidelines, received highest award for military valor for his country, and there are references. Rosiestep (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, a Panzer Ace is not notable?

KEEP. An obvious keep. This man, as Misterbee1966 says, was awarded one of the highest awards in German military history. He is an ace, all aces whether they be pilots, U-Boat commanders or Tank aces deserve a place on wikipedia. Would editors be questioning the notability of this guy if he was from the Western Allied nations? How can anyone say this man and his record is not important? Insane. Dapi89 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would people stop calling, or implying, this man is a Nazi. Not all soldiers in the Waffen-SS were so. Unless any of you have sources, avoid the slanderous comments. Dapi89 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the word in a kind of generic sense. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without a faintest doubt! Typically I'd have glossed over the Article supporting deletion. But given the kind of record this person raked killing tanks, it sure deserves a definite place in history. Irrespective of the Knight's Cross, this person was injured twice in the line of duty but went on to rake an impressive score anyway. That right there if does not mark his place in history then I don't know what will! The award is definitely NOT the only claim to fame the Tank Ace is ! Just because its Start today, does not mean it needs to be deleted. Who knows if we had more facts about this person, we may discover that he possibly could have done something way more than what we know to deserve a place.

Saying that there are 7000 articles or that it was a Candy award is not only trivializing of a great honor, but borderline insult to a recognition only brave men received. Irrespective of who gave that honor the person who received that award did a LOT for their country in the line of Duty. That is the whole and ONLY point here. In my humblest opinion, this kind of thinking leads to criticism that was heaped on Black Hawk Down. Like Dapi said, just because this person served in SS, he can not be discredited. If we must follow this logic, why do we keep an Article on all the dictators like Stalin or Monsters like Hitler ? Surprise! why do we keep article on Waffen SS or even Nazism even ? Would we want to delete that ? I believe not. for that matter we wouldn't want to remove articles of other Knights Cross recipients just because they are stubs! 7000 or not. Highest or not we need to focus on the act of bravery of a Human being at the end of the day. It doesn't matter who or where that human being was from. Perseus71 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bookstores

Including redirect pages List of booksellers and List of bookshops.

This can't be necessary, can it? It seems a bit abstruse as a disambig. Prod tag removed without explanation by page creator. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rules99 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the page's creator, would you care to list a reason? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Rules99 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that, per Wikipedia's AFD guidelines, votes without rationales may be discarded by the closing admin. Firestorm (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure listcruft and not encyclopaedic at all. Firestorm (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that, per Wikipedia's AFD guidelines, votes without rationales may be discarded by the closing admin. Rules99 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rules99, I think you are right in wanting to keep the list of lists, but this comment (and copy-n-paste of Firestorm's response to you) is silly. You did not give a reason above, prompting Firestorm's helpful reminder. Firestorm did give a reason (even if it may not be correct). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I encourage everyone to look at the article. I don't think that words like "listcruft" apply to something that isn't actually a list. However, this is not a list of bookstores, but rather (an unneccesary) disambiguation page that says "List of bookstores may refer to: list of bookstore chains (or) list of independent bookstores". This may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but will not be missed if deleted. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, not technically a list, but it seems like it was originally meant to be. I would say it should be redirected to Bookstore. Firestorm (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And then how would users find these lists? Rules99 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's easy. They would type in the searchbox "List of bookst--" and "list of bookstore chains" and "list of bookstores" will pop up. Or they would type in the words "list bookstore" in the search engine and get this [13], which is more useful. Either way, it's better than clicking on an article entitled "List of bookstores" and it turns out that it's not a list of bookstores. Mandsford (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um bookselling is not a list of bookstores either, and I think it would be a little bit harder to find them from there than from this page. Rules99 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The auto-complete doesn't work on all browsers, wouldn't work at all for someone typing "List of bookstores" (I know I type faster than the auto-complete works), and depending on it to serve navigational purposes is a bad idea. Ending up at a search results page is no better and in some ways worse than ending up at a list of lists that the reader might have been looking for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Compare to List of animals. The disambiguation project and/or the lists project may need to come up with an approach for these instances. Navigational assistance seems to be needed for users looking for a list of bookstores or a list of animals. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Lists of bookstores, per Lists of lists (already in place for the lists project). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how this page serves any useful purpose when all it does is link to two other lists. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: all list articles do is link to other articles. All Category:Lists of lists articles do is link to other lists articles. Being a list of list articles isn't a reason to delete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Lists of bookstores per JHunterJ. It's a reasonable list of lists. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retool as a dab page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be retooled as a dab page? It's a list of lists, not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plausible search term. I don't see how it matters whether it's a (short) list of lists or a disambig page--it's a useful and necessary navigation aid regardless. Wkdewey (talk) 04:31, 19 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CitrusTV News

Non-notable student news program with no evidence of third party notability outside of existing. Attempts to compromise with a redirect to the CitrusTV parent article have consistently been reverted leaving an AfD as the option. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable campus broadcast. no significant 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The flagship news program of the nation's oldest and largest entirely student-run television station deserves mention and is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.155.3 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)— 128.230.155.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Separate Wikipedia entires for individual shows in addition to an entry for the network/station from which they originate is consistent with how all other television shows and stations are listed. E.g. CNN. For consistency and user friendliness that is in line with how other television networks/stations and their shows are listed, this entry should be kept. More CitrusTV show-specific entries should be created to ensure the station and its shows' presence appears properly and consistently on Wikipedia. Instead of deletion or redirection, suggestions should be offered to help improve the notability and credibility of this article, and those actions will be taken. Ryanbalton (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note RyanBalton is the creator and, as to this point, only editor of the article in question. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, only 7 Ghits. Sorry, your show is not quite in the same league as CNN. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to parent company. the show appears to not be notable in and of itself. Firestorm (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big suprise, the IP whos vote doesn't count comes from - Syracuse University, the same place as this article. And it's no suprise the article creator came here to defend it. @Ryan - it is up to YOU to provide the necessary 3rd party coverage that shows nobility for this article, otherwise it will be deleted as non-notable. ArcAngel (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ArcAngel, thanks for being a douche. Hope it makes you feel better about yourself. 128.230.174.123 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for playing Syracuse University. Have a nice day. ArcAngel (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP editor: Wikipedia has a strict policy of not personally attacking people. Please do not continue. Firestorm (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArcAngel, take your own advice. Unless you really do need to be a cyberdouche to make yourself feel better. 128.230.174.123 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't defend the article from being deleted then why bother posting here? You have been warned once about no personal attacks, and there you go attacking again. I have not done anything except point out that your IP is coming from Syracuse. ArcAngel (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @ArcAngel, the word SUPRISE has an R before the P: Surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.174.123 (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources covering this show to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:32, 18 February 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. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus route 55

Another seemingly non notable bus route, which only actually ran for a little over 3 months. jenuk1985 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This source: [14] seems to demonstrate that something about this bus route is notable. I don't think we should delete it but I think we should (a) pare down the non-referencable or non-notable material, and merge into something more relevant. What page exactly to merge into? I don't know. Cazort (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the AfD template had been removed from the article. I've restored it. No comment on the article itself. StarM 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the editors who have been trying to improve the article since the AfD was started should be commended for their efforts, I'm struggling to see any way the article could be improved to save it. At the end of the day it is a bus route that was started in competition with a rivals route (which doesn't a page itself), and them 3 months later it failed. I don't like to quote guidelines too often, but in relation to the merge comment above, WP:N#OBJ provides a useful statement:

"Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." jenuk1985 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would need more than one external source to confirm it is notable. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bus routes in Essex, verifiability but the only secondary coverage I can find is one source, which is not enough for notability. —Snigbrook 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The right place for information on bus routes is on the operator's or Passenger Transport Executive' website. Since bus deregulation, bus routes are liable to change at frequent intervals. Each change makes the articel obsolete. This makes the articles essentially unmaintainable, unless some one is watching the operator's site to pick up changes and will NEVER go away. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true of most articles, particularly subjects such as football, music, celebrities and anything related to a future event. I don't know what the situation is like with bus routes in Essex, but until recently most of the bus routes in the area around where I live had been the same for several years, other than changes of operator (usually as a result of takeovers) and new vehicles replacing old ones. More frequent changes, such as fare increases and minor timetable changes would not be relevant to the article. They are not unmaintainable, it just depends if the articles are maintained or not (maintenance templates and wikiprojects can be useful for this). —Snigbrook 21:10, 19 February 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. After examining and weighing the various arguments presented, I've found there to be a clear consensus to keep the article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

In violation with all of the following: Wikipedia:forking, Wikipedia:not, and WP:SYN. Another 2 points:

The article takes it for granted that those attacks are Antisemitic attacks (though not verified by the attacker); and
The article suggests that those attacks are in response or related to 2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict; while this might be the case, still, this is more like an original research. Yamanam (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Yamanam (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. Also note that this was previously deleted at AFD, then overturned at DRV, very recently. However, as the close was "no consensus", anything about it being too soon isn't helpful or valid. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In such short time, how is this second discussion going to close with a different conclusion ? Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to nominator: 1) Please list which attacks have not been verified as being antisemitic. 2) The article is called incidents which happened during the conflict. Please indicate where OR has been included in the article. 3) Also please clarify which article this forks; which Wikipedia:not applies here, and where WP:SYN is exposed. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to Chesdovi 1) Maybe u didn't get my point, what I meant that the attackers didn't say we are attacking you only because you are Jewish, moreover, this was not verified by a verifiable/reliable scholars/researches and so on. 2) The sources used here are mainly newspapers and those newspapers are used here in a way that they are more like a primary sources not a secondary sources, I mean, those attacks might be attacks that are seemingly related to Antisemitic and Gaza conflict, did anyone bother himself to check whether or not this assumption is correct? 3) forking: Any article in wikipedia stating that Jewish are persecuted and are always targeted by brutal attacks only because they are Jewish. U can find more articles than me, I believe - NOT Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - SYN all over the article, the article is not more than bits and pieces of news concerning attacks on Jews, connecting them to an international event, and coming up with a conclusion that those are Anti-Semitic attacks. Yamanam (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer rebuttal #1: 1) These attacks have been vetted and certified by reliable organisations as being antisemitic attacks. 2) This article not only deals with attacks which have been linked to the conflict, but also highlights that the abnormal "surge" happened during this period. 3) You state that the article compromises WP:FORK, but I am not sure from your answer whether you actually know what WP:FORK means. 4) Please highlight the "original thought" here; "Soapbox"?; "crystal ball"?! - There is no speculation here of scheduled or expected future attacks; "indiscriminate collection of information"?; You will note that the main Gaza-Israel conflict" page is also largely based on "bits and pieces of news". There is no need for purposeful connection here. Global attacks have been acknowleged as being in response to the conflict and are therfore automatically connected. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)There is quite a good reason why the following artilce is named List of convicted war criminals not List of war criminals, because eventhough reputable organization has charged and convicted those people with war crimes, still we at wikipedia list them as being convicted not as being war criminals, same applies to your point, if the article's title is to be changed then I beleive the article might be accepted at wikipedia, but under the current title, I don't think so. 2) I am not sure what does this have to do with my answer. 3) WP:Forking, I do understand this policy and that is why I nominated this article to be deleted under this policy, since this policy requirements meet this article. 4) the "original thought" the title by it self is an original thought; "Soapbox": "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views"; "crystal ball": "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." At least the title of this article is an unverifiable speculation. And the article must be of sufficiently wide interest to merit an article; "indiscriminate collection of information" what we are mentioning here is merely statistics and news report, which is totaly not accepted. Mind you, "bits and pieces of news" that meet the above critiria are to be deleted and has no place at wikipedia, otherwise, they are welcome. Yamanam (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer rebuttal #2: Yamanam has failed to satisfy my questions fully and has also shown a shallow understanding of the polices he/she has used to nominate this page for deletion: The main problem I believe Yamanam has is that each and every attack needs to be verified as antisemitic according to his/her understanding of antisemitism, which I believe is divergent from mainstream understanding. WP:FORK is mentioned as a reason for delete, but there is no mention of which page this was forked off from; no mention of a case where contributors disagreed about the content of another page or why this article fails NPOV. Yamanam seems to think that any page discussing antisemitic phenomena are automatically POV Forks? I do quite follow this logic. OR is apparently the title which "suggests" that “antisemitic” incidents occurred. That these events did occur and that they were antisemitic in nature have been corroborated by various organisations and a plethora of international media. So I fail to see where exactly the OR is here. With regards to WP:SOAPBOX and the claim of propaganda: What is exactly being promoted here? That Jews are defenceless victims that need pity?! Who is being “recruited” and for what? The material here constitutes an objective article on the matter, nothing else. That WP:Crystal Ball is relevant here just evades me. These events have happened in the past and are verifiable. There is no speculation that these attacks indeed happened. What the speculation may be about is how closely they are linked to the conflict. The article mentions this point and it is not implied by the title. But this matter is not covered by WP:Crystal Ball. Is this "article of sufficiently wide interest to merit an article"? Why not take a look at the global reaction at governmental level to settle this query? This article provides more than mere statistical information and does not mirror a news report to me. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did fully satisfied your answers, but maybe u don't want to see that, and justified the using of each of the policies that were breached as a result of this article. The main problem I believe Chesdovi has is that he thinks all attacks against Jews are anti-semitic, even those Jewish who are punished for commiting crimes, their punishment would considered to Chesdovi as anti-semitic. This page is a forking of more than one article it is a forking of the idea that Jewish are always persecuted ONLY because they are Jewish - And no, not all anti-semitic articles are a fork, but articles like this one ARE forking. The OR is all over the article that I can't even NOT see it even if I wanted to, man an artilce that is titled Anti-semitic during a conflict period IS OR by itself bearing in mind that there are no academic studies that shows what are u refering to in the article, only "bits and peaces of news" published in newspapers - and leave aside the organization, well I showed u an example list of convicted war criminals not list of war criminals, this shows exactly what i mean, again, if the title to be changed (along with some paragraphs in the article) then I think the article might have place at wikipedia. Soapbox your answer here doesn't satisfy me comment/response. CrystalBall, concluding that those attacks are anti-semitc and are related to gaza conflict is speculation, and u agree on that. and once again, this artilce is more like statistics and news reports and concluding on those reports as being anti-semtitc and in relation to an international event! Yamanam (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Yamanam, you did NOT fully satisfy my questions! All you did was provide expansion on those policies you mentioned earlier. But you DID NOT connect them to any part of the article. All you DID do was mention twice that there is a problem with the title!!!! What is going on here? You should also know from my previous comment on AFD1 that I do not think that Jews who are punished for crimes are in fact anti-semitic actions! (It would not be anti-semitic for an ill-treated worker to punch his boss, who happened to be Jewish.) Your take on what exactly FORKING is baffles me; I really think you do not understand what FORKING is. You have to be much more specific with the claim of OR. Please stop mentioning the "title" all the time! That can be fixed if need be. Not every article needs to be based on academic papers. Whether or not any of these attacks have been proven in a court of law is not vital here. The article states "number of reported attacks". SOAPBOX: My answer doesn't satisfy your "comment"? Tell me what your comment was. You just pasted what is written under that policy as an answer to me?! CRYSTALBALL: I concede that your novice standard of English may be having an impact here. So let me tell you that the word "speculation" can also mean guessing the reason for something that has already happened. It is in this form that you are using it, therefore CRYSTALBALL does not apply here, because the speculation in the WP policy applies to guessing what may happen in the future. Chesdovi (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable objective independent sources whihc establish these as antisemitic, as opposed to, for example, righteous anger against illegal occupation of sovereign territory of another nation. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep because of these sources : Philippe Naughton, "Gaza conflict fuels anti-Semitic attacks across Europe", Times Online 06-01-2009 ; French Jews uneasy after spate of violent attacks: Concerns raised about resurgence of anti-Semitism after dozens of incidents sparked by Gaza offensive, Reuters (cited in the Toronto Star 12-02-2009) ; Human Rights First Condemns Antisemitic Backlash Attacks in Europe, humanrightsfirst.org 23-01-2009 ; Jewish Agency: Anti-Semitic acts in Jan. 2009 triple last year's records, Haaretz 25-01-2009 ; Worldwide Anti-Semitism At Alarming High, Post-Gaza, The Jewish Week, 28-01-2009. Ceedjee (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what, wikipedia is not news report nor statistics report it is not about the sources, it is about how they are used and what do they present and how all of that is reflected at wikipedia. Yamanam (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; who's to define the attacks as "antisemetic"? violates WP:NOR --Mhking (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[some] "Incidents" (not "the attacks", see title) are defined as antisemitic and linked to the Gaza bombings in the 5 sources given just here above. Ceedjee (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this is going to be sorted out in one AfD, but it raises something quite important.

It takes an article on a racially-sensitive issue to highlight the problems of synthesis. Whereas there are at least a couple of other open AfDs where the problem is exactly the same. In short, a review of a subject is synthesis. A presentation of literature and sources about a notable topic, specifically about a topic that notably exists, is encyclopedic treatment.

It comes down to the selection of the scope of the topic.

Questions -

1. Is the topic notable? That is, can reliable, independent 3rd party sources treating this as a topic be found?

1a. Is a source from a Jewish news agency reliable and independent? Is The Times? Reuters?

2. Is it relevant that the attacks happened during a conflict? How do we know? (see Q1)

3. Should we ever be inferring what a notable topic is? That is, should we be making history, rather than documenting the history that Reliable Sources have already made?

4. Insofar as they draw inferences, are the news agencies Reliable Sources of knowledge? Or only of facts? (See Q1)

Synthesis of new topics into new topics as new topics is (selectively) making history. It's something that should be addressed by Wikipedia as a whole, if it aspires to representing human knowledge rather than writing it.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put the above in context, I suggest considering the difference between the article and one called "media coverage of attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions during the.. conflict" - Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current sources of the article are not primary sources but secondary sources. In the current case, the primary sources are the acts themselves (and gathering them without reasons would be WP:OR) but here there are numerous newspaper articles treating the subject and these are secondary sources : the different acts have been analysed by journalist as meaning something and they linked this with antisemitism and the Gaza events.

That is exactly the same for the source of the article 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. All sources are from newspaper. Not history book are academic book has not yet be written about that but it is not WP:OR to deal with that topic.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Is original research, and is WP:SYN LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Reading further into the guidelines, it is in fact covered by WP:NOR -

"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims" - Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - and also as per Guy re WP:V, and the nom re forking (I can see a good faith reason to fork the article: misguided enthusiasm for completeness).

-Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic of the article ("Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict") has been widely reported in newspaper, not as isolated incidents but as a wave of attacks on Jewish citzens (for example, the Times with the title "Gaza conflict fuels anti-Semitic attacks across Europe"). Furthermore, as the section government reactions show, this has been acknowledged at least by several governments in their response. So this is a valid topic for an article, given the press coverage and the response of individual governments. Furthermore, given that most of the attacks mentioned in the article are directed against Jews and not against Israelis, the label Antisemitism is fair. In any case, most of the incidents have a soucre, and most of the source I checked clearly mentioned first a connection with similar attacks in other countries, a connection with the Gaza conflict and the antisemitic nature of these attacks. Delete all incidents where the sourcing is not good enough or where the line between antisemitism and protest against the state of Israel is not clear, but that is not a reason to delete the whole article. Afroghost (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the second time Yamanam has nominated this article for deletion. I have a hard time assuming good faith here, especially has he or she did not even bother to mention this quite important fact in the nomination. Afds are not supposed to be repeated every few weeks, in the hope that one day the deletion nomination will be successfull. Afroghost (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afroghost, as a matter of fact I mentioned that this is the 2nd nomination, u can easily note that by reading the pagetitle. Of course I am not aiming to keep nominating this article for deletion, but the thing is, I made some mistakes when I first nominated this article fro deletion, and when it was deleted (as per policies) the decision was reverted and the article came back, not because it is an encycopediac article rather because I didn't pinpoint the right reasons for this article to be deleted. Yamanam (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, page titles are automatically generated by the wikimedia software and you did not mention the quite important fact that this your second deletion nomination within a few days. And again, Afd's are not supposed to be repeated until you have the desired result, and your last sentence makes it clear that you do not understand this principle. Afroghost (talk) 13

23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So this is a valid topic for an article, given the press coverage

Well, no. See the NOR section I quoted. Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between primary and secondary sources. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. There are several press articles cited in the article that do not report on an individual attack, but that report that there is a string of anti-semitic attacks in different countries. Just go the external link section, and you will find more articles of this kind at google news. There you have your secondary sources. Afroghost (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ddawkins73. The sources of this articles are secondary sources. The sources are not the facts themselves, gathered by a wp editor but the sources are the articles written by journalists. And it is their analysis to link some acts, antisemitism and Gaza bombing.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were titled "Attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions". That is not the same as "Anti-Semitism". So the primary sources for that are the press articles. But that's a subtle point about scope and sources that can be over-examined. For, simply, newspapers are not reliable sources of knowledge. Their analysis is just that, yes. Interpretation. And so must be attributed. And cannot be chosen selectively. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article just reflects what is written in the sources provided.

If #1 - one newspaper could be considered not to be a wp:rs secondary source, the fact several of them reports the same idea, while no other claims the contrary and while there is opposition is more than enough. More, they are fully wp:rs. If you start claiming these are pov-ed, you can start deleting many information from wikipedia : Times, Reuters, Toronto Star, humanrightsfirst.org, Haaretz and The Jewish Week.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: basically i would support the deletion proposal. beside the points yamanam has raised, there are some other problems with the article: several sources are not reliable; the tendency to create highly specialized (spin off) articles is questionable; as well as the try to reinforce the victimhood of a certain group. but: if we would delete the article, most of it's content would simply return to the "reactions to the gaza conflict" article (and would constantly be expanded then).--Severino (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is original research and is propagandist.--Theosony (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of these sources are ridiculous. Is there any proof that some of these attacts are anti-semitic? I mean, they could be the day-to-day anti-whatever attacks that happen worldwide globally. Most of this is media spin!--Theosony (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not wp:or. This is the analysis of the authors of these articles., as reported in the lede of the article :

Philippe Naughton, "Gaza conflict fuels anti-Semitic attacks across Europe", Times Online 06-01-2009 ;
French Jews uneasy after spate of violent attacks: Concerns raised about resurgence of anti-Semitism after dozens of incidents sparked by Gaza offensive, Reuters (cited in the Toronto Star 12-02-2009) ;
Human Rights First Condemns Antisemitic Backlash Attacks in Europe, humanrightsfirst.org 23-01-2009 ;
Jewish Agency: Anti-Semitic acts in Jan. 2009 triple last year's records, Haaretz 25-01-2009 ;
Worldwide Anti-Semitism At Alarming High, Post-Gaza, The Jewish Week, 28-01-2009.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point is also supported by the fact that governments of several countries and several ngo's issued statements condeming anti-semitic attacks on their Jewish citzen during the Gaza conflict. Btw, a cursory Google news search gives many more news article similar to ones cited above. Afroghost (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Week and Haaretz cannot be considered reliable in such a case due to their political inclinations. Time Online article is also an opinion piece. I don't want a silly Wikipedia article, I just want for this thing to be neutral. just because it is a newspaper or newspaper website does not mean it is notable.--Theosony (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haartez is a reliable source, most definately in this case. Why would their reporting not be? All their political stance means is that these incidents are reported with more detail. Note for instance how Haaretz reported today regarding the attack at Israelite Association of Venezuela: Report: Caracas synagogue attack was simple robbery, not anti-Semitism Chesdovi (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does appear to be a POV fork with some very bad synthesis but it can be cleaned up so according to policy that should happen rather than being deleted, there are multiple news articles about the subject. It's needs work on the neutrality. It's always going to be speculative at best to link certain incidents. Attribution of opinions is a must. --neon white talk 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge with 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, but preferably Keep due to its length. The claim that these take for granted that these are anti-Semitic attacks is patently ridiculous and offensively applies a double standard to Jews. Would Yamanam ask the Ku Klux Klan to verify that their lynchings were anti-black before labeling them as such? Secondly, the claim that connecting these attacks to the Gaza situation is OR is disingenuous since many (most?) of the sources themselves (and even the perpetrators in some cases) make the connection. --GHcool (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me GHcool! KKK used to attack black people only because they are black not for any other reason, but in this case, Jews are attacked because of the brutal attack israel (which is deemed to be the homeland for all of the Jewish of the world) was carrying out on civilians, Palestinians civilians. Those attackers were merely responding or expressing there feelings to such a brutal government, in a wrong way though. The question should be, if an attack was carried out against a black man during the beginning of the 20th century only because he is black then this should be attributed to anti-black attacks, BUT if the attack was because his brother stole food from the grocery then should this attack be attributed to anti-black attacks? I believe no, it shouldn't (taking into consideration that this is not a justification to attack this black man nor the Jews that were attacked).Yamanam (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not ridiculous at all. There's an ongoing war, so attacks certainly do not automatically imply racially/religiously-motivated abuse.

tbh, I wouldn't doubt personally that anti-semitism is a problem, or has risen in connection with the conflict, BUT: we cannot go ahead and assume it in the encyclopedia. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia being the primary word here.--Theosony (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have sources for these claims in the article. It is not wiki editors who makes these claims, but reputable newspapers. Furthermore, all the incidents mentioned in the article are attacks on Jews or Jewish installations, not attacks on Israelis or Israeli installations. That is why there all these incidents imply a racially/religiously-motivated abuse. Afroghost (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you have to remember that newspapers that can be reputable in some articles, such as Haaretz and Times Online, cannot be considered reputable in other articles. The Times Online source emailed to me was an opinion piece, and Haaretz is always inclined to governmental claims over universal claims. How can we say that these aren't highlighted day-to-day crimes by the media as opposed to crimes that have arisen from the Israel-Gaza conflict?

The Times article linked in the external link section is not an opinion piece, and so are not similar articles in other reputable newspapers such as the Independent or the Guardian. All these articles clearly indicate that their is a wave of attacks in connection with the Gaza conflict, so at least according to the sources we cannot say that these are just day-to-day attacks. Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Ddawkins73 contributions to this page to try to understand what I'm talking about. Media spin is not reputable when they milk on phenomenal events. Official documents actually prove a rise or surge in incidents. This article is simply unrealistic and does not support public view or fact.--Theosony (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't know Ha'aretz.

See here an article where they condemn Gaza war. Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We may add blaming the victim to Yamanam's laundry list of claims which must have arisen out of cognitive dissonance (I trust that Yamanam is too intelligent to really believe the claims he makes).

"The Jews were asking for it when their coreligionists thousands of miles away were engaging in a military operation that I disagreed with! Don't call me an anti-Semite. I could hardly be blamed for throwing a Molotov cocktail at a synagogue. I saw a Jewish institution and it made me think about how mad I am at the Jews ... er um ... I mean the Israelis. It was their fault, not mine!"

--GHcool (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a pretty straightforward article. Its subject is an important aspect of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and it is covered by countless reliable sources. Like many other aspects of that conflict, it is too large for the main article, and, like them, has been spun out according to WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. Some of the comments on the article's talk page and on the previous AfD, the speed with which the article was renominated for AfD, the generally low level of pro-deletion arguments here and on the previous AfD, as well as the stunning variety of different and sometimes contradictory reasons adduced by those who would delete it-- all these indicate that - without prejudice to any particular editor - we have a pattern of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on our hands. I will refute the pro-deletion arguments that have been raised, though this is a difficult job since most of them have not been developed enough to really understand.

WP:SYN and WP:OR: The argument that an entire article should be deleted because it violates these policies - "no need to even bother checking each statement vis-s-vis the sources, let's just dump the whole thing" - is usually reserved for badly sourced articles, articles where almost everything looks like it was invented by the editor. In this article on the other hand, every single statement is properly sourced, and usually worded as closely as possible to the wording of the source without constituting plagiarism. It is telling that those arguing for SYN and OR have not given a single example of a statement that is not made by the respective cited source.

Who says these incidents were antisemitic? Well, the cited reliable sources, for one. Most of the governments and NGOs who responded to them (quoted in the article), for another. But this argument lies on a misunderstanding of the word "antisemitic". For example, one participant seems to believe that if someone firebombed a synagogue because he was really justifiably angry at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, not because he wants all Jews to die, the attack was political, not antisemitic. But "antisemitic" simply means "anti-Jewish", so even if all Jews were somehow connected to Israel's actions, which they aren't, and even if that connection made them morally culpable, which it wouldn't, and even if attacking culpable people were always justified, which it isn't, attacking Jews because of Israel's actions would still be antisemitic, since it would be anti-Jewish. In any case, this is really a non-issue, since we could solve the problem by changing the name to "Attacks against Jews...". This was in fact the original name, but user:Cerejota changed it to "Antisemitic incidents..." citing arguments similar to the ones I just raised. It is also worth noting that, contrary to what was implied by a keep supporter above, this article does not contain any anti-Israeli incidents (of which there were many), only anti-Jewish incidents.

Who says these attacks were caused by the conflict? The article doesn't say that every single incident was necessarily caused by the conflict; what it does say is that the wave of incidents as a whole was caused by the conflict. The cited sources overwhelmingly assert this (some were brought up as examples above).

WP:CFORK Content fork or POV fork? If the nom truly believes this is a content fork, he could help us all out by naming the article that this article is a fork of, and then we could all go together to improve that article while deleting this one. Is it a POV fork? POV forks are "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines". No explanation was given as to how this article is not neutral. Also, WP:POVFORK says: " do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view". Which sources are given too much weight? Which are given too little? If someone really believes this is the case, let's work it out on the talk page.

WP:NOT I like this one the best. Did the nom read through WP:NOT and say: "hey, that antisemitism article is a violation of this! By golly, as a responsible editor I ought to go open an AfD for it"? If that was the case, care to tell us which section it violates? Do you believe this article is a game guide, a travel directory, perhaps a case study? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"every single statement is properly sourced" - Extensive use of one-sided sources unattributed and uncountered is not 'properly sourced'.

Just take the first line and the verb "acknowledged". Is that right, do you think? The kind of encompassing descriptive and balanced viewpoint that Wikipedia is aiming for?

"Antisemitic simply means Anti-Jewish". It wholly means Anti-Jewish. Anti Jewish culture,religion and practices. Anti-semitism is discrimination on the grounds of Jewishness. Therefore, linking the conflict and Anti-semitism is highly problematic. As the title stands, it should be a description of the use of the term, not an assumption of the term's validity in this context.

The article starts with the assumption and goes on. That's the OR. It treats sources that should be attributed as uncontentious authorities.

Lord knows I wouldn't know where to start cleaning it up, or I would.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive use of one-sided sources unattributed and uncountered is not "properly sourced. Which source is one-sided? Reuters? The New York Times? BBC? When the article quotes sources not considered RS's in themselves, it attributes the quotes to them and cites to a reliable source. If you think the article uses too broad a definition of antisemitism, why not propose renaming to "incidents against Jews..."? The one thing you said that I agree with is that you wouldn't know where to start cleaning it up. That part is true. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you read the discussions on this full page without pointing out particular statements and making a joke out of them ridiculously. The fact is, the points you are ridiculing are valid, and this whole issue IS down to media spin, and certain editors are milking it in their state of bias rather than being proper editors and remaining neutral!!!--Theosony (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Reuters headline is predictably responsible: "...concerns raised about antisemitism..."

That's proper attribution.

I already proposed renaming the article. Two ways, even. Doesn't make what's there worth keeping as an article. There's always cut n paste if people want source text. As to why they might want something which isn't even a good GCSE standard precis as source text- I haven't the faintest.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how selectively you cite. The headline is "Concerns raised about resurgence of anti-Semitism", and if there are any doubts, the first sentence in the article is "A spike in anti-Semitic attacks in France during Israel's Gaza offensive last month has left many Jews shaken even after warring parties agreed to an uneasy truce.". So clearly according to this source we have a wave of antisemitic incidents during the Gaza conflict. Afroghost (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't interesting.

But, yes, the article is more forthright, opening it.

Thinking about it, if someone daubs graffiti, that can well be anti-semitic.

But throwing stones, or an assault - that isn't necessarily anti-semitic. It's a subtle distinction, and I hope a wholly technical one purely about Wikipedia having no opinion at all, so attributing where necessary.

To be honest, I hadn't considered how some incidents would be verbal or written.

One thing is clear: I think the article needs to be written a lot more carefully.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove any attacks where no reliable sources link them with antisemitism. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with reliability of sources, please revisit the nomination reasons. Yamanam (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This has already been done. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources can be considered reliable in this case though? That is one of the most difficult matters.Read the last few comments previous, fingers crossed that should put my view across, I might have done it rather badly.--Theosony (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant that Israeli media (which is a small minority of the cited sources) is not reliable for this subject - it was already established in the main article that quality news sources, even Israeli and Arab ones, are reliable. This article cites some articles from Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, both of which are quality news sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I mean, Israeli and international media. You must be aware of the spin they are putting on every crime against someone who just happens to be Jewish. Most of these crimes, in my own understanding, are not anti-semitic, but day-to-day crimes that happen every single minute of every day. The media and victims of crime who are Jewish blame this on the anti-conflict public, but in fact it has just been blown up out of proportion. --Theosony (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the mainstream international media is unreliable regarding this topic, your problem is not with this article, but with Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

Ridiculous argument. You are saying that we should ignore all this reputable newspaper from different countries, and with different political orientations, because according to you it is just media spin. I'd rather go with reputable sources, than with your personal opinion. Please provide evidence for your outlandish statement. Afroghost (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please calm down. I am simply saying that no official sources have claimed this outside of the Israeli state. We must also remember that individuals are biased and that no PROOF has been provided within these sources. Please behave maturely in order to resolve this issue. I have made a valid comment, and your previous comment has contributed nothing but personal feelings. It is important that we leave personal emotion and/or opinion out of this and write out of neutrality.--Theosony (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again a ridiculous statement. So the government of Argentina, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom and Venezuela are not offical sources? Afroghost (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have not provided sources but replies to media. Please stop it with the bias and cool down so that we can deal with this issue swiftly. One problem I've had with Wikipedia is that some editors turn straight-forward issues into arguments when they needn't be.--Theosony (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOT#NEWS. We don't need to document every time someone says/does something mean about another race/ethnicity. -Atmoz (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" are given as examples of thigs that fall under NOTNEWS. This article deals with a significant phenomenon that received enormous coverage in the international media, drew responses from governments and NGOs worldwide, and literally affected the lives of millions of people. Do you disagree? If so, please state why. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. In 10 or 20 years, as someone looks back at 2008-2009, will they be interested in an an article about antisemitism in 2008-9?—maybe. Will they be interested in an article on the Israel-Gaza conflict—maybe. Will they be interested in antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict?—I don't think so. There have have been antisemitic acts for probably as long as there have been Jews. IMO, it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to document specific acts of antisemitism, as seen in this article. -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, do you disagree with the statement that the article's subject was a significant phenomenon that received enormous coverage in the international media, drew responses from governments and NGOs worldwide, and literally affected the lives of millions of people? Re your comment, notability isn't a function of interest, otherwise Pokemon cruft would be more notable than Tiglath-Pileser IV. But as long as we're crystal-balling, I do think that in the future, books and academic papers written about this conflict will include the anti-Jewish backlash aspect. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's topic is not significant in an historical context. -Atmoz (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you don't disagree then. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. If this happened, the size of Wikipedia would have doubled, and then some more.--Theosony (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia growing is generally considered a good thing. You may want to see WP:NOTPAPER. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are purposely missing my point. I really don't want this to turn sour or immature the way you are turning it, please read my additions to this page so that is can be dealt with maturely and democratically.--Theosony (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your conspiracy theories about media spin are not exactly mature. Afroghost (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media spin is a fact. Within these articles there are no approved figures and no officially approved evidence. Your bias is not mature, so please, please, try to be neutral. It is important to this article that you remain so. I have no political feelings towards you, so please do not attack me imaturely over a straight-forward issue.--Theosony (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no conspiracy theory. I hardly think The Jewish Chronicle or even The Times claim to be neutral.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that there is not only the Jewish Chronicle and the conservative London Times, but many other newspaper such as the Independent, the Guardian, the New York Times reporting on the surge of anti-semitic attacks. So far absolutely no evidence has been provided that these sources are not reliable, apart from the conspiracy theory that all this newspapers spin their stories (at the same time and with the same results). Afroghost (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Google search Media hype and get some information for yourself. Your bias does not help matters but worsen them. At your age, is it not appropriate to be mature rather than purposely argumentative??--Theosony (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously keep and speedy close. There was no consensus at the afd that ended a week ago so starting another one now is pointless and will result in the same lack of consensus. As for the substantive issue, there's no POV fork - this article is way too big to be merged into anything and nominator doesn't even say where this was forked from. Wikipedia:not includes a huge number of policy rules. It would be prudent on the nominator to point out the specific policy in Wikipedia:not this article violates. WP:SYNTH is inapplicable when this article just repeats exactly what is said in reliable sources. Furthermore, any OR problems should be resolved at the article talkpage, not at Afd. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fist up, AfD is not a vote count, it is rather a discussion - The size of the article has nothing to do with it being a forking POV. I did above pinpoint the policies related her. Well, WP:SYNTH is exactly what u said: "repeats exactly what is said in reliable sources" but of course under certain conditions of repeating the sources the artilce would be in violation with WP:SYNTH which this article did, u can review my above responses to Chesdovi. I think that we can nominate an artilce if it all depended on OR. Yamanam (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Worldwide protests and rather violent attitudes being forced on worldly Jews as a result of this conflict is an interesting phenomenon. We can all agree that it isn't the best article and definitely needs a review, but deleting is not the wises solution IMO. We can improve the article easily with collaboration and understanding but obsessing with deletion will only hinder progress. As Brew said, we should all be at talk instead of arguing here. If and when it gets to a point where there is no way in hell this article is going to improve in the slightest, and roadblocks/stonewalling/bandwagoning breeds, then an afd would seem reasonable under those conditions. In regards to the afd, a comment such as: "No, not at all. I mean, Israeli and international media. You must be aware of the spin they are putting on every crime against someone who just happens to be Jewish." is clear evidence for what the real problem is. This has nothing to do with actual quality and everything to do with promoting a sympathetic perspective of Jews. It's this kind of mentality that needs to be weeded out before afds are initiated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to confuse objectivity with personal opinion. You've certainly conflated some comments out of context into one thing no-one said. I'm actually not sure what the "real problem" is, as I'm not sure what has everything to do with promoting a sympathetic perspective of Jews. Certainly not Wikipedia. Nor an unsympathetic perspective. Or any perspective.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amateur strawman Richard. ; ) I quoted the comment in its exact form, not paragraph. If something is out of context, feel free to point out the truth. The point I made was that anything that remotely cast a white light on Jews is automatically a fork, opinion, violation, blah blah blah. Lest we forget, the article is sufficiently sourced, carries a notable theme that has been repeated throughout world media and directly relates to one of the most widely publicized wars of this year. Also, the rule-throwing above clearly does not apply, as proven by several users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought you were conflating two things I said. I missed that comment you quoted originally. ugh. I disassociate myself from it.

Not trying to make a false argument, as all I care about is making sure the articles are balanced and considered. I was irritated by comments of another user implying I was "conveniently forgetting" something, and took yours in that context: thought that you were implying that my opinion was that anti-semitism doesn't exist. It certainly isn't. Whether I think an encyclopedia should declare the attacks as anti-semitic, without attribution, even if the papers did - that's another matter.

btw- I'm not Richard Dawkins. That's a coincidence :) - Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah I know, just a joke. Wikipedia can be too serious sometimes. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of the claims for deleting this article were established. The subject is big enough to deserve its own article, hence forking is irrelevant here; so is WP:NOT, no section in this policy was pointed out as being violated by this article; the article is well referenced by reliable sources therefore WP:SYNTH is not applicable either. The short time this article is again in AfD after extensive discussions in a previous AfD and a deletion review, raises concerns regarding the good faith in bringing it up again for deletion. Noon (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come forking and NOT are irrelevant, I can't see that! I did point out several points u can review them up. Yamanam (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was no consensus at the last AfD a week ago to delete (per what Brewcrewer said above). The article is well sourced and I don't see how it goes against WP:NOT. Epson291 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has nothing to do with an article to be well sourced. Yamanam (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you claim it's because it's in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NOR but that is hardly the case. Epson291 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could u please explain more, how are my "claims" are not the case? Yamanam (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep there is ample evidence in the main stream press including instances where perpetrators have explicitly stated their attack is due to Gaza. This is issue was news worth and topical and efforts to raise the bar seem based mostly on "I don't like it" or article quality issues which can be fixed. There is a significant interest in this topic in the research community, it will just take 6 to 18 months before academic sources and report appear. To delete now when media evidence exists and scholarly evidence has not had time to form seems very wrong. Specially given the much lower standards in other similar areas. Oboler (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't confirm that the attacks were anti-semitic, and not all news worth is accepted here (maybe this is the main problem). I think it is better to wait until the academic sources, we are not here to speculate. Yamanam (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Widely reported phenomenon in reliable secondary sources. Calling it "antisemitism" is merely calling a spade a spade. If these attacks were on Israeli embassies or Israelis only, then they could be considered "anti-Israel." If a similar backlash was widely reported on any other ethnicity, race, or religious group, one would expect it would be widely reported. If Arabs or Muslims the world over were being attacked and feeling a backlash reportedly due to this conflict, we would not bury it, but put it forward as relevant information. Later editors can discuss name changing and improvements. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We just had this. It was no consensus. Please, folks. IronDuke 05:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close/strong keep. - Speedy keep and close because this has just been restored after DRV - this is a misuse of process (sorry to the nom, but use common sense) - regardless of the value of the arguments regarding OR. The nom has not written in the article's talk page, nor has made any effort to fix the article - deletion is not a way to fix OR, discussion and sourcing is the way to fix OR. At the very least, we should allow some time to pass between AfDs. That said, since I doubt admins will hear that, I am for strong keep:

Essentially this article is a WP:SUMMARY of the oversized International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article, and its not OR for several reasons:

Point one of the nom - Attacks on Jews as Jews are by definition "antisemitic". If you kill yourself, its a "suicide". It is not OR to use a word in the english language to call things. What might be OR is "attack", as it is a more ambigous word, that means different things. In which case we defer to what the RS say, and call it "incidents" as a bland, NPOV/WTA descriptor.
Point two of the nom - Nom obviously didn't read the sources. In the article there are clearly reliable secondary sources making the connection. It is trivial to find secondary sources who directly mention a phenomenon of an increase of antisemitic attacks during this war, as compared to the same period this year - this establishes notability and lack of OR. Some of these sources are not in the article: AP YNET NYT on attacks in Venezuela. There is clear coverage in secondary sources of both antisemitic attacks, and the distinction that they are connected to the events in Gaza.
There are indeed some borderline OR things in the article, but these are to be fixed by editing, not deletion of the article. They are being actively discussed - and there has been material removed from the article for this reason.
There is a real danger of WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK, and this article could become that if one is not watchful. So far the editing experience has been positive as a remark, and clear limits place on the topic (ie reliable sources identifying attacks as antisemitic, judicious use of primary sources only to elaborate the thesis put forth by secondary sources). For some reason, this article has been a somewhat of joy to edit, for an WP:ARBPIA article, its probably the rarest experience.
In general, merging is prefered to deletion when the reason is OR, except the natural place to merge this information into already has serious WP:SIZE issues. Since the topic is notable and must be covered, this only leave us either with needing this article, or continue to have a huge article. Take your pick as to which alternative furthers encyclopedic value.

In the previous AfD I went with merge, but a good faith effort was made to improve this article and address the community concerns. It started as bad article, and has improved to the point it can be considered start or even C/B class. I strongly urge those who argued delete to examine the article on its merits, as it stands, and realize that both arguments of the nominator are patently false.--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacks on Jews as Jews are by definition "antisemitic"". This is a subject of debate, and there are plenty (like myself) who are of the opinion that only racially or religiously motivated incidents should be included in the definition. A politically motivated attack on a Jew is no more antisemitic than, say, a British soldier being attacked in Afghanistan is anti-European. JulesH (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I said "Jews as Jews". Obviously if you attack a political opponent who happens to be Jewish things are different. However this has a strawmanish flavor in this context, as the article we are discussing clearly doesn't cover attack on Jews for reasons other than being Jews, and content like that has been actively removed.--Cerejota (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really mean that JulesH? I would call it a politically motivated antisemitic attack, for they are not directed against Israeli citizens. My question to you is have any british people in the UK been attacked because of the conflict in Afganistan? The article does not mention any attacks against Jews in Israel that have occured as a result of the conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brewcrewer. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brewcrewer and Jalapenos. I'll add that most of the sources I checked explicitly connect the incidents to the particular conflict, so I don't see a WP:SYNTH problem. I would not object to renaming it from "Antisemitic" to "Anti-Jewish", but that's an argument for WP:RM, not AFD. -- Nudve (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's too soon to have an article on this topic; news stories are not a suitable source for determining whether or not any of the incidents were antisemitic (i.e., racially or religiously motivated) or purely political (i.e., reprisals against actions taken by the state of Israel), and until there are academic texts on this subject we cannot really discuss it neutrally. Newspapers are often too quick to jump to judgments about the motivations behind an incident, and are frequently wrong. So lets wait for them to appear. JulesH (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true but that is the case for absolutely any topic related to a recent event. Concerning the distinction between a purely political goal and antisemitism, it depends on the definition we give to antisemitism. I understand your point and you consider that violence against Jewish people as individuals when motivated by Israeli actions is not antisemitism because potically motivated. If there is a consensus around that, the article could be moved to anti-Jewish etc. But, if I can understand your reasonning, I disagree. For me, attacking Jews, even if motivated by Israeli actions, is New antisemitism, the one due to the amalgame of Jews and Israel. But whatever, there are your and my opinions. Between you, I, wikipedia editors and journalists, wikipedia principles tell us to report the most wp:rs analysis ie, here : journalists's mind. If you disagree with them, the only solution is to find other journalists to claim the contrary. I must admit I didn't look for these. Ceedjee (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is to the point, and fulfills all the requirements of WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Also kindly note: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. IZAK (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, antisemitic incidents are notable in and of themselves, and if there is any connection between those and other events, this should be covered. --Leifern (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article fulfills WP:RS & WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I would also have to say it probably falls under WP:CSB as well. --Nsaum75 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Document significant and notable condemnation pronto I mean Muslim Council, letters to the Guardian etc. This is one of the major problems. Due weight. Remove weasel words like acknowledge. Attribute

If I attack a wum because it's also a vug, am I anti-wum?

That's not straightforward - nor the implications as per RS - and is a major cause of debate here, imo, but too subtle to deal with here or maybe anywhere at Wikipedia. If a word is used to describe a crime perhaps we must report the word as the crime and a fact (As in "mugging" and Britain 1970s->). Removed my delete. Can't say Keep, pretty much as all deletes above. Too soon. WP:V issues. Anyhow, realistically, let's just sort the article out so it's not a stupid parody anymore.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Antisemitism is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews. Period. If that definition is disputed, we should still document the incidents targeted at Jews worldwide during the said conflict but change the article's name. It is not OR since all incidents are sourced. Also, please do not renominate articles for deletion so shortly after a previous AfD failed or was reverted. -- Nahum (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand from your definition that Palestinians who used to fight back israeli forces during the last conflict were in fact carrying out antisemitic attacks! For God's sake! Yamanam (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nahum, if people wanted to find out what antisemitism was they'd look up the article on that. Secondly, if there was a page that documented the rise of violence towards Northern Irish unionists during British offensives over the past few centuries, the page would be deleted. This is no different. You are clearly bias and comparing Palestinian-sympathisers to Antisemitic animals. Please take a good, mature look at the issue for God's sake!--Theosony (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yam - Show me one incident in the article which happened in Israel? If you lump all Jews and Israelis together, which you do, then any attack against a Jew, be it motivated by the Jew country Israel or not, is defined as anti-semitic. Chesdovi (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Please, I don't go with Yam, either Yaman or Yamanam you choose. So, if I was in Germany and I saw a woman that was about to be raped by a raper, then before attacking the him I should double check his religion, becuase if he was a Jewish, then I better don't or it would be anti-semitic, for god's sake! The point is, not all attacks against Jewish are anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae read the article before making such silly comparisons. Incidents in the article reported were mostly vandalism at Jewish places, often with slogans that clearly showed the antisemitic nature of these attacks. Nowhere does the article talk about robberies, rapes or other common crime attacks on people who just happened to be Jews. Afroghost (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afroghost, from where I come from and according to my culture and background to tell someone "silly comparisons" or "silly anything" is disrespectful. Anyways, I didn't say the article talk about robberies, rapes, or other common crime... I meant to tell u that there are some attacks on Jews that shouldn't be classified as anti-semitic, simply becasue the motive is not because the attacked is Jew. I have been repeating this idea all through this discussion for over than 10 times ;-) Yamanam (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Yaman! I am afraid I am going to have to repeat what I wrote to you on the last AFD:

They are targeting Jews because of the conflict and because they are Jewish. They are targeting Jews because they believe all Jews are supportive of Israel and back its actions. All Jews therefore advocate the massacre of civilians. All Jews are greedy too. And because the massacre of civilians is evil, just as greed and arrogance is evil, all Jews are understandably attacked. It is not a gratuitous hate. There is always a perceived reason behind the anti-semitic prejudice, a motive for the attacks. It is not just because they were born Jewish, but because what Jews are associated with. It would not be anti-semitic for an ill-treated worker to punch his boss, who happened to be Jewish. But for him to punch another random Jew in the street as revenge against his boss, would be. “But I wasn’t punching him because he was Jewish”, he retorts. “It was because of the ill-treatment of my Jewish boss; and as all Jews share the same ethnicity, all must support the ill-treatment of workers. My assault therefore, cannot be classed anti-semitic.” Now did this worker ask the random Jew whether he supports ill treatment of workers before he punched him? No. He just perceived these two Jews were one and the same and both equally deserving of his retribution. Did any of the current anti-semitic attackers ask their victims whether they supported the Israeli action before they carried out their attack? Did the pakistani terrorist in Mumbai ask Leibish Teitelbaum whether he was an anti-Zionist before he shot him? No. They just attacked them because they were Jewish and because what those people associate all Jews with. These recent global attacks carried out against random Jews are indeed anti-semitic precisely because the attackers are perceiving all Jews to be collectively supportive and therefore culpable for, in this case, Israeli actions. Attacks against the Israeli embassy would not be called anti-semitic. Attacks against pro-Israel supporters would not be anti-semitic. The attack at the BICOM office is not classed anti-semitic. Attacks against random synagogues and random Jews are.

For me I still see the motive is the key factor, if the motive "because he is Jewish" then it is anti-semitic, if the motive "becuase israel (deemed to be his homeland) is brutal" this is not anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict was a reason for antisemites to express their hatred of Jews. How many churchs in the UK were defaced at the height of the Iraq or Afgan war? Britain is christian country - why weren't christians attacked? Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone with half a brain attack a church as a result of UK acts? is the UK the homeland for christians? NO, but israel is the homeland for Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the Jewish are the only ones who have a "homeland"? According to you, any attacks in the wake of Sept 11 are not Islamophobic attacks. They are just a protest against brutal terrorism carried out by muslims. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this point is relevant? If you think it is relevant please rephrase! Yamanam (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that just as attacks against Muslims because of anger of Muslim terrorism are labelled Islamophobic, so too are attacks against Jews labelled antisemitic, even though they were motivated by the brutal actions of other Jews. Why would anyone with half a brain attack a synagogue as a result of Israeli actions? Chesdovi (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting the surge of anti-semitic attacks in the UK during the Gaza conflict, it will be interesting to know whether any of the 150,000 British Sinhalese people have been attacked by any of the 120,000 British Sri Lankan Tamil people or their Hindus supporters anywhere in the UK in response to the Sri-Lankan’s armys “brutal attack” of Mullaitivu. 50,000 demonstrated against it today in London.) I don't believe there were any attacks against British Sinhalese. Explain this to me? Chesdovi (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point, will there might be dozens of answers for your question, for me, maybe the reason that Arab-israeli/Jewish conflict's been on the international arena for more than 70-80 years and the Sri Lankan Civil War started only before 25 years... Another reason might be that israel is accused to be a terrorist state (attacking Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt), even the basis that israel was found on is still a big controversial issue in the world... maybe another reason is how israel is blackmailing Europe for the holocuast and on the other hand is committing a holocause to the civilian Palestinians.... btw Chesdovi, imagine me creating an article for the reasons why British Sri Lankan Tamil people didn't attack Sinhalese people! this is exactly what's been done for our article... I mean all the reason I mentioned in this repsonse are correct, but how come I can conclude that they are the real reason! Yamanam (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"[Israel] is committing a holocause to the civilian Palestinians". Thank you. We now know where you stand on the subject of antisemitism. As you have revealled your extreme POV in this matter, I no longer think this was a good faith nomination. I am loath to keep on answering you as long as you do not retract that antisemitic statement. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is adequately sourced and cannot be called OR. --Redaktor (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is meticulously sourced. Why someone thinks it should be deleted is beyond me. Wikipedia has zillions of crappy articles about non-subjects that deserve to be deleted but this is not one of them. Having said that, I am not happy with the title.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Gilabrand and ditto his comment re: the title. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nom (and some of the other editors expressing delete opinions) seem to believe that "righteous anger" against Jews as an ethnic group is justified on the basis of a particular Israeli military operation. Putting aside for a moment any merits or problems there may be to this argument, such a discussion is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Consistent with WP:NPOV, all we are supposed to do here is document phenomena that occur in the world, offering no opinion on what that information means.

Consequently, the original AfD and this AfD seem to revolve around particular individuals wanting to expunge material from Wikipedia that they deem objectionable because they think that the "Antisemitic" behavior is an acceptable reaction, not because of the writing quality, citations or any real reason to delete. I would remind them that Wikipedia is not censored and that they should not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or game the system in order to enforce their point-of-view on the community.

I would likewise remind all parties that this discussion is about the article's merits and whether or not it is consistent with Wikipedia policy. If you are unable to be fair and objective because you have a strong point of view about the conflict, you should not be participating in this AfD. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article's merits are very limited. Look at the amount of sources such as The Jewish Chronicle and its sensationalist headlines being considered valid. It is important that these remarks are noted as sensationalist and that it is pointed out that the numbers aren't as great as some editors would like to believe. Any attack on a Jewish person, or any person, is wrong - there is no justification, but to call them ALL anti-semitic is ridiculous!! And that is precisely what is being done!--Theosony (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your comment is also hypocritical in that you have strong bias towards one community, whether you want a two-state solution or not!--Theosony (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that there are some sources being cited that are bad, be bold and remove them and request additional verification. A lot (most?) of the citations are from sources (e.g. BBC, Reuters, The Times, etc.) that are generally regarded as good. I'd also like to note that your comment that I am "hypocritical" is an ad hominem and therefore fallacious. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theosony: "but to call them ALL anti-semitic is ridiculous!!" Are you not aware that the figures are taken from the CST and other organisations which vet each attack to know whether it was antisemitic? These figures can be relied upon and are not "sensationalist" claims. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article has merit, is not OR and just passed an AFD last week. My nom is as per cerejota and Izak. This topic is certainly notable in itself, and is certainly worthy of being among the many spinoffs of the main article. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concern that the anti-semitism is speculative can be resolved through proper sourcing. An important article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If it fits in with policies (and it seems to) then it should be kept. I'm not sure if I even understand which piece of Wikipedia policy would give a reason for this article to be deleted. There is so much cited material (in accordance with WP:CITE there are over 80 refereneces) which documents a real subject!. If there are problems with the article, then it needs work, not deletion. --yonkeltron (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sloppily-constructed, originally-researched content fork. Lumping together disparate elements into a grand unified theory of antisemitism also runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, perhaps the greatest transgression here of all. Most of the Keep votes amount to WP:ILIKEIT and "it is reliably sourced so it must be kept!", which completely misses the point of violating the aforementioned three policies. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except in this case the "grand unified theory of antisemitism" is fully from ultra-reliable sources: AP, The Times, NYT, etc. If the sources say it, we must cover it. Simple, really. --Cerejota (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit intellectually dishonest to suggest that a source's headline warrants an article's existence. We report the facts about opinions here; not the opinions as fact. This should have ever evolved into a stand-alone article. Simple, really. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article from which this is a WP:SUMMARY has serious WP:SIZE issues... WP:SUMMARY is a legitimate way to handle WP:SIZE issues. That said, the RS are not using headlines - you obviously haven't read them - but actually describing the phenomenon. You have made it much more complicated than it is, really.--Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you have over-simplified it. And yes, I have read them, so please, keep your snide comments to yourself. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt doesn't seem to be a common practice to list incidents of backlash. For example, there is no 9/11-related Anti-Muslim incidents list. BTW the article has a strange title. The use of during suggests that these attacks occurred in the duration of the 'conflict' rather than as a result of it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not such list, but this is not because it is not worthy of coverage Aftermath_of_the_September_11_attacks#Backlash_and_hate_crimes. Perhaps a similary well-sourced exploration of the topic is needed Hate crimes after the September 11 attacks or some such. This quid pro quo is not an argument for deletion, WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to karihazzard. It is not a tit for tat thing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember not to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Yes, there is no dedicated article to Anti-Muslim happenings after 9/11. It's a topic that's probably useful to cover, so go write one. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as that do not have a place here, please assume good faith. Remember this is not a vote, it is a discussion so even if people here overwhelmingly voted delete, the article can still be kept based on the points made in the discussion. I will reiterate my point for you, listing of backlash incidents is not common Wikipedia practice. I pointed out the example of the anti-Muslim backlash linked to 9/11 because it was of greater severity, duration, and notability and it is a recent occurrence that I am more familiar with. But we all know violent backlash against those who are simply associated with the belligerents by race, religion, nationality, etc. has occurred from the beginning of civilization. Do we have compilation of incidents in all/most/some of those cases? Another example would be incidents of anti-German and anti-Italian backlash in the U.S. during World War II, as you will notice there are no lists. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do assume good faith. Assuming good faith does not mean I have to agree with other opinions, though. We have articles (note: plural) on the Anti-Japanese backlash during and after World War II at Japanese American internment and Japanese Canadian internment, an an article about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Why is it OK to have articles about Japanese people or Germans who were the victims of ethnic backlash related to a war but no OK to have articles about the Jews? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The examples that you presented of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing and internment of ethnic groups are not comparable. Furthermore, as you will notice antisemitic-related articles are abundant on Wikipedia so needless to say it is always been "OK to have articles about the Jews." If this article was written in the same format as the examples you provided, then it be too short and would need to be merged into international reactions. The listing of all the reported antisemitic incidents occurring during the conflict is just bulk, a way to justify the need for a separate article. It doesn't work like that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be taking on the role of anti-discrimination organizations with these lists of incidents. For example, why write a list of anti-Muslim incidents after 9/11 here at Wikipedia when organizations like the ADC and CAIR have 50+ page reports. The ADL has a list of antisemitic attacks during the offensive on Gaza

BTW when you say to an editor to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point because they simply disagree with you, then that is not assuming good faith. Also this: "AfD seem to revolve around particular individuals wanting to expunge material from Wikipedia that they deem objectionable because they think that the "Antisemitic" behavior is an acceptable reaction"[15] is inflammatory and not assuming good faith.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Karimarie, but please note that Japanese American internment, Japanese Canadian internment, and Expulsion of Germans after World War II were acts that carried out by governments and those governemtns declared and authorized the internment, while the attacks of this artilce was done through individuals and no one declared the attacks nor authorized them. Another point, a quick glance at the resources in those article shows u that secondary sources are heavily used there, while in this article only primary sources are used. There is quite a big difference between an organized ethnic cleansing of a certain region and conducting several unrelated attacks by individuals. Yamanam (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nom and delete arguments fail to demonstrate how article is violation of Wikipedia:forking, Wikipedia:not, and WP:SYN. There are 83 sources cited, very specifically addressing the topic of this article. --MPerel 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brewcrewer. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. All the news-report sourcing in the world doesn't obscure that fact that the very premise is original research, and the piling-on is undue weight that inflates its importance. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep article cites several references which specifically identify antisemitic incidents and link them to the gaza situation, and begins by citing "a rise in antisemitic incidents has been reported throughout the worldwide press" (giving citations for worldwide press articles which do indeed report such, linking them to the gaza incursions); how in hell can these possibly be called original research? other references are prima facie; shouting "Jews out" is ipso facto antisemtic, and doing so while at a rally protesting the gaza incursion cannot not be seen as linked to the gaza incursion, can it? Gzuckier (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 84 references are convincing, almost every sentence is referenced. Squash Racket (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think WP:SYNTH is a concern here; gathering multiple sources and sourcing each fact to one of those sources is not original research, but research. SYNTH is when a statement is made which is not by supported by any of the sources, but rather relies on a bridge between sources. All of the sources relate to the article's topic, and none of the sources fail verifiability. The most weighty concern against the article relates to NOTNEWS, but if the issue is global, and lasting over time, it has risen above a mere news story and become an encyclopedic notable topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretly, most of those voting for this article to be kept are missing the point; this article was nominated to be deleted not for lack of resources, rather becuase of the use of those resources was a primary resource use, in addition, wikipedia is no the suitable place for such articles no matter how many resources are there. Please reread the nomination reasons before your vote. It is about wiki general policies. Yamanam (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you seem to miss the point, there is an abundance of secondary sources (read reputable newspaper of all political orientations from a wide range of countries) that report on the topic matter of the article, and not only on isolated incidents. Afroghost (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afroghost, I think u r missing the definition of the primary sources and seconday sources, FYI newspapers r considered primary sources and should be used at wikipedia with extreme caution. Yamanam (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:PRIMARY to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and stop making up such a misleading nonsense. Afroghost (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Afroghost, u got me there, I really thought that I had the wrong understanding of what primary and secondary sources are! but to my surprise, I have the correct understanding. I am having doubts concerning your understanding to the subject matter. Yamanam (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move Perhaps move to 'Antisemitism and the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict'; this means it can be discussed in the article whether things were antisemitic, antizionist etc. The role of antisemitism in this conflict gained lots of media attention and therefore reaches WP:N. This isn't news, but could be an academic article on the role of antisemitism. Computerjoe 's talk 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per the nominator. An article of this nature is clearly a propaganda and is an attempt to use WP as a SOAPBOX Zencv^{Lets discuss} 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or in your words [16]: "Welcome to Judeopedia and have fun." That's what you really mean, right? Afroghost (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would that discredit the case of the original nomination for the deletion of this article, which clearly doesn't belong to an encyclopedia? Zencv^{Lets discuss} 23:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this kind of comment only discredits you. And btw, given that many good arguments both for and against inclusion of this article have been mentioned on this page, it only shows that nothing is really clear. But I guess it to you it only shows that this is "Judeopedia". Afroghost (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are discussing whether article deserves to be in the project, not about comment which I as an editor had made in a talk page. My point is it clearly it does not(if you care to browse the history of this article, youd find that I had mentioned my rationale in the first round of deletion proposal). I'm not gonna browse the edit history of many of the editors who had disagreed with me here to make my case for the deletion of the article, as that is basically illogical. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 23:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss why the article does not belong here. You did not do that, you were just throwing around accussations of propaganda and soapboxing, without explaining why this might be the case. Only your comment about a "Judeopedia" on the article talk page makes clear what you really mean by propaganda, i.e. you are afraid that Wikipedia will be too Jewish. Afroghost (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had been well discussed(I had clearly mentioned in my last comment - browse history if you have time as I am short of the same). My points would be well undesrstood by an experienced editor. Btw, your fixation on what an editor wrote in a talk page and bringing it to make a case here will not bring you any respect. 'Talk about edits, not about editor' is a basic thing Zencv^{Lets discuss}

Then please explain why the article is propaganda. A very strong claim, quite an insult to all those who worked hard on this article. You did not provide an explanation so far, and so I am very much inclined to believe your fear of a Jewish dominated Wikipedia (the "Judeopedia") is the explanation. But I hope I am wrong, but who can I know. Afroghost (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss to convince who? Given the unconstructive way in which you are engaging in talk pages and also here, I don't feel any obligation to convince you, as it is abundantly clear that you had made up your mind whether article should stay here or not. If you had kept an open mind, you could have found abundant arguments in this discussion to support my arguments. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, there is no need to be so aggressive. All I asked for is for you to provide some evidence for your claim that this article is propaganda. Above I acknowledged that some good arguments against inclusion have been mentioned on this talk page, so I am little bit puzzled by your claim that I am not open to new arguments. But I am sorry if I am not convinced when someone only shouts propaganda or "Judeopedia". Afroghost (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not being aggressive(sincerely sorry, if I sounded so). Having said that, my point was that bringing here again and again some comments made by me at a certain context in the talk page, to make a point in this discussion will not bring you any respect, as by doing so, you are diverting the current discussion and not assuming good faith of my arguments for deletion here Zencv^{Lets discuss} 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is factual and well-sourced. It is a sub-article, which is an entirely different thing than a fork. It refers to its provided secondary sources in a way appropriate for an encyclopaedia — no OR about that. As for the reasoning “The article takes it for granted that those attacks are Antisemitic attacks (though not verified by the attacker)”, I ask (but only rhetorically) the nominator if this should be the normal standard? In that case, we’ll have to remove a lot of materials about discrimination of Afro-Americans, Africans and Arabs, since we don’t have access to each individual perpetrator’s inner life. -- ~~Olve Utne (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)~~ (added some elements.) Olve Utne (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olve, Im not sure whether you would find "lot of materials", let alone forked articles about racist attacks against Arabs, blacks, Australian aborigines etc. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone is raising a good point of view, well what I can say that u r correct, but the only difference between what u have said and what is mentioned here that those last attacks are in response to the israeli brutal attack on civilian Palestinians, and for this very same reason we shouldn't call those attacks anti-semetic attacks, because those who are attacked were not attacked ONLY because they are Jewish rather as a respone to israel brutality (the country deemed to be the homeland of Jewish). Motive is the key word here, the motive behind the attacks, this covers big portion of my point. Yamanam (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you describe these attacks, if not antisemitic? Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to describe ALL attacks that are taking place on this earth? What do u call the attacks agains Palestinian? does it have a name? no, each attack is named after a certain declared name or is named after a month, number of days, reason for the conflict, but not all have a name. Yamanam (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So even you say that they were attacked solely for them being Jewish. Afroghost (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not saying that, and I will never say that, maybe my poor English gave u the wrong impression, but no, they were not attacked becasue they are ONLY Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles for ALL attacks. Only where they are notable, as in this case. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they notable though? It's a big fat bloated article of fluff.--Theosony (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reported incidents probably weren't anti-semitic. Even the victims of violence haven't claimed that the attacks were anti-semitic. It's basically just a media and police spotlight on attacks on Jewish people, a bit like the UK stabbings. Although it doesn't happen that often, with media etc. you'd believe it happened every day. We need to be careful what we call anti-semitic. This article is coverage of coverage rather than an article with evidence and standing; especially in an encyclopedia.--Theosony (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct Theosony. Yamanam (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We go with what reliable sources say, not with your personal opinion, which is completely irrelevant. Afroghost (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afroghost. what u said is not totally correct, we have restrictions here, we need not only reliable sources, we need secondary sources as well (which are not that much used in this article), we need to state the facts only not speculations about why those attacks happened and as a result for what they happened. as someone suggested, if u want to call the article blackash in Europre during dec 08 and Jan 09 then go ahead and keep the same material inside. at that point your reliable sources might be used. Yamanam (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations involved here vet each incident, making sure that they were indeed anti-semitic in nature, before releasing their figures. I for one know from personal experience that the police question apects of an attack which help them clarify whether it was a hate crime or not. It is precisly because the number of attacks are abnormal as they do not occur in such volumes often, that this is notable. I hope you have read the article. It does mention that the attacks signalled the biggest rise in a quarter of a century. Chesdovi (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal experience aside, the police investigate based on reasonable suspicions that crimes have been committed. However, in the United States at least, an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. That's why media organizations included that little words, "allegedly" when they write about possible crimes that were just committed. Labeling someone affirmatively as a criminal before they are convicted of the crime is libelous. Similarly, the police investigate suspected crimes but it is the courts that determine whether a crime has actually been committed. Of course, criminal activity is different from instances of anti-Semitism. But I think before we start labeling people as being anti-Semites we need to be able to back up our words with incontrovertible facts (like an admission of anti-Semitism). If we can't do that we need to attribute that label to a specific source and make it clear that it is that source's opinion, not an objective fact. It wouldn't be hard. We would just start using the word "allegedly" a lot more.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the article does. At this point most of the statements in the article are well-sourced. Where crimes are described they are described in neutral terms and according to what the sources say. Where perpetrators are mentioned the word alleged is used (i.e. Rowan Laxton and Fatima Hajaig). Claims of antisemitism are backed up by reliable sources or are attributed to those who made these claims. If we would mention the perpretators I would agree that we should say alleged as long as they are not convicted, but as we mostly mention only the crimes we do not need to say alleged as long as there is no reasonable doubt that the crime occured. Afroghost (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but the title of the page doesn't say that? the title is misleading big time here. Yamanam (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Afroghost, whether you are an administrator or not, I will report you if you attack me again. You are both removing fact from an article and your edits to my contributions are borderline victicious. The article does not state a balanced view on these attacks, most of which have not been confirmed to being anti-semitic. Bias and personal attacks will not get us anywhere with this issue. Also, your statement that the page is neutral is absolutely false!--Theosony (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Afroghost (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in theory Cdogsimmons. However, the fact that not every attack will make it into a court of law does not diminish this issue. That's why the article states "The rise in reported incidents", not convictions. A person who has been stabbed does not need a court to determine the fact. When I was called a "f***ing Jew" because "that thing on your head is the problem", I know I was victim to an antisemitic attack. When bus stops are sprayed with the words “Kill Jews”, it is quite clear that the perpetrator was not just seeing whether spray paint looked good on a bus stop. Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully empathize, and I am for keep, but we should keep emotional arguments like this out of the discussion. Antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, antiarabism, etc, all are scrouges of the earth, and they are hurtful. But how our particular victimizations (I am of mixed heritage, so I have been victimized by family!) are relevant to writing an encyclopedia is beyond me. --Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I brought this instance to demonstrate my point. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly reasonable section as part of the Gaza conflict article, but clearly too large to be completely merged. A sub-article is not suddenly a POV fork. Joshdboz (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not a POV fork, u didn't say how? and moreover, u didn't try refute the other 4 reasons for deleting this article. Yamanam (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanam, can you briefly summarize all 5 points you are trying to make about the article? gidonb (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment? Yamanam, learn to spell. Elm-39 - T/C 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment? Elm-39, don't attack people. Some users and editors aren't native English speakers or don't write English as well as others. Have some respect and stop breaking rules in order to be narrow minded.--Theosony (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Elm-39, Everybody makes mistakes, spelling or other type of mistakes, and I think by reading my contributions u can easily tell that my English is not that good, and unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't support spell check... English is a language that I've been using during the last 5 years of my life. Yamanam (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure that Elm-39 was more referring to the use of childish abbrevations such as u instead of you and 4 instead of four. No need to pick up a fight talk. And Yamanam please use a writing style that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. And both calm down. Afroghost (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people's English typing isn't as good as others and it can be harder. Give it a break and get try to get back to topic rather than defending an obvious rude and out of place comment.--Theosony (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with typing skills, more with having respect for those having to read it. This is not a fanboy forum for computer games or whatever but a discussion page for an encyclopedia. And no need for you to pick up a fight over a good-humoured comment. So as I said calm down. Afroghost (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's causing you no sight difficulties, so you calm down and show others some respect.--Theosony (talk) 20:49, 19 February 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 NaviSite. Merge new content into existing article on NaviSite and redirect (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NaviSite Inc.

There are millions of web hosting companies, and this one still makes no assertion of notability.

Delete non-notable Redirect per Whpq below pablo_hablo. 13:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notability doesn't appear to be established here. With 17 DCs, it almost sounds like they might be large enough to be notable, but this article doesn't have me particularly convinced. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With 17 DCs i would agree that they should be large enough to be notable. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless more info appears by magic to indicate notability. Established 1997, 17 DCs - is that it? Peridon (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As some notability-indicating sources magically appeared. More can probably be had, but it's hard sifting through all the press releases. Now does anybody want to tackle the prose? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 07:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Number 210 of North America's top technology integrators? That's notable? Peridon (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked back at that one - the source at RedOrbit is given as NaviSite Inc. Scrub that one as independent. Anyone care to check some more? Peridon (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - sifting through a huge number of press releases, there are a few reliable sources writing about the company. This article, and this article from Information Week, as well as articles from Forbes and The Street. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NaviSite given that there is already an existing referenced article -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is duplicate content. Another more accurate article for NaviSite, Inc. is already published on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaviSite Dderose.navisite (talk) 15:57, 19 February 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. X clamation point 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartopedia

Non-notable; no real reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are reviews of the software in reliable sources. For example, The New York Times, The School Library Journal, and the Washington times. There are more but this suffices to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The review from the Washington ~~Post~~ Times should be enough to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, the review I found is from the Washington Times, and not the Washington Post. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be notable enough, sources exist (a few have been mentioned by Whpq, others can be found via Google), although I wouldn't oppose a merge to Dorling Kindersley (per WP:PRODUCT) if a products section is added to the article about the company. —Snigbrook 22:54, 19 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Soleil

This is my 2nd nomination of this article. The first was closed as no consensus in April of 2008. Since it's going near to a year since that discussion I thought I'd revisit it because there have been no improvements to the article. The templates for COI and orphan have have been in place since November and I've been googling around but can't find anything on this actor besides IMDB and other directory scrapes. In fact, many of the listings on sites referencing him have no data at all. The article is self-written by a user with a username related to the subject and there just aren't any real sources besides IMDB. I can find no interviews, reviews, or articles related directly to this actor / director. The original afd can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Prior discussion seemed to hold out hope that sources could or would be found, but none seem to be forthcoming, and a news archive search on my part turned up only a handful of instances of his name being used. I don't see sourcing for "significant roles," "a large fan base," or "innovative contributions" anywhere near what is anticipated by wp:entertainer for inclusion. Given the apparent lack of verifiable, reliable sources, I have to say delete. user:j (aka justen) 12:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In case it wasn't made clear earlier, I am in the delete camp.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fansites that I can find. A couple of Google news hits [17], but not even close to passing WP:ENTERTAINER. -Atmoz (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Short on verifiable sources & not notable. Vartanza (talk) 04:47, 16 February 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dallman

AfDs for this article:

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league - his appearances to date have been in the semi-pro USL Premier Development League and Oberliga Nordrhein-Westfalen. Giant Snowman 11:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD was about a different person (a musician) so is not directly relevant. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE - no professional appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom Nothing of real note. Trials are non notable unless they lead to something and his haven't. Recreate if and when. ps. nicely written for a non-notable, perhaps author(s) would like to research and write up his grandfather if Portsmouth claim is correct.--ClubOranje^T 07:13, 20 February 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. X clamation point 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the City 2 (film)

Premature article for a film which has only just been announced. Reliable sources state that the screenplay has not yet been written [18], so the article explicitly fails WP:NFF. Prod removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) PC78 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Will be a fun film, undoubtedly, but has several more development and production hoops to jump through before it meets the inclusion criteria, as duly noted by PC78. user:j (aka justen) 12:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL. ArcAngel (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' without prejudice as article is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to the first film's section on the sequel for now. It's been confirmed as to be filmed, and it will be recreated multiple times if it isn't protected. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 16 February 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. X clamation point 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pemp

Non-notable neologism likely made up in school on a wet Wednesday. Nancy ^talk 10:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. No sources, no notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. ArcAngel (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless contributor can cite some reliable sources. I found none. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Skier Dude (talk) 05:30, 16 February 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was already redirected to The Princess Bride by User:Atlant. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodents of unusual size

I don't think this is a notable, encyclopedic term. JaGa^talk 09:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rodents of unusual size are a theme in much horror fiction and related genres, but the present article is about the ones in Princess Bride, & they are not even important enough to be discussed in the article. Perhaps a more general article on the setting of the fiction might be more to the point. DGG (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Princess Bride (film). Commonly discussed by fans of the film, and the line "Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist" is one of the many frequently quoted lines from the film, which suggests that this is an important element of it. Not enough material to support an entire article, however. JulesH (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Princess Bride, book or film. An outside source could probably be found which mentions them. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A merge would imply that this is a likely search term that needs a redirect. The two sentences "Rodents of unusual size are mythical creatures that live in the Fire Swamp. Rodents of unusual size are found in the novel the Princess Bride." can be repeated somewhere else if anyone wishes to preserve them. I understand that fans of the film recognize a quote, but we can't have an entry for every memorable line from film. "I'll have what she's having" would be an unlikely search term for When Harry Met Sally as well. Mandsford (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure of that one, since the film industry used it very widely to advertise as part of a clip compendium of high points in film, shown before movies, for a period of at least a year, a few years back. DGG (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rodents of unusual size are not mythical creatures. We might feel guilty if someone were to dismiss the concept on Wikipedia advice, only to get bitten by an unusually large rat.

(Not suitable as a redirect) - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the Giant Rat of Sumatra. Edison (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the redirect, just like at ROUS. It does no harm and discourages re-creation. —Korath (Talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and then list at WP:FREAKY. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to giant rat, which contains an extensive discussion of various giant rats in fiction, including The Princess Bride, Sherlock Holmes, and many others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the specific name of the giant rats from Princess Bride. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I read the history of this article correctly, it had been a redirect [[19]] until someone undid it [[20]] to make ths two sentence article. I'm imagining that undoing a redirect doesn't show up on the list of the day's new articles, so this went unnoticed for months. I've often heard that redirects-are-cheap, although undoing one can result in people spending a lot of time. Mandsford (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Bride. No content to merge, logical search topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per A Man in Black. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 16 February 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)

Private company, based in Gaborone, with its primary activity appearing to be the publishing (with varying frequency) of a column that promotes consumer knowledge of scams, poor customer service, and the like. While its Wikipedia article reads almost entirely like a mission statement, I have been unsuccessful in finding a record of it "campaigning for legislation," and, indeed, the only mention of it in Mmegi or The Voice I can find is when its own column promotes its own achievements and activities. For quick reference, here is its website, and here (one, two) are two recent columns credited to the company. (I especially loved this one, though.) user:j (aka justen) 09:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Additional rationale for deletion on talk page. user:j (aka justen) 10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — user:j (aka justen) 10:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: reasons for deletion are slightly vague, but they all appear to boil down to notability. This group celebrated its second birthday with the president of the country and national press in attendance. In Botswana, the group is clearly notable and has proven notability.

Note that the proposer of this AFD originally attempted to speedy the article, which was created a year ago. This apparently was in order to clear the name for use for his own new article on the "actually-notable California "Consumer Watchdog" organization". The US organization of the same name may be "actually-notable" in California, but it's no more notable to the rest of the planet's English speakers than the one in Botswana: see WP:WORLDVIEW. MuffledThud (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To imply that I speedied an article in order "to clear the name" is a pretty glaring assumption of bad faith (in addition to just being plain wrong). Nevertheless, some verifiable, reliable sources for your assertion of notability would be helpful. user:j (aka justen) 10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per WP:N. I have trouble finding reliable secondary sources (though this may well be due to a language barrier). The article is also filled with weasel words, which suggests a conflict of interest. Firestorm (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added some more detail and references on links to govt and industry, and edited for NPOV. MuffledThud (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the links satisfy wp:rs as best as I can tell. The first link is just a page on the parent company's website. The second very briefly mentions that someone from the organization spoke at an event. Inclusion requires multiple, verifiable, reliable sources that acknowledge the organization's notability. user:j (aka justen) 21:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per WP:CSB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSB. It seems obvious that an article about a California based organization would quite naturally have a greater number of English sources available... and that an article about a similar Botswana company might just be a little tougher to pin down. It is reasonable to expect that sources, either harcopy or Non-English, quite likely exist. The article deserves to be tagged for expansion and further sourcing so as to improve wiki. WP:Cleanup is the solution. Deletion should be taken off the table. And kudos to User:MuffledThud for his continued diligent efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see how linking to a list of Google search results for the name of the company proves that reliable sourcing "quite likely exists." I've gone through pages and pages of those results, trying desperately to find reliable sourcing, and I haven't found a one. Combating systemic bias is one thing. Throwing any sort of notability and verifiability requirements out the window for private companies based outside the United States is quite another. user:j (aka justen) 08:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:DEADLINE that it be immediately fixed because of how it looked when you first nominated it for deletion... specially since an interested editor is actively working to adress your concerns. Since the company IS outside the United States, do we need input from a Botswana editor who can then find and provide the non-english sources for you to then tramslate? Or might the Botswana editor wish to speedy the Consumer Watchdog (USA) stub because it cannot be sourced in Botswanan. Pardon the hyperbole. We need to have a larger view than southern California. Keeping the article and improving it, improves wiki. Tagging it for sources and cleanup improves wiki. Tossing it in the trash bin rather than allowing it to be fixed, does not improve wiki. User:MuffledThud has made some great strides in the few hours he's been toiling. Allowing him to continue, improves wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I appreciate your trying to save the article, but it is, at this point, still a non-notable promotional article. The fact remains that even with the "active work" being done on the article, it still lacks a single verifiable, reliable source establishing its notability. The issue is not a lack of sources in English. Botswana has a thriving English media. The company that is the subject of this article publishes their website and their columns exclusively in English. You can throw systemic bias, my ignorance, California, or whatever else you would like at the wall to see what sticks to try to save the article. The fact remains every indication is pointing to this being a non-notable private company that does not meet our criteria for inclusion. user:j (aka justen) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let him continue. Simple. Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE and if he is successful, wiki is improved. If he is unsuccessful, the article can easily be tossed back on the trash bin in a few weeks. On a different note, I often find AfD's to be of service in removing that which has no merit, but find the ticking count-down clock of five days to be a tad arbitrary if something has the possibility of being improved to thus improve wiki. With respects, and in appreciation of your own wanting to improve Wiki, the article had never been tagged for "more sources" or "cleanup" or expand", or any such.... nothing that might have flagged it for editors to pay specific attention to any of its needs. The first tag it ever receieved, almost 2 years after its creation, was your CSD speedy. User:MuffledThud took that as the impetus to work on it rather than have it tossed. Kudos for him. Might we let him continue his efforts now that the article has gained his attention? Yes, its a pity that it sat for 2 years virtually untouched... but now that it is being worked on, wouldn't it be prudent to see where he is going to go with it? Letting him work is a win-win for wiki. If he fails, it goes. But if he's successful.... a true win for wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added six more refs, and found the group also hosts a radio show. MuffledThud (talk) 04:06, 19 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Barbèy

A photographer and, it's claimed, also the voice for Italy's answer to Milli Vanilli.

The article was created (here's the first version) as a paraphrase of this page, whose filename will show that it came first. By academic standards, this is plagiarism, although by the prevailing standards of Wikipedia, I fear it might not be. So let's put the issue of plagiarism aside for the moment.

Barbèy does exist, or anyway his name is attached to stuff you can buy (example). But all the article can produce as sources are two short paragraphs within a single article in a business magazine, the scan on Barbèy's own site of one article in a magazine, and dribs and drabs put out by dealers, who of course are not disinterested. Googling brings bloggery, stuff by Barbèy himself, more sales pitches, and that's all. Though recently attempts have been made to link to Youtube videos as well.

The content of this article is not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, it's a close call and the subject might be encyclopaedic but the current article is a marginal COPYVIO (per Hoarys link) and unsupported by WP:RS. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs to be expanded, rather than obliterated. Deletion proposition appears to be initiated with envious bias. 99.151.186.99 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allegation of envy aside, how do you propose that it could be expanded? And would you care to specify sources that could be used for the expansion? I note that nobody has started to expand it in any way since I put the AfD notice on it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 17 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun cairo

Non notable manager. Google showing mostly wikipedia mirrors, myspace and blogs. Possible vanity article [21] JamesBurns (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It is slightly worrying the creator was not even able to get the grammar of their subject correct...

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EA Sports F1 Series. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Championship Season 2000

Non-notable video game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EA Sports F1 Series. JulesH (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest also merging F1 2000 (video game), which has no content other than an infobox. JulesH (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EA Sports F1 Series. D.M.N. (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jules and D.M.N. ArcAngel (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is sufficiently notable; there are plenty of reviews available: Metacritic results (three platforms) and Game Rankings results (four platforms). A merge may be appropriate, as these sorts of titles don't tend to change significiantly enough to develop a full article. However, the nominator's assertation that this is not notable is simply incorrect. -- Sabre (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable video game. Someone another 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable video game, just lacks content. Salavat (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can both of you ask why you consider it as "notable" Secret ^account 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in multiple reliable sources, a glance at gamerankings and metacritic shows that, two of the major online reviewers (IGN and GameSpot) have reviewed the PC and PS2 versions separately. What to do with it is one thing, but notability isn't an issue here. Someone another 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2000 Formula One season, whether or not this article is kept. Clearly the real life sporting season is the primary meaning. If kept, the article should be renamed F1 Championship Season 2000 (video game) or EA Sports F1 Championship Season 2000 ( currently a redirect to this article ) . 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A hatnote saying "for the 2000 F1 championship see 2000 Formula One Season" would do the job better than having to rename the article. -- Sabre (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if it's not the primary meaning. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent page, like we do in these cases. The series is notable, the game is sourceable but nothing that deserves a split away from the parent page. Secret ^account 22:38, 16 February 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 Molecular clock. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic equidistance

Not a notable subject. Zero PubMed hits and only 15 Google Scholar hits. The only articles that deal with this as their topic are by a single author - S Huang, which does little to support the idea that this is a notable subject. The number of references in the article is misleading, since most of these do not deal with this subject, but instead discuss other topics such as the molecular clock or the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep A sufficient distinctive concept. Sure, it can be included into broader concepts such as the molecular clock. But here is literature written about it specifically , and it helps the understanding of the subject.DGG (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What literature? There is one obscure paper written by Huang (the other Huang preprints don't seem to have been published), the only other literature uses the term in passing and does not discuss this as its subject. You are right that one possibility to deal with the absence of literature on the topic would be to merge and redirect to molecular clock. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Google Scholar for "genetic equidistance" gave several hits in addition to those of Huang. While many looked at best distantly related, this looks on target. Prima facie it appears that the article can be improved to establish notability, and hence that immediate deletion would violate WP:DELETE. --Philcha (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that paper, and was thinking about trying to incorporate it into the article but it uses the term only once, in the sentence "Because of the genetic equidistance of these three seals, this time has also been fixed for the divergence between harbor and gray seals." - how could I use this sentence to establish notability? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper represents a precise use of the term. I have now added this paper to indicate the use of this term in the literature.Nosti (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that this a widely used or accepted term. What little there is to say about it can be better said in the relevant genetics/evolutionary articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge This is a poorly written article, to be sure, but that is not grounds alone for deleting it. Since there does not seem to be much to be said about it (judging from the lack of hits), it might belong better at molecular clock, as it seems to be simply a part of that subject. Anaxial (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep it and merge it. Do you mean merge and redirect? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Anaxial (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I apologize for reading the Wikipedia article too quickly. I've now checked it against the sole source that it summarizes, the Huang Shi paper. [22]. The author is a moderately important biochemist whose name is given in Scopus as Shi Kun Huang, and seems appropriate for a Wikipedia article-- 40 papers, 5 with over 100 citations. He works usually on tumor gene suppressors at the very reputable Burnham Institute for Medical Research. This is not quite his only relevant published paper on the subject: he has one other paper on evolutionary biology,"Ancient fossil specimens of extinct species are genetically more distant to an outgroup than extant sister species are" in the established journal Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum (Volume 101, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 93-108), which has a very similar conclusion: " Far more damaging to the hypothesis than data from extant organisms, which merely question the constancy of mutation rate, the study of ancient fossil organisms here challenges for the first time the fundamental premise of modern evolution theory that genetic distances had always increased with time in the past history of life on Earth." He uses this term in that paper as well, and gives it as an indexing keyword phrase. Of course, we cannot say that two 08 publications are non-notable because it has not yet been cited by early 09. I am not sure whether these papers will be ignored, or cited to refute them--or perhaps even be accepted, but a few years will tell. In any case, this term seems to be a nondistinctive way of wording the concept of equal genetic difference, and not particularly notable. He seems to be trying to use it in a special sense in relation to his hypothesis, but it clearly is not established yet. DGG (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real need to mention at molecular clock. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The molecular clock is an important hypothesis. The observation that directly leads to and supports this hypothesis is the genetic equidistance result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosti (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unless i misunderstand, the intent of the author is to disprove the molecular clock hypothesis. DGG (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is a factual observation (equidistance) and there is an interpretation (clock). The fact deserves a permanent place in human knowledge since it will never be proven false, while an interpretation may change with time and scientific progress.Nosti (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only place this appears to be significantly mentioned is in papers by Shi, which makes it a non-notable term. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Molecular clock. Both this article and MCH one are awfully written; but this one is worse. It appears that Huang is writing about a challenge to MCH; other challenges are mentioned in a rambling fashion in the MCH article, so I guess this fits in there. Huang's paper appeared in a journal that seems utterly obscure—at least judging by the title and unprofessional editing standards; they didn't even spell check their web page, and the paper is horribly laid out. Can't be bothered to check the impact factor at this hour. If what he's saying makes no sense whatsoever, delete. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xasodfuih into the molecular clock article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:25, 16 February 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 (non-admin closure) VX!^talk 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Community Churches in London

Three-sentence stub about Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) congregations in London. Aside from the historical info, there is a 3-item bullet list including 2 MCC churches in London which have their own articles. Has not expanded past stub level since 2005 & in its present form kind of resembles a disambig page. Propose deletion of article & merge of the 3 sentences into the 2 other MCC congregation articles for London. Outsider80 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been linked to at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. Outsider80 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I think this is a significant group of churches, and the two existing articles on individual churches in the group should be merged in here. We dont usually have articles on individual churches unless of hsstoric significance, which these do not have. DGG (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use expanding, but I don't see any reason for its deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator withdraws nomination -- No apparent chance of deletion outcome, and the article can be refactored to apply only to the mother church (which would address problem of article looking like a disambig page, and overlapping with articles of the churches which spun-off from it) Outsider80 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTS International

Declined speedy. This has been tagged with {{importance}} since December 2007 with no evidence of notability provided since then. Unreferenced, not-notable. ukexpat (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so far I have not found anything to support the article's claim of global importanceDGG (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete. Despite web search and GNews search (unfortunately I don't have access to Factiva), no evidence of any material coverage. Bongo matic 06:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Factiva material, which is a minor press release. I was the one who declined the speedy, and I think I would have done better to have not declined it. If someone else wants to close as speedy delete, I have no objections., DGG (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant author of the article had written a related article two years ago that was speedily deleted as blatant advertising. I think that article deserves the same fate. Alexius08 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 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. Per lack of significant independent coverage. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership University (web portal)

Delete: not notable both per WP:WEB and per WP:GNG. All third party source mentions are 'trivial' (as that term is defined in WP:GNG). Further, two of the three third party mentions are only as an afterthought to parenthetical/footnote mention of the organisation that owns the website, Christian Leadership Ministries (Forrest, Pennock), the third is bare mention of a LU URL in this article. [Full quotation of these three sources can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Leadership University (web portal)#Trivial mentions in third party sources] Entry into evidence in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was only to allow aforementioned trivial mention in Forrest statement (facts need to be entered into evidence before expert witnesses can cite them), and so does not add to notability. Remainder of article is cited to its own website (and a subsidiary one). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; seems to be mostly a press release. JJL (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article does have notability. Hrafn previously nominated the article for deletion and it was denied. The Web site has been referenced in a book on Intelligent Design published by MIT Press, and was referenced in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case about curriculum. More importantly, as reported by The Desert Sun newspaper, the site has a role in Roe v. Wade as it is the home of the writings of Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) who changed her views on abortion and became pro-life in 1995.--Sixtrojans (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) Sixtrojans offers no evidence of notability, merely bare assertion. (ii) It was speedy-tagged, and the speedy-delete denied -- but that offers no impediment whatsoever for an AfD. (iii) I had already noted the trivial mention, as part of a parenthetical comment about CLM, in Pennock (the MIT Press book) above. (iv) It does not have "a role in Roe v. Wade" (only a tangential connection to it), and I had likewise already noted DS's trivial bare mention of a LU URL.
Sixtrojans' claims are nothing but wild exaggerations of the facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: Hrafan has a strong bias against Intelligent Design and Christianity. The Leadership University Web site does house the largest collection of online articles about Intelligent Design from notable university faculty, yet for that he treats the subject with contempt. While his opinion may be that the book, newspaper and judicial references are "trivial," that does not make them "trivial." I for one believe these references are significant and have seen other articles on Wikipedia withstand deletion challenges with less third-party sourcing. The very fact that there is a heated discussion about the subject and the weight of third party sources lends credence to the need for an article.--Sixtrojans (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Sixtrojans, that was not a "rebuttal", it was a wild and unsubstantiated pack of (often irrelevant) assertions. Please read WP:GNG#cite note-0 for an explanation of what "trivial" coverage means in this context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wild and unsubstantiated pack of..." let's tone down the rhetoric. Using weasel words to defame my character isn't productive to collaborative discussion.--Sixtrojans (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Reason to Keep: I performed a Google search on LeaderU.com and found over 38,000 pages linking to this site. I have not gone through all 38,000 search results yet, but I have already found an article that ran in the Christian Post where LeaderU.com was the main subject matter. As a secondary point, I was struck by how many Web sites referenced LeaderU.com as a source for information about Intelligent Design and related topics.--Sixtrojans (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I needed information on a minor point of the Reformation in Germany. A search directed me only to Leadership University. The information seemed good, but I turned to Wikipedia for facts about the site. Well, the present article was good enough for me. Rather than delete this piece, it would seem useful to encourage readers to make it better and add citations. If we were to make the same rigid demands on all Wikipedia articles as has been proposed regarding this one, I foresee a wholesale slaughter.--Rafmagnsofn (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without significant independent coverage, there is nothing on which to base this article. No prejudice to recreation if someone does treat them in depth. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:57, 20 February 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 Deleted - G3 by admin Versageek (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) Matt (Talk) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator Alan Rule

Non-notable joke/hoax country... Unfortunately there is no CSD category for this... Adolphus (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This should qualify as "blatant and obvious misinformation" and therefore is speedy-able under WP:CSD#G3. Tagging as such. BryanG (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not completely sure it would qualify under G3, since it would appear to be legit on first glance... if it does, great! - Adolphus (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this blatant hoax. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 - WP:HOAX. Matt (Talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as Hoax G3 -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:30, 15 February 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. to delete. Redirecting doesn't require an AfD, and there are issues in a bulk nomination. No reasom not to merge elementary and middle schools if they are not otherwise notable. Suggest use of talk pages for consensus as there's no consensus to delete. StarM 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school in Louisville, Kentucky. Fails to pass WP:N with reliable sources

Also nominating:

Grsz¹¹ 02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Jefferson County Public Schools. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all based on the inherent notability of schools, including the stubs. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also think it's inappropriate to consider all of these articles in the same AfD discussion as some are stubs, some are not, and grouping them all together encourages editors not to do research into each article and make an individual judgment based on each article's individual merit, but to make one judgment on all at the same time. Khalfani Khaldun 05:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but none return any results other than those that any other school would - those review websites, school databases, etc. Grsz¹¹ 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I argue their inherent notability. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that almost all of the sources for the Highland MS (which was removed from this AfD discussion presumably because of its numerous references) are from the local newspaper in Louisville, which only supports my inherent notability argument further. (See the schools section of the essay.) At least some of those schools have been covered significantly in that same newspaper in the past, to be sure, but since obtaining those articles online is not free (the free archive only lasts 60 days, I believe) it is impossible to judge each school's noteworthiness, unless someone is going to volunteer to purchase access to those archives. Khalfani Khaldun 05:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High schools are notable, elementary and middle schools aren't. Redirect all per Blanchardb. JuJube (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an elementary school that would survive any AFD. For every would-be rule there's an exception. --Movingday29 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. This is the default treatment , and can be done without coming to AfD. Except for Blue Ribbon Schools, almost no other elementary or middle schools have succeeded in establishing individual articles. . Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could prove a lot of these have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple sources... Audubon Elementary School, for example, was destroyed by the Super Outbreak tornado and this was quite well documented at the time. Meyzeek and Noe Middle schools are probably the top two academically in the state, and have been for some time, and thus also have gotten a lot of coverage. I don't really know about the others for sure though. This is the problem with mass nominations. Keep Meyzeek, Noe and Weak keep on Audubon. Meyzeek gets 300+ results in a search of the Courier-Journal news stories back to just 1999, and the school's been around since well before then. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as out of process nomination. Schools do not meet the criteria for bulk nomination. Each school has different sources and varying claims to notability and should be considered separately. Better, as DGG suggests, these should be dealt with through the proposed merges procedure. TerriersFan (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BEFORE; although, according to WP:BEFORE obvious redirects do not need to be brought to an already-crowded AFD. So, !voting redirect seems a little redundant. Neier (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per, what as far as I know, is established policy in these situations, unless individual notability can be proven. As an aside, can someone do something about this AFD's multiple appearences on the AFD page? Thanks. I would, but I have no idea how to do it.Umbralcorax (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Multiple AfD doesn't allow for conversations in depth about the notability of each article. Nobody should be guilty by association (or deleted by association). My suggestion is to relist individually, so a proper discussion can begin. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:44, 21 February 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 G3'd as vandalism by User:Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure over breakfast. Ouro (blah blah) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montaylah cheng

Person appears to be nonexistent. Google search found nothing but wiki link. IndulgentReader (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I confirm Indulgent's findings. Un school
Delete. Who's the "we" that is omnipresent in the article? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 - hoax. You'd think after nude pictures of her are apparently circulating the internet there'd be at least a handful of non-Wikipedia Google results. Matt (Talk) 04:08, 15 February 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Demarest

Demarest's only claim to notability seems to be that he works for the FBI. The only news mentions I could find (other than the one the article references) are quotes from him on cases that the FBI has handled. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Graymornings_(talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, no he doesn't just "work for the FBI" anymore than, say, Barack Obama just works for the federal government. Slight exaggeration, but ADIC of the New York Division is a notable position. He easily passes WP:BIO on the grounds of being the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I think this NPR story from early December ought to suffice. --Crunch (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Crunch. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Joseph M. Demarest[reply]

Keep. I don't know if his position carries inherent notability or not, but the coverage on him looks pretty significant, both in the New York and national media. Un school 01:58, 15 February 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 (NAC) RMHED. 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Honor

Non-notable group. Having existed does not make something notable. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having existed doesn't make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but being written about in a specialist encyclopedia, as shown by the source, does per Wikipedia:Five pillars. Please also note that the source is out of copyright, so the fact that this has been copied is not a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere is a history here that is notable. There seemed to be a split in the early 1900's over some death benefits etc. No time right now to continue investigation but will advise later and add to article.--Buster7 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How is this discussion affected by the fact that this article is lifted, pretty much word for word, from its solitary source? Unschool 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason that should affect the notability of the subject. JulesH (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Question: The "solitary source" mentioned above is the website of the Kansas State Library. The cited web page appears to be directly quoting a source published in 1912, thus putting it (the 1912 source) in the public domain. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The source we have may be a good one with a high reputation, but it's only a single source, and presents a view of the subject that's inherently biased (i.e., the only local chapter mentioned is in Kansas, because that was the focus of the source). We should have more than this. I'm assuming from Buster7's contribution above that he has found additional sources, but would be grateful if he would list some of them so we can evaluate them. JulesH (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this would suggest that enough WP:RS could be had. — Ched (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Ched. Sources appear to be reliable and verifiable. The Knights of Honor does not appear to be a major organization, but I believe that it's worth keeping. At the risk of saying Other Stuff Exists, Wikipedia's bar of notability seems to be far below the notability of this organization. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:57, 15 February 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 SNOW delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Victims

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Victims

This article has no sources and it was removed from Continental Airlines Flight 3407 previously because these victims were not notable. The one notable person that was on the plane has a small section in the main article. No other airline crash has this sort of article. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I prodded this one but the author removed my tag. See also Wikipedia:Victim Lists. De728631 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as well as a general sense of decency (oh wait, that's not a recognized criterion, is it?) Un school 02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, unencyclopedic. -- Vary Talk 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unsourced, a list for the sake of a list ukexpat (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any victims have articles, it can be mentioned in there; otherwise, unencyclopaedic, unsourced and unnecessary. Plus, we can't be sure that there aren't families who don't want the names of their loved ones posted on the Internet. Xenon54 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As individuals, WP:ONEEVENT is relevant. All that needs to be reported is in Continental Airlines Flight 3407. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Afroghost (talk) 02:46, 15 February 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown DJs

"In 2006 and 2007 they were nominated for best Calgary DJ in the Canadian Stylus DJ awards" says it all. Doesn't even meet the minimal standards of WP:MUSIC. Had a notability tag since September 2007, though an IP editor removed it shortly before this nomination. THF (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barely. Two of the sources listed (FFWD, Beatroute) meet our criteria for either mainstream or specialist sources. The articles on those sources are specifically about these people and they are multiple paragraphs in length and not just passing mentions. This meets our minimum bar for notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 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) 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I agree that the Beatroute source meets standards, but the FFWD site? That looks to me to be a purely Calgary-centric, or at least, no more than an Albertacentric site. Does that affect its suitability as a source? Unschool 02:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Regional publications serve as excellent reliable sources and allow us to make a verifiable record of notable things specific to that region. Miami33139 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:N. Barely. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:42, 15 February 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 and expand (noting as cleanup). (non-admin closure) Alpha 4615 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within (The X-Files)

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

Keep Not the best of articles, but it (now?) has a short but meaningful plot summary. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The episode list has a better plot summary. treelo _radda 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The X-FIles Episodes. Jtrainor (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists, including Myth-X, Examinations: An Unauthorized Look at Seasons 6-9 of the X-Files: Featuring the Reviews of Unbound I, and Media Spectacle; and apparently an issue of Cinefantastique from 2001, though from the Google Books snippet I can't quite figure out which issue or how much coverage is there. DHowell (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. It would seem to me that this is not a question to be decided at this single article's AfD. I mean, there should probably be a blanket rule, that either indidual episodes of X-Files are article-noteworthy or they're not. I don't care either way, I just can't see how this makes sense, hashing out each individual episode, one at a time. Un school 02:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the episode "Chimera" was kept in a past AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: This one article was brought to AfD, and it is this article that needs a determination. All good things in their own good time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand My own preferred compromise is that the default treatment should be to merge, with adequate coverage of each in the merged article. I agree with the nominator about the absurdly small amount of content here, but there are references from which the article can be expanded, so we do not need the last resort of deletion. A plot summary has to at least describe the plot to be of any value. The present one is just a teaser, and does not say what happens in the episode. This is wholly wrong, merged or separate. WP is not a program guide. I agree with everything Sceptre says about the deficiencies, except that the solution is to expand, not remove. DGG (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode stub that can be expanded. Being a small article shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the plot summary, since it was copied from imdb. [23] That said, the X-Files is a pretty important show, and there are several episode guides (and probably a few magazine articles) that could be used to expand these articles. Unfortunately, I haven't seen this episode, so there's not much I can do myself. Zagalejo^^^ 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, rather than having an AFD tag, this article simply needs an expand tag.X-Files is a popular show and as this is the opening episode it would qualify for WP:N.Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keep and Expand. Sweet little stub has an assertion of notability which is properly sourced. FA articles from little stubs grow.... but not if the stubs are tossed on the trashpile before they have a chance. Will this grow? Quite likely? Will it improve? Almost certainly. Will it become an FA? Maybe not... but its remaining can serve to improve wiki, and that's why we're all here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was reading the guidelines of assessing articles, and the article for atom started off as a stub, and is now a FA. There are plenty of Simpsons episodes that have gone from stub to GA too! Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep RE: "Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary." I keep having to quote to the same nominators of AfDs the same rules: WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (options), Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." This complaint is a content complaint. Deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article. It is almost to the point that a RfC should be called on nominators who ignore these rules. Ikip (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per the above - some inline sources would be nice tpp. Artw (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per DHowell above. MuffledThud (talk) 20:32, 16 February 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 List of Nip/Tuck episodes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana / Sassy / Justice

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Montana / Sassy / Justice

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of content. Episode articles should only be written if something can actually be said about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nip/Tuck episodes as a plausible search term. DHowell (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nip/Tuck episodes per DHowell - no useful content in the article. Matt (Talk) 04:13, 15 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FACT150

Company does not appear to meet notability criteria - the connection with Puerto Rico may give it sufficient notability as a 'first', but the reference provided has no apparent connection with the company and therefore doesn't verify the claim. CultureDrone (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason, there are no digital versions of local newspapers and magazines in Puerto RIco except one which is in Spanish, will scans work for this article? (Zenmente (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sources don't have to be digital. If you use WP:CITET and give all the required information you should be okay. (Keep the scans at hand, they might help in convincing some people the sources exist) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks while I prepare for this (Zenmente (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage does not seem to be very substantial, but i have to rely here one the currently added cites, which include one press release and one college magazine.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep, this company's client list might be a good source for documentation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While mine may not be the best reasoning, I just feel that any ostensible company engaged in "building digital intelligence" should have a functional website. Unschool 02:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What in the world does "building digital intelligence" mean? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if I know. If I recall it was just something that they had on the one page of their website that I was able to open. Un school 00:18, 16 February 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 New Rochelle, New York. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flandreau Cemetery

Small family graveyard with no evidence or indication of notability (for example, nobody notable seems to be buried there). Sources are mostly genealogical websites. I tagged this article as an orphan lacking any indication of notability in October 2008; the templates were removed, but the problems were not addressed; I see no point in allowing the article proponents any more time to establish notability. Orlady (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--lots of things have inherent notability (and the older, the more so). How does that affect graveyards? Is there some sort of automatic notability for cemeteries? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that Drmies' question is a good one, and if an affirmative answer is forthcoming, I am prepared to change my position. I must say that I am sympathetic to the possibility that this cemetery's interred may possess notability in and of themselves, but really, without first establishing their notability, I think that the notability of the land they currently occupy is even less established. Un school 02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep or merge no reason to lose this information from the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content of the present article could well be original research, based on someone visiting the cemetery and reading the gravestones. No members of the Flandreau family have their own WP articles at this moment. If one of them were to acquire an article, it might be justifiable to cite the NYT article from there. There is nothing reliable from which we could write an article on the *cemetery* except the NYT article itself. Conceivably the larger Beechwood Cemetery could deserve an article at some point if sources were found, and the NYT article on the Flandreau cemetery could be cited from there, since the article mentions Beechwood. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The NY Times article that has been added to the article as a source does not alter (and in fact strengthens) my opinion that the cemetery is not notable. The article (from 1981, apparently only in a local edition of the paper) indicates that the cemetery was abandoned and all-but-forgotten; most of the burials had been relocated; the site was used as a dump before it became a play area for the neighbor's kids; and no one was willing to maintain it. The focus of the article is not on any particular significance of the cemetery, but on practical and legal quandaries associated with trying to figure out who is responsible for the property. --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't yet voted, but I'll do so now, after having done a little bit of work to the article (and thanks also to Orlady and ChildofMidnight for their help). I do believe that cemeteries have a kind of automatic notability, esp. if they're more than 200 years old--whether overgrown or not. Also, this was one of the leading families in the area, though without Wikipedia articles, but we all know that it's easier to fill an internet-generated bibliography on an American Idol candidate than on an entire family that came here even before the Revolution. That is, I have no doubt that a local enthusiast can fill in those blanks, the blanks of the graves and bodies that were once there; in the meantime, we should keep this and its history. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more suitable for a local genealogical webpage or Ancestry.com than for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:N. Thre is no inherent notability for a small piece of ground where a few non-notable people were buried over a hundred year period. I have visited several cemetaries where my own ancestors are buried which are equally non-notable. Edison (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! I, too, have visited several utterly non-notable cemeteries -- all larger and better maintained this one, and some older than this one -- that contain graves of my ancestors. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Rochelle, New York. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was just about to note that there is no reason to delete this page and its history. It can be mentioned as appropriate in the New Rochelle, New York article which has a section on the 17th century and the Hugenots and that historyu ties in with this cemetery and this family. As Drmies points out, this is also a useful catalog of semi-notable persons from this family who were in the United States a very long time ago ago during a formative period and played a fairly prominent role in their community and were part of significant historical movements. This type of information is not only interesting, but useful to researchers and historians. It would be a terrible pity to lose it all together from this encyclopedia. At the very least a redirect would preserve the history in case more sources are located to establish independent notability. As it is I think there's plenty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very slim thread that you are trying to hang a connection on. The Huguenots arrived in the late 17th century and this cemetery was used in the 19th century -- more than 100 years (and several generations) later. Yes, the 25 or 30 people who got buried in this cemetery over a 92-year period were Huguenot descendants, but so were many other residents of New Rochelle. This is a non-notable family cemetery. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That I ever would start begging at an AfD, me, a hardcore deletionist...what is this world coming to? But let it live! There is interest outside, considering the recent activity (referenced in the article) to cleanup efforts (see this, a message which generated some response and activity). The cemetery itself is almost dead, but burying it here would deprive a lot of people of a central place of information. Sure, these were not the founding fathers. Sure, it's a century after the first Flandro/Flandreau/Flanders got to New Rochelle. That doesn't alter the fact that it was there, and was important to a lot of people, and still is to some. So this article grew slowly, and wasn't immediately improved upon after Orlady tagged it--but there are no time limits here, and WP is not paper. It is entirely conceivable that over the years this article will grow--and even if it never approaches Arlington Cemetery, so what? And if it's to be deleted let me at least keep a copy, so the descendants and the community activists have something they can keep working on or with. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the problem that most of the current contents of the article are original research? (The long list of graves). Many items are sourced to genealogies or family newsletters. Are you willing to have the article trimmed to just what is documented in the New York Times piece? If not, are you proposing that this article should be exempt from the usual WP:Reliable source rules? EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I would ask for some leeway here. Lots of references in WP articles are made to websites and newsgroups; some of those are better (stronger) than others. The NYT article establishes a bit of notability, IMO, though I'd love to see more; the other references in the article are weaker, I gladly admit, and are there to attest to the graves, or the persons occupying them. Now, as for original research, it's not MY original research! Does that help? And again, I'll grant you that the sources there are not as strong as I'd like. Some have five stones remaining, others eight, etc. But again, it is perfectly conceivable that work will be done in that area, perhaps even by the city of New Rochelle, and what I ask is that in the meantime the article be allowed to stand. If it is trimmed down, sure, that's better than nothing; if it is merged in its entirety before it is trimmed, sure; as long as the history remains, because this article, weak as it is, was difficult to put together with these admittedly not-so-strong sources. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, I thought it interesting to investigate the assertions of notability in some other cemetery articles. Most of the 41 non-NYC cemeteries listed in Category:Cemeteries in New York (this is the batch that I checked) are burial sites of notable people (that is, at least one person with a Wikipedia article is buried there) and/or are National Cemeteries and/or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The exceptions are Flandreau Cemetery, Fairview Cemetery (Amsterdam, New York), and two that claim notability solely on the basis of reports of paranormal activity: Goodleburg Cemetery and Forest Park Cemetery, Brunswick. (There are other cemetery articles that are mostly about alleged ghost sightings, but they have some other claim to notability.) --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 16 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Stuff Absorbent

Nothing to distinguish this from other brands of superabsorbent polymer. Has been deleted twice as spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to superabsorbent polymer and merge any valuable content. As a trademark, it's a reasonable search term. Pburka (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and revise per RHaworth's suggestions below. Pburka (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the author of the article and this is my first time ever posting on Wikipedia. The first two versions were deleted due to my "rookie" skills on fully understanding Wiki rules. PMDrive1061, who deleted the first two versions, then took me under their wing and helped me to edit and clarified Wiki guidelines. As a matter of note, this Green Stuff material is NOT a superabsorbent polymer at all. It is a phenolic resin that does not expand at all when it gets wet. I have used it in our firehouse extensively and find it to be completely different in application and use compared to SAPs. This product is particularly interesting to us firemen because of its usefulness in Hazardous Materials spills. This stuff can absorb everything we have thrown it onto so far from antifreeze to full strength battery acid to turpentine. The absorbents and spill pads we have used before this Green Stuff are almost completely useless in most HazMat environments. That is why I wanted to write this piece for Wiki as Green Stuff is a completely new use for phenolic resin that firefighters (and I suspect many others dealing with liquid spills) will be wanting to know about in the very near future. Having heard about Wiki as a sort of on-line encyclopedia resource for the general public, I thought this item would be a perfect new entry for Wikipedia. I have no intent of spamming or advertising or anything else malicious. Everytime we use Green Stuff Absorbent at our firehouse, someone else asks a million questions about it that I don't always have time to answer. I figured I would write an article about what I knew about it on Wiki and then refer them to this Wiki article. I can certainly understand (especially after re-reading my first deleted draft!) how this article can be perceived as 'advertising', but I can only offer my written assurance that this article's intent is to inform in the best spirit of Wikipedia and not to 'spam'. I have tried my noble best to write the current piece in 'neutral content', but sometimes just 'reporting the facts' can understandably be seen by some as 'biased'. I hope you will understand and sympathize with my plight and not remove an article that I think (know) will become a great encyclopedic resource for first-responders trying to find out unbiased info about a product and material that can be of great use to them in the present and future. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have for me on this article and hope that I can satisfy your queries resulting in an article that will best exemplify the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Thank you for your good concerns!!! Syosset1966 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find the generic name name for this product - absorbent phenolic resin foam perhaps. Re-word the article in terms of the generic name. Find at least one other manufacturer of the product and mention them as well. (The article should be moved on to the generic name but do not do so until this AfD is concluded.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thank you for the input. I have checked (on the sly) with our sales guy. Apparently there is no one else making this type of absorbent out of phenolic resin. They discovered it largely by mistake and it has only found a market recently due to it's light weight saving so much money on shipping costs (a factor they say also makes it 'environmentally friendly'). So, there are no other manufacturers at the moment for this version, Green Stuff Absorbent is it. They call it a 'phenolic resin absorbent' so, maybe that generic term could be used. Any thoughts? Syosset1966 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable product from a non-notable company. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the product. Company using WP for promotional purposes. -Atmoz (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to look over this more completely in a moment, but I first would like to point out to the earnest writer that it would be prudent to learn the difference between "absorb" and "adsorb". Un school 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret. I am genuinely sympathetic to the contributing editor's desires here. RHaworth's advice is excellent, and I would encourage Syosset to follow it. Yes, I understand that this is ostensibly unique, but that does not mean that a generic name, or at least, a non-trade name, cannot be found. This was hard for me because I actually am somewhat persuaded that two of the sources (motorsport.com and europeancar magazine) are close to WP:RS, but even so, their articles appear to be little more than promos. Un school 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the one who assisted in the creation of this article since the original user was so eager to help. Re. the comment on absorb vs. adsorb, the product's own website describes it as an adsorbant rather than an absorbant as the name suggests. Nor was it intended to be written as an advertisement; listing a product's capabilities does not vis-a-vis mean it's an ad. I've pointed out on several occaions that I used to write ad copy and believe me, I can smell my own when it comes to a blatant ad. The original poster is a fireman, not a company rep. Voting neutral since I'm the one who got this poor guy into this mess. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I like the idea of the redirect as suggested at the top of the discussion. Just my $.02. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any issues with the article reading like advertising can be handled through editting. As a specialised product, references may be harder to come by in regular press but I did find sources like this article published through Knight Ridder newspapers. Also this article from an automotive site. --Whpq (talk) 13:44, 19 February 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. blog post indicates copyright, OR, spammy, how-to guide == WP:SNOW Mr.Z-man 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to hack

Okay, I prodd'd this as a how-to guide, and someone also tried to delete it as a Copyvio (even though the URL source and the username of the creator match), but anyway - its a how-to guide ViperSnake151 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete = We can't be sure that this is the author of the blog posting that the Wikipedia article is a copy of, and in any case the blog posting still claims copyright. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for how to guides or original research, for that matter. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc Strange. The article is also used as spam/advertising for the two websites included in it. Chamal ^talk 02:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and as a blatant how-to guide. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research how-to guide copyvio of http://mrcracker.com/2009/02/how-to-hack/ created to advertise MrCracker.com. Matt (Talk) 04:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a 'how-to guide' and blatent advertising for a hacking website and 'learn how to hack' book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek69 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor Par

Song's claim of notability is entirely in the future. Problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. Might even qualify for A9. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is up to date, sourced, bound to be expanded and with a potential Eurovision winner. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 01:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Turkish Flame ^☎ 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A9 A song has to do more than just be a possible contender in Eurovision. Given that the artists are red links and the purported notability is only in the future, I think A9 qualifies. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:BAND WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Song can't be more notable. It will be sung at an international song contest seen all over Europe and with a possibility that it will win? There really isn't any other place for the song's information either., as their will no doubt be plenty more to come. Also this article is well sourced. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't really significant in what they tell you though. And don't you think having an article on the song first is putting the cart before the horse? And isn't saying "it will be notable, just wait and see" exactly something you're not supposed to do? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the song is notable for being in the contest in general, not only if it wins. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, don't you think we should at least have an article on the act singing it? The act might just be notable since they have a song in Eurovision. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I know members of WikiProject Eurovision, then that is coming very soon. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I'm biased as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. The song just won a national song contest yesterday and will be the national representative at Eurovision. I think that should satisfy notability, at least as much as every other song that has been chosen thus far. Also, performing at the contest with the continental viewership makes even the song finishing in last place notable, so it isn't tied to the likelihood of winning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvr725 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it "will be the Armenian entry". When it is the Armenian entry, it will become notable. Powers ^T 00:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its already chosen, it is the entry. The contest is in May, while the song selection processes going on now are very important and part of the contest overall. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still falls under WP:CRYSTAL. We don't generally assign notability to things that haven't happened. What if the Armenians pull out due to unforeseen circumstances? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then delete all the other song articles then, by that logic.Zu Anto 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just quoting from the article. Powers ^T 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This song has won a national competition, which is pretty obviously notable whatever happens to it in a continent-wide competition. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 16 February 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K9Copy

Not notable. No claim to notability. Has been tagged for external sources for several months without any being presented. A quick search of the top 20 news.google.com archive shows references to the software, but they are minor mentions, not focused on this software in particular. Miami33139 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently Oppose. k9copy is a famous and one-of-its-kind linux application, that provides a necessary and useful Free Software replacement for an extremely famous Windows App (namely, DVD Shrink, whose page here has never been proposed for deletion). Since it's a piece of software, it is obvious that you will not find references to it in the New York Times or the like, but this is not enough to ascertain non-notability. For all linux users with even a mild interest in dvds, this program is a must-have, and it is important to keep information about it in the repository of human knowledge that wp is, specially since other software in the same category are present in the encyclopedia. See here and here for some reviews by trusted third party sources in the field of free software. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find myself persuaded by Gorgonzola. Not by his "vehemence", mind you, but by the links that he provided. The linux.com link was probably enough for me. Un school 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Unschool. LotLE×talk 08:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I started using this software, it was quite easy to notice what Gorgonzola has mentioned: it is the most famous (if not the only true) GNU/Linux counterpart to Windows' DVDShrink. Miguel Vieira (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Can anyone voting keep show reliable sources independent of the subject that demonstrate the notability of the subject? If not then every vote is WP:ILIKEIT not Wikipedia's guidelines. Miami33139 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both links provided by Gorgonzola seem independent and reliable enough to me. Un school (and LotLE×talk, indirectly) explicitly justified his vote based on that. If you disagree that they are reliable and independent sources, then please tell us why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Vieira (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unix Amiga Delitracker Emulator

Not notable. no claim to notability, unreferenced, orphaned, only bots have edited this for two years. news.google.com has zero hits for "Unix Amiga Delitracker Emulator" Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What would be notable? uade is widely used. At http://freshmeat.net/projects/uade/ its popularity is 2655/45000. 1/45000 would be the most popular project. Uade's discussion forum at http://board.kohina.net/index.php?c=5 has 1450 posts, and it has seen quite a few people. The fact is: uade is relevant when it comes to music made for Amiga computers. No doubt it's a niche thing, it's small, but still relevant for that topic. Also, see article MOD_(file_format). uade is relevant for the mod format. It is the most accurate player among competing players for playing 4 channel mods that I'm aware of (due to emulating original Amiga software, better hardware sound model, resampling etc). Surely news.google.com search is not a policy for Wikipedia, is it? You will no doubt then mark a thousand other software projects as unnotable. First, go mark "DeliPlayer" article for deletion. Even its domain name has vanished.. I oppose deletion of either article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shd (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, the article is refenced, see Module file for example. Shd (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am filtering a lot of software categories and DeliPlayer is on my list to investigate. To answer the question "What would be notable?" If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Miami33139 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do independent discussion forums of the subject matter? UADE has been discussed on many forums, it is also included in some GNU/Linux distributions (such as Gentoo). 91.155.190.237 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Only if the authors of the discussions both are identifiable and have good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Discussion forum postings authored by people known only by pseudonyms, or solely by the IP addresses of their computers, are worth zero. Discussion forum postings by people who do not have known good reputations for fact checking and accuracy are also worth zero. There's a great deal of the blind leading the blind on WWW and Usenet discussion fora. Wikipedia wants only reliable sources, from identifiable people that have known expertise in the field or known good reputations for making sure that what they write and publish is correct, with what they publish having been through a process of peer review and fact checking.
        We also want independent sources to ensure that the information is unbiased and not advertising or self-promotion, and to ensure that the subject has in fact escaped its creator(s)/author(s)/inventor(s) and actually become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge in the first place. Knowledge that only the subject or the subject's creator/author/inventor knows is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. It's not, yet, human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable software. Nomination appears to be part of scattershod nomination of all audio software by nominating editor. LotLE×talk 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep things because they "appear" to be notable. We show multiple references to reliable sources that document the subject of the article. My nominations are not scattershot - I am only nominating the ones that do not have adequate sourcing to show notability, usually after a quick searches for those references myself. Miami33139 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov Mouths

Delete:No coverage by non-trivial critics; article fails WP:Soap Mrathel (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Mrathel (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First glance looks like there's something there, but it boils down to some blogs and similar ilk. Un school 03:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Unschool. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:00, 18 February 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 bold redirect to Lupino. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luppino

Delete nothing to indicate that this surname is notable; we're not the phone book. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't possibly have an article for each and every surname common in "Italy and North America." I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Jack & Carlos. Un school 03:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close this AFD. I created the page Lupino (the more common spelling) and boldly redirected this page there. As of now there is no one named Luppino in Wikipedia. If some such persons are added later, the Luppinos could be broken out as a separate page. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:44, 15 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Superstar

AfDs for this article:

Delete. This is a non-notable and now defunct video podcast. JBsupreme (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not lost with the termination of a project. The sources are there and it starred a notable name in the tech broadcasting world. Nate • (chatter) 06:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a (less than?) year old podcast with no notability outside a limited audience. doktorb _words^deeds 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The podcast was hosted by a notable individual on a notable internet tv network. Instead of discussing notability, we should be addresses the fact the references are largely directly related to the people making the show. Can anyone find independent references? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is pretty much my view as well, notability is not inherited we need reliable and non-trivial coverage of this podcast. JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was trying to make it clear that verifiability was the issue, rather than notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a notable television show. Martin Sargent was a guy who hosted that show, for a time. Revision3 is an internet TV "network" noted for picking up people like Martin Sargent. This show is one degree of inherited notability too far. There just aren't any references that establish the importance of this show. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable podcast. Lacks the multiple non-trivial independant sources that discuss the subject. Themfromspace (talk) 03:18, 17 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PIM Xtreme

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This search reveals plenty of reliable sources. However, whether PIM Xtreme deserves a place in an encyclopedia is debatable. (It certainly is notable according to the notability guidelines.) Antivenin 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those reliable sources don't have significant coverage and most of them are download sites. Schuym1 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with many other software articles, this one lacks the necessary real-world discussion of the program in third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This software is notable according to the web presence, activity and people acceptance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.0.195.143 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On Wikipedia, notability is defined by the notability guidelines. Your vague assertion of notability isn't enough, as the article's subject needs to be covered non-trivially by independant, third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 19:54, 18 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-Z Rent-A-Car

Geographically limited car rental company. No indicia that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). bd2412 T 07:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Spam. §FreeRangeFrog 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be an advertisement. --Stormbay (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:11, 17 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alyce Faye Eichelberger

Former wife of John Cleese. The article seems to have a recurrent issue with COI edits by what appears to be a PR person (see [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]). Without the Cleese connection, it is highly unlikely that this person would be considered notable. As WP:NOTABILITY notes, notability does not transfer from Cleese to former (or current) wives and girlfriends. The subject of the bio seems to dislike some of the statements made in regard to her (despite appearing in reliable sources) - I propose deletion of this bio as a solution. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has written a non-notable book, married a notable person and attended the same school as another notable person, none of which makes them notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made an alteration to the article. The subject is in fact the co-author of the book, which is actually quite a notable publication. The other author is Brian Bates who has a fair list of publications. (Oddly enough, he has subsequently written a book with John Cleese.) Whether her part in the co-authoring is notable, I can't say. Her name appears above his on the cover and in many references. Peridon (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Evidently notable" doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Evidence is not provided in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I hate to say, keep only if sourced, but this would be one of the times. I am reasonably sure she is notable on her own right as a therapist. I'm also sure the article doesnt give evidence for it--there's a source for an award, and but the only other sourced content is a very dubious bit of 2nd hand gossip unrelated to her individual notability. The article was written around the wrong premise about notability, but that can be fixed. DGG (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keep if sourced" is not a valid !vote. A Google news search for "Alyce Faye Eichelberger" -Cleese returns all of 2 results, one in German and one which actually is about Cleese. If she were a notable psychologist there should be eveidence of this. Can someone close this already? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC, the part in bold. That's the !vote. The comment is supplementary, for discussion & explanation.. DGG (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show the subject meets the GNG. RMHED. 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reliable source coverage satisfies the general notability guideline, even discounting news coverage of her marriage to John Cleese. Career notable enough to win induction into Oklahoma State's Educational Hall of Fame, thus satisfies WP:BIO even if more sources discussing her career are not added to the article. She doesn't earn inherited notability from her marriage to Cleese, but it shouldn't count against her either. I think if we had a candidate unrelated to Cleese who studied under Anna Freud, wrote a notable book and was inducted to a university hall of fame, the article would be kept, indeed probably wouldn't be nominated for AfD in the first place. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't agree that induction into "Oklahoma State's Educational Hall of Fame" counts for anything at all toward notability outside the boundaries of OSU. I nominated this because the subject appears to have issues with some of the properly sourced information in the article and removing the article seems like the only way to satisfy that desire. Odd to see some of the keep !votes here from editors who are generally sympathetic to BLP issues, but whatever... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:00, 16 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Sylvest

Found nothing to indicate subject meets WP:GNG with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources so delete.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

week delete Sherdog is a reliable source for MMA records, but the only sources are for records, no interviews etc, that would support notability currently --Nate 14 81 08:59, 16 February 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. Been running for 14 days in which nothing to say be passes WP:BIO has appeared. Can always be recreated should such sources appear. Black Kite 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Ruiz

Found nothing to indicate subject meets WP:GNG with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete--He's fought some people with WP articles, but only 2 fights? And no references? Probably little notability.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Luke Dyer was linked to a rugby player, only Yves Edwards has an article here. Fixed. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 15 February 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 Church of England. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Budgen

The notability of this article was challenged back in September 2008 and there has been no serious response. It was earlier proposed for deletion but the author objected. PatGallacher (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my GBooks1 & GBooks2 search finds little of use, and the 2 personal www pages cited on the Article are less than impressive. If reliable evedence were provided, I could be swayed, but not on what there currently is. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The online references are limited. But the paper references in the Egham museam are deep. Ok he wasn't exactly prime minister, but to delete such people from 100 years ago, when we keep modern people when they have, say, a notable blog for 15 minutes, is un helpful bias.Obina (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)bias.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a mention in Church of England. Unprejudiced to recreation if secondary sources can be found about him to satisfy WP:N Themfromspace (talk) 03:08, 17 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Basque football players

Article is unreferenced and provides no information (other than nation flags) which is not already provided in Category:Basque footballers. Note: I am the article's original creator, but the article has not drastically changed since October 2006. Giant Snowman 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete firstly, we already have a corresponding category and it is way enough. Secondly, this list is also potentially infinite as it is now, since it could include all footballers in the world, regardless of age, amount of Basque origin (i.e., just Basque people or also people with Basque parents, grandparents or other ancestors?) and football level. --Angelo (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd question whether we even need the associated category. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Agree with ArtVandelay, do we even need the category? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The category [is]/[should probably be] for the players who've played in the Basque Country national football team? — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Basques have their own football team so why not? And because their team is not FIFA recognised, players are eligible to play for them as well as for Spain, France, etc. Tris2000 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an indiscriminate list. This sort of topic is better addressed in a category, which in this case has already been done. Themfromspace (talk) 03:10, 17 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permuted Press

No notability established, no reliable sources, basically article is just an ad for someone self-publishing books. No results in Google News for "Permuted Press" -- Google web results also show no mainstream coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company. Matt (Talk) 03:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional spam for a non-notable company. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate company and some of their works have been put on the short list for the Stoker Awards. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm having trouble putting the proper notation into the text, but the preliminary Stoker ballot with the two nominations can be found at http://ozhorrorscope.blogspot.com/2009/01/news-preliminary-ballot-for-bram-stoker.html -NapalmChicken
- I'm sure that it is legitimate; what's in question is whether it passes the inclusion criteria for companies, which are outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). In a nutshell, "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If you can point to any such coverage about the publishing house that would be very helpful. --Amalthea 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This publishing company has published many books from notable authors, including Kim Paffenroth and David Wong. Here is one reliable source about the company. There's also an article from absolutewrite.com that interviews the founder of this publishing company. Third, there's a review about one of the publishing company's books and the company from a professor at Louisiana State University. These sources are enough to barely push this company past WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 18 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Management Center

Neither the article nor a Google search provides any indication that this is a notable business school. Sandstein 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My initial reaction to this was that any accredited university must be notable, but in looking further I'm not sure that the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs has any credibility as an accrediting body. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, and I don't think that the accrediting body is credible enough for this to have any automatic notability as a university. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Phil you cannot clam that this is not an accredited school by a simple search on Google. Google is not the end all search engine. This is a relatively young school and if yoy check theACBSP Membership Link, you will also note that that on the right hand column SMC is an accredited institution. If you want to discredit this school for accreditation are you ready to challenge Chicago State University or University of Dallas? Sedondly, you must define what accreditation means before making defamatory comments about this school. I remind you that the ACBSP is recognized by the Council for Higher Education in the US which recognizes the academic standard that the ACBSP holds and I quote " The CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation is: Degree programs in business and business-related fields at the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate levels. At its meeting on January 22, 2001, the CHEA Board of Directors reviewed the recommendations of the CHEA Committee on Recognition regarding the recommendation and recognized the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs." associated link

Finally the only reason that some schools are not recognized regionally by local governing departments is because the shcools are private and small. Have you looked at the 26 guidelines that the ACBSP puts schools through in order to get this international accreditation. Let's face it globalization is shrinking our world and we need to standardize educational practices in the largest field of study-business. I leave you with an article that legitmizes the ACBSP [Small School Accreditation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaboss (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last validation which you wouldn't find on a google search is the list of Accrediting agencies from tbe Council for Higher Education in the U.S. (CHEA} link I have also put in an article about Diploma Mills to validate the CHEA and its recognition of APBSC. gov.ed

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political party strength in Puerto Rico

Delete and userfy until which time it is complete: I understand how this article can be useful but it is very incomplete, in particular in older information, and gathering this information will take time and effort. In the meantime, we remain with an article that conveys no real information and could even be misleading to our readers. It can be userfied to my User space or the the article's original contributor if this is the result. Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How possibly could this article be misleading? It's part of the larger series of articles Political party strength in U.S. states, all of which are progressing toward completion. That an article is incomplete is no reason to delete it. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving the article to a user namespace would essentially guarantee that the article would never benefit from future collaboration in researching some of this missing historical information. Political party strength in California, Political party strength in Indiana, and Political party strength in New York are good examples of articles in this series that a number of editors have worked to research and expand nearly to completion, although there are details missing here and there, particularly for further back in history. That's the nature historical research, though—gaps in information are filled in as more researchers become interested in uncovering these missing details. I am confident that the information required to complete this article is out there; finding it might be difficult, but I have started to fill in details based on other related Wikipedia articles. I think a Template:Expert-subject might be called for, though. I will contact the official historians of the Puerto Rico Senate and House, or other appropriate officials, by e-mail to ask if they might be able to point Wikipedia editors in the right direction. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being incomplete isn't a reason to delete something and the article clearly does contain useful information. Tag it with {{Incomplete}} if you must. Hut 8.5 11:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - completion is not a requirement for Wiki articles. matt91486 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; every article on Wikipedia is incomplete. Powers ^T 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a series in Template:Political party strength in U.S. states.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ This article is boderline original research. First, Puerto Rico is not a U.S state and comparing political parties in Puerto Rico to U.S parties is misleading and wrong. A quick glance at the political history of Puerto Rico will show that measuring "political strength" can't be done only by elections results. There are many political parties in the history of the island that have influenced the political status without a democratic election from the creation of an autonomous government under Spanish rule to the commonwealth constitution. It was not until 1949 that the first governor was elected by Puerto Ricans. If this article is keep, it will need a complete rewrite using historical sources related to the island and using a different criteria and format than the one used in other articles in Template:Political party strength in U.S. states. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep, article has improved and sources has been added. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment What the article purports to do, and thus states such at the outset, is to show which parties won elections, not which parties had more informal influence in the island's politics. But if you feel that another perspective on political parties on the island is required, why not add narrative describing this larger scope of political organizing, rather than trashing the whole idea for an article? Also, I don't believe that the article compares political parties in Puerto Rico to those in the U.S., nor does it assert that P.R. is a state; it simply employs Template:United States topic. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The historian of the Senate emailed me a document that lists all Senators who served from 1917 through 2007. I've added add these specific party compositions following every election since 1917; hopefully this will eliminate any original research aspects of this article. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article provides valuable information on the confusing partisan political situation of Puerto Rico available in no other wikipedia article. Pr4ever (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lack of substance is no reason for deletion. It is a "stub" as is and a work in progress, that is why we have the classification of "stubs" in Wikipedia. I am sure that with time it will become a formitable article. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:27, 19 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon M. Dennis

Can't find any notable google hits that aren't directly related to his own website. Only obvious news hits are a snake-owner in California and a murder defendant in Buffalo. Neither are this individual.

If I'm mistaken about the notability then Original Poster should provide some WP:RS links. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's well known within the machinima circle. Just because he doesn't have internetwide fame doesn't mean he isn't notable. When it comes to machinima, he's a big name and a big influence. BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since apparently there is no proof that this guy is such a big influence. The idea that his fame is not internetwide seems a bit strange considering that this is an 'art form' so connected to the internet. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he is a big deal in these circles there should be something you can point to to indicate that. Please do so because I'd rather these articles stick around than go away, but without any sourcing it becomes a slippery precedent. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 07:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources is shown. I am somewhat familiar with machinima, and I cannot find any suitable third-party sources, at least on the Internet. I did find his videos listed on well-known machinima sites, but that, in and of itself, isn't generally considered "non-trivial coverage". — TKD::Talk 07:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, or at least the article doesn't appear that way. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 23:00, 19 February 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 Transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auparishtaka

Probably should be trans located to wiktionary. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but you can't delete it until after it has been moved. So transwiki it and then come back to discuss whether it should be deleted or turned into a soft redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and then we'll talk. Really, I can't see how we can decide whether or not to delete an article if the nominator themselves thinks it should be transwiki'd... this isn't the "articles for transwiking" discussion, this is an "article for deletion" discussion. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:58, 19 February 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 McLeod's Daughters. Should've been a bold redirect, not an AfD, really. Black Kite 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stand By Me (McLeod's Daughters)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stand By Me (McLeod's Daughters)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a plot summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McLeod's Daughters (season 8) as is recommended by the episode guideline. Why waste time at AfD for what should be an uncontroversial redirect? DHowell (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DHowell. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above until there is some meaningful content. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:53, 15 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Sandler

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. GNews generates a host of PR Newswire hits plus a number of articles that appear to be about someone else. The few that appear to be about the subject of this article, do not constitute significant coverage. The links provided in this article are either (a) insignificant; or (b) not independent of the subject. Bongo matic 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of press releases and similar material that lacks independence from the subject, but I'm not finding the non-trivial, independent reliable source coverage on this subject that would be necessary to demonstrate notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of fluff here to make the person appear notable, but what the article is missing is non-trivial mentions in independant, reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit There's some definite fluff here, but some obvious notability. After performing some searches, I see some non-trivial mentions in better sources than are herein given. Anonymous 16:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.25 (talk) [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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon x2

Non-notable composition. JaGa^talk 23:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no notability claimed, possibly merge into composer's article.--Cerejota (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcing that establishes notability. ArcAngel (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other votes. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:57, 19 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (Lady GaGa song)

Uncharted, uncovered and has won no awards; how it is notable? It is the same as LoveGame. Renanx3 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. No charts, no official release. Paul75 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has an official release check- http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/-the video makes it notable. LoveGame was notable, but in th end...was deleted> this should of changed it because it was notable> had natinol chart postion--complys with [[29]] Dance-pop (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting song, no claims to notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say to keep it. although mi opinion doesnt really count, im just an Ip. Reason-Notable-because of official release, see other keep refrence.60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) — 60.234.151.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This vote should be discounted as a likely sock of User:Dance-pop. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but like a song and not like a single. Promo single. Like Radar by Britney Spears.--Aaa16 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does comply with WP:NSONGS

1.Offcial release-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/(as promo single--i guess) 2.Music video-http://www.imeem.com/people/1mLPYH/music/4YqrZUPx/lady_gaga_beautiful_dirty_rich/ 3.Charted-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_GaGa_discography UK 120 Third party sources-http://www.last.fm/music/Lady+GaGa/Beautiful%2C+Dirty%2C+Rich for releaseDance-pop (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Along with Beautiful, Dirty, Rich to The Fame (album) until it is notable. DiverseMentality 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable>been charted UK-120

Keep. I say keep it. It has its own music video, it charted in the UK, and it has a cover art. Like Aaa16 said, it's the same with Radar by Britney. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep it but instead of having it under singles we could have it under other songs. For example Britney Spears' song And Then We Kiss is a promo single but it still has it's own article. AllyE1991 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

BDR has an officail release: source-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. LoveGame hasnt but when it does it will have its own article.

Keep. We should keep it. It was released as a promotional single for digital download therefore it is eligible. It has a music video and it has charted in the UK, that says someting! I find it necessary and it would be foolish for this article to be deleted --Youstinklmao (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found athird party source to verify its chart placing in the uk at 89- source http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles.php. I know think there is more then engough evoidence to say it complioes with WP:NSONGS.Dance-pop (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONGS. Themfromspace (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have justified why and how it complise with WP:NSONGS. Why do you disagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because it lacks the non-trivial, independant, third-party coverage by reliable sources required by the general notability guidelines and NSONGS. Just that something is shown to exist doesn't make it notable. There's a difference between WP:V and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)re[reply]

disagree with your statement, this is about notability, and it is notable and has been verified by mulitple sources, there are many third party sources all over the net to verify it. Last Fm for example. It does comply with WP:V and WP:N, I have checked.Dance-pop (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fails WP:NSONGS. Third party notability only asserts its release for the promotional purposes for a television series. Also, song informations asserted by the artiset regarding its development is there for all the songs from the corressponding album, hence that information is also not in account. As for charting, there was no official release only it charted based on downloads. Hence redirect. "Legolas" (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offical Release-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. Promo single therefore bypasses third notability. Based on downloads only--makes it more signifcant> notable. Millions of people would have seen the promo for the tv seris>huge promotion for artist.Dance-pop (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offical Release is here go to the SOURCE-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/. Promo single therefore bypasses third notability. Based on downloads only--makes it more signifcant> notable. Millions of people would have seen the promo for the tv seris>huge promotion for artist. Here is a SOURCE for chart ranking it went to 89 in the UK based on DOWNLOADS- http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles.php. Third party sources-http://www.last.fm/music/Lady+GaGa/Beautiful%2C+Dirty%2C+Rich and http://music.vodafone.co.nz/ft/track/lady_gaga/beautiful__dirty__rich/15190668/. Therfore it compies with WP:NSONGS.Dance-pop (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dance-pop. It's classified as a release on Lady GaGa's official site. Youstinklmao (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles for BDR-heres anther-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful,_Dirty,_Rich--This one has less sources.Dance-pop (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the second article to the album page untill and unless the discussion on this one is resolved. "Legolas" (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I looked over all the sources posted by dance-pop and I'm not convinced any of them meet WP:RS. One of them is even a wikipedia article! Themfromspace (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album's page. The song has started charting in the UK, although not inside the top 75. --Efe (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but like song--79.36.251.42 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) — 79.36.251.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 Non-admin speedy close of likely bad-faith nomination. An examination of nominators contributions reveals it to be a trolling-only account. Mike R (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

AfDs for this article:

I know many people here are sick of all the drama about this article, but since we have not had a debate about this for months now, I'd like to have it deleted, on the grounds that it is not notable merely because of passing mentions in the press. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lulz No. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do passing mentions establish notability? Ee-ellh (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, almost everything in Wikipedia is deletable 'because of passing mentions in the press.' HalfShadow 22:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia has had very notable press mentions, such as several articles all about it, far more than small mentions. ED is being used to coordinate trolling-it was G***p's home before they banned him for being unfunny. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you yourself have just stated why the article is notable. HalfShadow 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out that ED is a local phenomenon uses primarily for trolling, similar to the deleted GNAA. The fact they troll Wikipedia is probably what gives them an air of notability around here. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possible cause, but it doesn't properly explain why the article was deleted for the better part of ED's existence and only allowed to be recreated (at a much higher threshold than other new articles) in May of 2008. New sources, including a wired profile, an NYT profile, a conference paper, a New york Times magazine profile all changed that. It isn't "locally notable", it's notable. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it as notable as Elsie Leeson? Ee-ellh (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should I know and why should we care? Protonk (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Leeson has been mentioned in a published book, ED has not. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is notable merely because of mentions in the press. Lrn2AfD. This debate can be quickly closed. Skomorokh 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that an AFD should be closed speedily merely because it has been kept in the past was the reason the GNAA article survived 18 AFDs before finally getting deleted. If we were to really think about this, and disallow the troll votes, the article would probably not last. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to assume your proposition of "passing coverage" is true. I don't. There is significant coverage from multiple independent sources on this website. If you don't like the site, ok, but that doesn't change the coverage. It's notable. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those not familiar with the subject, Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica has a lengthy list of deletion reviews on this subject along with links to past AfDs which are not picked up automatically by the AfD2 template above. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 15 February 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.