Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Keep From what I can tell, the phrase is an established scientific term, as I believe can be demonstrated here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], for example. Terrakyte (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. It seems to be an established term, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to say whether it's just an alternate term for classical thermodynamics (in which case the two should be merged into one article), or at least somewhat distinct. --Delirium (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Add the refs and keep the article--apparently nominated without any search for references. DGG (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all pretty obscure references (to put it mildly!) - I think my original deletion proposal might have been better phrased "doesn't provide any evidence that the phrase is commonly used". Comments from people with a background in this area of science would be helpful - I posted to WP Physics, is there anywhere else I should have posted to? Djr32 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you think they are obscure? One reference I have posted is from the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and another is from the Polish Academy of Sciences. I can post more references. I don't think there is anywhere else that you can post, thought I won't claim to be sure. Terrakyte (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For history-of-science terms like this, the most convincing reference would be to a history book that uses the term "phenomenological thermodynamics" and explains its relation to other kinds of thermodynamics, historical significance, etc. Journal articles on specific technical subjects are a bit more like primary sources when it comes to writing history-of-science articles. --Delirium (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Delirium has put it better than I can - by obscure I meant that the phrase is used in the occasional paper, I don't think there's a "Journal of Phenomenological Thermodynamics", it doesn't have a classification in
          classical thermodynamics pre-1870, but doesn't really make a distinct field.) Djr32 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Keep. 650 google books hits = notable concept. Can the claim "this is just a synonym" be referenced? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  classical thermodynamics. There is no any difference to my knowledge. Delete. This is probably indeed simply a combination of words as argued by Steve below. This is also a misleading terminology, because all natural sciences, perhaps excluding mathematics, are "phenomenological" (empirical). Biophys (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Delete- This is closely related to existential electromagnetism, right? Ok, seriously: There are plenty of recent academic citations using the term, but the article in question here says, "being synonymous with classical thermodynamics, is considered the pre-1870s branch of thermodynamics." So, I agree in part with Delirium that references to history of science sources would help. Still, I'm a little confused -- is the point that "phenomenological thermodynamics" is simply an updated, high-tech name for the practice of "doing" thermodynamics research using pre-1870s concepts, models, etc? If so, I'd see it as something special, not just a "synonym" for "classical" TD. I'm inclined to either Keep or Merge, depending on whether some clarification could be offered. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I am buying the "two words sometimes used together but not a significant topic in its own right" theory Jlg4104 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In the references given above, a bunch of which I read in detail, the phrase "phenomenological thermodynamics" isn't used as an independent phrase, but as two words that separately describe the approach. It's like the phrase revenge kidnapping, or the phrase birthday wine, etc. The phrase is used as shorthand for "applying the principles of thermodynamics in a phenomenological way", or "deriving thermodynamic theories starting from phenomenological observations". For example the Jap. J. Appl. Phys. paper cited above uses the term to describe an approach that starts with a phenomenological theory (a variant of Ginzburg–Landau theory) and uses that theory to do thermodynamic calculations. The word "phenomenological" isn't really modifying the word "thermodynamics" (maybe grammatically, but not conceptually), but rather the calculations themselves. The two words don't go together into a single concept or subject, and therefore it doesn't warrant a separate article. --Steve (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems that the only reason given to keep it is that "phenomenological thermodynamics" is a legitimate term. What about the rest of the article?

  Here's a little background regarding the article. The editor

  Phenomenological thermodynamics. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to
  Classical thermodynamics. Since the phrase is used in the literature and is a synonym of the classical thermodynamics, the best solution seems to redirect the article to classical thermodynamics. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Re "...is a synonym of the classical thermodynamics..." - As far as I can tell, this notion that they are the same, originated with the editor Sadi Carnot and is an example of how bad information can confuse.

    If I understand "redirect" correctly, it means that someone looking for phenomenological thermodynamics will be referred to another article instead of being made aware of the article phenomenological thermodynamics. If there is a redirect, it should be to Thermodynamics. Also, if someone was googling phenomenological thermodynamics wiki, wouldn't the problem article still come up at the top of the hit list? Let's clean things up by deleting the article phenomenoligical thermodynamics and not just trying to sweep it under the rug with a redirect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, it is not an invention of Sadi Carnot. Also, please read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re your first sentence, see below. Re your second sentence, the link wasn't very clear to me and possibly others. As you are an administrator, it would be very helpful if you explained to us what redirect means for this article. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's an example of a redirect page:
          Levorotation and dextrorotation. Does that help? :-) --Steve (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete Agree with Steve. His evidence has convinced me that the term isn't notable for its own article. Terrakyte (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• classical thermodynamics. The two are alternative names for the same thing. They are used as such in many sources.

  The article did in fact tell us all this. And it was right. So is Ruslik0. Redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

As Steve, Terrakyte, and possibly others seem to realize, "phenomenological" is simply an adjective that can be used in many places. For example, in this excerpt from an article in the Physical Review, "This feature plays a central role in the phenomenological statistical mechanics discussed in Sec. IV...".[6] So you see, phenomenological thermodynamics isn't synonymous with classical thermodynamics but it refers to a phenomenological approach to any part of thermodynamics: classical, statistical, whatever. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 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 weak keep. If the article about this apparent 'curse' isn't expanded in the near future, it should probably be listed again. One (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFC South Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Delete per nom. Completely unencyclopedic sports theorizing.
  talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Complete OR, no encyclopedic value whatsoever.
  T. 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The article was unreferenced, but that's easily fixed by adding references such as "Curse Of NFC South Hits Saints" by Ira Kaufman, The Tampa Tribune September 18, 2007 http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/18/180033/sp-curse-of-nfc-south-hits-saints1/accessed 12/31/08ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also see that this "curse" is discussed on a number of fan chat sites. But the only ref I could find that meets
    talk) 19:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, I see that the article now has a ref from Bleacher Report, which I've never heard of but apparently is affiliated with CBS Sports. Hmm. Anyway, I've categorized the article with
      talk) 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep Though the article could use some tidying, it's now clear to me that there are sufficient
  talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Done. I've formatted the refs and added
    talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep- with
  Shawn in Montreal's improvements, the article passes muster. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment- as an aside, i swear i remember seeing something about this on ESPN.com. I could be wrong on that though.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  National Football Conference South Division and mention there. I'm not seeing why people really need a full article to understand this topic. It's a few (recent) years of nearly trivial coincidence. --Rividian (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, that may be the best solution. I'd change my vote -- again -- and support a merge to the main conference article. I see a lot of the content is there, albeit without the references, which should be imported.
    talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

A merge isn't a bad idea, but there seems to be enough coverage of the worst to first, first to worst pattern that an independent article can be justified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • True, but this "curse" isn't going to go on forever. And the rationale for a separate article is likely to diminish with time.
    talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

One year at a time Nostradamus, one year at time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. There are no such thing as curses, it's just a coincidence. You could find them throughout sports, they don't all deserve articles here. Delete this crap.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there ARE curses, by the mere fact that people believe in them. Just ask the Red Sox. No, not all of them deserve articles, but this one has media coverage--surely you are familiar with Bleacher Report? They mentioned it three times in 2008--voila. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with what User:Chrisjnelson said its complete fake crap--Yankees10 03:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the curse was a popular term, than maybe. But this is entirely OR. I've never seen it popularized in the press, which makes it a creation of the creating user. Pats1 ^T/C 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Exactly. The coincidence has been discussed in the media, but I've rarely (if ever) seen it called a curse. Regardless, this kind of coincidence is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article. A mention on the conference's or division's page at best.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Oh, and, the coincidence didn't happen this year. So now what we have is an article talking about a coincidence that happens...except when it doesn't. Brilliant.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Question: What is this supposed to be?--
  800 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. I'm a bit confused--there's both a curse and a blessing? Anyway, the individual sections are actually pretty well referenced, and yes, on ESPN they have mentioned it. OK, so it's completely ridiculous, and it doesn't work this year, but the sources given use the phrase (and discuss the blessing), so it's not OR and it's notable, even if only in the way paranormal folks and ufologists are notable. Drmies (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just because something is referenced and has been mentioned by ESPN doesn't make it notable enough to be in the encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what if it meets
      WP:N? Is it going to be worthy if enough editors like the topic? Drmies (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep - it's a sourced, discussed phenomena. A lot of the argument seems to center on whether or not the "curse" is real. I think that's besides the point. What it IS is a documented historical coincidence, which is of a long enough duration to be notable. Belief in curses is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
  matt91486 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep--The argument for deletion seems to be
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is that the article include secondary sources that establish the notability of the curse. --Jmundo (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • The argument is not whether or not some of us like it, and it's not whether or not the curse is real. I'm well aware that as long as it's documented, the mere topic could be notable regardless of whether or not there's any actual validity to it. However, as an avid follower of the NFL (and I know most fans would agree) the pattern has not be given enough attention to accumulate notability. It's just an amusing statistical pattern that has occasionally been mentioned in the media because that's what they do. It doesn't mean it's particularly relevant. Not to mention, since the pattern was broken this year, it's highly likely the mentions will become very infrequent to nonexistent.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:25, 4 January 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. (

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

Fails to meet

Keep - Though not explicitly covered by the Cricket WP guidelines, my own opinion is that playing for the Hong Kong national women's team ought to be enough to make her notable. That's even more the case if she is truly the youngest person ever to play for a country's full national side. JH (talk page) 10:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Andrew nixon (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:CRIN. flaminglawyer^c 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've brought this up at
  WP:Cricket, as it is my opinion that anyone to have represented his or her country (at senior level) in a major world sport is notable. However, this article needs at least one more reference, especially for the claim of being the youngest to play for Hong Kong (which I do know through my own research is accurate) before I can change my vote to keep. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. At first I was a bit concerned about whether the subject had actually played at senior level, because the Cricinfo profile only links to an under 19 match, but the scorecards linked from here confirm that she has played at the highest amateur level of her sport (to quote from
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 2 January 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 redirect to Designer clothing. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Strong delete Rambling personal essay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really an essay so much as a bizarre collection of definitions of every type of clothing ever, written by someone either just learning English or very very confused. Example entry: "Swim-wear: It is a clothing worn for swimming. It includes bikinies." After deletion, suggest a redirect to Designer clothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is actually a lot of copyrighted text in there, so speedy delete for copyvio may be appropriate. For example the snippets about the designers are lifted from other sites, for example: [7], [8].  LinguistAtLarge  19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  MuZemike (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect. per
  WP:CSD. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per
  WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATELIST and the copyvio. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:54, 30 December 2008 (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} 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information (and a duplication of content already found on the season pages) Mayalld (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All this tells me is who was the preferred non-injured player at each position vs. that pitcher for that particular game. Could be the best player at one position was injured - could be the listed player at another position was just the right-handed half of a platoon and the opening day starter for the opposition was left-handed, etc., etc. Quite indiscriminate. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Eh, I was trying to think of reasons why this is a notable list... but it really is trivia. At best, in terms of information that could be notable, the listing of a team's opening day pitcher tells you who the ace was in any given year, unless there was an injury... that's not truly trivia in the baseball sense, but ultimately I think this list is trivia in the Wikipedia sense. --Rividian (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (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. — Aitias // discussion 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7d Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, apparently unpublished physical theory. Only refs given for the so called theory are to the personal webpage of the author. TimothyRias (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - probably nonsense, definitely OR (despite the attempt to provide lots of references - but these are references for well known things like the Compton wavelength, not for 7d physics). Djr32 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure
  WP:OR by the article creator. Google Scholar shows up just a single pdf file which does not mention 7d Physics. Salih (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Pseudoscience\OR\Essay--Wadeperson (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Essentially OR and some redundant description of basic
  Kaluza-Klein ideas. The references are wikipedia pages, personal web sites, and unrelated canonical physics texts. Joshua Davis (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non notable, I wish it were even readable but it isn't.
  Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. For a moment, I thought it was a fork of
  Heim Theory, but it has absolutely no references for the material other than what is contained in conventional partical physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. OR. Ozob (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - that page is a candidate for tranwiki import to wikiversity. --mikeu ^talk 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable subject, unsourced. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:47, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable neologism. Also,

• Delete — nothing more than a
  MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Crap like this is what Urban Dictionary is for. JuJube (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- probably suitable for wikitionary.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOT#DICT.--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism, more kids trying to validate stuff by having a Wikipedia article on it. JuJube (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2008 (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 (

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

Non-notable software addon. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be promotion, does not establish notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The author blanked the page (diff), so it may get speedily deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2008 (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. — Aitias // discussion 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Rose Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete either a hoax or extreme aggrandisement of a non-notable person. I strongly doubt that an internationally-known popstar on the cusp of a world tour wuld get just 10 google hits, all of them facebook buddies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Theirs must be the only school studying the 'Sun and Rain' song (see Talk Page). May be heading for stardom. Not there yet. Peridon (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any sourcing -
  verifiable article can be written. Guest9999 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sounds clearly like a hoax to me with all those 100,000 — unless we assume that the 100,000 refer to atoms of something, like a lemonade stand, in which case I've sold lots more than 100,000 myself. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Splash Concert season 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Weekend Splash Concert season 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the work of some single purpose accounts and has no references at all. Out of curiosity I googled "Weekend Splash Concert" and got a total of 29 unique hits, including several which are actually the same, being scraped Wikipedia content for the seasons as listed here. With no references and no obvious reliable sources, this apparently fails

• Delete. Nom. is absolutely correct--there is nothing here in terms of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been speedy deleting ancillary articles; those on "contestants", largely written by the artists concerned or their colleagues, and the music releases by same. I did not delete the above as I found a few original ghits, generally in respect of the promotor, and took a view that South Pacific based events may not gain much Google coverage. My post to
  WP:AN#Vanity, all is vanity refers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a hoax. All the ghits seem to have crept from WP.
  talk) 22:49, 30 December 2008 (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} 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Wells (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet the criteria in

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Springnuts (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Springnuts (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't show notability per
  WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Subject is not notable--no records out with a major label, no tours, no coverage. While the band is back together, the subject writes jingles and TV music. Also, the article is mostly mere vanity; in an earlier edit I had removed a whole herd of peacocks (actually I was trying to do the subject a favor...), which have been restored by a suspected sockpuppet. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails stand alone notability per
  WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:25, 1 January 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.

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

It's just some book someone wrote. It gives no assertion of notability. The sources are also completely lacking and most can't even be called reliable sources. The book has won no awards, gotten no press, or anything that would make it notable. If you google "The Bible (A Parody)", the only thing that comes up is a couple stores selling it and that's all. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, NN per Wikipedia:Notability_(books) Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Book is not covered outside of Wikipedia except for retailers selling the book. Lacks coverage in press.
  RT 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yay, though I wander through the valley of the shadow of Delete... Thou disregards the law as set forth in the Book of Jimbo in relation to
  talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete--but hey Eco, don't go having too much fun now. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to Amazon, it was "published" by iUniverse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable book. Only notability claims are that there's seven copies at one local library and that the creator won two NN Bible contests. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for a bit I'll wager that this 87 page parody is as hilarious as it sounds from the many reviews I read online. Did a G-search and apparently it's available in more than just one library, and for less than $10. Cheaper than a night out. I think that the title alone will disgruntle folks, even if the contents are as funny and topical as the reviews say... and for that reason alone it will be removed from wiki even though it might actually be a fine little article with some work. MIght even take a crack at it myself. Gotta respect the author's using THE GOOD BOOK in a parody though. BUT.... How dare he try to feed others the fruit from the tree of humour.!! That alone will have him banished fron the Garden of Wiki. .. left to wander amoung the billions in a world of stoicsm. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I bow to the inevitable. May it go in peace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, based soley on the fact that it doesn't meet notability requirements.  LinguistAtLarge  19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable book. Also, It seems as though MichaelQSchmidt has some sort of conclict of interest with this book. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To: User:Rwiggum. To what are you referring??? I never even heard of this book before it was brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Apology accepted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was simply referring to your language in your defense of the article. You didn't comment at all on the merits of the article per notability guidelines, rather you went on about how great and cheap the book was. I simply stated that it seemed as though you may have a conflict of interest. If this is not the case, then I apologize. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accepted. No harm, no foul. The book sells for $10. Thought that was cheap entertainment. I have been learning in my reserach that this young author created a modern parody of the
  Christian Bible. As for commenting on the delete opinions of a sourced article.... I am being more proactive and trying to improve the article. I'd rather fix a leak than complain about the dampness. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fix a leak, yes... but the water is now too deep even for me. Time for
  Last Rites. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• DARTH PANDA^duel 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Amen and Shalom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (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} 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined speedy as there are some borderline notability claims and the article exists for more than 2 years now but I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage or articles to assert notability that might indicate why the band passes

No malice/attack against the band intended by the way. I came across it while cleaning up the industrial metal artists page. If someone can provide good sources on them, then great, but a quick flick through my own usual sources didn't turn up anything. Nothing given in the article, and their tour almost exclusively seems to have been through their home state, with GWAR in three shows being the only real big name there.

talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: Doesn't show notrability per
  WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability not established, as per
  talk) 00:20, 2 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sounds like the personal opinion of the writer. The first few Google hits for "Indeterminacy problem" either are copies of this article or are about something else entirely. While I agree with most of the conclusions, is this "problem" notable? Does anyone really use the phrase "indeterminacy problem" to refer to this? Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The same thing is discussed in Philosophy of science#Indeterminacy of theory under empirical testing If this is not a generally accepted name for the topic, redirect it to indeterminacy. Juzhong (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you try google scholar? Juzhong (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a textbook example of
  WP:OR. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, it's a textbook example of editors at AFD not doing the searches for sources that actually help AFD, and that have been the expected behaviour of editors since at least 2003. And, to add to the irony, this is a subject that is discussed in textbooks. I've just found it discussed, over 3 pages, in ISBN 9780847691227, for example. (The text, sans illustrations, is even available as a sample chapter of the book, on the publisher's WWW site.) The more usual name that it is discussed under is "underdetermination" (of theory by evidence), after Helen Longino. It's distinct from the Duhem–Quine thesis, too, since it doesn't deal in auxiliary assumptions. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not claim that sources do not exist. However the article, as it stands now, is a synthesis of the published material and therefore is original research—an assay, as Headbomb noted below. Ruslik (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks an awful lot like this doesn't it? What it's doing in a website about Swedish plumbing fixtures is something that we don't need to make a theory for, but this is a leftover from Wikipedia's early days, when sourcing was considered optional. If sources can be added, it's worth reconsidering, otherwise, redirect per above. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a (non-GFDL-compliant) copy of Wikipedia, not the other way around. You can tell by the "[EDIT]"s that are interspersed through the text. At least you looked somewhere for sources, though. Try following the suggestion by Juzhong made above, now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a textbook example of an article on a perfectly viable subject that is in need of cleanup, because the original editor didn't use sources even though plenty of sources exist. Fixing this is a matter of taking those sources in hand and using ordinary editing tools to modify the article content (and possibly title). No administrator tools are required. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree all the way. (You might also want to move your "keep" to the beginning of your comment so it's easier to distinguish.)  LinguistAtLarge  19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Took a glance at http://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=%22Indeterminacy+problem%22, most of them seem to be about statistics, not philosophy of science. That's not the same concept as the one this article is about. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now try the name that I already told you, only a few lines further up this very page, was the name commonly used in the literature, by Longino et al.. And try reading the source already cited. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article on Underdetermination notes that it is also called "indeterminacy of data to theory", and appears to be about much the same issue. See also Occam's razor#Science and the scientific method. Not sure if there's any content in this article worth keeping given what's already in some of the other articles, but the issue is a well-known topic in the philosophy of science. (That's effectively a weak vote for merging and redirecting.) Djr32 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a subsection of
  WP Physics} 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. An Amazon search for "Indeterminacy Problem" (with quotes) turns up 316 books [12].  LinguistAtLarge  19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also restored the lead sentence that was lost several edits ago.  LinguistAtLarge  19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your quotes made any difference. Juzhong (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK seriously redirect to indeterminacy. I looked through google scholar hits, and it seems anything you wrote about the "interdeterminacy problem" would be redundant with other discussions of indeterminacy which can be found from that page. I don't care if the content is merged somewhere else but the title needs to redirect there. Juzhong (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Juzhong. As a search term, "Indeterminacy problem" can refer to several of the concepts listed on the Indeterminacy disambiguation page. In the sense used in this article, "Underdetermination" appears more common. As far as can be discerned, the content is OR, and in any case a collection of totally unsourced opinions and arguments that require attribution if they are to be retained, so merging with Underdetermination is not doable. 88.235.147.36 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 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 G7 by author. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I speedy deleted this article on the grounds that the references were inadequate for the boasts made ("rock star"? I don't think so). On the request of the article's creator, I restored the article and asked him to improve the references. He responded in an unhelpful manner. I see that this person does have google entries, but a lot of them are from sources like myspace. Deb (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  talk) 12:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not even close to
  WP:MUSIC. First EP supposedly coming out next year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 30 December 2008 (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} 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humble King Returning King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published book. Review quoted is a customer review on barnes and noble's web site, not a professional review. Google search turns up no reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. andy (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article comes right out and admits this is self-published, even going so far as to include an advertising blurb for the vanity press right there on the page! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hadn't caught that Pete Kovacs, the author of the book, basically is RNK Publishing or I would have nominated for deletion myself.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like Mr. Kovacs is creating a
  walled garden related to himself and his work. Little to no evidence of reliable, independant notability. Avi (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Doesn't show notability per
  WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT Delete Not sure why all of the sudden this onslaught of delete notices. The SCU Advocate is not just a "student newspaper" it is widely distributed and read all throughout Silicon Valley where Santa Clara University School of Law is located. Our professors are some of the USAs top attorneys and alumni are in Silicon Valley law firms and corporations. You can delete this but I will count it as pure religious discrimination. As one law prof said, "what goes around comes around." Be sure to consider what Pete Kovacs and Humble King Returning King are all about...fighting injustice, oppression, suppression of free speech, anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is primarily a "free-speech" forum. Maybe you should actually read the article "The Patriot Act: Noble Ends, Questionable Means" before you act in the manner that is evidenced here. I figured the CIA/FBI/VP Cheney would've come to terms with their atrocities by now, but it seems they are influencing this generation to act like fascists. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why you think any kind of discrimination is involved. Quite simply, the book does not meet our guidelines on what books should be included, as described at
    WP:BK. You'll note that neither the subject matter of the book nor the religion or race of its author are relevant criteria on that page. Objective facts are: has the book been reviewed in multiple professionally published, reliable sources? It doesn't look to us like it has, nor does it seem to have won major awards, or be the subject of instruction in multiple courses at academic institutions, or any of the other criteria on that page. Why is it that any time some standard is not in the interests of a Jewish person it is so predictably labelled anti-semitism? Is it just some kind of knee-jerk reflex, or is it intentional abuse of our tendency to try to correct for prejudices? JulesH (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, technically, it would be more proper to call it anti-Christianity, not antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2008 (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. One (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lane End Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Small primary school that does not assert any notability. Its exam results may be higher than average but that does not make it important or notable in any way. Very scant references as well - including to its own website, and to a home-made one. Majorly talk 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to town or county article - primary schools aren't usually notable. andy (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change into an article on Lane End, Cheadle Hulme. The article refers to there being articles on two adjacent districts of the town of Cheadle Hulme, but apparently not on Lane End. WP does not normally have articles on Primary schools because generally they are not of wide notability. The best solution is usually to merge these into an article on the place where they are (as andy). However the article could be turned around into a stub on Lane End with a section on the school as its only substantial section. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such place as Lane End in Cheadle Hulme. It's the name of the school. Cheadle Hulme is not really a town, and doesn't have districts. The whole area is under one name. Majorly talk 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - rated as Grade 1 Outstanding by Ofsted; the highest rating possible for a UK school is a clear claim to notability. I will source this.
  talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak delete Ratings have been accepted as a criterion for primary school notability--but as I read last years report, 13% of all primary schools have been judged outstanding. That';s much too weak a criterion for notability for a class of things almost all of which are not notable. . DGG (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but how many can you find where every criteria is also outstanding?
  talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep.
  WP:NOR. Importance is not a content criterion. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Notability is not asserted though. And as for
    WP:V, its own website and someone's personal site are reliable sources? Majorly talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There is performance coverage from BBC, Ofsted, and the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. The "personal website" is the site of the Member of Parliament and are news stories. I believe the school website is reasonable for Verifiablity though not for NPOV. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm referring to cheadlehulme.net, not the MP's page. Just because something exists does not make it notable. Every single school in the country has an Ofsted report, and league table position. No notability is asserted = delete. Majorly talk 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Notability is not a content policy; it is intended as a guideline to interpreting them. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course notability is asserted - it has been independently assessed as an outstanding school, not only overall but in every aspect of its work. This is a clear claim to notability.
            talk) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Outstanding performance is asserted for many primary schools. That does not make them all notable. The WP consenus has accepted that all High Schools are notable, but hitherto has balked at doing the same with every primary school. The usual answer is not to delete them, but to merge them into an article on their village town or locality. In this case there does not appear to be an article on Lane End yet. I therefore suggested above tha the present article should be moved to Lane End, Cheadle Hulme and restrcutured so that the primary school would be one of the topics covered. This was intended as a contructive suggestion to ensure that the standard answer that primary schools are generally NN could not be disapplied in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I generally support merging primary schools into their location and, indeed, generally merge at least one every day. However, the difference this time is that the outstanding performance has been independently assessed not only in respect of the overall assessment but highly unusually in respect of each component. Very few UK schools have such a high assessment (I only know of one other) and they merit their own page.
                talk) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
                ]
              • As I said above, there's no such place as Lane End. Majorly talk 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The reliable and verifiable sources already provided in the article support a claim of notability that most primary schools would be unable to make. I look forward to further expansion of this article and will reconsider my vote when this expansion is complete. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Terriersfan and doubleblue; rated as Grade 1 Outstanding in all categories by Ofsted. Ample sources to support content of article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Per the references in the article, this school is not the average primary school.--Jmundo (talk) 04:40, 4 January 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 as A9. ... discospinster _talk 13:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another album by After the Burial. Not self-produced like the other one, but still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. User has been repeatedly recreating deleted content about this band. Graymornings_(talk) 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A9, non-notable album by nn-notable band whose article has been deleted or never existed.
  csdnew 07:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. I might add that the band itself failed notability miserably in this AfD. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A9. ... discospinster _talk 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forging a future self (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Admittedly self-produced album by a non-notable band. No refs besides Amazon. Graymornings_(talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete (A9) - band was previously deleted by overwhelming consensus in deletion debate.
  WP:GARAGE anyone? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete per A9 as previously deleted per a strong consensus.
  T. 13:20, 30 December 2008 (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 as another bad-faith nomination by a

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

Non-notable genre of music, insufficient content, should be merged to funky house at its best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with a huge cock (talk • contribs) December 30, 2008

• Weak Keep. A distinct genre that has received some coverage.[13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A clearly sonically and culturally distinct genre from
  uk garage grime and dubstep. Obviously needs a thorough rewrite though. Claphands (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Keep Some sources given at the bottom of the page seem to be major UK newspapers and magazines. Although others are blogs, this genre has established notability outside of Wikipedia.
  T. 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sources establish notabilty. Artw (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (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