Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 26 January 28 >

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 a

✽ 10:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Christian Lyrics

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

other than the obvious 'it's about jesus' nature of christian lyrics I don't see any need for a seperate article; surely that is fairly obvious for a phrase with 'christian' and 'lyrics' in the title. The references seem more 'look, christians make music, it is true!' than 'here is evidence of the noticeable differences between christian lyrics and everything else, and here are some reliable academic sources which have identified and examined such things'. Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr big I - Holds, some of us still believe in life here after ! Christian devotionals have been written down for centuries past. Christian worship can be dated back to even as far as Adam. and some of us are assured he was worshiping the GoD of Creation. Music although left in the hands of the former lucifer now the d evil is running out of time, what ever few minutes we might have left here on this ever changing planet leaves me no choice but to voice the lyrical content of a hopeful heart. You see sir I am 45 yrs in the making and time is running short. This site (Wikipedia) I believe was designed for the many as an inspiration of both Wisdom & knowledge, why do some of the many divide the two Christian lyrics are the very first words to come out of what many might believe we were created for. The Supremacy of Love 1 If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. 3 Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself,[a] but have no love, I gain nothing.1 Corinthians 13 >> International Standard Version ... There's some Christian Lyrics... Dear wiki's I don't mean to be brash... Its just every time a Christian site goes up Its targeted and thrown to the lions ! what ever happened to God Bless America. Isn't anyone just a little scared !!!! or are some just waiting for the long cold sleep ................................................................ This is a beautiful site... (User talk:intelligentlove) 06:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs) [reply]

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience (view all logs for this page):

  • 07:04, 27 January 2009 :
    User talk:Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Christian Lyrics" ‎ (Incomprehensible essay(?)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (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 merge (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew Allerton

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

Article on a person which does not assert notability. While it has a few sources, the claims made are not notable. He wasn't a pilgrim leader or anything notable.

TM 19:14, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Fox

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

No

notability. Fails WP:PORNBIO, a bit part in Pirates II doesn't hack it. David in DC (talk
) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Although the article needs cleaning up, it now has the
notability it once lacked. Unless anyone disagrees, I would be happy to see this AfD closed with the notation Article Rescued by Epbr123 and Hoang.pham19. David in DC (talk) 01:41, 1 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. — Aitias // discussion 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast (Bloodlust Comics)

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

No assertion of notability, no sources. Google searching for "the beast" + "bloodlust comics" does not yield any reliable sources. See also The Dark Wielder, which I have also nominated for deletion (the AFD discussion is right below this one). This article was created by the same editor. Amazinglarry (talk) 23:47, 27 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 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Wielder

AfDs for this article:
The Dark Wielder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic book character, recreation of a previously deleted article. No new sources have been added since the last AFD (the article still has no sources at all) and there is no assertion of notability. Amazinglarry (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt While this version doesn't list fictional release dates like the previous version, there's no evidence it exists. Considering the numerous other hoax articles (deleted in the last AfD) and the recreation of this one, I also think salting is neccessary. Edward321 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either nont notable or as a hoax - it failed my "google search" test Esasus (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any reason speedy G4 doesn't apply? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:56, 30 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 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix Philosophy

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

An original work about The Matrix. - 7-bubёn >t 23:30, 27 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.

S.T.O.R.M.

The result was Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.O.R.M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • No context as to what this article is about no sources, not even sure if it is a hoax article BigDuncTalk 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Purely shit, and no references provided. I am eating Ramen (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I consider that to be an attack page ArcAngel (talk) 23:40, 27 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) 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Coffey

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

Delete: Author of a few Beanie Baby coloring books. Has been tagged with "notable", and appears to fail

WP:BIO with few to no reliable sources. Almost (or all) content appears to be contributed by AJC. Plastikspork (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • But it's a stub about a person with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The stub was modified, added new information and new references.Tanton2008 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It still doesn't satisfy notability requirements. There are still no independant third-party sources (such as news sites) that can confirm why this person is famous. Plus there are POV issues with the wording, AND an unsourced claim about the person donating some portraits to a museum. ArcAngel (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The museum confirmed about the artworks and donation.
      Boone, NC)published two articles about the artist between 1995-2000. Looking for those references. Tanton2008 (talk)20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment: Reliable sources were added. Now the stub contains 10 references.Tanton2008 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:01, 30 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega planning

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

Essay by one of the chief researchers in this academic area. Clearly needs heavy work to become an encyclopedia article but is it notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete essay ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a combination of a
    synthesis of referenced material. MuZemike 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Lacks inline refefences - "Mega Planning" sounds like a self-coined phrase. Self-promotion? Esasus (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong retain. Mega planning is gaining significant influence in the national security planning community for its ability to contextualize whole-of-government approaches to intervention in terms of measurable, culturally-generalizable objectives by which such intervention is expected to improve the lives of the people and societies it will touch. It is also related to the double- and triple-bottom-line approaches that have gained currency in global business. In my judgment, the article is strong--although I will need to propose an edit due to an error in its use of "operational" vs. strategic or tactical planning, which often occurs in the related scholarship 198.7.238.40 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Dr. Jim Ellsworth, Professor, U.S. Naval War College (copied from talk page by Stifle)[reply]
    • There are lots of buzzwords there, but little reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This AFD discussion deals in the applicability of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular our
      with sources, that someone has already documented all of this, and come to the conclusions that the article does, outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 31 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 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torah periodicals

List of Torah periodicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confusing article. Purports to be a list of periodicals of some sort, but none of these periodicals have received significant coverage in reliable sources. According to the general notability guidelines and the essay on media notability, this appears to be a clear Delete. Enigmamsg 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's written by a longtime editor, so hoax accusations are unwarranted. Generally, the main sign of a hoax is the single-purpose contributor who expects to be banned, and this person has been here awhile. Still, what's a Torah periodical? I know what the Torah is, and I know what a periodical is, but what's that mean? Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 28 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. MBisanz talk 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Santana

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

Bit actress, no evidence of meeting

WP:BIO, not much in google, prod removed without reasoning Delete Secret account 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete Playing Girl #2 does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about this woman of many names. Has anyone checked into all her other AKAs for notability? She is also Kathryn Elizabeth Knighten, Kathryn E. Knighten, Katie Knighten, and Ava Knight Santana. Just asking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Has anyone actually looked at her IMDB page and seen that she has many other credits other than girl # 2. Does every Actor start off getting starring roles? She seems to be a good actress and has actually been in many credited films with pretty good performances. Why delete her page because she has played girl #2 in her past? She has been in many films having bigger roles since then. I believe this to be an unfair assumption and judgement of a person who has a career that is not yet notable according to your standards. Lots of people actually enjoy Ava Santana's performances. I vote to keep her page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerlily (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But those roles are not what one would call significant. She may become notable in the future, but it doesn't appear to be so right now. -- Whpq (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Here is her biography page: [2]. After the article is deleted we will have the same content as they do... ie. nada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically speaking, not so, as the full biography there says "Gender: Female". -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, it's meant to be a link to her bio at All Movie Guide, and the reason it's blank is because there isn't one, as I confirmed by searching there directly. DGG (talk) 20:46, 31 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 Redirect to Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War; merge at editorial discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circum-Pacific War

Circum-Pacific War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A piece from the Ace Combat Universe. A huge number of pages related to the game was deleted/merged/redirected due to lack of independent real-life sources. This article deserves the same fate for the same reasons. - 7-bubёn >t 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 27 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival

2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not accept articles for events that have not yet occurred. This is a notable music event (of course), but as it hasn't happened yet it's inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a place to promote an upcoming music festival months in advance. Steven Walling (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • And then the article will be recreated within weeks. Why even waste our time deleting it when we know the article is going to exist and its notability will not be in question? Please READ WHAT THE POLICY ACTUALLY SAYS, as you are misinterpreting it.
    WP:CRYSTAL
    is absolutely clear about the fact that articles like this may exist. It says, A) "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." -- which, considering that we have NINE OTHER ARTICLES in exactly the same form, suggests that a tenth one is going to also pass our notability requirements. and, B) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." -- the 2009 Coachella festival certainly meets both these criteria. and, C) "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." ... is it unverifiable speculation that the 2009 Coachella festival is going to happen? No -- there is a reliable secondary source in the article (a popular music magazine) that backs up the statements made by the article.
Trying to claim that this article doesn't merit inclusion because of
WP:CRYSTAL is a specious, invalid argument that misrepresents both the letter and intent of the policy. Either withdraw the nomination, or find another reason for deleting the article. Warren -talk- 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I'm not a cowboy, but I do get annoyed with having to tell experienced administrators to fully read policy documents. It shouldn't be necessary, but from time to time, it is. And yes, I'm well familiar what the encyclopedia is -- I've been telling people "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" for longer than you've had an account. Chances are pretty excellent that if I can walk you through a proper reading of
    WP:CRYSTAL
    , I don't need you to respond by telling that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's a bit offensive.
Anyways, given that you haven't actually refuted any of the points I've made regarding what
WP:CRYSTAL actually says; given that you haven't actually demonstrated that the information cannot be verified (there is a reliable secondary source right in the article, and more are readily available... USA Today had an article on Coachella 2009 just a few days ago); and given that you haven't actually demonstrated that the topic isn't notable... what's left? If it's down to "delete it because it reads like advertising"... well, how exactly? It's a one-sentence article that says where and when the event will take place -- that's information, not advertising. More can and should be written, but nobody's gotten around to it yet. That's why we have {{music-festival-stub}} (which is used on hundreds of articles). This encourages the writing of articles that we ought to have. There have already been about 125 edits to the article, from a variety of IPs, so clearly it's a topic people are coming to the encyclopedia to see. Warren -talk- 08:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to think that WP:CRYSTAL is the only thing that I and others have mentioned here. It's not. You and I clearly disagree about what the policy means, so I'm not going to argue about that other than to restate that I think it clearly supports not having a premature article. But other than CRYSTAL, you might try using a little basic common sense. Our most basic requirement is that an article be verifiable, as you know. Just because we can safely assume that it's going to happen someday doesn't mean it's a good idea to have an article on it. We can also safely assume that Coachella 2010 is going to happen too, but it's in the exact same position as this article: too early to verify anything other than mere existence. That's not just an inappropriate article. It's totally and completely obvious if you just look at the subject and the content we have - no policy argumentation needed. Steven Walling (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the article is nothing more than a one line advertisement for an upcoming event. Esasus (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Lineup information is out. This festival is a go. -- Chupon (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The festival lineup is released and confirmed. This AfD should be closed and the article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izakage (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As per above. —Subverted (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - From the
    WP:NOT
    page:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. There is a line up and the event is notable. --Kimberly M. (talk) 21:37, 1 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. kurykh 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanna Fondo

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

Seems to be a non-notable actress. IMDB page does not list anything that would be considered

Contact/Contribs 22:04, 27 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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cromer Street

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

Non-notable London street.

talk) 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable and no references either.

talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note Above user is the nominator. --Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding that WP:STREET essay (not even a proposed guideline) first of all, the London metropolitan area has over 13 million people, so that means 260. London is the capitol of the UK and historically the
    WP:NOTABILITY as this one does, an arbitrary "formula" as stipulated in WP:STREET is irrelevant.--Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources, thus easily passing the core criteria of
    WP:NOTABILITY. [3][4][5]. Even a novel was named "The Cromer Street Chronicles"[6]--Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Notable road. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable street, with multiple good references in the articles, and additional ones supplied here. The actual books found by Oakshade are particularly telling. Very careless indeed to delete without making even a preliminary search. That numerical guideline is quite clearly ridiculous.-- not to mention the impossibility of finding a way to use it on a particular article. DGG (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • lolwhat....er...keep. Trivially easily sourced.
    WP:STREET is a rule of thumb talking about middling-sized cities and towns. London isn't most places, and most places aren't London. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - what does Jenuk1985 have against Cromer Street? Esasus (talk) 21:46, 28 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. MBisanz talk 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B2177 road

B2177 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non notable B road. While some B roads can be notable, I am failing to see any notability in this one!

talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am failing to see how this article is "Evidently notable", prior to nomination I did some scouting around the internet and cannot find any information to suggest that it is notable. The only "source" the article links to is a map. Please also say how this nomination fails
talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
While no consensus has been reached on
talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A UK B road cannot be compared to a US state route, the UK equivalent is likely to be a non primary A road if any at all
talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Many, if not most, American state routes are secondary (ie New Jersey Route 124), but they are considered notable. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 30 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 redirect to

2008 civil unrest in Greece. MBisanz talk 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Konstantina Kouneva

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

Even if there are some sources talking about this person, she is not notable to have an article. Now, it was once nominated for speedy deletion but the sources referring to her prevented this. This article should be deleted because it lacks notability. Michael X the White (talk) 21:20, 27 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of prison deaths

List of prison deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:NOT#INFO. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, every person who was sentenced to life in prison can be listed here, better serves as a category, if needed. Prod removed a while back, Delete Secret account 20:48, 27 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.

Ashida Kim

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joseph (writer/producer)

AfDs for this article:
Mark Joseph (writer/producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio created by a recent account. External links don't help much. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 27 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavalareru Perunchitthiranaar

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

Unencyclopedic Arun athmanathan (talk) 20:08, 27 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. A3, lack of sufficient content and unlikely to expand. Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4rlz

4rlz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A dictionary entry of a neologism with hardly any content--not an article. Jchthys (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an a dictionary for slang

talk) 22:14, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Lebaz

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

Notability in Question. Appears to fail WP:Notability (people).

I have done the Google search and I find little to support the prior comment. There are only 36 hits including a number related to the WP entry, her website, and Linkedin/facebook type entries. Only a couple of the rest are related to design and do not provide/support Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only graduated in 2005 and not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not that strong....Modernist (talk) 00:29, 31 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. A7. kurykh 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius kulikauskas

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

This reads like a personal CV not like an encyclopedic article. DFS454 (talk) 18:58, 27 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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lido, Bristol

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

Sounds like an advertisement. Perhaps it could be reworded, but it would require deleting about 90% of the content. =O Elm-39 - T/C 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Rub it outand start again. Remember to include this link.

*Keep and improve - Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources like BBC News and The Guardian. [7][8][9][10]. It's also a listed building. This was nominated for AfD within 2 minutes of its creation without any opportunity for community improvement.[11] --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment? It was nominated for CsD, actually; there's a reason why CsD is there. This article is a serious copyright violation and a giant advertisement. Better to delete it and start fresh. Elm-39 - T/C 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like an AfD to me. User JulesH just nominated it for Speedy after this AfD started. Copy-vio is a valid point, but even as the wording in the nom says, it could be reworded, which it was. I do not subscribe to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyvio [12] JulesH (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Clifton Pool and The Victoria Public House. It's the same topic that's already a well-developed article. --Oakshade (talk) 19:49, 27 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 01:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADÄMS (author)

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

I've tried to clean this up (removed a bunch of unreliable sources or sources that didn't have anything to do with Adams (and the defamatory statements connected to them) and removed weasel words, exaggerated claims, and non-notable material), but what I'm left with is notability being claimed solely on a few articles published on a couple of websites, a couple of walk-on rolls, a song to a local, independent movie, a song for a film that doesn't appear to exist, and law issues. I'm afraid if I keep cleaning it up, I'm going to be left with almost nothing. Also, it appears that his "manager" created and wrote the page as the user name who has done the majority of work here (and has only done work on this page; nowhere else on Wikipedia) is an identical match to the contact name listed on Adams' MySpace. In a nutshell: I do not believe this passes

WP:COI. Thanks. 132 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, there are two redirects that should be included in this AfD: Mike Adams (writer) and ADÄMS (writer). --132 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the page has been deleted twice before under another article name: MIKE ADAMS (Indiana Author). Found through
WP:COI once before. This new article was created less than a day after the old one was deleted. --132 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. There is little evidence of notability in the links provided, and it definitely seems like an ad. A news article about being arrested is irrelevant. Interviews and press releases don't carry much weight either, or simple proof that he has released some music. It needs more than one independent review. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. Has not received substantial coverage for any of the pursuits mentioned in the intro. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either a hoax or as an unverifiable article or as not notable. Esasus (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability suggested by article material Mrathel (talk) 06:10, 29 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 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go DJ!

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Two singles have been released but it's been so long, it's likely that one or both songs won't even appear on the album when and if it is actually released. Fails

WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:38, 27 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 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Pickett

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable. Article makes claims of notability, however a google search on her name and the name of her band returns just 8 hits, only one of which is about this subject. roleplayer 18:05, 27 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. MBisanz talk 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French Democracy

AfDs for this article:
The French Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination to fix the process started by an anonymous user. I happen to disagree with the nomination, however, and am recommending a keep based on non-trivial coverage of this machinima film by The Washington Post, MTV.com, Wired, and a book published by MIT Press (PDF). — TKD::Talk 18:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP because it is notable, just needs more sources cited? Wilkos (talk) 19:48, 27 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 redirect to

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. MBisanz talk 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Baadshah Khan

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

Fails

WP:BIO. JaGatalk 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. For reasons given by nominator. I tried to find sources on Google (not very hard) and only found one item that mentioned in passing that he is a well known fashion choreographer. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, fails
    talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect. I don't know about this guy but "the" Badshah Khan is
    Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. So this page should be redirected to him, and if this choreographer article is retained, it should be moved and linked to from a disambig page. Tintin 00:47, 28 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 merge to Hans Multhopp. MBisanz talk 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkers chess

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

Chess variant with no real notability. Mentioned in a book but does that really make it notable. Notability tagged since Oct 07. Spiesr (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
Unfortunately, there are Wikipedia editors who think literally, who think anything even mentioned in any encyclopedia of chess variants by Pritchard must be a solid gold reference. Notably, this was all due to the arbitrary judgment of one very old man (recently, deceased) who did not know how to use a computer. Some old games that are non-notable by modern standards and rarely played by anyone were known of by the few chess variant enthusiasts who existed in the era predating the explosion in the number of games invented, the internet, fast computers and multi-variant programs. I hope this non-notable game will be deleted but brace for the same mindless objections you see to other non-notable chess variants being deleted. By the way, said section is chock full of junk- some of it likely placed anonymously by the game inventors. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy merge No reason to lose article history or contents (brief as they are). There is already an article on the author of this game variant and it can be included there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, oh wow, I created this? I really wish I knew where I got the original content from since I was cleaning up from somewhere. I'd merge unless more content can be found. gren グレン 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnotable chess variant, and being confused with a newer also unnotable chess variant that uses the same name. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge I agree with the proposal to merge into the article on the author of this variant. In fact the article mentions two authors (apparently of unrelated variants), both of them have their own page so the contents of this one could be split between them - adding details about what is distinctive to each author's variant. (And maybe on eahc author's page say "see also (other author)" in the appropriate place.) Lessthanideal (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into chess variant Esasus (talk) 23:33, 28 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 merge to List of comic book superpowers#Cold and ice manipulation. MBisanz talk 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryokinesis

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

As I said in my Prod rationale, it's a subject with limited coverage (if any) in reliable sources. It doesn't warrant an entry just for its fictional uses. Frankly, I can't even tell if it's about a para-/pseduo-science subject in the real world or about its fictional usage in Charmed, so it's also lacking in context. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 27 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. G3, vandalism Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casimir cones

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

Probably a hoax. A Google search turns 0 (zero) results for "Casimir cone" in the singular, showing the results of the search for Casimir cone without quotes; these are pages which just happen to mention "Casimir" and "cone" in the same sentence. A search for "Casimir cones" in the plural turns out only copies of this article and of Thought experiment#Physics. Using Google Scholar, I can't find any result for either the singular or the plural. Also, take a look at the author's user page. Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. Given the original editor's user page I'm just shy of speedy deleting it as vandalism. Assuming good faith, the article is still unreferenced. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax. Dauto (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probable hoax, with no supporting evidence, or even any meaningful content. Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely hoax, but almost certainly original research. JulesH (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'd be "research" if it said the least bit of what the hell that thought-experiment should be based on. That one sentence is no "research" at all in my opinion, either original or not. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One sentence with no sources does not make an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article seems to be a copy of a particular statement made here. Seems nonsense to me. Delete. JocK (talk) 01:25, 28 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 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Torres

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

This article is written as an autobiography and possibly an advert, but it may have the potential to be notable. I've looked for sources, and the only real ones I can find are at the subject's website, www.jkdmartialarts.com, which suggests this does not pass

WP:N. However I'm not a martial art expert, and would like the opinion of the community. FlyingToaster 17:33, 27 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 by DGG, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hart

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

The article fails to establish notability of the topic. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - obvious nn bio. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article doesn't need an AFD. FlyingToaster 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under category A7. No claim of notability and nothing obvious from a web search. Jll (talk) 16:53, 27 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 - brenneman 00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)

Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Michael Cohen is a Psychic and UFOlogist with no apparent

reliable sources except for perhaps the National Newspaper from the Barbados, which briefly mentions him at the end. kelapstick (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per failing
    WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete no reliable sources. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 00:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep a Google search does infact bring up numerous articles and references to this person and some are arguably reliable, such as coast to coast, unkown country, not possible to list all references: numerous newspapers, he did break a signifant UFO event recently, Is regarded widely as one of Australias leading UFO researchers Starrion1 13:30 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment If reliable sources are integrated into the article as references, there will be no problem passing the AfD, but simply saying that a Google search produces arguably reliable sources is not a valid argument in favour of keeping.--kelapstick (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is notable by all standards Ozipeter
  • Comment The two supporters above have only contributed here or on the article in question. This does not invalidate their right to participate here. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have just looked at some of Michael Cohen's predictions for 2009. They remind me a bit of "it'll either rain or go dark before morning". No reliable sources cited in the article. In fact, the 'References' are a little hard to identify. Zoo Magazine? I hardly think interviewing (as I read it) Steve Irwin constitutes notability. (Pre- or post-decease?) A distinct hint of apparent puffery is believed to be present. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be some wrong-headedness on this entry, the issue isnt whether Ufology is notable but whether Michael Cohen is a notable Ufologist-if one looks at the list of Ufologists, most have references no better-As far as Ufologists go Cohen is as notable as most of those with entries and undoubtedly notable with a substantial net presence-he has articles in the Fortean Timesetc: perhaps not regarded as reliable to some here but mainstream as far as Ufology goes. Ozipeter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozipeter (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like spam.--Peephole (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not saying ufology isn't notable or is rubbish - I've seen a flying object that didn't conform to the possible flight patterns of any 'earthly' craft. I'm not decrying psychic phenomena. I've done psychic research with both positive and negative results. This article says Mr Cohen is a ufologist, and no more about it. As to psychics (and mediums), I find most 'professional' ones to be quacks. Peridon (talk) 22:22, 1 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 nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of Clubs (Whig club)

King of Clubs (Whig club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I actually don't think this is necessary. However, the article is completely unsourced. This article would either need very good sources or a complete rewrite to justify its content. Elm-39 - T/C 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly notable club. Sources are readily available (e.g. James Population Malthus: His Life and Times ISBN 0415381134 pp83-84, Penny cyclopaedia 1837 -- which calls it one of "the most successful literary clubs of modern times", Virgin Sydney Smith: A Biography ISBN 0002158906 -- containing information about this club on 7 different pages, although I can't see all the references because it's on limited preview in google books). Article should be fixed by editing in preference to deletion, per
    WP:DELETION. JulesH (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Also, there are references, but there wasn't a {{reflist}} added so they were invisible. I've added one now. JulesH (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I didn't see the numbers, which was probably why I was so quick to click. I hoped this article wouldn't go down so quick. Even so, the sources still need to include the information given in this article, or they're useless; I assume they do (the article creator DID say this was a 5 year research project). Anyway, Keep this article now, close discussion. Elm-39 - T/C 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello. My information on the King of Clubs is based on a 5-year research project and unlikely to be available elsewhere. I am in the process of inputting references etc and it seems a shame to delete it without giving me, as a relative novice, a chance to make amends! Tell me what you require. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariakinnaird (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is sourced and notability has been established for this notable historic club. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be speedily withdrawn from this AfD process. Article is criticised for being unnotable - see Jules H above; unsourced - see recent changes and JulesH notes; and needing a "complete rewrite" - obviously not true. There are some well written paragraphs. Please withdraw this proposal its wasting wiki editting time. We could be assisting this author instead of defending an article that is clearly worthy. Victuallers (talk) 18:51, 27 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 withdrawn. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ecourier

Request an admin close as Withdrawn by nominator. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

reliable and substantial. Essentially this is an advertising page by the company founder. Has been speedied; then re-written - but without significant improvement. Springnuts (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagree, reliable sources include Economist, Financial Times, The Times & Evening Standard which have all written substantial articles on the Company and are cited/listed. I cannot find any parts which is not NPOV. Previous discussion determined the company to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.19 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this IP address has edited almost exclusively on this article and that on the company's founder: see [[13]]. Springnuts (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The press material may be significant enough. I improved the article by removing some of the more outrageous promotional material, such as portraits of the founders. After the article is dealt with, we need to consider the articles for
    Jay Bregman. This is a typical example of how COI can lead to a very poor article, when possibly a less promotional one would not have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Withdrawn by Nominator - On reflection I was over harsh with this nomination: in my defence I was blinded by the overt peacockery in the article. I will try tidying and de-puffing it. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 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 per

G3 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dragon ball nsd

Dragon ball nsd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete hoax. If this series was legitimate, it would have been reported by reputable anime news websites such as Anime News Network. Prod disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 16:19, 27 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. MBisanz talk 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Wrench (cocktail)

Pipe Wrench (cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about an unremarkable cocktail. Distinct smell of spam in unnecessary multiple mentions of "Triumph Brewing Company" and someone named Adam Fitting (who seems to have been excised from the Triumph article, but not without some difficulty). Prod contested by IP editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Here we are; I knew I'd seen something like this before. According to Larousse Cocktails (English edition, Octopus, 2005), p 106, a Tamanaco Dry consists of light beer and gin, and was invented in Venezuela in the 1950s. Any idea if we have notability guidelines for cocktails? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Beer cocktail, which appears to be a free-for-all of beer + anything else. Articles on cocktails should meet the general notability guidelines if nothing else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Clarification - I'm a regular patron of the Princeton location of Triumph Brewing Company, and have been since the opening. Adam "Pipe" Fitting was one of the founders of Triumph Brewing Company, and the Chief Executive officer of the company until 2004, when he sold his interest in the company to his brother Brian Fitting and his partner Adam Rechnitz. This is a cocktail that he introduced during a staff/focus group beer tasting seminar that I attended many years ago at the pub in Princeton.Jerseybrewjunkie (talk) 18:36, 29 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. MBisanz talk 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pucci Dellanno

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

This BLP has no sources that support the individual's notability. This person does not appear to be the subject of any published secondary source material. Original author and primary editor has

COI with the subject. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]



Hello there, I represent the artist Bridget Grace from the Polydor (Germany) label. I was asked to create a Wikipedia entry two years ago, since this artist's work is constantly remixed and included in compilations, and there was no entry.

This article is about the person as well as the artist, since it seemed to us inane to create an entry for a non-physical person.

This article is no more nor less relevant than ANY article in Wikipedia about musical artists and their career.

Citations are impossible, numerous references and external reference links are provided and can be checked - therefore I do not see how the individual's notability is in doubt - please enter "Bridget Grace" or "Aurora Dellanno" on google to see a large number of references and hits coming up (if the lady prefers to be called Pucci instead of Aurora outside her professional circle, this is entirely her business, of course we will understand if you wish us to change to entry to Aurora Dellanno, aka Pucci from the current name).

Thanks.

Thomaslear (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails notability per
    reliable, third-party, sources. Ghits only show online stores, myspace and facebook sites. The only reference to releases on Polydor, Atlantic or Network records is this wikipedia particle. Willing to change me vote if someone can find some thing that would pass any of the 12 criteria.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


these are links to external websites that detail Bridget Grace's releases:


http://www.discogs.com/Bridget-Grace-Take-Me-Away/release/65458
http://top80.pl/disc/artist/Bridget+Grace
http://www.kollecta.com/Collector_Item/Vinyl_Record_(music)/Vinyl_Record/Take+Me+Away/757540.htm
http://www.webdjs.ch/sale.htm
http://%3cbr%3ewww.rolldabeats.com/artist/bridget_grace
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Memory-inch-VINYL-Single/dp/B000UD7Q22/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1233150176&sr=1-1
http://www.rave.com.ua/blog/2008/11/28/various-the-ultimate-rave-album/
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=12;1;306;-1;202&sku=643278
http://top80.pl/disc/artist/Bridget+Grace
http://www.trugroovez.com/forums/clarence-g-hyperspacesound-lab-e-p-da-bay-sale-t4985.html
http://www.djdownload.com/mp3-detail/Haji++Emanuel/Take+Me+Away/Big+Love/88134
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Original-Rave-Anthems-Various-Artists/dp/tracks/B000JJ5G1K/ref=dp_tracks_all_3#disc_3
http://www.biglovemusic.co.uk/

the links above include Amazon, and HMV.

Polydor Music, as you are probably aware, is now part of the Universal Music Group and our websites only have the current roster of artists. We decided that this artist was worth bringing again to the fore because of the recent remix contest on "Take Me Away" (please cfr reference in the wikipedia page - it is not a myspace link), as well as the song being included in the "Original Rave Anthems" CD published by Warner Music (under license from us for our artists), in December 2006.

This all came after DJs Haji & Emmanuel published a series of mixes of the same song in January 2006. Details of the several releases under the Big Love music label are also available from the biglovemusic link.

Saying that an artist is no longer important because they no longer have a record contract would mean taking Radiohead out of Wikipedia, and the same is saying that Amazon and HMV.com are not reliable resellers because they are online - and before you ask, yes many many people all over the world still buy the Take Me Away mixes and dance to the music - and is an encyclopedia's function not that of reference, to find out where things come from?

Thomaslear (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. The issue isn't whether she
notable. Providing a bunch of sites where you can buy her songs hasn't established that. And your last statement about encyclopaedia's function maybe true for a paper encyclopaedia, but not wikipedia. The burden of evidence lies with you, the editor. But then again, going by your talk page, a lot of editors have been trying to help you see this since June 2007, and here we are still going around in circles.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


A musician whose work is constantly reviewed by peers, re-licensed and (in this case) remixed is what is normally considered notable. The evidence I can provide is that this is happening (covers, re-issues and compilations) - and that is the point.

As for my talk page, a lot of editors have indeed helped me, when I created the page, since I had never used Wikipedia to insert data before - and I am grateful to them for that. Going by my talk page, the only time the notability of the subject was put into question, was right when I created the page and I was asked to provide cross-references.

92.234.146.102 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As her producer, I can understand you fighting to keep the article, but unfortunately none of your arguments hold up against anything. Four out of the six external links that are currently in the article are
this section for more details. On another point, the article as currently written is so far left of neutral it's not even in the ballpark for fulfilling the NPOV guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 14:42, 29 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 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmism

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

A not notable philosophy for which I find no

nonsense, but that does not really apply. There is an enigmism.com, apparently available "to let." The article cites a book,(Morality through Enigmism: The Inevitable war of Identity by Aiden Gentia Uncertain Press. Sri Lanka, 1995.) but I find no hits on Worldcat for author or subject at Worldcat. Dlohcierekim 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete for reasons above
    hablo ... 16:29, 27 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. This is one of those cases when we're reminded that

core principles of inclusion. When doing so, it's clear that this article does not belong on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

In violation of

Wikipedia:Content forking. And most of the incidents are not confirmedto be linked to Gaza assault. I think they are regular antismetic incidents that should not be related to the said assault. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete for the reason above. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a bad-faith nomination. Keep in mind that the nominator is attempting to change the title of the article (the title at the top of this page is his concoction) and destroy its content, so the version you see at any particular time may not be the "real" version. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to Jalapenos do exist: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, words like destroy and bad-faith are not welcome in Wikipedia.Yamanam (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The phrase 'bad faith' is not banned or
    disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, it's fair comment to suggest that the action was undertaken in bad faith. The general assumption of good faith should not entirely undermine our critical faculties. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - What you feel is logical, other editors may feel is
    guesswork, no matter how logical it seems, is not a reliable source.AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I looked over the page and although there are many references, it has a resounding feel of not just original research, but the above mentioned content forking concerns me as well. Maybe if the page were yanked, reformatted and reposted with a new name, instead of this one, and less of a tone considered to be
    original research, it would be fine.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's hard to respond to a claim that the article has a "feel" and a "tone" of original research. Something is either original research or it isn't. If you find a single statement in the article not supported by the sources, please point it out so we can improve it. Though I don't see how any of this has anything to do with deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but for slightly different reasons to the nominator. My concern with this article is that it doesn't clearly distinguish the difference between antisemitism and political criticism of the state of Israel. Many of the events described in the article sound to me more like the latter than the former. JulesH (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, my concern is a mixture of
      WP:NPOV concerns. For instance, in the lead section there is a sentence which reads "Nazi imagery was used in anti-Israel rallies across Europe to compare Israeli soldiers to German troops." This is sourced to an article which quite carefully does not call these rallies anti-semitic; in fact it quotes people who seem to be going to lengths to avoid saying they were anti-semitic (saying instead that they "fanned the flames of anti-Semitism") and states that most of the protesters involved denied anti-semitism. Therefore, including this event in an article whose title implies that all the things listed are antisemitic incidents is original research (a claim not supported by the source) and an NPOV violation (some people clearly believe it is not an antisemitic incident, and this viewpoint has not been quoted). JulesH (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Well, finally we have a single example of a problematic sentence. This is an improvement. Unsurprisingly, this is a sentence that was "worked over" by the nominator - I warned of this problem above. The emphasis of the original sentence was the rally where "protesters hollered "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas'", to quote the source. I doubt anyone would seriously deny that this is an antisemitic incident. The general mention of rallies using Nazi imagery was a reflection of the opinion of organizations dealing with antisemitism, mentioned in the cited source, that such imagery is used against Israel in antisemitic contexts. I agree that the opposing POV, that Nazi imagery used in criticizing Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism, should be included, assuming it is a significant POV. I still don't understand why issues with particular statements in the article, which would make great discussion page content, are being used to argue for deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I doubt anyone would seriously deny that this is an antisemitic incident." Yet still we have no source that says it is one. And there are plenty more examples in the article, too. "A Jewish student was attacked and stabbed four times by Arab youths in a Parisian suburb." Antisemitism? Or a politically motivated attack? The sources disagree, with one calling it an antisemitic attack and the other suggesting that this is a controversial classification. "A French imam who preached for peace with Jews received death threats and was put under police protection." The source does not call this antisemtism, and it's hard to see the argument for it being so; it's a political difference of opinion escalate to extreme levels by a violent situation. "But the past two weeks have also seen aggression within the Jewish community towards those sympathetic to the plight of Gaza." Hard to see how this could be interpreted as antisemitism. "In Italy, a trade union called for a boycott of Jewish-owned shops in Rome." The only mention of antisemitism in the article is the union's denial that it was the motive for the boycott call.
My reason for suggesting deletion rather than editing is that it seems to me that if all of these problems were fixed, the article would barely resemble its current state. It would be less than half as long, and would have a significantly different emphasis. Now, these problems could be fixed, but I question whether it is practical to fix them starting from this article, or if a different starting point would be a better approach. JulesH (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I see the problem. You do not consider attacks against Jews as Jews to be antisemitic if they're politically motivated. The sources and common sense do, however; in fact, it's practically a tautology, since antisemitism means hostility toward Jews as Jews. Of course the stabbing of the Jewish student, which happened when his attackers noticed he was Jewish, was politically motivated: it was a politically motivated antisemitic attack. And let me get this straight: you're actually debating whether "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas" is an antisemitic slogan. No, that particular article does not specifically say that the slogan is "antisemitic", nor does it say that throwing Molotov cocktails on synagogues is "an attack", nor does it say that Israel is "a country in western Asia". It does, however, explicitly make clear (for the benefit of readers like you, I can only suppose) that boycotting Jewish businesses is an antisemitic act. So there's your source for that particular self-evident issue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it worthwhile to quote Guillaume Ayme of the campaign group SOS Racisme:
"The people who attacked synagogues, for example, they hated Jews before the start of the conflict and it just gives them a reason or an easy explanation to express this hatred." BBC
He is of the opinion that most attacks are politically motivated, but because they are directed against Jews, and not Israelis, they are considered anti-semitic. This article does have to be carefully sifted through though. Chesdovi (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge merge to
    talk) 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That would be unwise, as that article is already too long and, as a result, much material even more directly related to the conflict has already been spun off into separate articles, by consensus. This article barely scrapes the surface of the notable information, and when it becomes thorough it will be a fairly long article itself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not merge, anything with the words "alleged" in it's title is a clear
    content fork, also I don't see it ever becoming neutral enough for a merge as well. Agree with JulesH Secret account 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article did not have the word "alleged" in its title until the nominator added it, while nominating the article for deletion. I warned above that this behavior would cloud the issue. The reason the article did not have the word "alleged" in its title is because it does not deal with allegations, it deals with facts. The spike in antisemitic incidents during the conflict in question is considered by the multiple reliable sources cited to be related to the conflict. This is made clear in the text of the article, and can be verified just by reading the titles of the cited sources: "Anti-Semitic Attacks Fuelled by Gaza Conflict" (The Times) and so forth. One could also, of course, read the sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a fork. Infomation was originally placed
here, but that page was getting to long. Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • reasonably strong keep
  1. See no forking here. Please indicate where.
  2. The title specifically mentions alleged now. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but
International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is already impossibly long, and several editors there (including myself) are currently discussing splitting it into several articles, both because of its length and because it combines issues that are not obviously related: official statements, humanitarian aid and civilian protests. Also, while I've become convinced that your name "Antisemitic incidents" is better than my "attacks against Jews", I want to point out that JulesH has argued for deletion above (if I understand him correctly) because attacks against Jews do not necessarily constitute antisemitic incidents. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think all attacks against civilian Jews in non-conflict areas, that are against Jews as Jews are antisemitic. Its the definition of the term. This might surprise you. However, the article length issue is can be managed if not so much incidents are included. Just because something is RS doesn't make it notable. I do agree that there is notability of the general phenomenon of the increase compared to Jan 2008 and figures like Sarkozy have addressed the matter. But this would make a two or three paragraph addition to "Reactions". This is why some say this is POVFORKing, because it was done a bit prematurely by eager editors who are themselves Jews - instead of summary article. That said, if clearly linked to reactions in the ways suggeste dby
WP:SUMMARY, and IF other sections of "Reactions" are similary summarized, I move to KEEP.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep The article meets
    talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Update: user:Chesdovi is currently hard at work revamping the article. I view his changes as a great improvement, noting that since he's in the middle, there are some expected consistency issues. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is already bursting at its seams. We should encourage, not discourage, spinoffs. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to
    International reactions to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I mean should we create an article anti-Muslim violence as well?("Sarkozy vows "zero tolerance" for Gaza hate crimes"
    . Reuters. 2009-01-14.)
Secondly, if the article is to stay we need to rename it something like "Allegations of antisemitism perceived to be in relation to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". This is because there is a lot of claims of antisemitism made by sources all over.VR talk 06:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the scale of the backlash, noted in the article, and its reaction, sets this "set of hate crimes" aside from other waves. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objective way to measure "scale of backlash". The same could be said(by someone else) for creating an article titled "Islamophobic attacks occuring after 7/7 in Britain". I don't think that 2 years from now, any independent historian would be talking about these attacks as if these were a separate notable incident that required a separate article, apart from the
Lets discuss 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As has already been noted on this page, because of the sheer length of
WP:SUMMARY. There is an objective way to measure the scale of the backlash, which is used by some of the sources in the article: comparison between number of incidents in this period with a similar period; not that a lack of such a method would provide any reason for deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
In fact, the number of incidents is no measure of objectivity. There are countless hate crimes against many other races happening everywhere, everyday. Now let us say once things cool down, and if [alleged] increase in antisemitic attacks come down, should we have an article titled "Reduction in number of antiSemitic attacks alleged to truce between Hamas and Israel"? The problem is that of notability as a separate article
Lets discuss 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Any wave of hate crimes against any group would be notable enough for a separate article if it affected the lives of millions of people around the world, received significant attention in the world media, and drew responses from world leaders, human rights groups and notable religious figures. BTW, I would support your suggestion of merging this article into
WP:SUMMARY and is a purely procedural matter. I don't understand whether you in fact agree that the content should be on Wikipedia. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Jalapenos, let me tell you very honestly, with all due respect to you as an editor, when this article first came into my notice, I thought this was a pretty lame article. I proposed some changes to the lead as a first step(refer talk page), but I did not actually incorporated those changes into the article, as I was thinking of nominating this article for deletion. As a first step, I wanted to notify you of my intentions and arguments and it was then that I noticed that another user had already proposed this for deletion and you yourself had sought the comment of another user in your talk page. My feelings for this article is similar to that of the user whose comments/opinion you had sought. I don't see a need for this article, it is so specific that a reader would be quite unlikely to come across it, and it smells of POV Fork. I was not actively calling for a merge, rather wanted to say that it would suffice to include notable parts of this article in the
Lets discuss 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As specific as
Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006? Chesdovi (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Zencv, no disrespect is taken, as articles are hardly ever top-notch at their very beginning.
WP:SUMMARY. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment. This article, like others of its ilk, is a transparent ruse to sneak cheap propaganda into the Wikipedia in the guise of scholarship. It sits comfortably with
    Blood Libel at Deir Yassin
    , and the dozens of massacre articles and massacre lists and massacre summaries written by both sides. None of these articles represents a trend or cultural artifact of any significance in itself; they should all be deleted and, where the information is meaningful, recast into articles that are not mere attempts to get hate words into Wikipedia titles.
Could you imagine an article in the 11th edition of Britannica with this preposterous title?
This is not a vote to delete, just a venting of my festering disgust with the way we editors deal with these topics. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of article may not feature in the Britannica, but it would in an almanac of some sort. Also Wiki is not paper. Your accusation of "cheap propaganda" does not tally with the exposure this backlash has had in the media. Have you seen how many sources there are? There have also been news reports about it on TV: Gaza: rise in anti-Semitism?. Chesdovi (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight difference, important though, between attacking a Jewish only because s/he is Jewish (which is anti-semitic), and attacking a Jewish because Israel (his national home) is brutally assaulting another nation, the latter is not anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difference in motivation, but still anti-semitic. Not every Jew holds Israeli citizenship! Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point exactly; the motivation will determine whether this attack is anti-semitic or not (no matter what is the nationality of the attacked person). Yes, not every Hew hods an Israeli citizenship, but the perception of the whole world that every Jew is entitled to get an Israeli citizenship, therefor, the actions of Israeli government are reflected someway or another on the Jews all over the world. let us not confuse the reader, let us make it clear: not all attacks against Jews are anti-semitic attacks. One question might clarify this issue more, do u consider the Palestinian attacks (living in Gaza or West Bank)on Jewish Israeli people an anti-semitic action? The answer is no, apply the same concept on this article and you will find that it is forking.Yamanam (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking an Israeli who happens to be Jewish is not antisemitic, but attacking a Jew because he is a Jew is antisemitic, even if the motivation is a perceived connection between Jews and Israel's actions at any given time. That perceived connection is unjustified, because many Jews have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. But the question has nothing to do with justification, it has to do with the definition of antisemitism. For example, if (hypothetically) all Jews were members of a cabal plotting to enslave the human race, it could be justified to attack Jews, but such attacks would still be antisemitic, since antisemitism is defined as "hostility toward Jews". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is defined by European Forum on Antisemistism as:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

So it is a perception of Jews, not a perception of Israeli. The mentioned attacks against Jews were mainly because of a perception of them being Israeli since it was motivated by the israeli brutal assault. Yamanam (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanam, you must accept the fact that not every Jew is an Israeli and not every Israeli is a Jew. The
Balfour Declaration of 1917 specifically stated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice... the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Your theory that because Israel allows all Jews to apply for citizenship, Jews are therefore accountable for Israel's actions is astounding! Your suggestion that Israel's actions are reflected on all Jews is interesting. While many Jews would be proud of Israel's achivements, I am sure they would baulk at being vilified for its shortcomings! Israel is not the representitve of the Jewish people. And neither do Jews represent Israel. Livni said "whatever one's opinion of Israel's military operation, it should not be used to legitimize hate and anti-Semitic incitement." It is because many people, including yourself, mix the two, these attacks have occurred. And they are to be condemed as any other anti-semitic attack. There is no justification. According to you, it would not be Islamophobic for me to attack a Muslim or mosque in London because a Muslim country brutally attacked another nation. This is warped thinking. Embassies are the place for protests, not people or institutions whhich share the same religion. That is what the Jewish community of Antwerp meant when they issued a statement condeming the anti-semitic violence saying "we are all Flemish, we are all Antwerp inhabitants". This is what the Spainish PM explained aswell: "The Israeli government should be criticised if it used disproportionate force, but without going too far in the sense that everything Jewish or Semitic would need to be unanimously criticised." The problem with too many people is that they don't see the difference between the two. That is why Neturei Karta are so intent on making their statements that "Not all Jews are Zionists"! Chesdovi (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No Chesdovi, don't think that i am justifying or looking for a justification for those people who are attacking Jews, I think u already knew that. Another thing, I certainly know that not every Jew is israeli and not every israeli is Jew; I am only emphasizing on one point, the underlying reasons for those attacks are not because the attacked are Jew, they are rather because of the level of brutality that was exercised by the israeli government. And since most people "don't see the difference between the two" they attacked Jews thinking they are the same thing as Israel. You brought it up, do you think that the attackers would attack members of Neturei Karta? the answer is yes and no; NO if the attacker knew Neturei Karta's political views, and YES if the attacker didn't know Neturei Karta's political views. Yamanam (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the new Motives section will have placated you? :-) Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noted your reply, to be quite honest with you, this section made the article better, and by better I mean it minimized the ambiguity of the artilce. But still the title and most sections of the article imply that those attacks are in response to the conflict and are targeting Jewish only becasue they are Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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
Mullaitivu. 50,000 demonstrated against it today in London. Chesdovi (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
For me these attacks are antisemitic simply by definition but more importantly they must be motivated by the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza or else they shouldn't be in the article obviously. I think this discussion between the two of you illustrates why this article shouldn't be a standalone article and why it's better to merge it into the article specifically related to this conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which article should it be merged into. It has been noted that the
effect" of the conflict either? Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I meant the reaction page which could be reduced in size quite dramatically I think. If it really can't be reduced in size sufficiently for some reason then I think it would be better if this article was renamed and included these kind of incidents/attacks against civilians/property from both sides of the conflict to avoid content forking. There's already too much content forking around I-P issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:SYN violation. Merge any notable information into the appropriate articles. csloat (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please note which souces used violate WP:Synthesis. The article is entitled "Attacks which occured during the conflict". All these did? The article goes on to link most the attacks to the war, as their sources do. There is no OR here? Chesdovi (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one of the sources used was the issue, it wouldn't be a SYN violation. The violation is the article itself, which strings together various sources, apparently for
soapboxing purposes. It is actually your burden (or, the burden of those who want to keep the article) to show a single reliable source that strings all these incidents together under a category like this and gives that category notability; that does not seem to exist here. csloat (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't open that link? I thought of renaming it to: Antisemitic backlash to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058812.html copy and paste, it is about anti-Arab attacks taking place in Israel related to the 'conflict'. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. These Anti-Arab attacks should be added somewhere. It mentions Gaza, but what does "nationally motivated" mean? Was it in response to Hamas rockets? Chesdovi (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found another: Share Email Print Church defaced by pro-Israel, anti-Arab graffiti. Chesdovi (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs some improvement, but well sourced and not a POV fork. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I don't see why this was separated from the main article on the International reaction to the Gaza conflict, as all of the attacks (whether they were anti-Israeli or just plain racist) are directly linked to this particularly conflict. Also, if merged, I suggest a rename to just "Violent incidents" or something of that nature and we could include attacks by the Israeli army against protesters in the West Bank (four or five incidents that I know of) in that particular section. This current article seems to serve no productive purpose other than being POV or attempting to foster sympathy for Jews around the world, which might not be wrong to some, but is counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the title doesnt seem to be Encyclopedic. --Wayiran (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well-sourced, decently written and contains content that is useful. This AfD is probably in bad faith, based on the nom's comments regarding Jews in the discussion. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - There are far too many POV forks. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - um...I think I'm allowed to have a say, right? I think it should be deleted because it is mainly attacks against Jews not Arabs. It should talk about attacks on both sides. 78.148.63.39 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being that
Be bold and write an article about hatred relating to Arabs that has occurred as a result of this event rather than trying to get this (good) article deleted. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:01, 1 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. - brenneman 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anvil3d

Anvil3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although the creator never removed the prod tag on this article, a comment on its talk page is to be regarded as a contestation of the prod. Game engine with no assertion of notability. (There are also

COI issues, but I would disregard them here.) Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:54, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi_Hawbaker

AfDs for this article:
Brandi_Hawbaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

stub article of unimportant person DegenFarang (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Though she didn't win much and only had four money finishes, in my view that makes her notable. The article does need some work, however. ArcAngel (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She isn't notable for her poker, but for her well-publicized odd behavior and subsequent suicide. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In current form the article is laughably incomplete, and due to WP policies (and the lack of new 'news' about the subject) will likely never be able to be made whole. DegenFarang (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not customary for the person nominating the article to "vote". Rray (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • remember that Degen is new around here. He nominated the article so it is understood that his view is to delete it. It's fine for him to contribute to the discussion, tho ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't forget, but if no one tells him, he'll never know. :) Rray (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable with adequate sources and coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was an important and notable personality in her field (which is becoming more visable). Her story is interesting. I believe it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially one with 2.8 million entries Jlawniczak (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though I am in the minority here. Her case is an example of a subject that meets the letter of Wiki law but not the spirit. We can find a bazillion Google hits on her, her name mentioned in CardPlayer once or twice, and her odd behavior was, as User:Clarityfiend says, widely publicized. That really doesn't amount to diddly squat, though. She was and still is of interest to only a very small circle of fanboys within the poker world, was nowhere close to being anything that resembled influential in the field, and is of no interest at all to anyone else. This is a fringe article. Send it to the Wiki graveyard. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her name was more than "mentioned in CardPlayer once or twice" -- when she died,
    Card Player, which is the leading magazine in the field, ran a full-length obituary about her. [14] JamesMLane t c 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Notability established by references, winnings, and circumstances. Article needs expansion, though. Dayewalker (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree if there was anything to expand upon. However she is dead now and what does exist Wikipedia rules does not allow to be included. So there is no way to expand it. And notability is not established by her 'winnings', not by a long shot. DegenFarang (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be true, but "needing expansion" isn't a valid deletion reason. Rray (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be expanded, it just needs some legwork to do so. ArcAngel (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you say so, as your source was just removed for 'nowhere near a reliable source'. I disagree, Neverwin probably did more research and coverage on Brandi than anybody in the world...however I know how 2005 and others get on these poker articles and to include any one source like that is going to take an all-out war. This is not an argument for deletion so much really, just a statement of fact and this discussion might be better suited to the article talk page, as it doesn't look like consensus supports a deletion. DegenFarang (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read more about what is and isn't considered a reliable source here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. And yes, that discussion does belong on the article's talk page. 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Palmqvist

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

Article is about a NN business-person. No references in article, CSD and PROD were removed, now sending to AfD.

talk) 13:44, 27 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 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Morris

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

Doesn't meet

talk) 13:24, 27 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. G3 as blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holos the Healer

Holos the Healer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent

WP:HOAX. This has been hiding in a dusty corner of WP since August 2006. Without a single reference or source. And started by a User who was warned for nonsense creations at the time. Internet searches [16] [17] find the few hits all refer back to this article. — CactusWriter | needles 12:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Here is some further history about this article on Wikipedia: In December 2005, Holos was added to List of saints by an IP, who also requested a creation review for a Saint Holos article. That request was denied for lack of sources. The denial refers to a previous afd from July 2005. That afd result was a CSD delete per copyright violation. Apparently this story originated from a single new-age website (now unknown).
Um, that page is just a mirror of the WP List of saints, to which someone probably added the name after seeing it in a category. Not an independent "reference." Deor (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, your pointing out the List of Saints entry prompted me to look at that again. The history of this article goes further back than 2006. See above. — CactusWriter | needles 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of use.  J L G 4 1 0 4  15:57, 27 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. hmwithτ 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaangeyan

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

So far as I can make out between the poor English of this article and the minimal google hits, this is either just a rumour or a project that stalled before getting of the ground, hence a textbook failure of

WP:NFF. Prod removed by author without explanation. PC78 (talk) 11:40, 27 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 under criterion G3. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park (scottish name)

Park (scottish name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Park is certainly a surname, it may even be Scottish in origin, but this page is just a joke family history. The name Park is not the origin of the English word Park, as stated. There are no references. This is not a credible article and should be deleted. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:24, 27 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. G12, copyvio of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0537501/bio Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Maietta

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

Blatant advertisement; written by someone with obvious

conflict of interest making it clear that this is promotional, regardless of notability. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Gmatsuda (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is also a blatant advertisement, written by the same author. In this case, the author is promoting himself:

Jeffrey Vance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and fails

talk) 22:27, 27 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 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Braves

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

This is a recreational league team. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Rell

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

Delete. The subject of the article is completely non-notable, affiliates of The Diplomats are literally a dime a dozen. Completely lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Fails WP:MUSIC. [18] JBsupreme (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As he is no longer affiliated with Dipset, Hell Rell is a stand alone artist who is in talks with several major labels, after releasing an independant album that hit billboard (#131). He is an original member of the music powerhouse group Diplomats and was on their first album which sold over 2 million copies to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.24.49.1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 January 2009

  • Keep per Esradekan. Clearly meets criteria. It's pointless to merge. Adding the references Esradekan found is a lot quicker. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:02, 29 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 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yashar fallah vazirabad

Yashar fallah vazirabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
AfDs for this article:
Boxxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looking at the arguments put forth by both sides, it's clear that at this time, "Boxxy" does not meet our standards for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy

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

Non-notable Internet meme, especially per

WP:RECENT. Scootey (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The DRV was for a speedy deletion and endorsed sending to AFD. Mr.Z-man 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say it was "endorsed" for AFD is a misnomer - see burnte's comment below. FlyingToaster 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to bring the fact that there was one up as a reason for keeping is misleading, see my comment below. Mr.Z-man 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What internet meme criteria are you talking about? I didn't know there was one.--
Otterathome (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Otterathome: I'm referring to WP:WEB, which applies to all web content, including memes. FlyingToaster 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to
Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The DRV was for a speedy deletion and endorsed sending to AFD. Mr.Z-man 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV consensus was "allow re-creation. Article may be sent to Afd, but may not be speedily deleted in the future." It says MAY, which in no way means it is an endorsement or directive. It only means AFD is still allowed, while speedy deletion is now of the table. Please refrain from correcting people in the future unless you know what you're talking about. burnte (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments, "We just went through this with a recreation argument" are misleading; by starting off with a comment about the DRV, you make it sound like the fact that there was undeletion argument should have some merit on the outcome of this AFD, as the closer specifically mentioned that an AFD was acceptable, it should not. Please refrain from being a dick; don't tell me what to do. Who do you think you are? Mr.Z-man 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Pretty sure that the 'don't be a dick' thing applies to YOU more than it does to him, my friend ;) And I will, in turn, and very deservedly, ask you just who the hell you happen to think YOU are. 190.78.132.241 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's someone who's not so wiki-elite as to have his username in Broadway font with italics. --TIB(talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, HTML is so elitist. Mr.Z-man 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you who I am. I'm a user of Wikipedia like everyone else. You don't like my apples? Don't shake my tree. Don't want to hear what I have to say? Don't talk to me. As for being a dick, I was in fact being bold. If you don't like it go away. I'm an inclusionist who will vociferously stand up to petty turf battles by small minded wikitards such as yourself who think this is some holy shrine into which only the most worthy information must pass. I will overturn your tables every chance I get in order to promote the free exchange of information that is important to small subsets of people. I will always fight the tyranny of the majority, and I will always call out liars such as yourself. The truth was that this was revived because it was found worthy my the majority of people who spoke up. That DOES have some weight, and that's provable by the fact it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion. Contribute positively or bugger off, because people like me will call you out on your misinformation every time. burnte (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh captain, my captain. --TIB (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not major sources and saying something is 'ongoing' sounds like a prediction/
Otterathome (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - Very notable. Major sources. LOTS of major sources. Much more than poor Limecat, who didn't stand a chance.

--

talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Amendment: Non blog source from the Metro.co.uk, OL article may be considered a blog, but it is in print also.--
talk) 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • You go by what information you have. Just because there isn't a large sum of information (See
    talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No that's not how it works.
    WP:V explicitly state that blogs and other self-published sources are inappropriate sources for writing about a living person unless they have some editorial oversight or they're written by the subject. There needs to be reliable sources that some editorial oversight. This article currently has one, which is not enough for notability, nor is it enough to write an article from. Mr.Z-man 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and redirect to 4chan if people really want it as a search term. No news articles to be seen - just blog entries. The only close to reliable source I can see is the guardianuk blog entry which, if you read it, is basically not about her but about the 4chan reaction to it as are most, if not all of the rest. This is not a boxxy meme but another 4chan one. All of the needed information can be in the 4chan article - we do not need, and do not have the sources for, this flash-in-the-pan 16ish yr old. She has zero notability outside of the 4chan and subsequent activity - Peripitus (Talk) 09:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We're going through this again? It is notable and meets all the requirements for an entry. This is not limited solely to one site and has been mentioned by various other sites, including the Guardian and Metro. Massive numbers of views on her videos and the copies of her videos on many sites, remixes, parodies, images, etc. Various blogs and YouTube/video based productions have mentions of it too. It's easily as worthy of documentation as various other similar entries. No reason to be snobby over this one. --92.19.116.17 (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sources are blogs (one of which is reliable) which is certainly not appropriate for biographical articles, making it violate many core wikipedia policies, including but not limited to:
    Otterathome (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not simply a biography, it's an article about the phenomenon, which he seems more interested in.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Meet Boxxy, Possibly the Most Batshit Crazy Person on YouTube" from
      inquisitr.com
      The fact the title is 'Meet Boxxy, Possibly the Most Batshit Crazy Person on YouTube' and the article is very short, and shows unmoderated comments like "FIND THIS CUNT GET HER ADDRESS AND NAME HER FAN FAGS WILLSTALK HER AND SHE WILL GO THE FUCK AWAY DO IT FAGGOTS" and also uses 'WTF' slang pretty much dismisses this as any kind of reliable source.
  • Come on now, that is simply misleading. Judge the article, not the comments made by others. If I scribbled in the margins of your newspaper or spoke out comments to you after you read it that would not mean that the article was suddenly no longer valid. Wikipedia is often full of arguments and abuse in talk and user pages. That doesn't mean that the articles are all worthless or invalid. Attempting to pick out these quotes that aren't from the author is a low move. Discussion of a pieces does not change the piece itself. --92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a friend that writes for a newspaper. I don't think having a friend makes you invalid as a source. ;) I think I know what you're trying to say, but you have to be clear.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "From emo to bemos" from marketingfacts.nl
      emo/bemo bad translation? also from reading a translation from their about page it seems to say they are not responsible for any content on any blogs and are the personal opinions of the author. So just another user user-submitted blog.
    • So, my name is Boxxy… from marketingfacts.nl (again)
      this article is the 3rd most popular this week with "Viewed: 9786 times", showing what kind of visitors visit the site and how popular it is. also see above.
  • That would seem like a snobby and cheap strawman attack. Nothing to do with the article. You're attacking the readership now with these swipes. Tsk. Please stick to the main issues rather than make veiled insults towards the readers. At the least it's not very nice. I do agree with your concerns over that segment though and feel that Dutch readers would be better off to judge it than bad machine translations and guessing from those who cannot read it. You clearly have difficulty understanding it and therefore have difficulty judging its fitness for this use. A tricky issue.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now! It isn't the size that counts. It's how you use it. ;) Again, I share similar concerns as mentioned with the previous site.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this one isn't one of the big ones, either. Again, similar concerns.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, all the sources are blogs most likely written by browsers of
Otterathome (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Because someone browses 4chan does not make them invalid to document what happened. A lot of this happened on 4chan, but most of it didn't. The whole internet was involved here, right down to
talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it is only notable to a select few internet users, mainly
Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a load of BS. I am not affiliated with anonymous and it is notable to me, neither is sxePhil or his subscribers or most of the millions of others who have seen her videos on her account and the other mirrors that host her videos. You are really stretching there. Also internet or not, two hundred thousand people is a LOT of people. Right now there are 217,058 views, that is 8,396 people wanting to know about Boxxy in just over 12 hours. I am quoting these numbers because it is an encyclopedia that people are looking her up at. As stated below, the readers interests should be taken into consideration here. Wikipedia policy contradicts itself from one policy to another in many circumstances. There are far more trivial and less notable articles on this site with far fewer sources. --
talk) 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
200,000 hits is nothing on an internet with 1 billion users,
Otterathome (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Two hundred and thirthy thousand now actually. Off the record, on a site explaining an event and having nothing to do with the meme itself, that is huge. Especially for 2 weeks time. I am willing to bet there are many more articles that have been here for a lot longer that don't have close to that. It is obvious that this is a matter of certain people not liking anything that has to do with the internet. The fact that this VfD has gotten this many responses is enough to prove notability. Wikipedia is serious business.--
talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Encyclopedia Dramatica is totally unrelated to 4chan and internet memes? Yeah, right. Mr.Z-man 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have brought this discussion on a tangent,
talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I read the Guardian's website on a daily basis and I do know who writes the blog in question. However it isn't enough to save the Wiki page. Even if the other blog links were notable (which they're not) it still doesn't address the problem of violating
    WP:1E. A mention on the 4chan page is all this minor fad deserves at the moment. That might change in the future, but at the moment it doesn't deserve a page of its own. Alberon (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I DO recognise the Guardian Blog as a usuable source, but it's the only one on that page that is and that isn't enough. Otherwise this is just one-event story so far and Wikipedia is not intended to document every little piece of news. If this meme has legs then the page can be remade, but as it stands it doesn't really deserve anything more than a section on the 4chan page. Tay Zonday is an example of a internet meme that had legs and has kept going in a D-list celebrity way so he, sadly, deserves a page. Maybe Boxxy will go the same way. Far too early to tell yet. Alberon (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why it does not have many notable sources, or (as you say) "legs," is because it is a relatively new internet meme. Give it another month...if nothing happens with this then I would have to agree with a deletion of this article. However my reasoning is why delete the article when it will most likely be made again? I feel one notable source is enough for something in which has potential of picking up more notable sources. Of course, you could also argue that the article could be restored if it did get more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.35.201 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to agree that as it currently stands it doesn't deserve a Wiki page. That may change and if it does I'll fully support the page. But I do feel in general it's best to delete pages like this and then recreate later rather than leave a load of pages lying around which shouldn't be there. There's a comment further down this page calling for the page to be salted and I definitly do not support that. Alberon (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erect keep She's really cute I don't know and I like her better than Cracky Chan. -- Femmina (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Erect keep?
    talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Respectfully, I don't think it is. In much the same way that
rickrolling is not about Rick Astley, but rather a video that happens to have Rick Astley in it. The meme is seperate from the man in that case, and I think the same holds true here. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Otterathome (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete gb2
    Talk 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That sounds like
    Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There seems to be a consensus that The Guardian source is ok, however there is lack of agreement regarding the other sources. In all seriousness, I don't think we should use a source that uses a phrase such as 'batshit crazy' in the title, especially in a BLP. The Metro source appears to get its basic facts wrong. I fail to see how anyone can believe the bannerblog is a reliable source. I think the MadmoiZelle article is just about usable. This seems to imply the marketing facts articles are user generated, which is a shame, because they at least get their facts right. Overall, I don't consider that between The Guardian and MadmoiZelle there is significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otterathome (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. It fits
    WP:WEB criterium no.1 pretty solidly, and it's absolutely notable. I agree with who said that people claiming it's not notable simply don't know how (a large part of) the Internet works today. Two million hits in a few days are non notable? How many books, movies etc. do we list that have been read/seen by much less people in a much larger period of time? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
what about the metro source? Jessi1989 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the meme is making the rounds at Fark/Totalfark now too, which is how I first heard of her. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove any unnecessary biography. There is no need for an article about Boxxy-the-person, there is every need for an article about "the Boxxy wars". This was a notable incident in internet culture and has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. Kyz (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got links to any of these sources? The ones that have been presented so far are insufficient. GlassCobra 16:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet meme, but yes, remove biographical information about the girl herself. Jumble Jumble (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The video seems like an adult pretending to be a child, like an acting exercise. I finally figured out that it was reminding me of Lily Tomlin playing her precocious child character "Edith Ann," complete with eye rolling and squirming [27]. Is this a character like Edith Ann, or is it supposed to be the adult in her normal mode of expression? That might make a difference in what guideline is applied, other than "meme," which is not always convincing, being almost by definition a transient phenomenon. Edison (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's a fad on 4chan, for better or worse. However Boxxy is reaching the popularity once possessed by lonelygirl, and the article is reliably sourced, so it's a keeper. 76.247.137.253 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Unfortunately notable, even if silly. Rlendog (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Egh, another 4chan meme? List of "sources" debunked above; BLP concerns as noted by several as well. GlassCobra 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have received enough attention to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability from Guardian. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; absolutely not notable in internet culture. The fact that the Guardian mention it means little because (with no disrespect meant) they're as clued up on internet culture as a few of the keep voters here. She'll be forgotten about in a month, easily. I won't object a redirect to
    WP:RECENT-violating stuff added to it. Giggy (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. I was waiting for Giggy to say his piece, as I trust his judgement on 4chan-related material. If he says it's NN, I believe him. – 
    iridescent 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No; I think it should be deleted but if Giggy had found reasons to keep it, I have enough respect for his specialist knowledge to treat any keep arguments he would come up with seriously. Since even he doesn't have a reason to keep it, confirms my belief that a valid keep argument doesn't exist. – 
    iridescent 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Only blog coverage referenced. --Peephole (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy edit break

  • Just like the "world cycling's #1 model!", I'd say. Same goes for a lot of Wikipedia. Of course, it was never run as a print encyclopaedia anyway.--92.22.164.17 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep After the 4chan incidents, it has become a part of Internet's history. Must be keep. Counter pistol (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has not made Internet history, it hasn't even been around for a month. That is not a reason to keep. Giggy (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial episode that is not now notable (no reliable sources to indicate that) and is almost certain to be forgotten very quickly. Making three videos, I remind those voting "keep", generally should not entitle one to a place in an encyclopedia. We are, after all (or at least some of us strive to be), an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash. Fails
    WP:BLP1E, etc., regardless of "the 4chan incidents". - Biruitorul Talk 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep An important article relative to other internet memes. It is an ongoing event for which I believe many people are interested. --Rishiboy (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your "belief" about what "interests" "many people" is irrelevant here. Show us the independent third-party sources demonstrating that, and then you'll have a leg to stand on. - Biruitorul Talk 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnencyclopedic trivia. 4chan and other juveniles can play their reindeer games wherever they like, except here. Fails:
    talk) 15:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The Guardian and Metro cites are two different articles, written by different authors -- is it possible you clicked on the same link twice, accidentally? Baileypalblue (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based upon the Guardian and Metro articles being reliable sources. Just because both describe themselves as blogs, it doesn't mean we have to treat them as such. I sometimes think there is a fashion to have something called a blog. "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." per
    WP:BLP. It seems that unfortunately many of the delete voters are not aware that blogs aren't immediately considered inappropriate to use as sources. It also seems that a number don't understand the notability isn't temporary. Adambro (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Subject is notable, well-known (on the internet at least), and reported in news sources. Captain panda 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Guardian source is the musings of an opinion columnist, which doesn't meet
    WP:RS#News organizations. The Metro source is for a section entitled "Stuff we found down the back of the internet", so I hardly think that meets the criteria for a news source! The rest seem to be blogs and so forth, so I'd have to say this article counts as unsourced and therefore doesn't meet BLP. Orpheus (talk) 22:37, 31 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. MBisanz talk 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Maestas

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

This article was apparently originally submitted to Wikinews by an anonymous user; though the individual seems to have some admirable accomplishments, the article reads as an autobiography, and the sole independent source I could find was a passing mention in People magazine. Jfire (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. I'm not finding sources to demonstrate notability beyond the passing mention in People noted by Jfire. Moreover, the article creator has discussed Maestas' life in loving detail, but comes up with only two notability claims that even merit consideration: founder of a non-notable local community organization, and member of the Hall of Fame of a two-year community college. If the article creator, who probably knows more about Maestas than we ever could, can't find any better evidence of notability, I'd say there is none to be found. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the article creator of record, this was a transwiki from en.Wikinews (prior to any formal transwiki process,) originally posted there anonymously. The material was inappropriate for that project, and I have no opinion as to its status on en.wp nor do I have any personal knowledge whatsoever of the subject. - Amgine (talk) 11:53, 29 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. MBisanz talk 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National church

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

This article purports to describe a "national church" as "a church organization in Christianity that claims pastoral jurisdiction over a nation", but not the same thing as an

established church or state religion. Note that according to this article, even some countries with no state religion and no established church have one or more national churches. However, the article is completely unsourced, and it is not clear whether the concept of a "national church" as described in this article is actually a concept used by scholars of religious studies or by people in general. There is also no indication that all of the churches listed as national churches actually do claim pastoral jurisdiction over their entire nations. In summary, to justify keeping this article, some reliable sources ought to be provided to state that (1) the concept of a "national church" really exists (as distinct from established churches and state religions), and (2) the churches listed meet the description of "national churches". But until then, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cooters

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

Failure to cite sources. Written as an advertisement. Relevance. DeviantSolution (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • they have not had credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  • they have not written musical theatre of some sort that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
  • they have not had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  • they have not written a song or composition which has won in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  • they have not been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  • they have not appeared at a reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Those are all other criteria. A band needs to meet just one, to pass the guideline.- Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are way wrong. All criteria 5 says is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." Schuym1 (talk) 23:13, 27 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 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quog

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

This term is hardly in common usage (compare to "blog"), and indeed a quick search via Google yields no meaningful or obvious references to the term "quog" as described in the article until the 4th page [28]. There are no references provided. Therefore, delete. TheFeds 05:37, 27 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 redirect to Dreams Come True. MBisanz talk 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takahiro Nishikawa

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

He is an unnotable keyboardist per

WP:MUSIC as he solely notable for being in a single band. He is not known for anything else and he isn't covered in reliable sources outside of the band. Tavix (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to Dreams Come True.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I disagree with the nominator that notability isn't inherited from bands by musicians (since it works to the other way around), but since this article lists no new information, there's no reason to keep it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do have a point there, I'll rephrase my nomination accordingly. Tavix (talk) 18:34, 27 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 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Rodrigue

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

Delete. Fails

WP:MUSIC miserably, no sources, no verifiable content, no assertion of notability MrShamrock (talk) 05:35, 27 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 merge to

2001_UK_Census. MBisanz talk 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Other ethnic group (United Kingdom Census)

Other ethnic group (United Kingdom Census) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Is this even an ethnic group? The correct answer is no. It is basically part of the 2001 census results which have already been scattered in other ethnic articles. Therefore, it is redundant and non-notable as an ethic group because it isn't "real". Tavix (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should probably make my self clear: This isn't a single ethic group, but the title for a bunch of minor ethnic groups merged together for census puposes. Tavix (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please--this isn't the place to get into a detailed discussion of ethnicity or ethnic groups. We only need to consider the article, which is about a single check box on a British census in 2001.--S Marshall Talk/[[Special:Contributions/S

Marshall|Cont]] 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep-- The subject of this article was an important part of the 2001 census and sources are available to establish notability, G.Books. The nominator is right, this article is not about an ethic group but the "230,615 people in the UK that ticked the 'Other Ethnic Group' box." --J.Mundo (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    United Kingdom Census 2001. The article contains useful information which should be kept, but I don't think it's necessary for it to have its own article. The census articles could do with being consolidated into one. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 28 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. MBisanz talk 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 'Matt' Graham

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer Time (truck)

Hummer Time (truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really am not seeing the notability. Its just a big truck, not notably expensive or special. No coverage in reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am in the process of doing the same thing. I have found that individual monster trucks (for the most part) are not notable, and this one is no exception. Delete as there are little to no reliable independent sources for the truck. Tavix (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 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 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta indians baseball

Atlanta indians baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local amateur baseball team. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The team belongs to a recreational league. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not the website for the Atlanta "Saturday league". Mandsford (talk) 17:14, 27 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 per

WP:CSD#A9. faithless (speak) 06:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fear Everything

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

I am unsure about the notability of this album, Google turns up few results and the band which made it dosent even have its own article.  

(Talk)  04:41, 27 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. (

neuro(talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Loren D. Hagen

Loren D. Hagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Similar to

notable. In addition, Wikipedia just cannot be a memorial to every fallen soldier, even those who have won a Medal of Honor, unless there is some notability to that award (other than heroism). This is third article about non-notable individuals that the author has written, all of whom apparently were in the same team. Again, interesting, but it doesn't belong here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Medal of honor winner is obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Medal of Honor is the US's highest military decoration, and I believe the practice here is that a nation's highest decoration indicates notability. News coverage of such awards is almost always substantial, even if it may be hard to find for older awards. Hagen is no exception - about a dozen gnews hits - surely there are more from the time of the award not archived at gnews.John Z (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because they happen to be dead, doesn't make it a memorial. Getting a country's highest military award makes someone notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable – to assist in understanding why, I suggest a close reading of Medal of Honor (which also states "Because of the nature of its criteria, the medal is often awarded posthumously"). --CliffC (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I can understand the nominator's reservations. Bear in mind that Wikipedia policy considers (for example) every player in the history of professional sports "inherently notable" as well. --Boston (talk) 15:52, 27 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 merge to Max Magician and the Legend of the Rings. MBisanz talk 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Rings

Legend of the Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability as i cannot find any reviews, it is not listed on the two big game sites that i searched, GameSpot and IGN. Only external link is broken and there are no references for the article. Game is also only "sold at small convenience stores" Salavat (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. Salavat (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment This is probably what the article refers to.
    talk) 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I searched offline sources, but couldn't find anything that mentioned this game. I used search terms that included '"Legend of the Rings"', '"Legend of the Rings" Sterling', etc.
    talk) 16:05, 27 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 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time 2 Find Those Hoes (Nate Dogg album)

Time 2 Find Those Hoes (Nate Dogg album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources supporting claim such as release of new album and tracklisitng; possibly false information Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:41, 27 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 keep. Bad faith nomination. N Shar has disproven the claim only "bogus websites" cover the topic and Baileypalblue has provided the evidence of bad faith. Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Free Church of Canada

Evangelical Free Church of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence for its existence other than bogus websites. Delete. D50qhx (talk) 02:42, 27 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 close. because of GFDL concerns over potentially merged material if this was deleted. Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identified flying object

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

No reason for such a short uninformative article to be on Wikipedia. It is just there to be a contrast to UFO, but identified flying objects are everywhere that everyone can recognize, without Wikipedia telling him what it is (planes, birds). Are we gonna have an article titled "known plants"? Wandering Courier (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an expert in ufology nor do I investigate UFOs. What are the cause of the UFOs? I do not know and I am not in a position to find out. What is relevant, however, is that this article, for a reason or another, edit warring or inherent deficiency, is unable to develop into a useful guide. There is an article for UFO because of the "U", unidentified. We have articles on airplanes, spacecrafts, and so forth, and an independent article on "known" flying objects is unnecessary. If you say I have an agenda, I have a simple agenda: to make Wikipedia simple and and to reduce waste. Wandering Courier (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but since the content that used to be in this article was merged elsewhere, we can't delete this article because of the
WP:MERGE.) We must at least convert it into a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 27 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 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterback Records

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

Fails

WP:CORP, no sources found, only one notable act signed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:24, 27 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.

talk) 09:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas Zeumer

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

Delete Questionable notability and has become a ridiculous, laughable edit war. This should be speedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FG Fox (talk • contribs) 23:50, January 22, 2009

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete It would be a lot of work to make this into a real article. The version from 15 January reads like a press release from the subject. The current greatly-reduced version is so sketchy that the subject does not appear notable. (Ref. 5 of the earlier version is to a book by Zeumer that seems to never have been published). It is already worrisome that the top Google hit for Thomas Zeumer is this Wikipedia article. The first reference in the current article (in German) is a blog article describing a party that Zeumer helped to organize in Venice. The blog article, perhaps not a reliable source anyway, doesn't give us any useful info about him. Unless someone has time to to a lot of digging for sources I'd suggest there is no evidence of notability so far. One comment on a web forum asserts that

Most important is to remember that Metropolitan Germany is unrelated to Michel Levaton's legit agency in Paris (and don't get fooled by the German website which is a plagiat of the legit website, even the logo is imitated to fool people).

We have no idea if Zeumer's 'Metropolitan Models' is the real Paris agency that discovered Claudia Schiffer. Ref. 2 of our article doesn't give any evidence that this *American* Metropolitan Models is the same as either of the European ones. All it shows is that Zeumer was an executive of a New-York based modelling agency of that name. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if this article were re-created later, but the current sources are practically worthless. (All two of them). The German society-page writeup (Ref. 1) is itself only a blog entry. Ref. 2 is from a page of the Daily News called 'Gossip.' It recites the bare facts of the lawsuit, and one doubts that anyone did any research to figure out whether Zeumer had an actual role in the careers of those well-known models. I agree that it's not essential to include the lawsuit in the article, since it seems that the defendants were a very large and mixed group (possibly all the important modelling agencies that were active in New York at the time). But if you drop the lawsuit, there goes Ref. 2, and we know that Ref. 1 is not a reliable source. Where to next? EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A previous version of the article had more sources - there was at least one that was fine. In other searches his name popped up at the New York Times and multiple hits in other languages. What we really need is a good magazine article about him/his work and I have little doubt that such may exist. Personally I don't know the modeling industry enough to find the industry sources that discuss him. I think he is notable, I believe the connections to all these notable models and stars but proving that is another issue altogether.
-- Banjeboi
If you go back to the 15 January version of the article, I'm sincerely curious which of these references you think is a
WP:RS and is usable. His book would be interesting if it existed, but it is unavailable and (one assumes) never published. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, does it matter? If we simply can't verify enough of the notable stuff, all that's left is one scandal which would seem to fall short on BLP. 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that Metropolitan Models does not have a Wikipedia entry, so we can not assume it notable, and consequently have no reason to think its CEO likely to be notable either. As for the prominence in the fashion world asserted in earlier version, it seems unsourced, but there should easily be sources for this if its real. The BLP problem is real--such an offense does not make him notable in himself, even if he were convicted, and probably should be removed as disproportionate weight even if sources are found to show that he and his firm are in fact notable. DGG (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources that have come to light recently linking him to these models are great but there's not enough and the lawsuit info that has sparked the edit war bringing us to this AfD discussion is bogus at best. Unless this is rewritten and protected, it's a waste of time, space, and effort. FG Fox (talk) 20:34, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Romon

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

Is this the same as

Bhaibe Radha Romon? If not, I don't see its notability. TheAE talk/sign 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Redirect to
    Bhaibe Radha Romon, though that article's title is incorrect, ... the singer's name is Radha Raman or Radha Romon, the "Bhaibe" prefix is not correct. --Ragib (talk) 06:14, 23 January 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 02:52, 27 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 vandalism. hmwithτ 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric Negative Value Theorem

Geometric Negative Value Theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obviously incorrect information but doesn't fit CSD. No hits on a web search. Snow seems likely. Quantumobserver (talk) 02:51, 27 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finda.com.au

Finda.com.au (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A series of websites with no independent

notability. No evidence of independent sources asserting notability. The article is also promotional in nature. Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This article on my opinion was to describe a series of community sites useful for common users around Queensland regions which serve the community and where people interact, I don't find it promotional or with no interest as it is similar to presenting another website without any commercial interest. Benenuts 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no indication of notability, and it seems unlikely that his website would have been covered in sources other than the newspapers which are operating it (and hence aren't suitable sources for establishing notability). Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    APN News & Media, the owner and operator of this series of websites. The *finda.com.au sites do not establish their own notability at this time.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:14, 22 January 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 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The website does not satisy any of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (web). WWGB (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability and likely simply advertising. Orderinchaos 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per-comments made by WWGB and Orderinchaos. Bidgee (talk) 01:26, 29 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 redirect to

Play (Swedish girl group). MBisanz talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Rosie Munter

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

The only assertion for notability for this page is that this person was a member of a notable band (

WP:ITSA), and independent notability has not been established and seems unlikely to be established, this article should be deleted as not notable. Rogerb67 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment The article
    Rosie Munter has only one reference, the subject's official website, which is currently offline. I have been unable to find a useful archival of this website, or any information in reliable sources. Thus only non-controversial information properly cited in the article may be retained; this boils down to four sentences, one of which has details suited to a discography, and another whose information is already in the article, leaving two sentences of biographical information whose self-published source is unavailable for verification. I have not investigated the other band members' pages in detail, but I suspect a similar situation may prevail there. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:01, 18 January 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 03:01, 22 January 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 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patience,
    WP:MERGE as usual. If we "shoot first and ask questions later" then firstly any good information on this page will be lost until the merge is completed, and secondly it is overwhelmingly likely it will never be completed, denying readers any useful information forever. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:41, 30 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 hoax/vandalism. hmwithτ 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malophobia

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

This word does not appear in any dictionary. It fails

talk) 02:39, 27 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlueTie

AfDs for this article:
BlueTie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but there appear to be some outside sources that verify notability. On the other hand, the article may, as was charged, be too much of an advertisement. I have decided to take it to the community to decide. Danaman5 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I see now that this article has been speedied and AFD'ed before. However, the new version appears to be different enough from the old versions to merit one more look. If the consensus is again for speedy deletion, I will salt it (this is about the fourth re-creation or so)--Danaman5 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 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) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of previous iterations of this article, the current article seems to meet requirements for articles about organizations
    WP:CORP. I have also cleaned up and formatted the article a bit.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  00:18, 22 January 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 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable officers, well-cited. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 30 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. Per

talk) 09:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko

Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with the rationale, "It is a very small congregation only recently set up, it is unlikely that many will have heard of it." 'Nuff said. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google search turns up nothing by that name.
    talk) 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, not notable. Tavix (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its clearly not going to turn up on google search because it is a tiny congregation in north finchley run by fecking elderly Irish nuns (one of whom happens to be my aunt) that have no idea of the existence of the internet let alone the ability to set up a web page. Nuff Said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D50qhx (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A leaflet would be a primary source. You are probably in a better position than the rest of us to uncover
    notability standards for non-commercial organizations, particularly for local organizations, when doing your referencing. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 03:03, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Kong

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

No whatsoever references. The name of the "gang" is too common in a quick search on google. Generally hard to identify. Dengero (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Ah Kong" is certainly a generic phrase, but it was also the name of a powerful Chinese drug-smuggling Triad in the 1980s. A google book search turns up four valid hits, and there's a few more
    RS out there; I'll try to add a couple of refs to the article. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Its notable, but needs references
    talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Very surprised that this has been marked for deletion. It is just like marking 'Mafia' for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.206 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the Mafia has references, this one doesn't. No proof they even exist. Dengero (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need to have some knowledge of Asian triads besides those portrayed in the movies and tv serials. Other Asian triads include 14k, Sun Yee On, Big Circle Gang, Bamboo United Gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.206 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are references for triads also. You still haven't proven this gang even exists. Dengero (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Check again. I still have a lot of materials intended for it, but I did not have the time to do so. So I just wrote a short summary about it, hoping that others who come across it will expand on it. If you do a Yahoo Search using the keywords "ah kong" and "amsterdam", it return 65 links. As you are a regular contributor, I would have expected you to add the links as references, if you have bother to do a search. But it's ok, I still take it as you have good intentions to make Wikipaedia a better place. Cheers!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per

WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

David Etkin

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

Despite claim of importance, gsearch isn't coming up with notability. Speedy deletion request deleted by IP user; prod deleted without comment by creator of this autobiography. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:04, 27 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 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Etten and the Heritage Band

Bill Etten and the Heritage Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group that fails

talk) 01:54, 27 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 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SRFL

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

Contested prod as non-notable club. After a somewhat thorough Google search, I cannot come up with anything establishing notability. This search would be slightly easier if original author explained what SRFL stands for, but days after request, the author is either unwilling or unable to provide this information. I have found reference to the Spanish River Football League as well as the Stern Rules Football League, but I doubt that either of these are connected to the fantasy football club this article is about. Regardless, neither of those present reliable, third-party references through Google, and certainly not enough of a web presence to meet notability guidelines. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, original research, possible advertisement, unnotable, unverifiable, and maybe something made up in one day. That said, I see many reasons for deletion. Tavix (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I have yet to see a fantasy football league that gets covered by the national press. It's just a game, people. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rap brief

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

A redirect to Gregory Charles Royal has been reverted. No assertion that this so-called legal technique has been used more than once. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the technique has not been used more than once, however, that it was successful at the state appellate level i.e a high court, and was reported nationally by the associated press makes it noteworthy, newsworthy and a bona fide technique-bethbar5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethbar5 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man writes rap as brief in court.
So keep this article you think we ought?
I express dissent and contraversion,
on this event notable only for one person.
Sources only give this man the fame,
and don't even call it by this name.
This technique don't have the "fides" you opine.
It ain't even genuine.
Sources don't state that it,
was considered legally legit,
or even any more than a piece of fluff to amuse
those waiting for "And finally …" at the end of their news.
You want to prove that this conclusion is wrong?
Cite sources discussing many legal briefs in song!
The PNC ain't satisfied,
with sources that are by us relied
to show this original idea to have escaped its inventor,
and into the general corpus of human knowledge to enter.
Document this one event in the article on the man who did the deed.
An article on the idea with a made up title we don't need.
Delizete.

Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Though Uncle G's lyrics are clever they somewhat miss the point. That the source of the subject is not only Associated Press but also for example American Bar Association linked here at http://www.abajournal.com/news/rapping_appeal_leads_to_win_for_pro_se_trombone_player/

the original research argument is moot as the technique has , as a clear matter of fact, been recognized by undeniable legit sources.

Second the title of one Associated Press article cites "Rap brief" in the title see at http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/38306479.html

Third, the notability is not measured by the author of the idea but by the appellate court that entertained the brief. Finally, the premise that many need to have used the technique is flawed I think. I submit if only one person had figured out a way to fly by flapping her arms, and that process having been reported in industry publications would be a legitimate technique..- bethbar5

  • Delete. A brief-writing strategy - pertaining to part of a six-page brief ([33]) - by a pro se litigant in a non-notable divorce proceeding, and one that may or many not have had any bearing whatsoever on the result? Frivolous and non-notable. If consensus here is for delete, the lede to Gregory Charles Royal should also be amended to remove the reference to this article. Simon Dodd (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable
    talk) 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Gregory Charles Royal and merge. A small amount of content plus one reference equals any easy merge. Great rap, Uncle G.! Royalbroil 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable --ND (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not that this particular AfD has a chance post-Uncle G's response. Bethbar5, the ABA Journal and appellate court's opinion and AP story confirm that the rapping occurring, and was successful - verifiable if you prefer. It still isn't notable. It's a (legal) news story about something novel. The sources do not describe a "techinque" - the article makes a leap that the sources do not. This interplay between
    WP:NOTNEWS is often confused, and I don't pretend that I always get it right. Still, this is not currently, and lacks sources to become, an encyclpedia article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

^ If the consensus is to delete could one of the contributors here merge or write the "novel news story" into Gregory Charles Royal bio- bethbar5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.54.67 (talk) 04:48, 30 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. MBisanz talk 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Golf Index

World Golf Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I restored the article as per request. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. PROD nominator stated "No reliable sources or indication that this index is used by any golf writers or fans." Besides that, there is a conflict of interest, as the person who started the article is the publisher of the World Golf Index website (check here). So, to make it clear if this article is notable or not, I felt that it was better to bring this page to AFD. Carioca (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for a myriad of reasons,
    chatter) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do Not Delete' (posted Wikipedia guideline policy)

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

    • The World Golf Index is a performance ranking comparing performance from various pro golf tours... this is the fact!

For someone to state "as a fact" that they cannot be compared, or are "impossible" to compare, is simply an opinion... and then to use that as a "reason for deletion" is incredibly unintelligent. I am the publisher of the World Golf Index, and therefore the "verifiable source", and I can be reached "anytime" via the World Golf Index email that is posted on the website. Popularity on Google is not a "reason for deletion" either... and as Google does not own the world... or the internet, and the World Golf Index includes "the world", the website gets traffic from all over the world. I posted this simple article on Wikipedia factually describing what it is in case a user might be interested in that information. This was done unbiased, which was the reason for a short and factual article, in the spirit of an "encyclopedia" sharing knowledge, and I had little concern for a conflict of interest simply because I didn't think there was one. —Preceding comment added by Wgiwiki (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep lacks references and needs expanding
    talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I am trying to be respectful of other comments, and fair comments are appreciated... but some are not very well thought out. Supported by "posted Wikipedia policy" as previously noted above, being "fairly new", or "needs time for news coverage" are NOT "reasons for deletion".

Also, further responding to the first comment above, I am not sure about the level of knowledge this person has for some things, but every organization and corporation that uses media, whether they have a specific media department, or not, drafts and posts their own "press releases". Are they all a "conflict of interest"? Obviously not. Being "worthy of notice" in this form or forum, being the Wikipedia, is simply an opinion, or collective opinion. Accordingly, the World Golf Index should be "worthy of notice", simply because it exists, has some history, is novel and interesting to some people and, may be to others. (Publisher of the World Golf Index) Wgiwiki (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, but you'd expect an index like this to have much more than press releases coming from search engine results. If there's nothing but press releases in the results, it's almost automatic that notability has not been found. It was not meant to be a criticism that this was self-promoting.
      chatter) 07:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Of course it is "criticism", all of which I accept. No need to apologize for it as that is your job here, and is the point of this forum and this discussion, but because content is important to "all" people (including me) who use Wikipedia, if you are going to comment in here in the capacity of an adjudicator, which you have the right to do, then it is your "job" in that capacity, to do so "honestly" and "objectively".

"Encarta" Definition of "criticism" (you can pick which context you feel is applicable): 1. act of criticizing: a spoken or written opinion or judgment of what is wrong or bad about somebody or something; 2. disapproval: spoken or written opinions that point out one or more faults of somebody or something; 3. assessment of creative work: considered judgment of or discussion about the qualities of something, especially a creative work.

== Further, you keep missing the point here, as you are using the term "notability" only in the context that is synonymous with "popularity" when the "Wikipedia guidelines", as I previously posted above, clearly allow for past, present, and future tense and context of that term. In other words, it clearly states that "notability" means that a topic should be "notable" OR "worthy of notice"... and that "popularity" alone is NOT a "reason for deletion". The reason for this is because Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" and generally people do not use encyclopedias to search for information they already know, logically, someone uses an encyclopedia to discover information they did not know... and obviously, if something is unknown well then it may tend to be unpopular in some cases... I hope you are understanding my argument here, as for obvious reasons, I want this article to stay. I believe it is "worthy of notice", and that people who are interested in golf, would want to know about the World Golf Index... and as you previously stated you feel it should be deleted, and your only reason seems to be, that in your opinion it is not popular enough... which again I remind you, is not criteria for deletion. Wgiwiki (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-1- That as I have previously advanced here, according to Wikipedia guidelines, "popularity" alone does not establish "notability", and that a topic's "worthiness of notice" is to be considered also, and, further responding to your most recent post wherein you stated, "search results which fail to go beyond what is required to meet notability", I do not understand what you mean by this, as I could not find anywhere in Wikipedia deletion policy "exactly" what this search results requirement is. -2- That the World Golf Index is "worthy of notice" as it has the same level of merit as the Rolex or World Golf Rankings. (Note: It is "not" impossible to compare pro golfers from different major golf tours, and the World Golf Index is potentially a fairer comparison than the World Ranking system, as it is less incremental, and assigns the same value to each event. The World Ranking system is very convoluted as it assigns a different value to each event based on various people's perception and opinion of that value... and is therefore also vulnerable to politics)...(and so that you don't misunderstand, I love the World Rankings and do not consider it competition... but if I were them, I would probably tweak it a bit). -3- And that, there is "precedent" for this article, as it has been posted for almost a year without issue until now. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki (talk) 07:44, 31 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 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Eshghi Esfahani

Amir Eshghi Esfahani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

President of non notable company. No press coverage, no reliable sources, and not even a website for the company. There is a myspace page here that lists much of the same information.

The "EDG International Group" listed here is apparently not the Oklahoma based company, but something different.

This qualifies for CSD, but the similarity of the names led an admin to mistake it for another company. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitor Iturrioz

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

Searches generate fansites and this article. IMBD references suggest minor actor even in the notable productions in which he has appeared. No awards, no references. WP is not intended to be one of the above-referenced fansites, nor an IMDB clone. Bongomatic 20:59, 22 January 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) 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to delete the article on Aitor Iturrioz. It is a famous actor but that does not have an award is not sufficient reason to delete an item. So I ask you to desist from his idea of deleting it. If you delete what I see is a motherfucker.—Preceding unsigned comment added to Bongomatic's talk page by 200.118.251.143 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Lacks references, but there are plenty of (non-English) Google News results (89) - if someone with the appropriate language skills could use some of these as sources, the article should be fine. he appears to have won a Mexican television award ([34]).--Michig (talk) 19:53, 31 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby (surname)

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

Reasoning: (1) This page does not introduce any information about the family name "barnaby". (2) The disambig page Barnaby (disambiguation) already exists. (3) This term "Barnaby (surname)" is an unlikely search term, thus I recommend deletion instead of redirection.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  14:55, 22 January 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 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I've had a go at fixing it up, but it's still not much of an article. Could possibly be kept, but might be better factored into the existing dab page. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Tavix (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 07:24, 27 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.

talk) 09:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dani Campbell

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

Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:18, 22 January 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 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has had some pretty notable media coverage and I don't think this sets a bad precedent. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the references could use some cleanup there seems to be more than enough to demonstrate "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources", as
    WP:N suggests is required. If the nominator could elaborate on their concerns about the article, perhaps I could better see what the problem is. ~ mazca t|c 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Seems to pass the threshold of
    WP:BIO.Simon Dodd (talk) 19:25, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Hallquist

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

No reason given as to why this football player from the early 1900s is notable.

Talk to Me 00:09, 27 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubes (software)

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

small startup shut down a year ago Paulish (talk) 07:20, 22 January 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) 00:04, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Aid

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

Problem is, not only is Simon Cowell the founder of Wildflife Aid, he's also the owner of the production company that made Wildlife SOS, Animal Planet. So you've got a celebrity setting up a charity, then setting up a production company to promote it, and then selling the programme for commercial distribution. Any one with enough money could do this. It's not public service broadcasting.

The charity itself isn't notable, but the founder and owner of the production company promoting the charity are. I have a real problem with this set up. It's just 'promoting some entity.' Astral Highway (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact Cowell is promoting the charity outside of Wikipedia has no bearing on its notability. If he wants it to have any chance of success he pretty much has to. What would you think about merging this until more information is available? - Mgm|(talk) 13:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that the organization is the basis for the TV show brings the organization significant popular attention that warrants an article. The fact that such attention is generated by Simon Cromwell's deep pockets doesn't mean that the attention isn't there. Perhaps it could be a redirect to the TV show though until more information can be added. Rlendog (talk) 20:55, 26 January 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) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Prominent local non-profit organization that has drawn widespread national and international attention -- meets the requirements of
    WP:ORG. I have expanded the article and referenced it to demonstrate the subject's notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:14, 28 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JAPS

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

Software that does not claim notability. 16x9 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 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 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Vote changed to keep: per JulesH. (The reason why this !vote change is so late is because I thought that the AFD was in my watchlist even thought it wasn't.) Schuym1 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we really ought to give the JAPS more respect than this. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 27 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. MBisanz talk 08:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sde Tzofim Yeshiva

Sde Tzofim Yeshiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Certainly unencyclopediac; just short of

patent nonsense but I'm not quite sure enough of the technical details to be sure. Also, text appears to be copied from http://sdetzofimfund.blogspot.com/2008/06/sde-tzofim-is-community-where-baalei.html Robinh (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

the article at sdetzofimfund.blogspot.com is from the newspaper "yated neeman" as is the article here. for those involved in judaism it is a worthy entry . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.42.137 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet
    talk) 02:53, 23 January 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) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The article isn't patent nonsense; rather, it is written in Yeshivish, or at least a form of English with many of the key words being either transliterated Hebrew or Yiddish. This is unsuitable for the general English-speaking audience of Wikipedia, but the article could be revised to be in standard English. In addition, the article's tone is overly promotional with comments such as "Yeshiva Sde Tzofim has chosen to address this problem in a most innovative, wonderful way". I take no position as to whether the school is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly promotional in tone, and very likely incapable of being rewritten to be both balanced and properly sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:43, 27 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do

Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small, local, non-notable variation of Okinawan

Goju-ryu. No third-party sources, 17 ghits for the exact phrase. JJL (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi ! my name is david wilson. I am a fan of martial arts and have looked at this article with my friends. I do not see any thing wrong with this article and any violation of any sort. It clearly shows that Hatha Goju is a substyle of Okinawan goju ryu and deserves a place in this encyclopedia. I feel it would be a deservice for this article to be removed/ deleted.

Sincerely,

David P. Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.141.128 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 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) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this article, M. Wilson, is that it does not belong in an encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, whose policy is that all content be verifiable and free from primary research and previously unpublished material. Since no-one, apart from this purported organization's own web page, documents it anywhere, readers have no way to determine that anything in this article is true. (See Wikipedia:autobiography for the problems with trusting autobiographies, including autobiographies hosted at free WWW hosting services.) This article cites no independent reliable sources that document its subject, and a search for such sources (that at least both the nominator and I have done, and which other editors coming to this discussion should also do, independently) comes up empty handed. This is an encyclopaedia that readers have to be able to trust to be accurate, and they do that by checking against sources. No sources at all. Therefore no article. It's that simple. And this AFD discussion is not a vote. There is no ballot for you to stuff. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G as he said everything that needs to be said. Tavix (talk) 02:26, 27 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.

talk) 09:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Marlena Starr Kovacevich

Marlena Starr Kovacevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are many references, but none seem to support notability. Just seems like an average skating coach and choreographer. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - she is a skating coach but not a notable one. According to the article, she is NCCP level 1 certified which means she just gained her basic coaching certification. There's no coverage about her, nor is there any evidence of work in developing a skater to notable levels. -- Whpq (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 23 January 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) 00:00, 27 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.

talk) 09:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Alan Tuan

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

Delete nn mayor of a small city 30,000 population - the website of which city shows that it is a council type mayoralty and that this dude ain't the mayor either see the city's website. To sum up: fails

WP:NN again so nn we don't know when or where he was born redflags of non-notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 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) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Mountain View is notable - but that isn't inherited by its mayor unless otherwise notable. Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    talk) 23:02, 27 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.

talk) 09:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Jackiey Budden

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

I think this can probably go now, as the previous AfD suggested. This poor woman is only known for one thing: being the mother of

WP:BLP and human decency suggest this should be nuked or perhaps very slightly merged to Jade Goody. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The rationale behind having an article for Jackiey is that she was notable for more than one thing. Consider other Big Brother contestants. Obviously most Big Brother contestants would not get a wikipedia article because they aren't notable outside Big Brother, and so they get a subentry on the main Big Brother page. However, Jackiey's article existed for some time before it was announced she was going on Big Brother documenting her biography and TV appearances. Furthermore, seeing as she was involved in an international furore regarding her time in the house, I believe that this makes her notable enough to have her own page.

The article should not belittle Jackiey and editors should be circumspect about what they say when updating this page. Other editors have the right to remove things as they see fit. There have been times where I have editted out bias in the article but other contributors should help out too. Technohead1980 (talk) 09:54, 24 January 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) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of BLP policy. Tabloid fodder. The BBC article is about her daughter, and barely mentions her. DGG (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for once in my life I think I'm finding myself agreeing with DGG on something. Miracles never cease. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails
    WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as it fails
    talk) 22:56, 27 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ellis (guitarist)

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

Delete. This page was previously deleted, I think. It shows no evidence of notability and the creator's username seems to indicate a conflict of interests.

talk) 17:07, 22 January 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) 23:59, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_27&oldid=1100287460"