Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfterLogic WebMail

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

• Delete - references in the article are self-published. A search for coverage about the software turns up download sites but no actual coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and
  Sign here! 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete = I did my own search and it agrees with the results of Whpq's search. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

What Is Emo

What Is Emo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is completely redundant to the

• Delete per nomination. There's nothing here that isn't already covered in Emo. TheLetterM (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Pure abuse of encyclopedia space. Basically a FAQ. Why is it that self declared emos have such a difficultly grasping the basic guidelines of wikipedia? They are constantly spamming talk:emo with meaningless pep-talkish tirades. Zazaban (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with
  WP:NPA on the !votes here? Don't hate the editor, hate the page.) - Eron^Talk 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I endorse this comment. Plz comment on the article itself not on who wrote it. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete already covered by Emo. Nothing to merge, all content is unsourced and/or OR, would have to be re-written from scratch. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Emo. I agree that this is not a plausible search term, but the nominator merged a reference from What Is Emo to Emo, so we have to keep the redirect for WP:GFDL purposes. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we don't. I didn't merge a source, I added the same source to the emo article in an appropriate place. Merging would be if I had taken the text accompanying that reference and moved it to the emo article as well. This is not a GDFL issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What is Snow Unless we want to have
  Jeopardy Wikipedia), there is really no reason for this article. Eauhomme (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: redundant content, insufficient 3rd party coverage.
  talk) 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesio tape

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

)

Blatant advertisement for a product (it looked even worse before I removed all of the trademark symbols). I had placed a speedy tag but it was removed by the user who made the current ad-like version of the article. The only notable mention I can even find is one article in Swimming World Magazine. The entire article would need to be scrapped though and re-written even if the product was notable (which I have my doubts about). TJ Spyke 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to adjust this article to a more neutral point of view. --KinesioTaping (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is also requesting a move to Kinesio Tape, on the grounds of trademarking. Delete as spam for non-notable product. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As it stands,Delete as spam. I feel there could be notability in the product but possibly more in the future than now, but there needs to be a complete neutral rewrite without the bias introduced possibly by an editor with a username that might warrant administrator attention. If suitable references can be supplied (sounds like I'm looking for a new butler...) and a neutral tone ("How does it work?" No. That's brochure writing.) adopted, I might be willing to shift my 'vote'. Peridon (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep--on the one hand, this article is the worst piece of spam I've seen in a while. On the other hand, there is this Google News search which suggests that the product itself is notable. The article needs to rewritten from start to finish, and it might be a good idea if users with the words "Kinesio" and "tape" or any combination thereof would stay far, far away from the article. To users with such words in their name: please see
  WP:COI. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• speedy delete (g11) I'd remove the spammy text if there was any hope of saving this, but the only way to save it would be to start new. This is beyond gone.--Terrillja _talk 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant advertising. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11, now that I've blocked creator. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Overbrook Brothers

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

Contested prod. Movie whose notability rests solely on the fact it will premiere at the

• Comment I think this nomination is premature. The film will screen in two days after which it is quite possible for more media coverage to turn up. Both the creator and nominator should be slapped with a wet fish for jumping the gun. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That makes no sense. The film exists. It plays at SXSW in 2 days. You admission alone of that fact means your dispute is invalid. How is it premmature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeDubya (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's premature because by the end of this AFD the film will have aired making the AFD possibly moot. They should've waited for the premiere, then look for sources and nominate if they don't exist. (I'm not saying this should be deleted, I'm saying the AFD was brought on too soon) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep It makes sense if you're in the camp that believes nothing can have a Wikipedia article until it's sufficiently Internet Famous. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense, especially because some people (i.e. me) might legitimately be interested in reading about the film, and would like Wikipedia to document it, thank you very much. – Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need something to be internet famous. Books, magazines and paper newspapers work just as well as sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well thats like saying "I've developed a new type of aircraft. I've built it. Its in my backyard. I have pictures to prove it. But I havent flown it." Its still an airplane. It exists, but just because no one has seen it fly doesnt make it invisible. I am confused as to why this is an issue. In your line of thought, every scientific theory should be removed from Wikipedia because Perez Hilton hasnt talked about it on his website. There are several references below that prove this is a real movie. Please check them out. BTW, the premiere is in 6 hours and I am taking the fish you recommend I be slapped with as a date.
• Keep - It's a real movie, it actually exists, has real actors (some of whom are actually notable) in it, premiered at a real film festival.
  talk) 06:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brooklet, Georgia. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklet Peanut Festival

Brooklet Peanut Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Prod was contested on the grounds that for this event to have been held annually for 20 years is enough to make it notable. If that were the case, then I should create an article about my family's annual Christmas party. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, no notability nor significant coverage. LetsdrinkTea 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Brooklet, Georgia. The festival appears to be a significant part of the town culture as it has a page on the town site. Coverage is sparse but not non-existent so we can satisfy verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge and Redirect to Brooklet, Georgia. References are verifiable. Festival is notable within its region, but if consensus is to merge to Brooklet, Georgia per Whpq, then that would also be acceptable with a redirect. Unionsoap (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nomination argument is completely inadequate, does not support the AfD in any way.
  talk) 06:26, 16 March 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} 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Brooklet, Georgia. Verifiable, but not notable outside of the area, or not notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Non- monogamous opposite-sex marriage

Non-monogamous heterosexual marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a neologism or unnotable term, has exactly 2 google hits LetsdrinkTea 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should allow the article to expand before you start tagging it up for deletion. Aggressive behavior like such is discouraged on wikipedia. You nominated it for deletion with in seconds of creation.--

sign my contact archive] 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have searched for the term and am convinced that it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. LetsdrinkTea 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google non-heterosexual marriage, then come back and tell me what it says....--

sign my contact archive] 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delte -
  Sign here! 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athaenara, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accedian Networks

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

Blatant advertising (speedy deletion tag was removed) HaeB (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Re-tagged. The tag remover's argument is not at all convincing, since this is the kind of information a company would insert in its own pamphlets. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The removal of the first speedy tag is also that editor's only contribution. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Dr. Jacqueline James

Dr. Jacqueline James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete was tagged speedy, but there is a hint of claim to notability here. First, some people have expressed an opinion that all Ph.D.'s are notable, a notion I disagree with strongly, but if that view prevails, God willing, I'll finally be notable. Second, the claim that "She graduated the first black female engineering graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy with a Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering in 2000." Which claim is a nice combination of female + race + particular degree + major + school, which is sufficiently contrived to make 1000s of people notable the same way. Again, me too, as the first gay Latino getting a Ph.D. in my discipline at my school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:RESUME. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable; but the claim is undoubtedly not intended as being "the first black female engineering graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy with a Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering in 2000" but as being, in 2000, the first ..... If she had been their first black female graduate, regardless of program, then there just might have been enough publicity to pass WP:BIO. Considering it a a resume, it isnt even clear at that. DGG (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this should be deleted. The bio is certainly notable. If the Coast Guard Academy graduated their first black female engineer in 2000, it is notable. I also noted that several reporter wrote on the topic of her being the first for her country to graduate from the academy. There is no contact info so I do not consider it a resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klyttlecamp (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not claim that. Civil engineering is just one of the engineering degrees they offer. DGG (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleting as a blatant copyright violation of [1]. User's other edits have all been copyvios as well. --
  talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salsaghetti

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

Delete was tagged speedy delete as spam, but less spammy than just not notable on which basis I say we should delete it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This actually is a real candy. Macarion (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article convinces me that I would like to try the stuff, but it does not convince me that it is even remotely notable. In other words, what we have here is an instance of successful
  WP:SPAM. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Has sources, being a stub is no reason to delete (non-admin closure) Terrillja _talk 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Munroe

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

Stub. Unsourced. Tried to CSD but tag was removed by another editor. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is an article being a stub.
  Talk 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The article is now sourced and it obviously meets notability requirements for
  talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A stub is no reason to AfD, it's clearly not speediable as there is an assertion of notability in the principle cello claim. A quick google search verifies this, and I think principle in an internationally renowned orchestra is a good indication of notability. As per
  WP:BIO A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I've will add some refs to the article. --GedUK  21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep references have been added, subject meets relevant notability guidelines. —Snigbrook 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (I was the one who removed the CSD tag.) I feel he is well documented in secondary, reliable sources as a notable musician. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He meets the requirements of
  WP:Music. Also see these results in Google News all dates. [2]. Note that the proper course of action with an unsourced article is to look for sources rather than putting it up for deletion, especially given his description as a principal cellist with 2 highly notable orchestras. In this case they are very easily found. I also find it completely bizarre that this article was nominated for a speedy delete within 1 minute of it having been created. This AfD is totally inappropriate as well. Voceditenore (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow keep. Why are we dragging this out?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shellenberger

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

• Tentative Keep. Is it really
  WP:LUC. THF (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I very much doubt that either would pass
    WP:AUTHOR#Invalid criteria). Time singled out the authors because its approach was to seek "heroes", which could hardly describe the book. Also I disagree that the book being notable (which I haven't sought to prove or disprove, but I think probably is) means the authors are. In 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..."[3] Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete:
  WP:BIO1E that Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. JRSP (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep the book is not really an event, and although that is what Shellenberger is known for, the coverage (including some of the sources cited in the article) is not only about the book. —Snigbrook 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like nitpicking - publication of the book (which he only co-authored) is one event. And the other coverage is of things not notable - just normal business activities - which wouldn't justify an article if the book hadn't been published: ergo WP:ONEEVENT applies. Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this in illegitimate interpretation of "one event" which is designed for tabloid level notability, or trivial events, or being a victim or bystander. If there;s anything genuine, it should not be covered there, and I so interpret the policy. I know the wording doesnt say this clearly, but it doesnt make sense to me otherwise. An author can be notable for a single book, and a review in both the NYT and the WSJ meets that. Plus Time & probably most other major sources. DGG (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur with DGG that this isn't what BLP1E is designed for, and we should be careful of interpreting it too strictly in this case. Everything in it is discussed in terms of news events, which is not what publication of a book is. Also, despite being on a policy page it is phrased in terms of a guideline ("if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", emphasis mine), so I don't think the argument that it overrides
  WP:CREATIVE is valid; at best, they are both on the same footing of being concepts that apply in most but not all cases. JulesH (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The spirit of it clearly applies here IMO, if not the letter. Further the subject doesn't IMO meet the
    WP:AUTHOR criteria. If the policy doesn't fit this situation, then we should consider changing the policy. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Tentative Keep. There are more than 300 references to Shellenberger in Nexis. More than 27,000 in Google. The entry of Schellenberger was created in December 2007. Deletion issue arose, as far as I can tell, when I included information, related to his lobbying activities on behalf of Hugo Chavez's government, that is perceived controversial by himself and two editors contributing in this page. There is precedent in Wikipedia about inclusion of information regarding similar conflict of interests with regards to funding Mine Your Own Business. To argue that a book is notable but the author isn't is, IMO, preposterous. Consulting work was notable enough to merit reference in reliable secondary sources. However having said this, I do believe Shellenberger should be entitled to having his entry deleted, if he so wishes. He has contributed to the entry, why not putting the question to him?--Alekboyd (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you'd mention
    WP:ATA#Google test. Same applies to Nexis (especially since this is a news db and as noted we are talking about PR work, so quality of hits is the issue). Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Would you please provide secondary sources supporting that the subject's consulting work is notable? A single sentence in an article dealing about another subject is hardly a claim of notability IMO. JRSP (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garance Franke-Ruta wrote a lengthy article in The American Prospect where Shellenberger's & Nordhaus's consulting work was the centerpiece. THF (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • As far as lobbying for Chavez is concerned, sources are cited in entry.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This falls under
      WP:NPF. The sources merely cite the subject in passing, they do not show or claim that the consulting work is notable. However this deletion debate isn't the place to argue this further. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep Sourced, notable, likely to be a subject of inquiry. What to include can be debated later on the discussion page, although I'm not sure the subject should have an undue say Vartanza (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This nomination is a misinterpretation of
  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'll concede that I'm interpeting BLP1E broadly - more broadly I guess than others would agree with (but define "event"... and is the logic so different for a book publication?). As to NPF - there is nothing in the written policy as stands that supports your argument. It may be historically true that this is how NPF came about but it isn't part of the policy - and again, I do not see why NPF should be limited as you say. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True dream

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

Plot summary of one story which has been self-published here and another not yet published. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-published almost certainly means non-notable, and certainly in this case. --GedUK  21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No soruces to establish ntoability, and the entire article is a set of plot summaries. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Arnold

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

Delete fails

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - No strong assertion of notability. No sources provided. The name Peter Arnold is too common to provide useful search results. A variety of qualifiers to narrow it down yields no useful results. A search for his company which does have a rather unique name turns up no coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Quantum bogodynamics

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

No reliable sources demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. It's fine that somebody somewhere made a joke about something, or that some people repeated it, but that doesn't mean it gets a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quite surprisingly there is an actual journal article discussing the impact of computer speak on the English language (including the term "quantum bogodynamics"). "Bogosity" (a redirect) appears 50+ times in Google Scholar (including one from the 1950s). Google Books provides three more sources demonstrating usage of "quantum bogodynamics". – 74  02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Google Books shows multiple copies of
    FOLDOC, the source upon which this article was directly based, all but two of which are the entirely unreliable Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases (for the second time here at AFD in as many days), and a novel, which isn't a source at all. The journal article, unsurprisingly, doesn't document any such thing as quantum bogodynamics. Its coverage of the subject amounts to exactly 4 words: "such as ‘quantum bogodynamics’". It does document the propensity of on-line computer programming communities to create neologisms, such as "quantum bogodynamics". And the other Google Scholar hits aren't even about either quantum bogodynamics or bogosity. The 1954 article is about economics, in fact. Counting Google hits, even Google Scholar hits, isn't research. Uncle G (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No. I specifically excluded the multiple copies of "Webster's" whatevers. Ignoring those, we have three books using the term. You might claim that they are unreliable (and you are probably at least half-right) but they still show that the term has entered usage. As to the journal article, I don't have access to read it, so I don't know how accurate your assessment of its coverage is. – 74  05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonetheless, those three books, as I said, comprise two more copies of FOLDOC, and a novel, which isn't a source. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't document terms that "have entered usage". This is an encyclopaedia, and articles only exist if the people, places, events, concepts, or things denoted by the terms have been documented. An article on bogosity or quantum bogodynamics requires that the subjects of bogosity and quantum bogodynamics have been documented, not that someone has merely uttered the word somewhere in a treatise on (say) economics. So far, you have cited zero sources actually documenting this subject, but instead are simply counting Google hits that match a word or phrase. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So sorry, I must've wandered into Articles for Research instead of Articles for Deletion. The *published* copies of
          WP:N states Independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", which these are not), you can argue that they aren't reliable (one is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which bypasses self-published accusations), or you can spout random nonsense and insult me; at this point I really don't care. Have fun. – 74  19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Doing the research is a necessary component of AFD. You aren't doing it. You're counting occasions where a word or phrase is mentioned as if they are sources, when upon examination they turn out to say nothing at all about any relevant subject. As I said, the article from the 1950s that you were so happy to hold up as evidence was about economics. Had you done the research that is required of you by our policies, and actually read the source, you would have known this. You didn't even need to read very far beyond the title and first paragraph. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The Jargon File is a reliable source for hacker slang and jokes, and this has an entry there. The rest are apparently either copies of the Jargon File entry (FOLDOC, "Websters" Quotations etc) or trivial references (the journal article described above). We need multiple independent non-trivial references to establish notability, and as I don't see anything non-trivial that is independent of the Jargon File definition. Consider this a keep if any additional independent sources are described. JulesH (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Jargon that is simply not notable enough for its own article. Covered elsewhere. Waste of space.
  talk) 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per 74. Also, an edu search returns a few results http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/swil/archives/Misc_Works/mitjargonfile/hacker3.txt http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/QU/QUANTUM+BOGODYNAMICS.html http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/63/13.htm http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/37/95.htm .Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you've found 4 more copies of FOLDOC, 3 of which are clearly marked as such in their URLs. It has been copied a lot around the WWW. You've also found one copy of this very Wikipedia article, clearly marked as such with a direct hyperlink back to it, which isn't a source at all, of course. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - plenty of sources have been found already: both academic and pop-culture. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly one source, the same FOLDOC article over and over, has been found. It is taken from an identical Jargon File entry. As a self-styled collection of slang and in-jokes, that's not exactly superbly reliable. Are we aiming to be an accurate encyclopaedia, based upon reliable sources that document their subjects seriously, and so can be trusted to be accurate and truthful? Or are we to become yet another computer slang joke book, yet another FOLDOC mirror? (If the latter, why? Clearly, the world isn't short of them.) Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FWIW, "Websters Online Dictionary" and " Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases" seem to be 2 faces of the same source.DGG (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources provided don't really discuss the term Quantum bogodynamics in a meaningful enough way to establish notability for neologism.
  talk) 07:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Uncle G and nrswanson.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There doesn't seem to be no significant coverage as required by
  talk) 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. -
  talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football team (future schedules)

Georgia Bulldogs football team (future schedules) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While schedule are a good idea in the individual season articles, this list easily violates

• Delete Obvious CRYSTAL issues, and Wikipedia isn't a repository of event schedules.
  Townlake (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep I can see arguments either way, but this is based on contractual agreements, not some editor peering into a crystal ball. College football is big business, and the future opponents are planned years in advance by the athletic departments at the universities, within limits. And yes, it makes news. Because Georgia has to play the other teams in the SEC East (Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt) and there's a rivalry with Auburn, six of the games are a given; the rest are scheduled years in advance, with a home-and-away in consecutive years against two teams in the SEC West, and four against non-conference opponents with whom contracts are signed. It's not "crystalballing" to say that Georgia has signed a contract with the University of Oregon to play in Eugene and then in Athens in 2015 and 2016. The ink's dry on those deals. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Game contracts are changed all the time. Games move for TV, scheduling conflicts come up (e.g. BYU buying out its game against Arizona State this year so it can play Oklahoma at the Cowboys' new stadium in Dallas)... and the "college football is big business" argument doesn't change the CRYSTAL issue. Plenty of future events are backed up by contracts, but til they occur, they're just plans.

  Townlake (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete This is typically the sort of thing Wikipedia doesn't cover. We don't do tv guide listings either. If the sources are reliable, they can be dropped in the external links section of the Georgia Bulldogs article. And Townlake is right too. It might be planned ahead of time, but there's no way to know for sure if the league exists in 7 years time or if the team will even be there. Even from experts, this would be crystal bal gazing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia isn't a football schedule -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete even though Mandsford makes a valid point or two; there is too much crystal ballery here. However, MGM deserves a troutslap, or perhaps a slap with a big ole' shark, for suggesting that ANYTHING might EVER happen to the SEC. How dare you! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Alabama may drop down to Division II. Has anyone else heard this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Of all the
  qualified this year...--kelapstick (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainspotting

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

The author of the article admits that it is a new therapy. Not yet noyable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel that this AfD is premature. The article is only a day old, and the creator promised on the talk page to quickly add references. Searches on Google Web and Google Scholar show hits for the term "brainspotting", but it is not clear to me whether they are sufficient to establish notability. I personally would like to see the creator, a new Wikipedia editor, be given a little more time to pull this together. Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Plea AfD? I have no idea what that is, but it sounds serious. I feel Brainspotting (BSP) is noteworthy, but it is new, so others may not. BSP is related to
  EMDR
  and other therapy techniques that invoke the body's ability to health itself. BSP, like EMDR, is being developed in the client/practice field, not academic community, so there are not a lot of scholar studies yet. Psychologists and Psychiatrists don't know exactly why it works. It just does (speaking first hand).

Having never contributed a Wikipedia article, I assumed the article would start small. Others would read, become interested, and contribute. Over time, as BSP evolves, so would the entry. I'll work on improving this article immediately by finding references in academic and trade publications.

Can this entry simply be "Unpublished" rather than deleted? The time pressure and threat of deletion is stressful. I'd appreciate not losing the chance to contribute an article on this topic.

70.155.133.156 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be userfied (which means it's put into your personal article space). I suggest you make a Wikipedia account, which would facilitate that. Once userfied, you can work on it at your leisure (userfication will come with a couple of conditions but they're not onerous to someone who's writing a good faith article--they're designed to prevent abuse of Wikipedia, that's all). Hopefully the nominator would agree to withdraw this nomination in that case, without prejudice to a future AfD on either side?

I want to add that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publish anything that's

reliable sources. In this case I'd imagine it would need to appear in some form of peer-reviewed specialist magazine. Like any encyclopaedia, Wikipedia isn't a primary source; it's simply a collection of information other people have already reviewed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I should probably also provide you with a link to Wikipedia's collective view on

reliable sources for medical topics.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Great input. Appreciate the help. I'll look into placing this into a personal article space until I've pulled together peer-reviewed citations. 74.223.182.178 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references cited apart from websites. no evidence that this is a therapy and no evidence that notable. Unless a recognised peer reviewed journal is added quickly, then delete Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete regardless of whether the article is worked on or not. I checked the Google Scholar hits, they are all either about something else or self-published. Thus an acceptable article cannot be written - a bare collection of anecdotes is worse than nothing. AfD stands for "Articles for deletion" by the way. Narayanese (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I can't find any
  reliable sources that discuss this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment His website says Dr. Grand has been featured on NBC Nightly News, Dateline, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday and O Magazine. Can anyone find a link to him on those sites? If not, is he lying? I don't see any news articles at all mentioning him. Dream Focus 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - So it is a new therapy, a big "so what"? There is plenty of discussion about it in established notable journals. AfD is premature.
  talk) 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

what journals? there are none cited? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

St Dallan's Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Keep - Article implies notability, just needs sourcing.
  Talk 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Implying notability saves it from a speedy deletion; now it needs to show the significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Failing that, it ought to be merged or deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. Adding the unreferenced tag may be more appropriate here.
      Talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Merge into the school board
  Southern Education and Library Board as for essentially all primary schools. The production of the DVD would probably not be enough, but they didn't produce it, they were one of the eleven schools that participated. For those who go by sources, there arent and probably wont be any, because it almost never happens for a primary school. DGG (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to the relevant school district or board. Since they appear to be part of the
  Southern Education and Library Board the DVD doesn't confer any sort of independent notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

PSP Solitude

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

Game mod with no assertion of

• Speedy delete as A7 - fails
  WP:WEB totally. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Spammy page, non notable LetsdrinkTea 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Tony Fox.
  Talk 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: it isn't web-related, though, it is a mod for a specific console. I thought I'd bring it here to be on the safe side. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unreleased game, not
  reliable sources start to write about it. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Leave the Article: The game described in the article is set to have a release at the end of this month. This mod already is very popular and many people are anticipating it. I am the originator of this article and I am in no way apart of the team that is developing it. I am merely a person that has been watching the project for a little while, long enough though to know what I am saying about it. Also it has been featured on the Quick Jump Network, which is cited in the article. Corytheidiot (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) — Corytheidiot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per
  reliable third-party sources. MLauba (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• About Crystal Ball: This is a guaranteed thing. It is not pure speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corytheidiot (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Provide the required
    sources to back it up and the whole discussion becomes moot. Searched myself, came up empty. MLauba (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong delete – lack of
  WP:CRYSTAL. MuZemike 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There are no independent reliable sources. (the refs in the article link to WP articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment? The least he could do is put the website as an external source, even if it is a forum. Elm-39 - T/C 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:
  talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No reliable sources.--
  talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was

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

)

Delete this is handled fine by the Category:Lakes of Michigan. If this article were somewhat good, it would have the 93 lakes listed there and someone would keep it up. But it's not good and will unlikely be as full as the category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have tagged this list for rescue, although it is not an article there is plenty of information to expand this list quickly as well as plenty of sources to indicate that a certain lake is in Michigan. Lets not mix categories and lists up, this list could become very helpful if it is fixed up. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All categories can and should have a corresponding list. It's an alternate and complementary form of organization. Some people don't like them. I'm not sure I like categories. Neither view is relevant. This article was nominated for deletion only 43 minutes after it was started, which is ridiculously short time to expect someone to do an article as good as the nominator requires. Someone can and will just start by copying in the names from the category, adding information such as county and size, and then looking for others that dont have an article yet. Probably all lakes large enough to be called so in the state are appropriate for articles, and the red links will be a guide. That's one of the purposes of lists. DGG (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, it could be helpful and the list could sort the lakes by size, depth, or anything else, but the current list is a false start and it's unlikely to be improved on short notice. The current version is harmful in the sense that it is completely unhelpful to readers. It was created way too soon. (Anyone who wants to create a list like this, wouldn't be inconvenienced by the deletion of these two names since we have a complete category of lakes to pull from.) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now it's rewritten, it no longer resembles the two-entry list I had to look at. Therefore it is no longer harmful in my book. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. To respond to one point Mgm makes, I don't see how keeping this list can be harmful. It can only be improved from here. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See
    WP:NOHARM for a contrary view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • In my own defense, I wasn't basing my keep argument on "it does no harm", rather I was asking why Mgm thought it was harmful. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I've populated the list and will be helping to turn it into a useful table with info, etc. SMSpivey (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Linguist at Large and I just made the list into a sortable wikitable, added some very brief into words and have generally spiffed up the article. The original concerns with the article have been fully dealt with. SMSpivey (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep I was two and a half hours in working on the same project when I found out this was done. Oh well, you added more information, but I will help by adding to it. Quistisffviii (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists and categories should work together and per DGG. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list is incomplete, but contains more information than a category since it notes the location by county, and the size of the lake. Reasonable WP:LIST as it serves a navigational purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added a link to the Michigan government website that list every lake in the state by county. The article meets notability requirements. Dream Focus 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per everyone except the nom.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep in concurrance with wikipedia precedent for such lists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep per all of the above. It's cases like this that make me wish we had a policy against nominating articles for deletion so soon after their creation. And the nominator really ought not to rely on the faulty
  crystal ball that told him that this "will unlikely be as full as the category". DHowell (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - hello? An article has not to be perfect from the beginning. If there's something, well, that's a case for {{
  ² 07:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As the creator of this article, I naturally think it should be kept. The reason that I created it was that I was reading about
  Lakes on Wikipedia and I found a box at the bottom of an article (no, sorry it was at the bottom of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes page... I knew I had a very good reason!) linking to pages of Lists for Lakes in each state, but there was no page for Michigan. So I created it. I didn't do much, other than add two lakes that I thought could use some more work (which I had been reading at the time), especially on the scientific/ecology/ecosystem side (certianly not my specialty). I figured that once the list existed, people would naturally add the names of lakes as they were working on them. I in no way thought that the list was complete. I looked at it as an ongoing part of the Wikiproject:Michigan, and assumed that other users would find it usefull and naturally expand it. I see that that has been done, and I think that the page looks beautiful and I commend all the good work that tireless wikipedians have poured into it. Sometimes I feel like someone is following me around determined to delete ever article I start without ever giving it a chance. I know I'm not the best editor, and it's definatly been a learning process. It would really be nice if editors here would be a little less "delete" happy and a little more "help happy" but that's just my personal rant. (ie. Ok, I see you've started this article that's really not up to standard, let me show you how you can improve it and find others to help you make it better as well.) Anyway... sorry to go on and on. Vote to keep on account of consistancy with Wikiproject Lakes. amyanda (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow Keep in Spring the list has useful information that category can not have.--Caspian blue 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep This is exactly what wikipedia should have, useful and policy compliant.
  -- Banjeboi 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCoz

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

CMS software with no claim of notability. no third party reliable sources where found (in English - I do not speak Russian) but those in Russian seem to point to product/company website. 16x9 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Previously Afd was under a different name found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UcoZ 16x9 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom, there doesn't seem to be any support for "notability" in English or Russian (using the Google Language Translator). Couldn't find anything to support wide use by anyone. Maybe sometime, but not today.
  talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The article about uCoz is necessary, because this service is mass. Technically uCoz takes a leading place among the vendors of this type of service that are already represented in Wikipedia:
  Geocities. Speaking about notability, it's enough to view Alexa rank of the related services and compare them with uCoz rank. To delete the article about uCoz means to make Wikipedia less informative. Meskalyto (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)— Meskalyto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Comment - Quote: The article about uCoz is necessary, because this service is mass. I did a search using The Google, and I can't really say that what I found supports this assertion. Can you provide references that support your contention that it is in "mass" use?
  talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep It is not a requirement for article subjects and
  WP:RS to be English only. Moreover, according to Alexa, ucoz.ru has a traffic rank of 237 [4] which helps show that this CMS is very much notable. Why not put more effort into researching and improving these articles vs mass-nominating them for AfD? Tothwolf (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment No one said there was a requirement. However, there is a requirement to have third party reliable sources that establish notability and none have been found. You should also assume good faith and be civil. 16x9 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Insinuation of SPA as you did in the edit summary for Meskalyto above when you refactored his comments is a serious allegation. My statements are based on the pattern I'm seeing in your edit summaries. Shall I link to them? I suggest you assume good faith and be civil towards all the editors you are accusing of spamming in all the CMS articles you are nominating for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I read that comment about Russian the same as you, 16x9 is heavy-handed in his paroling of the CMS space here at Wikipedia. But it's irrelevant in this case. Russian or English, a Web search does not support notability. Are there supporting references in *any* language? That is the issue.
  talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Try google.ru? I don't speak Russian or have a Cyrillic keyboard so I'm not able to dig into it that well either. This might have been a good use for the {{
  expert-subject}} template as there are Russian-speaking users here on en.wiki. One of the first links that I managed to turn up was this one [5] so it would seem there is information out there— its just not in English. Tothwolf (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I used google translate [6] and the words Press Release stand out to me. But it is good to know that you, like me do not speak Russian, but when I don't know it I am attacked. 16x9 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The difference being I'm not the one nominating the article (or rather lots of CMS articles) for AfD. You should be able to check for sources before bringing an article to AfD. Bringing something here and expecting others to check before voting is improper. Tothwolf (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I DID do my homework before being lots of non-notable CMS related articles for Afd. This Afd is not about me it is about the lack of third party reliable sources for ucoz and how it fails notability for inclusion in wikipedia. The only possible RS I found were in russian and maybe I was ambigous in my nomination, but I checked those with google translate, which can be flawed, and determined those source to fail. 16x9 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found several that you nominated in books about blogging. One in particular that I intend to rescue went though AfD with three votes— to delete...and had no votes or discussion at all until after a relist. Maybe, just maybe you are missing some of this stuff when you check for references? (If you want to discuss this further, you know where my talk page is located.) Tothwolf (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable software.
  talk) 08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless independent sources can be found that establish the subject's notability.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Hiscott

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

The subject falls a long way short of meeting

• Delete article is unreferenced, and with the lack of significant coverage this fails
  WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:06, 14 March 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, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. I can't see how any of the accomplishments or jobs this person has held meet any element of
  WP:N. Neither is there much coverage of this person. See that the Ghits are almost entirely Wikis. She gets zero News ghits. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lysa Hora (folklore)

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

)

Tagged as having no sources for more than two years, no indication that the topic has notability enough for its own article instead of just a brief mention elsewhere where appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion, a quick googling suggests there are sources out there.
  Talk 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Suggests? It's up to the article to prove notability, not for people just to assume it without evidence. If you find real sources, then add them. I'm not finding any, and the ones Esasus drug up failed miserably. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jenuk is right. Existing lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion unless it cannot improve by adding sources or unless leaving it unsourced is particularly harmful (like accusations in BLPs). None of it is the case here. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that it cannot be improved because of lack of reliable soures demonstrating notability per our criteria. If you disagree, then you should make some effort to prove it. Come on, you've been doing AFD long enough that you should have an inkling of how the process works. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination didn't show you gave it a quick cursory glance for sources before nominating. No one is expecting you to source the entire article, but you should check up on its potential per the deletion guide. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Jenuk. 14:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I have added a reference and an external link to this article, which provides more than enough sources to validate this article as a keep. Esasus (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources, not random internet fluff. Those links failed both

WP:EL, and quite pectuacularly I might add. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Under its Russian name "Лысая гора", there appears to be many in-depth reliable sources that have been written about this topic. [7][8][9][10] Many more here. --Oakshade (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory)

Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Totally unsourced, stuffed to the gills with OR (he's in California? I didn't know that). Yes, he is the titular character of his series and appeared in every episode, but I have been unable to find any sources pertaining to him as a whole. A couple sentences' worth of info in Dexter's Laboratory should be sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even after being fine with the last AfD I made for this article, I still don't see the justification behind it even with a
  snowy keep. As before, OR issues and too much of it where upon a stripdown you wouldn't have much more than what currently exists at List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. treelo _radda 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, and then consider whe

ther to Merge into the main article. That discussion belongs elsewhere--there might well be a good reason to keep the details separate. Such discussions should be the way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge'. Just to make this interesting.--23prootie (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. This content isn't going to be deleted, and AFD isn't the right venue for merge discussions. JulesH (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Why isn't this going to be deleted? (2) The nominator didn't start a merge discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It shouldn't be deleted because there is verifiable content that could be included in another more comprehensive article even if this article is deemed not independently notable. (2) That's exactly the point—per

WP:BEFORE, the nominator should have started a merge discussion rather than starting an AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. The main character obviously needs to cover especially when it's a good idea to disambiguate with the serial killer of the same name. By redirecting the option to merge is open (after adding sources that is) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A merge isn't a bad idea, but I was worried about the redirect being undone. Go ahead and merge if necessary, but I would suggest protecting the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • policy, to boot. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yeah, just look at the
      Alexis Grace controversy, User:Fritzpoll is getting a lot of HATE!!!!!!! for doing that so I suggest you don't.--23prootie (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep and decide whether to merge elsewhere. Sources are mainly difficult to find because it is difficult to find search parameters that don't either bring up a ton of hits about the show itself, or ton of hits about the unrelated show Dexter. Nevertheless, in a cursory search I managed to find this, this, and this, which at least shows there is some coverage about the character to be found in third-party sources. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory per Mgm. No non-trivial real-world information, entirely unsourced, unclear in how far this is all OR, but a redirect would leave the page intact for interested editors. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above with protection against recreation. Nothing more than in-universe trivia here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as a

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

)

• Keep.
  WP:ONEEVENT covers biographies of living persons, which is not the purpose of this article. The article is poorly written, and its title probably needs to be revised, but that is not grounds for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Okay, ONEEVENT maybe isn't the best way to put it. More like ONETHING but that doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not notable right now, could be should the business expand to more branches but right now it's riding on inherited notability from the former business. treelo _radda 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Treelo said exactly what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words to say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve
  Talk 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why? Just
  voting without reason carries no weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, why are you quoting an essay at me? "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion."
  Talk 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Because just saying "keep" is hardly an argument. Deletion discussions are consensus, not votes, so just saying "keep and improve" without a reason has absolutely no weight in discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason why it shouldn't add to consensus, I am saying keep, followed with a suggestion of improving. Please can you tell me what is wrong with that? I am trying, but struggling to take your comments in good faith
  Talk 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think he's asking for you to provide a reason as to why you think it should be kept, nothing hostile meant by it. treelo _radda 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This single local store has (for reasons which escape me) featured twice in significant features on the BBC's Breakfast news. This may confer a degree of notability, although I don't really think there's a place in an encyclopedia for a shop like this. Maybe a mention in the Woolworths article would suffice?--Michig (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe but as it is it doesn't exactly confer notability as most of the sourcing which exists is because of the circumstances surrounding it, not because the store has anything of note outside of it. It's all inherited notability for the sourcing, if it sprang up alone before Woolworths collapsed you wouldn't have heard anything from the national press regarding it. treelo _radda 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't find anything specific in
  Talk 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Woolworths Group#Wellworths. Whilst there has been some coverage in the media, it really is almost inherited notability from Woolworths. I suggest redirect this one to Woolworths, then should the coverage continue it can easily be recreated from the history. --GedUK  22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear case of inherited notability, which of course doesn't exist. Even in the current climate, the opening of a new shop would not even have been given the time of day by the local newspaper had it not been for the Woolies connection -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's definitely notable, the media coverage has been considerable, it's a unique endeavour and there are plans for expansion. The way in which the store has been reopened makes it notable. This isn't about whether or not it's important, it's about whether or not it's interesting enough to enough people to be on here, which it is. Tom walker (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst it is interesting now, I can't see it being held in the same regard come five years from now when this "unique" endeavour may have failed. That's just me navel-gazing I know but right now it's recentism making it interesting, it's what it is connected to what makes it notable and notability isn't inherited. Should it make itself successful and manage more stores beyond a local chain then it could be notable sure but it's just one store caught up in a flurry of nostalgia and emotion because it is copying the retail practices of a recently dead one. treelo _radda 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue of inherited notability is irrelevant to the question of deletion. The term Wellworths is clearly useful for searching and so consideration of alternatives to deletion has not been completed, as required by
  WP:BEFORE. "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - worldwide media coverage, just read a German article about it.[11] --Avant-garde a clue-
  ² 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - non-notable business;
  "But what if it's big someday? to give an illusion of importance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - User:Orangemike nailed it. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I mentioned those things too! I gets no respect... treelo _radda 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is The Key

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

)

• Delete No notability per
  WP:SONGS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this song. --GedUK  22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per
  WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Halloran

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

Fails WP:BIO regarding Actors. Not notable. Claim to fame is being in a Lottery commercial with a bear. Sc straker (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Sc straker (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to be notable, seems to have done a lot more than the nom has suggested.
  Talk 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Well, Ok. But to me he does not meet the criteria for more specific
    WP:ENTERTAINER. --Sc straker (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - He has been in many different productions but only two of them seem notable, the bear commercial and Sweet Land. However his role in Sweet Land was not a significant one, and he therefore does not met
  Megaboz (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - the refrences demonstrate he is a working actor, but not one that is notable. The article overstates the coverage. For example, being "featured" in Playbill is no more than being mentioned as one of the actors in the announcment about a play. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep legitimate professional credits including NY stage. Claim to fame commercial has gained international press. Actor is listed on other reputable sites such as IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.246.129 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC) striking sockpuppet comment. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:ENTERTAINER#cite_note-note4-4. --Mickey Johnson (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) — Mickey Johnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• comment - Citation note 4 refers to this artilce at this time I'm posting this comment. It specifgically identifies Halloran's role a s small, and beeing "dicussed" in this article consistys of a single sentence. WWe need significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Mickey Johnson" also appears to be a sock puppet since the only contributions are to the page being considered for deletion. --76.178.143.62 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC) <- this was added by me. --Sc straker (talk) 20:04, 12 March 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 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article inflates his notability, he doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER LetsdrinkTea 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable actor. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wilson Smith

Mark Wilson Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a search for the soap credit turns up a total of five mentions of the character he plays, which certainly goes a long way to supporting the nom's assertions. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 12 March 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} 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable bio; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Pace

Andrew K. Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely fails notability standards per

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - nominator has a history of disagreement with article creator; not a good basis for discussion. . .
  talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy Keep - The subject of the article is notable, and a quick search on google will find over 1,000 hits[12]. This is a bad faith nomination for deletion. Prior to nominating this article for deletion, DreamGuy removed an external link from the article [13] in an obvious attempt to weaken the article's claim of notability. I have since undone this change and added further links and references. The nominator, DreamGuy, is a well-documented wiki-stalker of mine. He has nominated this article, that I created, for the purpose of harassing me. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Esasus (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Esasus' comments
  Talk 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as President of LITA, a significant specialty professional organization. Also head of a major department of OCLC, but I am not sure that would be sufficient. Just one notable book, with a number of reviews in the librarianship journals. [14] But Library Technology Reports is a journal, with long single-issue articles; what he wrote for it was an article, v. 38, no. 2, 78 pages long, not a book, though writing one for them is a non-trivial thing to do--counts basically as a book chapter in a collected work. As for prejudice, The link removed was to his author page on amazon [15] listing his two publications and saying nothing else--that does not count as weakening the claim of notability. As for the feeling between the two eds. here, I would suggest a discussion elsewhere. I & others have had some problems with each of them, though to different extents. DGG (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Notability has been established. freshacconci talktalk 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previouses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just did some cleanup on the article (per
  ELs that needed to go—but that just means the article needs work, not that the subject isn't notable. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per cleanup done by Dori. Nice job. And to Esasus, it may simply be that DreamGuy is doing some new page patrolling and is not a case of stalking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD is apparently related. --Crusio (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes indeed... different article, possibly a hoax, that included informations that were actually about this Andrew K. Place. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep DGG made his case quite well. Dream Focus 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG, well said.
  -- Banjeboi 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. New sources added to article are largely primary and don't add up to notability; one-year presidency of subgroup of ALA and writing a column for their trade magazine doesn't create notability, either. I am mystified by the keep !votes. THF (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously not a copyright or GFDL violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff Investment Scandal

Madoff Investment Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• This article is linked from ITN. but GFDL-licensed copyright infringement article.--Nondk (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, what on earth are you talking about? Brand new user nominating this for deletion, looks like a bad-faith nomination to me. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as above.
  Talk 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amey Pandya

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

Child actor with no reliable sources indicating notability. Only sources given are an IMDB page and the person's own website. Even if all of the claims on the article can be supported using reliable third party sources the individual would not have had a career significant enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, as significant roles in significant productions are required. Was prodded, but prod was removed by an editor with a long history of removing prods for no justification. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable actor lacking references to support notability. Awards not supported via Google available hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least one reference supports the awards [16] and the kid's own website points to several reliable sources that discuss him. [17] - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle this article tomorrow if enough of the sources are in English. Anyone who wants to help is welcome. (Side note: I'm trying to get a WikiProject Children off the ground. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in that to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The references in the actor's website are not valid URL's and the reference to the ABBY award in [18] is not valid - see ABBY 2006 results for the actual winners. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying anyone should use the actor's website directly. But by dropping the titles and publication names with dates in LexisNexis for example, it is possible to get the actual published article and verify it. As for the awards. It could easily be a mixup. A couple of days ago (in 2009) I saw someone win a 2008 award. It could simply be a naming thing gone wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently, he's enough of a star to be chosen as part of a jury panel.[19] His film and tv roles are harder to judge because I have no indication of the importance of said roles. The English spelling and grammar errors in the Indian media aren't helping. As for the ABBY. It appears that the ad won it and not him specifically. I'll be looking into the other award mentions. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found atleast one source other then IMDB and his own website for a dance competition he was in last year. I will look for more sources. Deavenger (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has appeared in many films, TV commercials, television series, and reality show. Links added to the article.--Ekabhishek (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• STRONG KEEP if he was an american/hollywood child actor, we would not be having this debate quite possibly be having this debate, but the page would almost certainly end up being kept.. he has a respectable credit list, he's on imdb, if you google his name, you get credible results for him on web, image, and video searches. he's known in the community of people who follow bollywood films. deleting would be a STRONG CULTURAL BIAS, there are a very large number of wikip articles about minor english-speaking actors, who worked in the USA and/or the UK (& yes i know about the perils of justifying one wikip article's existence with the existence of another, but the point is fair in this case: wikip has a policy of allowing articles on relatively minor actors; in practice, that policy is biased in favour of english-speaking performers who work in western countries, then non-english speaking actors/artists in developed, "western" countries, then the "3rd world"; compare the amount of material english wikip has on hollywood and bollywood. there is an order-of-magnitude difference) either we allow articles on minor actors/performers, or we don't. if we do, then KEEP. if we don't, then i know a few dozen afd's right now, same justification. i have even edited on a few of them :P Lx 121 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up: did anybody cross-check on say, the hindi wikip (or other south asian & area languages)? i can't read the script(s), but if somebody who can would do so, it would be germane to this discussion to know if the subject is covered on other language wikip's, especially those for indian/southasian languages. it would also be nice to have the language links on the article itself Lx 121 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability - the article sources provide little more than guff. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mall InSecurity

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

There's no proof that this film exists, or if it does, that its notable. Only major contributor to this page is

• Delete - a complete lack of coverage aboutt his film. -- 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence it will be released commercially. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage.
  talk) 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From the discussion, it is apparent that this is a cleanup issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop culture and Islam

Hip Hop culture and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks more like a list of Muslim rappers, with a bit of original research tacked onto the beginning, and actually says nothing about the purported topic, "Hip Hop culture and Islam". Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  talk) 07:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is a notable topic; the introduction of Islam in the African-American Experience has an entire section entitled "Islam and Hip Hop Culture", and Muslim Networks From Hajj to Hip Hop by Miriam Cooke and Bruce Lawrence has an entire chapter on the subject. Also, The Five Percenters: Islam, Hip Hop and the Gods of New York by Michael Muhammad Knight looks like a book that would have substantial coverage of the subject. This article needs editing and improvement, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The article needs to establish the importance of links between Muslims and Hip Hop by expanding the opening paragraphs with appropriate citations. Otherwise it is merely another redundant list of random entries.Isabelle 67 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 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) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator and with JamesBurns' observation, and would add that the list is unreferenced and does not cite the music scene in any Islamic nation.
  talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep: Article appears to be a notable topic. Definitely needs sourcing though. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Schoerner

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

A rather obnoxious piece of self-promotion (

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, tending toward keep. Wikipedia's articles on photographers are shot through with rather (or more than rather) obnoxious pieces of self-promotion. Nothing new here. (Indeed, this article was mild.) The task is to see through the bullshit at what, if anything, is beneath. If there is something, then you delete the bullshit. (Or, depending on your editing tastes, you delete the bullshit and see if anything is left.) I see somebody who verifiably (i) is the sole creator of a book published by Phaidon, not that common a feat even in this century when Phaidon seems eager for the gimmicky (as for this particular book) and vapid, and (ii) has been one of several contributors to exhibitions of some note. (Another contributor to "I Shot Norman Foster" was Chris Steele-Perkins [a red link as I write this], a first-rate photographer.) There's next to no evidence for the claims of having worked for this or that fashion company or magazine, but such claims never interest me anyway unless they are clearly described. (And I figure that the tiny percentage of fashion photography that's of more than the most ephemeral interest will sooner or later find its way into books.) I think the content of the article is well on the way to satisfying WP:BIO, even if it's not quite there yet. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ......... Converted to "keep" Hoary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started Chris Steele-Perkins.--Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hoary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep
  WP:PEACOCK, non-trivial to find information that is not self-published, but can find the claimed multiple books, and can find the multiple group shows, as well being represented by a rather prestigious and well-known Camilla Lowther Management. Yeah, photographers tend to be an egomaniacal, self-promoting set, but if we allow non-notable porno actresses from Japan to remain in wikipedia, why not someone with real talent and notability. One man's cruft is anothers invaluable contribution. However, this article needs work like yesterday, it is an aberration.--Cerejota (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I clicked on the external links to the New York Times and the Guardian, and he is there. That's two major news sources that reference him, so that counts as notable. I'm not sure why the Guardian has those four pictures there, or why some consider someone bent over with a hole in their underwear to be artwork, but, whatever. I'm not one to judge. Dream Focus 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nagraj#Powers and abilities. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Nagraj

Powers and abilities of Nagraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Redirect to the character article. The main article it was split from is in desparate need of sources and this contains some details that should be included if referenced. I'd be happy to give someone the time to whip the main article into shape and this content might be useful for it. If the main gets deleted, the redirect would become pointless, so the redirect wouldn't be floating in limbo with this move. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is enough material for one good article. DGG (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to
  in-universe perspective, I am not convinced that there is any content worth merging. The main article already contains a description of the character's abilities. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Nagraj#Powers and abilities. Entirely in-universe article with no real-world notability; I don't think there's any content here that needs to be kept. Robofish (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wealthiest people by percentage of GDP

List of wealthiest people by percentage of GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has several severe problems:

1. It's factually incorrect. The five people listed are not the five richest people by percentage of GDP. For example, by a quick cross-checking of the List of heads of state and government by net worth and the List of countries by GDP (PPP), the princes of Liechtenstein and Monaco should both make the list.
2. There are no sources available to correct it - for many countries, we don't know the richest inhabitant, especially for countries with low GDPs whose richest inhabitants are more likely to have a large net worth compared to their countries' GDP. Thus, we cannot produce a factually correct list of the richest people by percentage of GDP.
3. As a consequence of 2), what we have is original synthesis of published information (namely, of some people's net worth and of their countries' GDP), expressly forbidden by
   WP:OR
   .

Besides, the list is pointless because net worth and GDP are in no meaningful way comparable. It had been nominated last October; the discussion closed with no consensus. The article hasn't improved, and I doubt it ever will or even can. Huon (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This is textbook original research combining two sources to different sources to create something new that gives the impression it's a common standard. I agree with the nominator that it's not a meaningful comparison and it's impossible to get right without calculating percentages for all the countries in the world. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is still stupid original synthesis. How does Hassanal Bolkiah have 1,358 percent of his nation's gross domestic product? Because GDP is the value of from the sale, in a year's time, of a nation's goods and services; and it's being compared--- for no particular reason other than it makes an impressive, but pointles statistic --to a person's accumulation over many years worth of wealth. What's that supposed to prove? "Year of peak earnings" is thrown in there for no apparent reason, but it's misleading, since it suggests that Bill Gates earned 90 billion dollars in 1999-- but 90 billion is Bill's worth, not his earnings in any year. This type of idiot statistic has no place in an encyclopedia, online or paper. It would be one thing if we compared Bill's revenues in 1999 against the nation's revenues; or if we compared Bill's net worth to the worth of the nation. This is kind of like saying, "Babe Ruth had 714 home runs in his career; there were 922 home runs hit in both leagues in 1927, Babe's peak year-- and that's an incredible 77 percent!!!" It's idiotic. Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless way of measuring wealth. If someone moves to a smaller country with a smaller GDP, their ranking on this list will shoot up since the new GDP is lower. They have not become any wealthier. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original synthesis involving meaningless comparison of two distinct economic measures. In addition to the fact that GDP is more comparable to income than wealth, GDP is country- and year-specific whereas accumulated wealth is not. Straightforward comparison of GDP and wealth figures fails to produce meaningful results. The idea for this list was well-intentioned, but it was flawed from the beginning. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to