Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 13 February 15 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was SNOW delete. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Victims

AfDs for this article:
List of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Delete per nomination. I prodded this one but the author removed my tag. See also Wikipedia:Victim Lists. De728631 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as well as a general sense of decency (oh wait, that's not a recognized criterion, is it?) Unschool 02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced, unencyclopedic. -- Vary Talk 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unsourced, a list for the sake of a list ukexpat (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any victims have articles, it can be mentioned in there; otherwise, unencyclopaedic, unsourced and unnecessary. Plus, we can't be sure that there aren't families who don't want the names of their loved ones posted on the Internet. Xenon54 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As individuals, WP:ONEEVENT is relevant. All that needs to be reported is in Continental Airlines Flight 3407. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Afroghost (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spain international goalkeepers

List of Spain international goalkeepers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an example of overlisting; List of Spain international footballers already exists and no other national team listed in Category:Lists of footballers by national team is split into seperate positions. GiantSnowman 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. An interesting one. Though GS is right about no other country seeming to have a list like this, I can see its advantages. This may well be an argument for "the others should have this" rather than "Spain shouldn't have this". Grutness...wha? 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definite example of "overlisting". The position of goalkeeper for the Spanish national team is no more special than any other position or for any other team. – PeeJay 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed - no need to create lists of positions. If such a list is desired, break up the nation's list of national players by position. Except left fullbacks, they should get their own lists.Vulture19 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything wrong with this; the list is long enough to suggest that there are plenty of people who fit into it, and maybe some reader would want to see all the goalkeepers rather than just all the players. if there is a concern, then the full list could be broken up into sections for each position (as Vulture19 suggested) and this could be merged in. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better than a list of names, but data could be expanded further. Agathoclea (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'overlisting', yes. It is partial duplicate information of List of Spain international footballers, and splitting these information by role is nothing special. If you want instead to make such a list, please follow the suggestion by Vulture19. --Angelo (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it would be better served adding a position column to the main list, and making it sortable. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A goalkeeper performs a substantially different role to other players. This seems to be a useful navigational aid, providing additional information not currently available in other lists. I see no reason to delete it. JulesH (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the article is kept, can one of the keep !voters at least volunteer to update an article which is over two years out of date.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete easily served in a category, no evidence it could be expanded further. Secret account 22:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of overlisting. Perhaps a category can be made of it. Themfromspace (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2010

Big Brother Australia 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Triwbe (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete - extensive copyvio. -- Vary Talk 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Firestone

Robert W. Firestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. All of the article was written by a couple of single-purpose accounts that can be traced back to this person's foundation. No improvements have been made to the article for months despite several prods. SkipSmith (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from here, and it all goes back to the very first revision. No copyvio-free version to revert to, so I'm G12ing. -- Vary Talk 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. By its own admission, an idle, drunken, silly neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypernormalism

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

This term does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The cited sources are not about the subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete = Creator of article admits it was a lark.[1] Recommend smacking the user with a fish and speedy deletion of his article. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Speaks for itself. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above; I'd say the diff FMC cites qualifies it for a G7. I'd do it but I just speedied the last afd I !voted in. -- Vary Talk 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Disease Day

Rare Disease Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have no doubt this is a very worthy cause. However, what this seems to be is an observance, such as it is, which is sponsored by an organization and its affiliates, and the sources provided are the press releases of that organization. I see no indication that this has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. I have every sympathy for those struck by disease, rare or otherwise, but this article does not satisfy WP:NWehwalt (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am the article creator so I won't !vote "keep,"(ah, what the heck, I'll do it anyway) but here is a more-or-less copy of my remarks at the DYK discussion of this article: Personally, I figured the number of references in Rare Disease Day (I guess around 6 so far if you don't count the ones that are from NORD's and RDR's own websites), the google test, and the number of states and countries where events are being organized, would be enough to establish notability. Maybe later tonight I can try to go through and find the various state/national governments' "proclamations" to see if any of them can add notability. Also, "I haven't heard of it" or "it's not relevant to me" don't necessarily mean something is non-notable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That a state governor issues a proclamation, makes it notable? In between the local little league team and the some guy retiring. I am not sure what your comment about "I haven't heard of it" or "it's not relevant to me" has to do with it. Do you know that it is not relevant to me? I refer you to my comment at DYK. We have standards here. I've been helpful to you by suggesting more appropriate language for the hook, but I also think the community needs to weigh in on whether this meets notability guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said at DYK, I wasn't intending to say that it's not relevant to you particularly, only that it should be judged regardless of whether it's relevant to any of us in general; likewise, "I haven't heard of it" wasn't meant to be putting words in your mouth, but just to say Notability shouldn't care about how many people have heard of it (from your own comment that you gave a diff for above: "I'm reasonably certain 99.9 out of 100 people won't have heard of it").
    Also, to address your concerns about the reliability of the sources...I'm n ot 100% sure, but I think [2], [3], and [4] (all of which are cited in the article) are unaffiliated with Rare Disease Day (ie, those sources aren't from NORD, Eurordis, or PR Newswire). Yeah, they're still medical sites and medical news aggregators...but this is a medical topic, so that's probably the only place you're going to hear about them. I think not appearing in NYT should probably be excusable here. But I'll see what the other people at this AfD have to say. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of them are reprints of the press release. The Novartis one I don't think qualifies as a RS. I accept your explanation and that nothing was intended by it. That's fine. I have not said that the fact that few people will have heard of it is a reason for deletion, God knows with 3M articles here, there's lots of obscure stuff. I don't think reprinting the NORD press release with a few comments, as Novartis seems to have done, would qualify even if it were a RS. Can you cite any newspaper coverage from last year, from Europe? Doesn't have to be in English, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion, thanks. I don't have a lot of time now, but I just did a quick search in French and found a couple things from what appear to be smaller medical/health associations. I'll have to do some more snooping around later to see if I can find "mainstream" newspaper hits. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added some more references, including a journal article (Archives of Disease in Childhood) and some coverage from OrphaNews (the newsletter of a medical organization, but not affiliated with Eurodris, the organization that sponsored Rare Disease Day); I will try to add some more later, too. Anyone else !voting here, please take that into account. Also, if some of the original refs in the article are redundant with one another, I (or anyone) can take time sometime to clean up the old references. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. The page seems to be an unnecessary split from National Organization for Rare Disorders. No real notable coverage. Mostly primary sources and sketchy news links. Most of the references are redundant, which makes it seem like it has more coverage than it actually does. Most of the sources are actually from the same press release. Sources that are probably not reliable or count towards notability: 1, 2, 3, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even with the redundancy, the sources are adequate for notability. But merge is also a possibility, if the content is preserved, DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what it would be merged to, since National Organization for Rare Disorders is not the only organization this is associated with (it just happens to be the one coordinating it this year; in 2008 it had nothing to do with this, and for all we know in the future it won't either); I suppose merging to Rare disease is technically possible, but you guys can decide whether that would actually be an improvement. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point, it's obviously not just associated with NORD so there's little if any point merging it there. Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you know that it is possible to merge content into multiple pages, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Medical News Today" reliable? The rest look fairly questionable, but that one looks okay to me. weak keep for now. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep based on new sources. Not the best, but large (very large) number of poor sources (mostly PR reprints and minor/passing mentions in important places) plus one or two good sources (including Medical News Today which looks to not be a press release AFAICT) puts it well above the bar. Do I think that "millions" will be doing anything with the day? No. But that's not required. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What concerned me about that is that is just a reproduction of a press release.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is. The press release that's getting thrown around a lot is the 2009 "Millions around the world to observe Rare Disease Day", whereas the "Medical News Today" thing is from 2008, and the only corresponding "press release" from 2008 in there is (as far as I can tell) this...of course they have somewhat similar content, since they're about the same thing, but I don't think the MNT thing is just a copy of it. As for the other sources all looking questionable...I was hoping the Archives of Disease in Childhood journal article would help, as well as the OrphaNews thing, which seems to be more like a list of activities that were planned by multiple organizations (rather than just a reproduction of Eurodris' own press release); both of these sources are from the 2008 iteration, and thus aren't reproductions of any of the 2009 sources. Hope that helps clarify things, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll stay with the weak keep. [5] is basically a passing mention, but a relevant one. On top of the rest, I think there is a stronger keep argument than not. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC) See above[reply]
  • Weak Delete i'm going to say weak delete pending further sources. I'm not convinced that there is enough independent significant coverage of this. Most seem to be press releases and promotional in nature i cannot find evidence of this being noted in any newspapers, magazines etc. Is there anyt reason i can't just be merged into National Organization for Rare Disorders? --neon white talk 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the reason is given above in response to DGG's comment: it is only being sponsored by NORD this year, it's not actually part of NORD, so there would be no real reason to merge the whole thing into there as it's not exclusively associated with that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "EURORDIS", the only other page that would have a claim, does not yet exist. When it does, I am sure that they can also duplicate the information on their role with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a way we gauge notability of a subject. see WP:N --neon white talk 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reinforce - NORD was just created as a page (simultaneously, basically) so the justification falls short. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider nominating NORD as well but decided it was barely notable. It's at least mentioned in a couple of articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As argued above, those sources are not reliable, at least, they reuse the same material or lack reputable authors to publish on the topic. Medical News Today is not a reputable news source. Novartis is a pharm company and is not a reliable news source. Evan Harris.org is a personal website and is not a reliable news source. These sources shouldn't even be -used- on Wikipedia according to the guidelines, let alone be used to justify notability. Following the links, none of those sites are very notable either, so your keep falls flat and is patently disqualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria is used to determine that Medical News Today is not a reliable source? I see that some of the articles are written by doctors. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on establishing the reliability of a source not the other way round. If it can't be established that it is peer reviews and has a reputation it is considered unreliable. --neon white talk 20:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JMundo. Also, Novartis can certainly be a reliable source. If they were talking about a product of their own, it would be a primary source, which of course won't cut it. But unless they have direct financial interests in Rare Disease Day, which I see no indications of, I would consider them a very important secondary source, though of course not necessarily an unbiased one. As for Evan Harris, I just figured that an MP openly talking about this event is yet another example of a secondary-source coverage of said event. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical news today is not a reliable source according to the medical website reliable source standards. Novartis is not a reliable source according to the medical website reliable source standards. And an MP talking about an event is not notable. It is a personal website and fails reliable sourcing. Come on, the guidelines are very clear about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Medical News today is not an academic medical journal, but is a independent source meeting WP:RELIABLE. We are not talking about a medical research topic but media coverage about a date. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It purports to give news on medicine. If it is not reliable as a medical source, then it cannot be deemed a reliable source seeing as how that is its topic. Sorry, but our reliable source standards are very clear about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a social thing, not a scientific one. Standards for scientific information are different than standards on news and events. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject meets WP:GNG. As we get closer to the end of February more reliable sources will cover this international observance. More reliable sources: 1, 2, 3. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider adding those sources, as appropriate, to the article, in order for the article itself to clarify its notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources, Jmundo. Unfortunately, the second is a reprint of the Medical News Today article, but the other two are very helpful. The IntraMed one particularly has a lot of information, and it's good to see some non-English coverage as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources for the guidelines to meet notability. Your own argument fails "depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Furthermore, this is a day that is a year old. If there were reliable sources, they would have been found by now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish website IntraMed is certified by the Project of quality medical websites in the Spanish language and the article is all about the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is only a Spanish translation of the press release. Even the four points are repeated. Furthermore, the pwmc is not part of reliable source standards here and cannot be held as showing that a website is a reliable source for medical topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a translation of the press release, here the translated version of the article. The subject of this article under discussion is not about a medical topic that requires a source as a medical peer reviewed journal, this is about 'an observance held on the last day of February[ to raise awareness for rare diseases." It's really not that complicated. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know the difference between a localized translation and a machine based translation, right? The talking points are the same. The quotes are the same. This isn't an original article, hence the lack of an author. This is a press release written for a Spanish speaking audience, nothing more or less. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of your question? The only purpose of the automated translation is to help facilitate this discussion and to demonstrate that the source covers the subject in depth. You want to called it a press release, fine, but you can't hide the fact that this date has received international media coverage. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "international media coverage", whatever that may mean. This is not a reliable source. It is also a spanish version of the same press release information. All information on this is from press releases. Anything in the NYT? The Examiner? How about even The Sun or the NY Post? Nothing in major media outlets. Nothing in reliable source medical outlets. Notability requires -independent- coverage, which means no press release information, and it needs to be substantial coverage, which actually dealing with it and discussing how it impacts anything. None of the sources have come to even close what would be necessary for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't necessarily require coverage in medical journals but if this was of note you'd expect it to be covered in them. --neon white talk 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that, exactly. Its that this purports to be a medical journal, or the sources listed do. However, they are not -reliable- medical journals that meet the requirements as such. So, they can't really be used. they are mostly hosts for press releases. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Rare Disease Day was initiated by EURORDIS in 2008 as a European event through its Council of National Alliances - 16 countries (Though Canada, Taiwan and New Zealand got involved spontaneously). In doing so EURORDIS wished to initiate maximum participation and due to the response (Press and grassroots) it was decided to invite world partners, hence the participation in 2009 of NORD in the USA, Geiser Foundation in Latin America and China Dolls in China. Thus although the event is coordinated by EURORDIS, it is not a EURORDIS event, nor is it a pure NORD event. It is a collaborative effort which although only in its second year will be an annual event on the last day of February (the idea of the rare day!). This is underpinned with the use of a [website] seperate from each participating organisation in order to help raise awareness but also portray solidarity. So if there isn't as much independent coverage as we might be like or to justify an independent Wikipedia page I can assure that this is on the way. Though I think that the strongest argument for not deleting or merging this page resides in the collaborative nature of the day and the fact that judging already by the patient testimonies on Flickr and YouTube the day is well on its way to developping a life of its own. P.S. Just for clarity I am the Web Communications Manager for EURORDIS, and having noticed thanks to a post above here that there is no EURORDIS Wikipedia page have set about creating one in which I will clarify further the EURORDIS involvement. CostelloDc(talk) 13:05, 17 February 2009 (CET)
EURORDIS is not even notable enough to have its own article, and your entry shows a sheer conflict of interest. You have no right to have a say in this based on WP:COI, and any creation of EURORDIS by you would be a WP:SOAP violation. I have removed your vote because of WP:COI. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to know, the above account was created only a short time ago to write the EURORDIS page, which is connected to the rare disease day page. Why they came here suddenly and at the time that is most convenient to trying and keeping these related page? Well, that is something only to wonder about. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the closing admin and can't strike this user's !vote. The user may be in a COI with regards to the Eurordis article, but not with this one, so the vote can remain and the closing admin can decide whether or not to weigh it. As for the Eurordis article, I have already contacted this user about COI issues and intend to help with rewriting that article later.
You seem to be insinuating that there's something suspicious about a new user's "convenient" arrival at this page. I can assure you that I have had no contact with Eurordis or any of these organizations; what is most likely is that the big AfD tag on the page got someone's attention and prompted them to create an account. Lots of people first learn about editing in much the same way, and there's no point trying to scare off an editor just because you don't agree with the reason he/she first joined Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All users have the right to strike the vote of a single purpose account that was created on the same day as voting. Now, you are acting awfully suspicious and I think that you either contacted the company or may have created a second account. I have half a mind of filing a CU report over this, especially with your recent actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the drama and assume good faith, specially with an established editor. You really need to take this to another forum. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I created a second account? Go perform a checkuser, come on, I dare you.
And by the way, anyone has the right to participate in these discussions. It's likely that this is a person who was never interested in editing Wikipedia before, but saw this discussion and became interested. Like Jmundo said, you need to assume good faith. I am getting tired of you following me around Wikipedia to hound me and spew bullshit accusations. Do a checkuser if you want, really, and when it shows that I have no sock accounts I'll take you to ANI. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith does not mean to accept when someone creates a brand new vote to promote a topic and vote. That is a single purpose account. That is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Unstriking his vote is unacceptable and edit warring. No one just -sees- this discussion. Its not in a standard area. And you can call the "accusations" anything you want, but -you- decided to unstrike his vote, -you- decided to help him, and -you- are acting incredibly suspicious. You just happen to create two basically unknown pages about unknown groups and a third that is related just happens to come by when it is most convenient to you? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, be suspicious, do the checkuser. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, WP:AFD may not be a standard area that non-users just "see," but there is an article in article space with a giant AfD tag on it. People can see that. Don't blame me for people looking at the article and wanting to participate in the discussion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so unless you can somehow prove that I am User:CostelloDc (which I am not) or that I asked EURORDIS to get involved with this (which I haven't) then you need to shut the fuck up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You need to shut the fuck up"? Another comment like that will likely have consequences. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct way to deal with SPAs is to mark the post with the spa template, removing, changing or otherwise altering another editor's posts is not appropriate. However this user is not a spa, there are other edits unrelated. --neon white talk 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as entries could be completely removed. I simply struck it through, which is proper in all cases of "voting". And have you even bothered to look at their contributions? This proves that it is an SPA. They edited only EURORDIS related pages and came here out of no where. Your comments suggest that you didn't even bother to look at the contributions, which is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there are blogs cited, but there are also academic journals cited. In this case, the breadth of coverage is helpful, since it shows it is not just an academic event. I also think it should be kept as a stand-alone article; as other editors have said, the Day is too intertwined with multiple sponsoring agencies to merge it into the article on NORD or EURODIS. —C.Fred (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An academic journal with a tiny mention of a day is not enough for notability. And multiple pages can talk about the same event, so your keep has no basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the criteria is a 'peer reviewed journal'. The one in question is not one of any reputation. --neon white talk 20:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously, people need to tone it down around here. I'm not sure what to think of all of this, it has been a day or so since I looked in, but OR may have a point that there is some indication that the article is being inserted for almost a public service announcement kinda thing. There is at least some indication in that direction. I see that NORD, which was a redirect to a disambiguation page, now redirects to the rare disorders folks' article. There does seem to be some indication WP is being used for promostional purposes, not saying it is so, but there's at least smoke there for OR, not just smoke and mirrors :) .--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure, redirecting NORD was a bold edit in my opinion a correct one, i've proposed deletion of the disamb. as it only really has one valid entry. Every other linked article is long gone. --neon white talk 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I redirected it because the NORD disambiguation page had nothing useful on it; two redlinks and the article on Gare du Nord, and I doubt anyone uses NORD as a search term for that (maybe its code on the French train system is NORD or something, and in case of that I did leave a hatnote on the National Org. for Rare Disorders article). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll AGF that it was done in an effort to improve the encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the appearance of the "EURORDIS employee" above who voted just after creation hinders any necessity of AGF right now. There is gaming of a system going on. The comments above by Neon white suggest that they are responding questions without doing the simplest of research. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that this is one of the most interesting and pathetic AfD discussion I have been involved. We get the point Ottawa, you don't want to assume good faith, but let this discussion move along. This AfD is about discussing if the article meets our criteria for inclusion. If you have other concerns take it to the appropriate forums. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when people come in here and vote "support" with patently false justifications, claiming that companies are notable when they aren't, that blogs and insignificant websites fit inclusion under reliable sources, and then start having new accounts appear and do this stuff, this is an issue for AfD. This AfD is being gamed. There is no legitimate justification to support this page existing, and the unbecoming actions by those supporting it only verifies that people are wanting to disrupt Wikipedia in order to force it to stay. This is a severe problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take your comment as a personal attack, you are trying to imply that the users that have !voted for keep are in some way trying to game the system or "wanting to disrupt Wikipedia." I ask you to stop this drama and comment on content, not on the contributors. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that I am saying that people are -trying- to do something, you are admitting that I am referring to an action and thus not a personal attack. Did you bother to read what NPA states by chance? I have every right to criticize potentially deceitful actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the only problem is there are no deceitful actions, and you have no proof of any. First you said I'm socking...ever file that checkuser, or did you get scared? Now you say I'm gaming the system, just because a new user happens to agree with me. Any proof that I'm gaming the system off-wiki? Didn't think so. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should go here before responding like you did. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, and you're potentially being a DICK. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(whistle) Timeout. Take ten, everyone, and cool down. This is doing no one any good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Essentially no independent coverage; vast majority of article sources are press releases, near-verbatim reprints thereof, or from sources with a vested interest in the matter. Surely for an event that "Millions around the world will observe" one would expect at least some measure of demonstrated interest from the mainstream press, but an all-dates Google News search finds basically zilch. Hqb (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the sort of point Rjanag and Jmundo ought to respond to, because it is taken seriously by the closing admin, whereas the back and forth stuff probably won't be.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let get back to the search for sources to establish notability, I found this one from the Penn State Scout. Another new press release in Market Watch from the Centric Health Resources. Yes, the organizers of the Rare Disease day must be controlling the press in an evil plan to take over the world....--J.Mundo (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just recently added a source from the website of the United States National Library of Medicine. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardley 'significant' detail there. --neon white talk 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to search by the Spanish term : "dia de las Enfermedades Raras". 1, 2, 3 Feder organization, 4, 5, 6, 7. An machine translator is available at google.translate. We need to start translating the term in other languages and I'm sure we will find more sources.--J.Mundo (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parlez-vous français? More sources, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pour ceux qui parlent le français Press report from 2008 Rare Disease Day including articles in major national newspapers such as Le Monde and agencies such as AFP but also National TV (TF1, M6, France5, France2, France3 and Euronews) CostelloDc (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 February 2009 (CET)
Oh, wow, thanks for looking that up. Le Monde is to France what NYT and Washington Post are to the states; I can't access the article right now but I'll try to check it out later and add it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources given so far are anything but non-notable sources. Please find reliable news sources or medical sources. I would suggest - NYT, WaPo, Examiner, London Times, etc. Not having an appearance in these would only verify no notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this article has many times as many RS as should be necessary to establish the topic merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Reliable Sources" has been contested and not one has fallen under the guidelines. These are not notable sources. They are not reliable. They do not have medical standards when they purport to be medical related, and are obscure when they are purporting to be news related. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The best source so far is [[6]], the foriegn language sources are going to have to be verified before they are of any use and regardless an article probably shouldnt depend on foreign language sources for notability. --neon white talk 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what's wrong with the foreign sources. Of the Spanish refs Jmundo gave, the ones from El Dia de Ciudad Real, Murcia, and Vanguardia are all mainstream newspapers in Spain, and the articles are more than just passing mention; as this is an international event, it makes sense to include coverage from multiple nations. And I don't think there's a rule on the books anywhere saying that only NYT, Washington Post, and the other papers Ottava has listed can prove notability; indeed, there are tons of articles on WP that are sourced entirely to local newspapers and other small publications. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danish sources: In Denmark, the day goes by the name "Sjældne-dag" ("Day of the Rare (plural)"). A Google search gave me lots of blogs and stuff, sure, but also the following notable and reliable sources: [7] - a program from TV 2 (Denmark) on rare diseases, for which organization Crown Princess Mary is protector, and the description mentions the day; [8] from the national Danish cancer society (independent and very strong Danish organization); [9] from Helse, a medium-known health-related magazine; and perhaps most importantly, [10], from Politiken, one of the largest Danish newspapers. Incidentally, I also found http://knr.gl/index.php?id=183&type=98&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=31729&cHash=4dc3f1b98f from Greenland, written in Danish. Now, I don't know if we've already established notability in the article, but I'm thinking we've pretty much established it here on the AfD. If nobody's added these sources to the article yet, then perhaps it's time that somebody did. I don't have the time or energy to do it right now, myself, unfortunately. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xclamation point 06:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Joseph Cormier

Ray Joseph Cormier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN individual. Sources are all from minor papers. The article has consistent COI issues and does not contribute to the encyclopedia Hipocrite (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sources are from all major big city dailies from coast to coast in Canada spread over many years. The Kansas City Times is a major U.S. daily. Sources are International. MacLean´s is Canada´s National Weekly Magazine. The Article has lay dormant and unchanged from last July until yesterday. How can there be consistent COI issues? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)— DoDaCanaDa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sources are trivial or color pieces from major dailies or local-interest from local interest papers spread over many years. You (and your socks) are the consistent COI issues. Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least you are now admitting the sources are from major dailies. How could you possibly know anything about consistent COI issues when you did not contribute to the Article or discuss anything about it in the Talk page other than just surfing in and placing the Article for Deletion tag on it yesterday? I may not be able to improve or edit it, but I will stand guard over it. If that causes conflict in those whose interest is seeing the the Article expunged from Wikipedia, so be it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not only a nn sourcing nightmare, but also an AUTO piece by a self-declared "prophet". Has eaten enough time of experienced editors who could be working on other, more significant, subjects. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - COI issues are not a reason to delete an article, and in my view the references are sufficiently numerous and distinct (geographically and temporally) to justify keeping it. Moreover, it's not really autobiographical; much of the current content was added by the article's creator, User:Earl Andrew. I agree completely that the behaviour of the subject with regards to the article has been problematic, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I put considerable weight in the variety of references. He's garnered media coverage from every corner of Canada, which I think makes him somewhat more than a local character, and these references have come from several different years, making him not a flash in the pan. As for what he did - well, he ran for office and lost, caused a ruckus at a variety of events, and travelled across the country acting like a prophet. Most importantly, though, he got coverage from multiple reliable third party sources while doing so. Also, your characterization of the sources as "small newspapers" is off—the majority of them are major dailies in markets of well over one million. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My error on the sources; thank you for your AGF. I'm still thinking that he's more "color" than "substance" but clearly what we need here is more input from other editors. This is a borderline case at best, one I would not like to close. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly way over WP:N. Local sources are quite acceptable. And he has a lot of local coverage. COI is not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Chihuahua, an objective, open minded Editor with a neutral point of view could not write this: Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing.
    The Article and Discussion was dormant since mid December. The controversy arose only today when after 8 months of checking from time to time to see if anyone improved it, I noticed for the first time the convoluted paragraph and corrected it without changing the essence of it. How is it you arrive shortly thereafter, having never contributed to improve or discuss the article before today, and revert it to the gibberish it was? Did you just just randomly surf in? You could not have possibly read and understood all the discussions in the talk or the old version in the history to make that frivolous statement having just arrived on the scene today.
    The same is true for Hipocrite. He arrived for the first time ever today and placed the tag for deletion. Again, is it random chance he just surfed to the Article?
    This is the Biography of a living person. It is evolving. I am not expired yet.
    Many of the References in the Article can be seen here:
    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003596&l=16beb&id=1294974109
    To accurately judge or form an opinion about this BLP you must be familiar with the old version here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243 While all the information is factually True, it is not yet encyclopedic. It does suggest potential for development and improvement.
    DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) note: user DoDaCanaDa has identified himself as the real life subject of the article: Ray Joseph Cormier [reply]
  • weak delete while the subject has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources, the actual reasons for being mentioned in our current sources do not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) and seem to be the type of material warned against in WP:IINFO. Simply being mentioned as running for office is not notable, being the sole member of a political/religious protest 'movement' is not notable, travelling across Canada .... well no. It is possible that we have not discovered the sources that cover the subject in manner that lends itself to providing encyclopedic content, but given what we have now I dont think so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability (people) defers back to the GNG which are clearly met. WP:IINFO says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". His coverage certainly goes beyond a single event. This article/topic is so clearly over the bar for inclusion I just don't understand the arguments against. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please see my questions and comments in the discussion page. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (this is updated by me)[reply]
    • Comment: Are you suggesting that sources from the 1970s and 1980s, of which there are quite a few, aren't as credible in establishing notability as those that are currently on the internet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ResponseThe quick search I did didn't come up with anything like that. I'll have to try again and see what happens, I'll strike for now, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question there are a huge number of sources claimed in the article, but little in the way of linked material. There is also a page (above in this discussion) which shows scans of some of these articles. So for those going with delete:
    • Do you believe that these articles aren't mainly about the topic? His name is in the titles of many of them.
    • Do you not believe those sources are real? I agree AGF meets COI, but the scans would seem to add some amount of evidence (though they could be hoaxes I suppose).
    • Do you think that there is some other problem with the sources? Folks have argued that "doing X isn't notable" but if the X is covered in multiple RS doesn't that make it notable per WP:N?
    • Is there something else I'm missing?
I'm just really not getting the arguments here in the face of the state of the article and it's rather large amount of sources which seem to me to be on point. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue comes in here: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." (emph added) -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We rarely delete articles that meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N and don't conflict with some other policy. BLP, ONEEVENT, etc. can be reasons to do so. But I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for deletion here. It sounds like you are arguing some variation of WP:JNN or maybe WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and my position is that this does violate policies such as WP:NOT#NEWS. I see people arguing that a collection of not individually significant items makes significance. While that may be true in some instances, I dont see that for this article yet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. As far as I'm aware, COI is no reason to delete an article, and I find that article in question to be well-enough sourced to warrant an article for those who are unfamiliar with but interested in the individual in question. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Argument is not coi; argument is NN. COI is making a mess of things, turning a borderline case - A Meh, Why bother to del? into a Way too much crap! case. I can rephrase if you prefer, but I think that's it in a nutshell. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Widely varied sources indicates subject has notability, whether these were "color pieces" or not is irrelevant. An editor involved has apparently pissed someone off, but that's not an argument for deletion. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect, Your momma already redirects to Mother insult. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your momma jokes

Your momma jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to deserve, at most, a mention in joke. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect -- I'd already redirected this title to Mother insult before this AfD was created. I feel that's a fair redirection. -- Longhair\talk 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article exists, and I'd agree that this phenomenon is thoroughly documented enough to warrant an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: "Your momma jokes" is a plausible enough title that somebody might search on so it makes sense to redirect it. The original article had nothing worth merging though. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sponer

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

This is a self-taught artist with only local coverage. Beyond that, there's no evidence of notability for the level of wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While it is true that she is self-taught, Sponer is recognized as a Canadian artist not only by The Hamilton Spectator and other local sources but also by The Honourable Lincoln Alexander, Ontario Minister of Culture The Honourable Aileen Carroll and organizations such as the Canadian National Women's Soccer Team, McMaster Children's Hospital, The National Anti-Poverty Organization to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo Sponer (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one is disputing that she is a working artist. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of every working artist in the world. There are policies and guidelines that all articles must follow, such as notability and verifiability. This artist, while no doubt successful, does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia policy. You should also read the guidelines around conflicts of interest. freshacconci talktalk 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am surprised that a successful working artist, who had already produced a large number of pieces (see artist's gallery) and is enjoyed by a variety of people and organizations from many different places (see acknowledgments), fails "notability" (see definition of notability). Things and events that make this artist notable are easily verifiable by any-one with web access and basic internet surfing skills. As for "conflicts of interest", the Anna Sponer article is objective and unbiased as it does not include any of my personal views or beliefs; it is open to edit by anyone who feels otherwise. Since there is no official/legal disclosure requirement to ensure that all posters are at arm's length from the Articles they are authoring in wikipedia, other than drawing conclusions from their user names, this notion of "conflicts of interest" is useless. For the record, I am not her. Jo Sponer (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, but you apparently share a last name. That means you have a connection to her, which means a conflict of interest. Anyone is permitted to edit any article, but there are policies and guidelines. You are free to edit this article, even if you are related (or for that matter the artist herself), but it is crucial that you understand the guidelines around possible conflicts, wwhich I was merely pointing out to you. The rest of my comments apply. Wikipedia does not go by a simple dictionary definition of notability, but a series of guidelines established by the community here. freshacconci talktalk 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Yes, but you apparently share a last name. That means you have a connection to her, which means a conflict of interest." Now that is some strange reasoning coming from someone looking for verifiability. Please let me re-assert, since there is no official or legal disclosure requirement to ensure that all posters are at arm's length from the Articles they are authoring in wikipedia, other than drawing conclusions from their user names, this notion of "conflicts of interest" is useless. Jo Sponer (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you actually read my comments and read the link for conflicts of interest? I never claimed there was official or legal disclosure requirements. Those are your words. The conflict of interest guideline is a behavioural guideline and as much as we must all assume good faith, all editors are expecting to edit in good faith. That's all. Of course I'm making asssumptions, you have the same last name (at this, WP:DUCK would apply). There appears to be a connection. I never claimed that there being a conflict of interest had anything to do with verifiablity. I suggested you read the guidelines, nothing more. This is, however, a distraction from the main points, which I stand by. freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I've read your comment but I am afraid you misunderstood what I was saying regarding the guidelines around conflicts of interest. Simply stated, conflicts of interest should be determined by evaluating the content and the spirit of an article as opposed to looking at the author's username or alias since the authenticity can not be verified. I too stand by my earlier assertions that this article should remain in wikipedia and grow in time as will the artist whom it represents. Jo Sponer (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't misunderstand you. As I said, I mentioned that you should read the conflict of interest guidelines. Nothing more. That in itself was not a comment on the artist or the article, and I'm not certain why you're jumping to those conclusions. But enough has been wasted on this point. As for your last commment, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't wait for the artist to "grow in time." She needs to be notable now. If some day she becomes notable and her achievements go beyond the local, and there is sigificant, non-trivial third-party coverage, the article can be recreated (should it be deleted after this AfD discussion). The Hamilton Spectator is not a significant-enough source on its own. freshacconci talktalk 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Freshacconci Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Also note the apparent COI. Themfromspace (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Is there any way to save this entry or it just fails that badly in the WP:N department? Could, for instance, references to other notable Italo-Canadians or notable entities from Racalmuto help? Jo Sponer (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that. It would need eg reviews in specialist art press etc for exhibitions, participation in major shows like biennales etc - WP:CREATIVE is the relevant sub-guideline. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jo Sponer (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - There is the Hamilton Spectator article in the article, and this article indicating her inclusion in a juried show at the Hamilton Art Gallery. But this puts it just under the bar of notability for me. A bit more coverage and I would be swayed to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; by the way there is photographic evidence on the artist's site under exhibits. She's been included in this juried show at the Hamilton Art Gallery for three consecutive years. The show is already open to the public, as indicated on the AGH web calendar. Jo Sponer (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Toddst1. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juha Toivonen

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

Contains very little information, with no assertion of notability other than a family relationship. Snowing seems likely. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Non-admin closure of AfD that resulted in speedy deletion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much Obliged

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

Contested A7. No indication of notability; fails WP:MUSIC. Article was created to support a few more that are up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth Gear and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Garrett §FreeRangeFrog 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE. Non-admin closure of AfD that resulted in speedy deletion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Garrett

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

Contested A7. No indication that subject meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC; band article is also in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth Gear §FreeRangeFrog 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Insufficient claim of notability with no support. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Vanity creation. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Even if the band were notable, the individual members are not, per WP:BAND. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. Note: objection to a speedy doesn't force an AfD (unlike PROD) - leave it to the admin who considers the speedy to decide. JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE. Non-admin closure of AfD that resulted in speedy deletion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Gear

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

Contested speedy. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. With phrases like "...currently writing songs and looking for a singer to sing them" and "known regionally..." this is a clear A7 at best. The biography of the guitarist was also SD'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little confused by this. You removed the speedy tag and brought it here although you believe it was eligible for speedy deletion? Guess what, you were right, it should be speedy deleted as it is based solely on self-published websites at MySpace and Bebo. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD was contested. §FreeRangeFrog 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An admin can deal with a contested speedy. Doesn't need to come here unless the admin declines the speedy. No big deal though. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Insufficient claim of notability with no support. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Vanity creation. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Adding the hangon tag just asks an admin to consider the reasoning on the talk page before making a decision to delete or not, it does not force an AfD. I'm going to replace the CSD and hangon tags as this seems a clear case for a speedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! -- A Reckless Disregard for Gravity

AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! -- A Reckless Disregard for Gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Video game not due out until Q3 2009. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only links are to the official website and to screenshots. Never asserts notablity. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculative and non-notable. Do we really want this to be the first entry in the volume one of the complete printed Wikipedia? ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - surprisingly, not a hoax (as I assumed from the title), but fails the guidelines for articles on future products. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, as no reliable sources have been found that can establish notability; however, after it comes out, it could very well achieve a suitable level of notability, through reviews and press coverage.--Unscented (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient information, no reliable sources. --SJakeK (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia Art

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

This is an attempt to use Wikipedia as an "art platform". It is not encyclopaedic. It can never be encyclopaedic by its very nature. It can't be referenced to anything other than itself because it is an original work based on Wikipedia. These guys need to get themselves their own Wiki and host this there. It also seems to be part of a walled garden of suspicious articles about the artists themselves (Scott Kildall, Nathaniel Stern, and Brian Sherwin). It seems that they have accounts and edit these themselves. They may, or may not, be significantly notable outside of their own circle and may, or may not, have inflated their importance in their articles. I think it needs looking at. DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whether these people do simple edits on their own pages in no way invalidates what they have said here. If something is true then it should stay in the article regardless. Did you know this article is already referenced at The Whole 9 http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/ just today. I feel that your idea that it can only reference itself is unfounded at this point. :Artintegrated (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP(Who changed my shouted keep?) You cannot do that once I sign it. This is against Wiki policy.Artintegrated (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I think this is something that is imporatnt. Why cant Wikipedia be a form of art too. I don't understand how someone who edits Wikipedia would not want their edit or "performative utterances" to be considered art. Artintegrated (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First up, the fact that the people write their own articles is a big problem because they lack objectivity. Secondly, you can't have a circular chain of references. You can't reference Wikipedia from a non-RS blog that itself references Wikipedia. By that logic, any information replicated on two different websites and referencing eachother would be gospel truth. Referencing does not work like that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm for giving this article time to improve. It's an interesting concept, though it needs better sourcing. --TS 21:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:"the fact that the people write their own articles is a big problem because they lack objectivity" It seems to me that everyone writes their own articles on Wikipedia and there is no such thing as objectivity in Wikipedia. That is the whole point-- it is inherently subjective.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the article carefully and see that it can't possibly improve to become a valid Wikipedia article. It is an article about itself. It is intrinsically unencyclopaedic. I don't think it was necessarily created in bad faith but it is an abuse of Wikipedia to seek to use it as an art platform and it undermines Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only fractionally better than any MADEUP topic. Created very recently. Also a totally confused concept - a collaborative art project - fine. But trying to do it on one Wikipedia page - you must be joking mate! We also have an avoid self-reference rule. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sort of artwork already has strong precedents in history - the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse, Debord's idea of Situationist detournement, and although I am not part of this collective, I fully intend to include it as part of my chapter for the upcoming book of distributed writing commissioned by Turbulence.org, and it will be mentioned as part of my talk on new art practices at a guest lecture at Denver University on 2/16/09, and I have already written on it on my critical blog in London. Therefore, the reference is to the emergence of the concept, which now exists outside Wikipedia, and is paradoxical but not solipsistic. I think that the person suggesting the idea of letting the idea grow is well-reasoned, and a time for review (say, 90 days) could be set for re-evaluation.--24.14.54.88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)--TS[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that, transgressive though they were, the Surrealists played "exquisite corpses" using their own notepaper. They did not try to scrawl it the margins of a library book. This is the problem. Nobody objects to a Wiki based artwork. The problem is that it can't be inserted into Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not just a Wiki. It is an encyclopedia. It is no more appropriate to add non-encyclopaedic content here than it is to write stuff in library books. I have refrained from using the term "vandalism" because I think this is all a big misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. None the less, that is the effect it is having. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would very much beg to differ on the point of the Surrealists. Dali would lay in traffic, Artaud organized a riot aginst Dulac's first screening of the Clergyman and the Seashell. If the Surrealists would have found it "appropriate" for the message, I am absolutely sure they would have done Corpses in the library. The way I see it, if it gets pulled, it will become by definition a case for reinsertion as an "event" in New Media art history. However, I know the project is being watched by a number of curators with great interest.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an interesting concept, but not suitable here: this is an encyclopedia, not a web-host for this sort of project. Find some other Wiki to do it on. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Out of scope as a project, completely lacking in evident notability as a concept. Powers T 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition to the nomination: OK. Now I am really confused. They have a Wiki of their own at: wikipediaart.org, which has the same content as the Wikipedia article we are discussing here. I am not sure how the two are meant to relate to eachother but it may be that they are confused as to the difference between a Wiki and Wikipedia. I am not sure which site they are proposing to be the actual art work. If it is the Wikipedia article then all I have said above is correct. If it is their own Wiki then the circularity is broken and the article in not intrinsically unencyclopaedic. In that case I would like to add the following alternative reasons to delete the article: Lack of notability and lack of RS references. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the page at wikipediaart.org is not a wiki - it's just an advert or pointer to this one. It's clear that it's here they intend the "art" to happen. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: Sorry. I got their link wrong. They do have a Wiki at: http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/. That said, I think you are almost certainly right. I just wanted to be fair to them and to everybody here by giving the whole picture. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could never be properly sourced, as it could only exist here first before it could ever be written about in order for it to be notable enough to be mentioned here. Yes, an interesting paradox, but that's not our problem. We can only go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it's pretty clear that this needs to be deleted. But here's an idea: the fact that this was attempted and subsequently deleted could possibly generate enough third-party coverage to make the initial project notable enough to be included (at least as part of the artists' articles). But until then, it cannot stay. It's not encyclopedic as an entirely self-referential article. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For whatever reason, I think this is a viable vehicle for Wikipedia. Performative utterances actually has a nice ring to it. OneMarkus (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not make any sense: it is an article about itself. I think the article is a breaching experiment. As a side note, that website, wikipediaart.org, is most likely infringing on the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright on the name Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if you are right, that means that they probably regard this AfD as the real artwork? Oh joy. I think you are right about the copyright/trademark on "Wikipedia" but I was assuming (hoping) that it was a legitimate misunderstanding between Wiki (which anybody can use) and Wikipedia. I really hope that this does not turn out to have been a bad faith exercise from the outset. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not thought of it that way, but you may be right about this AFD being the "artwork". A breaching experiment does attempt to measure reactions to the experiment. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this discussion is the most interesting part of the work by far. And it has a built-in narrative structure to it-- how will it turn out? Kept or Deleted?Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This does not fit Wikipedia. DanielRigal, I don't understand why you flagged the Brian Sherwin bio over this unless you have a beef with him. Did you even read the bio or the prior deletion debates? I've cited his interviews to help improve visual art bios on wikipedia because consensus has been that he is notable twice. Should I stop? Should we flag every writer and art critic if we don't agree with something they write about? I read the Sherwin article about this and it does not look like he was a part of it aside from posting about it after one of the two contacted him. The article clearly says that it is a project by Stern and Kildall. So why did you flag the Sherwin bio? Artblogs (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment: the flags on the authors of the Wikipedia Art article are unwarranted - Kildall is a gradute of the Art Institute of Chicago, and well exhibited, I am not familiar with Biran per se, and I wrote a term paper in part about Nathaniel's work during my MFA studies on African Computer Art in the mid 2000's. These are legitimate people, and their pages are justified, and only justifiable criticism maybe citations or formatting.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment: Well, right - "legitimate" is not the proper word. However, all three have substantial records, and if it takes an exxternal scholar to go over their records, then we can set that up.User:Patlichty|Patlichty]] (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this AfD. I have replied on your talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Wikipedia Art" fails WP:N and WP:V. So far I have heard no reason why an exception should be made for "Wikipedia Art". Many articles on artists, art movements, and art styles are deleted due to failure to meet minimum requirements for WP:N and WP:V. I have not heard any reason articulated by any of the defenders of this newly created article as to why an exception should be made in this instance. Therefore I see no reason to make an exception for its failure to meet basic requirements for Wikipedia articles. In the absence of any reasons given for overriding Wikipedia basic policy, I see no reason not to delete "Wikipedia Art". Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia Art page is something that explains art, explores art, and is art all at the same time. Deleting this page would be a statement that the exegesis of conceptual art and/or new media art has no place in Wikipedia, except on the tired, lifeless, and opaque conceptual art and new media art pages. Why shouldn't a tiny corner of Wikipedia-brand collective epistemology be preserved for an instructive, self-referential, and ever-changing living example of what an art object can be in the 21st Century? Should this page be judged invalid only because it refers to itself? The Wikipedia Art page is a self-aware example of Wikipedia's mission of collective epistemology. It enacts and exposes Wikipedia's own strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits as a system of understanding and as a contemplative object of beauty. The page is also a self-aware example of the strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits of new media art as a an object of contemplation. New media art has demonstrated that the boundaries between art and every other discipline from epistemology to microbiology have disintegrated (see interdisciplinarity) in the 21st Century. This page shows how a Wikipedia page can go beyond simply existing as a Wikipedia page, while retaining its basic utilitarian Wikipedia function. Those who care most about Wikipedia's mission would probably agree that Wikipedia already is a collaborative art form. If you feel that Wikipedia is a beautiful thing, then at some level (whether or not you admit it) you consider Wikipedia an art form, with its own codes and conventions. This artwork can only exist as a Wikipedia page that refers to itself. Therefore, deleting would not only send the message "this is not Wikipedia"; it would also be saying "this is not art." comment added by Shmeck (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is a wonderful commentary, but Wikipedia is not your web page to wax eloquently about what you think ought to exist. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Thanks, but isn't that what everyone is doing here? Talking about what ought to exist on Wikipedia? You haven't addressed a single one of my points.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I haven't addressed your points. The subject of the discussion is whether to delete the article or not, not whether or not you feel that Wikipedia should have an article containing the qualities that you feel the "Wikipedia Art" article might be capable of containing. Ostensibly the points and the subject matter of your defense of the "Wikipedia Art" article is what would be discussed and debated in the article itself, if it existed. That might be an interesting discussion; then again that might not be an interesting discussion. But I don't think we have to assume the article exists in order to discuss whether or not to delete it. I think we can separate those two discussions. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I beg to differ. My contribution was meant to raise awareness of the larger context in which a decision to delete or keep the article is taking place. Having read the comments above, I saw they did not reflect an understanding of what's at stake in a decision to delete or keep the article. Either decision would say a great deal about both Wikipedia and whether/how it distinguishes between collaborative knowledge and collaborative art, at a time when that boundary is quickly evaporating (see MIT's Artist-In-Residence program). Awareness of these matters is essential to the discussion.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree. The only thing at stake is Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopaedia. The rest is stuff that we simply take no view on. If something is deleted it is because it is inappropriate to Wikipedia. It is not a comment on its wider worth. Nothing will be lost if the article is deleted. The authors can request a copy to be emailed to them and they can put it up again on another site. This is not censorship. This is not against art. It is just housekeeping. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but according to whose definition of Wikipedia's "integrity as an encyclopedia"? Yours? Forgive me, but you don't seem receptive to the range of opinions in this discussion arguing quite cogently for a more open definition. According to the Wikipedia entry, an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information."Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host for collaborative art projects. Previous discussions about sourcing are beside the point, because this is an art project, and art projects are not allowed in article space. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What exactly distinguishes a collaborative art project from a collaborative article?
      • I think it should be obvious that an article is an attempt to objectively capture the facts about a subject and that art is a subjective attempt to say something original about something. Given that Wikipedia is for objectivity and against original research it really is an incredibility inappropriate place to seek to make art. I see the attraction of the Wiki engine for collaborative art, but they can (and indeed already have) start their own Wiki for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all due respect, both the hard sciences, the humanities, and journalism have fully rejected the idea of objectivity. There is no such thing, and Wikipedia is a perfect example of a perfectly subjective (if collaborative) encyclopedia. Similarly, originality has been rejected by art. There is no such thing. It's all just different forms of appropriation. So it seems to me that Wikipedia is a perfect place to expose the current state of affairs.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you have a source for the notion that originality has been rejected by art? Are there any countervailing views? Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes: Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp, Roy Lichtenstein, Michelangelo, Leonardo daVinci. It's all copying and pasting. The only difference is that now artists are self-aware about it.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think it is productive to discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here. (This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any reason for a person of that view to hang out on an encyclopaedia. This sort of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recap: I think we have an unusual situation here in two ways. First up there are a lot of people here who do not normally "do" AfDs. Secondly, there is a real, and I believe honest, failure of those who want to keep the article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem, or of Wikipedia itself. I don't want to be patronising but lets quickly recap Wikipedia 101: The five pillars of Wikipedia explains what Wikipedia is, isn't and also how it is run. Almost everything of importance is linked from there but I would specifically like to mention notability, verifiability, reliable sources, no original research and, last but not least, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Wikipedia Art page satisfies every one of those requirements. I also don't wish to be patronizing, but I believe there is a real, honest failure of those who want to delete the article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem-- which is how narrowly you choose to define knowledge, art, verifiability, original research, and disruption.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are discussing what would be the content of the article if it existed. This discussion concerns itself with whether or not such an article should exist. There is a distinction, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm in favor of the idea and rationale of Wikipedia Art. I vote YES for the continuation of the project. -mjm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkewi53207 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several questions here - One is the letter of the law, which is not always enforced here.

First, notability - as a media studies and New Media Art professor & curator, I find this missive "Highly" notable, for obvious reasons. This is a great project, either way it's resolved. It has also been picked up for discussion in at least one scholarly publication in this first day.
Secondly, verifiability - there external resources on the issue, and it is alrady in discussion in the greater community. I think the issue might be whether the site or the entry is the art, which has not been resolved.
Reliable Sources: there are two blogs, an installation, and a developing discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome). I'm sure that this will be undeniably resolved to Wikipedia standards soon.
No Original Research: This might be the weakest leg in that much of it was written by the progenitors, but if needed, objective scholars can be asked to render their thoughts as well.
Don't Garfinkel the WIKI (DGtW); That's a bit gray, again on terms as to whether the site or the entry is the "art". In my opinion, the decision will likely be much clearer after a period of time (as stated before, 90 days, and probably minimum of 30).
--Patlichty (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am disappointed to read this after my heartfelt plea on your talk page. Notability is not something that you can simply declare because you are a prof. We ask for reliable sources and you give us blogs. We complain of original research and you seek so remedy it by soliciting yet more original research. I would have expected better. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: Although there are a lot of people who want this article kept I believe that everybody above who has evaluated the matter within the scope of the actual policies has decided to delete it. It is also clear that the article is disruptive and that the deletion discussion has played out and is becoming repetitive and branching off into general discussion. I propose that we close this as delete. Any admins with me on this? --DanielRigal (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's not make it wikipedia editors jobs to determine what is art. The 3 authors are established artists and they have said it is art - that's really the end of the story. However, after that it is up to the rest of us to determine if it is good and/or worthwhile art. For that, let's use the 5 pillars of wikipedia. Notability - has been established. It's been written about in several places, there is a RL lecture discussing it, a curator has vouched for it. Compared with many other wikipedia articles which have no question of notability (for example, minor fictional characters from television shows, decade old chipsets, and manufacturers of Dungeons and Dragons miniature figurines) I'd say this met the established standard easily. Verifiability - the page exists and we've all seen it. No one has questioned whether or not it is being discussed on other sites or at academic lectures. Reliable sources - The authors created the page. The content of the page is the work of art itself, and it describes itself. Again, this doesn't appear to be an issue because Verifiablity isn't in question. No original research - none is necessary. We know all we need to know. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - this may be the closest call. While I understand why this is an issue, I don't think the artists are disrupting wikipedia to create a point. Their purpose is to create an artwork. The point it makes is secondary and the disruption is a side effect. Again, there's plenty of room on wikipedia for this. It's of interest. The more you make a stink about it, the stronger the case becomes. Let it go. DanielRigal - I think you feel too strongly about this and should cool off. With all due respect, Daniel, you may be projecting here. Please take your own advice. There is a very rational and relevant discussion happening here, and you appear to be trying to fast-track it into a deletion, perhaps out of unwillingness to consider differing points of view. Again, no offense, but you have been quite dismissive of the excellent points being raised here.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal - freeze edits for 1 week. --Dronthego (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is in violation of the spirit of WP:SOAPBOX. So far, all we've heard is point of view pushing, in support of this article. That is acceptable in a work of art (maybe); it is far less acceptable in a Wikipedia article, ideally. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you going to explain why you don't think edits should be frozen and why there's shouldn't be a cool off period for this article? Bus stop What harm comes from waiting 1 week? --Dronthego (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dronthego -- I said nothing about whether or not edits should be frozen. The article's existence is dependent upon the article's existence. That is the premise upon which the initiating editors created this article. Many articles are deleted, in the visual arts, for failing to meet basic Wikipedia requirements. Do you think all articles in the visual arts that have been deleted in, say, the past 90 days should be reinstated, or just this article? Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We generally don't "freeze" a deletion discussion just cause it gets heated. For all the steamed-up people here there are many more cool-headed Wikipedians who can carry on constructive discussion. Anyone who feels like it may continue bickering. The outcome will still be determined fairly. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:48, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, but I didn't mean this discussion page, I mean the article. --Dronthego (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You want to freeze the article because this discussion has gotten heated? I don't see what that would accomplish. Even if that article were frozen, this discussion would still close at the same time, generally 5 days after it started. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:04, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - G1, G2, G3, or G11 - Take your pick. How about simply not notable, vandalism, hoax, etc? Whether it can be considered art or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia ain't your canvas. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • But you saying Jimmy Wales has a hidden profile on that Facebook Wikipedia Art fan page undermines your neutrality and this in fact could sway someone from voting to keep rather than delete this page. Its the swaying part not just misstating facts that bothers me. Artintegrated (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've responded to this allegation extensively below. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - actually Wikipedia is our canvas; as it states in its byline, "anyone can edit"; and it has been promoted on this premise - that it is the collective work of innumerable individuals. This is a valuable article if just because of the interesting discussion on this page, but also because it is interrogating the nature of user-generated content, and the ability of artists to transform even the most pedestrian platform into something that comments and provokes. Frock (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, anyone can edit. No guarantee that your edit will stick, though. All edits can also be reversed and deleted. Goes both ways, you see. So if you want to say Wikipedia is your temporary canvas, until someone notices what you did, then sure, it's your canvas. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • comment Has an art project like his happened on Wikipedia before? Did Stern and Kidall break new ground or were they inspired by past "projects"? Artblogs (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it has happened before, it's also been deleted before, rather quickly. Generally articles like this are speedy-deleted without the need for discussion, but in this case someone nominated it for discussion instead, so here we are. It'll still get deleted in the end, as it violates pretty much every rule we have here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:30, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. Doesn't even pass the "amusing hoax" test. - DavidWBrooks 02:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the reasons I feel this discussion is viable is that it is one of those either/or situations. I dont see how an administrator can call for the AfD to be closed and the page deleted within the first couple hours of its creation. This is way too soon in the process for this to happen unless the person who put it up for deletion is afraid that those of us who support the article will ultimately see the page remain.
  • On Facebook there is a fan page for this article "Wikipedia Art" and the founder himself Jimmy Wales just joined this Facebook page. Will this added bit of information help keep this article? This is what I question here. This should in no way be EGO driven. It is what it is. Artintegrated (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This "article" seems designed to violate as many of our basic policies as possible. Linking every word? Signatures in article space? Ridiculous amounts of self-referencing? An article that is about nothing but itself? It is absurd. That's art for you; some people will always find it absurd. But Wikipedia is not a repository or venue for art experiments. We eliminate graffiti when we find it, and that's all this is. Powers T 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where exactly do you draw the line between graffiti and a Wikipedia entry? How is Wikipedia not a publicly moderated graffiti forum with conventions and guidelines for graffiti?Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep As I've seen the new "Context" section put forth, and not by any of the artists, I think the article is MUCH more solid, is more grounded in external art historical references, and all around more grounded as an "article" per se. There the piece was truly solipsistic in the beginning, and probably fated for swift deletion, I think that comments by people like Frock, the new edits, and the development of the article over such a short amount of time shows its potential. In addition, I move that before deletion, we really should get someone in who's edited the New Media/Tech Art pages. If they're here, please chime in, and state you've been editing there.--Patlichty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the new material added to the article is germane to this discussion, because none of it addresses the two reasons for deletion: none of it demonstrates reliable source coverage of this art project, and none of it changes the fact that art projects are not allowed in article space. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy the first edit to User:Artintegrated/Wikipedia Art then delete the rest. If sufficient reliable sources exist and it meets notability requirements, allow creation of a new page under the same name about the February 14, 2009 art experiment. Blogs and mailing lists are generally insufficient to establish notability, but if an art journal, newspaper, or a WP:RS art magazine writes about this, then an article about this experiment is acceptable. Inform user he has a fixed time limit to save his work then delete it as inappropriate use of user space. I recommend a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting thought. Perhaps that is the whole point of this page, to provoke a such a discussion of this article, on- and off-Wiki, that the controversy itself becomes notable. Authors, are you reading this? Is that your purpose? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just my reading of things, it looks like the purpose is to provoke a reaction of some type so a student or researcher can have something to report. Whether the resulting controversy or the academic results will rise to the level of notability or not remains to be seen. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or one week as the case may be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very fair-minded proposal, but I don't think it's a good idea. It would mean going through another deletion discussion starting a week from now, fanning the flames of controversy just after they've died down. As suggested earlier in this discussion, if reliable source coverage develops to justify an article on this subject, an administrator can then offer the page creator access to the deleted versions of the article for recreation of an encyclopedic article. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this theory, every page on WIkipedia is art. In terms of an article, I think deletion is in order here, however this might be an interesting concept to explore in project space, that's usually where we do our navel-gazing. FWIW: This isn't the first time someone has made art out of Wikipedia, at one point some fellow thought our deletion logs could be used for art. He created a website & tool to gather the log info for his project. This project may still be active somewhere, although I suspect we've taken the joy out of it now that most of our deletions contain policy related summaries rather than the first sentence or two from the article. --Versageek 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project space or if not, user space, and then if the sources are specific and substantial enough, consider a shorter article about this in mainspace. .DGG (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you elaborate on the rationale of moving to project space? I'm under the impression that project space is for projects that directly involve improving the encyclopedia or its accessibility. What does this do in that capacity? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:53, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not what Wikipedia is for (see WP:NOT). As an article, it fails the notability test. If anyone wants to write a well-sourced article about internet art as applied to wikis, be my guest, but this isn't it. Robofish (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it's a good idea to move this project to user space or any other space. If this art project is, as has been suggested, a breaching experiment, if it is, as has been suggested, an attempt to generate controversy to justify the experiment's own existence, then I don't see how the encyclopedia will benefit from continuing to maintain it. I retain my original opinion that this project is an attempt to use the resources of Wikipedia for purposes separate from the intended purpose of building an encyclopedia, and if that's the case, then Wikipedia should not maintain it anywhere. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added this article today at around 3:15. I felt that it would absolutely pass the test and remain here on Wikipedia. Already though several of the "Delete people" have gone and changed edits on Kildall's page here and one said that Jimmy Wales has his profile hidden on a Facebook site and I showed the link to make sure people knew this was an incorrect statement and even Equazcion said it was a mistake on his discussion page but he didn't include that on here bringing into question the neutrality that is supposed to be the best of Wikipedia. I also know about some overreaching into past edits that seem very underhanded. Lets be bigger than that on here. Integrity is Wikipedia's best policy. Andy Warhol, himself said art is anything you can get away with. That said, lets do the right thing here. Artintegrated (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh no no no sir, I did not say that at all. I said that the person who claims to be Jimmy Wales that you've got in your group is in fact not the real Jimmy Wales. You continue to misunderstand me. I gave you this link to the actual Jimmy wales page. This is not the same member you have in your facebook group.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:50, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        • My five mutual friends of his say it is him. Why should they tell me something that is an untruth. Most dont even know about this Wikipedia Art page or the AfD here or I should just take your word without a basis to stand on? Artintegrated (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your friends told you so? That's your argument? Look: No one's asking you to take my word for it. Since Jimmy Wales on a Facebook group for fans of the page we're considering for deletion has no bearing whatsoever on said deletion, there's no way I could possibly care less. I told you as much on my talk page but you asked me to continue anyway, and I did. I'm sorry if you're unsatisfied with the outcome. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
            • If you could care less why are you even on here????Artintegrated (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I care about the deletion discussion. I don't care about your facebook argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:00, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                • Then lets only state facts on this AfD since you say you do care about it. Artintegrated (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is a matter of opinion, not fact. I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you mean Andy Warhol, the Wikipedian? Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, not notable, no reliable sources except one blog, trying to use wikipedia for something other than writing an encyclopedia.... why are we even having this discussion? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the nominator accidentally chose AfD instead of CSD, a decision for which he is very remorseful. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • lol. He has certainly learned his lesson. Oh, well, I don't think that there is much problem with leaving this open until the time limit. Just don't pay them much attention. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, Equazcion, that's the best comment yet in this discussion! I got a huge laugh out of that one! Daniel, are you ruing the day you made this nomination? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 06:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the article IS the artwork, then it is a primary source and furthermore pretty much cannot have an NPOV by definition. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we must maintain NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:N and quite a few others. The self-referential citations alone point to how non-notable this concept is. Simply put, if this is a concept for collaboration people wish to try, put it in the Wikipedia namespace. It flat out does not belong in article space. Resolute 06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only verifiability or notability here is self-referential, and that's the only way this article can and will be. This definitely shouldn't be namespace moved either, it belongs in a different Wiki altogether; this one is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a collaborative art project. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be very against a namespace change as well. Wikipedia space is for collaborations that aim to improve the encyclopedia, not for just any collaboration a group of people want to try. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Touche. I doubt it would survive an MfD either. Resolute 06:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, self-referential mess. Tried by others, and deleted. Kill kill kill. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the contributor of ten percent of Wikipedia's featured pictures and twenty percent of its featured sounds, assuring fellow editors that this can be safely deleted. Most of the citations fail WP:RS and the rest fail WP:NOR. 'Wikipedia Art' as such does not exist in any way that merits an article. And serious efforts toward building a collaborative media restoration undertaking would only be undermined by the existence of such a page as this. DurovaCharge! 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. No indication that the content may meet our criteria for inclusion. — Werdna • talk 06:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Xclamation point 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 Corso Como

10 Corso Como (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a gallery in Milan that is not notable the article for me is only advertisment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 18:53, February 14, 2009

  • Keep Article has the Guardian and the NYT (2 articles) as sources. Each have significant content about this place. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been shown. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Guardian and NY Times are significant articles where the subject is the primary subject. Meets the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After spending a lot of time judging arguments, consensus appears that this person is not notable becase they graduated as valedictorian. Xclamation point 06:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn Liu

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

An article about a person notable for only one event. The subject has requested, through OTRS (link to ticket), that the article be deleted. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public record, relates to position in US military and public policy. Remove some specific personal details if they concern subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reasonably certain that upon graduation, all cadets are immediately commissioned as 2nd Lts.Vulture19 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely non-notable person beyond one event. -Atmoz (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the case of borderline notability BLP articles, we should delete on the request of the subject. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I think she meets all appropriate guidelines. But not having her article won't leave an inexcusable hole in our coverage and she wants it gone. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atmoz and Hobit. A 2nd Lieutenant is not the kind of officer whose position would automatically justify having an article about the person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really not a good reason for an article. The fact that a Chinese American has graduated as valedictorian from West Point is interesting (and cheering, I suppose), but it's the sort of thing that merits a footnote in an article on Chinese Americans in the US Military, or the history of West Point; it's not the sort of thing that merits a full-fledged biography for someone whose career has yet to happen... Shimgray | talk | 21:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. Liu's achievement was given substantial worldwide coverage, even in/by the People's Republic of China. [11] We can argue all we want about whether the occasion really merited this much coverage. But we cannot argue that she received significant worldwide coverage. She also made pregraduation media appearances [12]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I just think "minor but notable" BLPs should be deleted at the request of the person. It's a personal WP:IAR thing. Otherwise I'd argue for inclusion. The topic meets WP:N by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone with access to the OTRS ticket clarify why Liu wanted it deleted (if that's not too private)? I'm just wondering if her concerns with the article are something that can be cleaned up with a good edit and some watchful eyes to keep the article clean, or if they're un-fixable and the article just needs to be deleted. (Of course, if we feel she's non-notable anyway it's a moot point. But given that many Chinese parents idolize successful students the way Americans idolize athletes—see, for example, Harvard Girl [13][14][15][16]—she might end up being notable just for wide coverage in China...although I haven't taken the time to search for myself yet.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS tickets are confidential. I've already been poked for mentioning what I have already. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement in Thailand

Retirement in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article content, while potentially useful to some, is pretty much inherently unencyclopaedic. A combination of advertisement and instruction, this doesn't seem to be suitable for an encyclopaedia. Paul_012 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googoly-eyed Buddies

Googoly-eyed Buddies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic series. Less than 30 Ghits, mostly Youtube and the like. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction

The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not conform to Film Style Guidelines relative to Adaptations. It does not provide film context for adaptation differences between the sources/origins and the film, appears to be mostly original research and synthesis, and therefore lacks pertinent reliable and verifiable sources. Any valid "differences" should be worked into the Production sections of existing film article to enhance it rather than treating them here in a separate article.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as synthesis and OR -- no indication that differences between the film and reality as a whole (i.e. beyond the film's protagonist) have been the subject of third-party work; this is a synth-y amalgamation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When particularly notable films are made based on true stories they are inevitably compared to the true facts, and this film is no different. If there is OR in the article it should be removed and replaced with sourced commentary from reliable sources (e.g. [17] [18] [19]). JulesH (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently synthetic Sceptre (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by this? Are you saying it is impossible to source an article of this type? Why? JulesH (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing two versions of the same story always involved synthesising and original research. Sceptre (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not when reliable sources, like the ones I linked above, have made the comparison for us it doesn't. JulesH (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sources are certainly reliable, but are they relevant? Although the writing of the articles appears to be sparked by the popularity of the film, they are about the actual escape, not really a discussion of the film. They may be helpful to the Stalag Luft III article, however.
            Jim Dunning | talk 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nicely sourced comparison of FACT versus FILM. Lends itself quite nicely to a reader's understanding of how filmmakers "bend" reality in order to make sales. Any issues with Adaptations can be addressed by WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced encyclopedic article. Requires cleanup, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into the main article on the film. I would support that, as i think having it separately is duplicative, and the length of the main article not excessive. But that's not a discussion for AfD. DGG (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding views that the article is "nicely sourced": Actually take a look at the article and count how many "facts" or "assertions" there are relative to how many of them actually have a "source", much less a verifiable source, attached to them. Consider the Allies Characters section first, which depends on only two inline sources ([20] [21]). There is nothing about Alvin Vogtle in either of those articles (obituaries about Eric Foster, a technical advisor for the film), so that set of assertions lacks sources. Neither source mentions the kind of motorcycle the fictional character Hilts rode in the film, or anything about it being anachronistic, much less how or why it was decided to use a 1960s era model bike in the production (if indeed it is a 1960s model). Neither obituary references the assertion that McQueen insisted on the motorcycle scenes despite lack of historical basis. The assertion about Hilts's likelihood of execution rather than solitary confinement appears to be complete speculation. In fact, only the last two sentences in the Hilts passage are supported by credible sources and should just be covered in the film article (which they are already). In the next five listed characters with any kind of content attached to them (a character list is already in the film article and does not need duplication here) there are at a minimum 10 assertions, of which only three seem to be supported by a source of some kind. Of those three, one is completely unsourced in itself and is not a reliable source. This is in only one section of the article. There are literally dozens of other assertions in the rest of the article and only five non-inline citations cover them. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if four of those five sources actually support the very few passages to which they're attached since they are hardcopy and not online. However, I doubt that the creator of this article has them either since they and the related material were shifted from the main article; I would not attribute a source to material I'm adding to an article – even if I'm just copying it from another Wikipedia article – without first verifying the source is valid (otherwise we're just citing Wikipedia). All I'm asking is that editors actually look at the article and the meager list of sources. (It's interesting that those who characterized this article as well-sourced left the Unreferenced tag in place, although JuleH's identification of possible sources is productive.)
  • Comment about Adaptation "differences" and Merging: JulesH helpfully suggests finding sources to improve the article ([22] [23] [24]) And those source articles would be great if they offered any information about the film; unfortunately, they focus on the historical event itself and offer no new information about the film adaptation process. Film Style Guidelines state that "Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it." Differences between a work of art and its source are expected, so we focus not on the trivial, but the substantive and treat those issues (supported) in the Production sections of the film article. Which brings us to the Merging issue: most of the material in this article came from deleted and disputed material from the film article. That material was removed because it either didn't sufficiently meet film style guidelines or should be considered for inclusion in the article about the actual escape. DDG and Schmidt, I did consider nominating it for Merging, but since the material has already been there and excluded (and, again, couldn't find support), it is pointless to repeat the process of cleaning up this material here and then trying to Merge the remains. It's already been done: the remains are already in the film article. Instead, as I have already recommended to the article creator and on the film and differences articles' Talk pages, enhance the film article's value by adding valid and sourced adaptation material to the existing Production sections. Let's not divert resources and talent to material on a "Fact vs. Fiction" page that's already been addressed.
    Jim Dunning | talk 13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JulesH. Edward321 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article has been moved to Factual accuracy of The Great Escape. Skomorokh 19:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmmm. Since the film is not a documentary, there is no intent to be "accurate" or true. It is a work of fiction, so the focus should be on the adaptation process and its results. Thus, the use of the word "accuracy" is inaccurate. Also, the article is about the film, not the novel (or is the new article about the novel?). This move should be reconsidered.
      Jim Dunning | talk 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :I would like to see this article remain. I won't dispute the points made above. The article needs references and could do with some rework. However, I didn't stumble upon this article. I specifically looked for it. That would indicate some real-world interest in the topic. I do respect the guidelines. They are there for a reason. I will say there is certainly a place for this article in Wikipedia. Perhaps it needs to be renamed or recategorized to avoid guidelines issues. I've looked at Film Style Guidelines. The reference from that link is from the linked article real-world context. The title of that article contains "writing about fiction". This not a fictional film. Maybe those guidelines don't apply directly. If you're talking about the difference between the movie Jaws and the original book, these guidelines make sense as there is little value in the just stating the differences without the artistic reason. With non-fiction, there is value to the differences alone. Many people will learn of this important piece of history from the movie alone. Without a great deal of research, they could find it difficult to learn what actually happened. This article can help a great deal in that regard. (Though many would be interested in seeing the reason for the changes as well). I will be sad to see this article removed. Wantnot (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (moved here from article's talk page)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly, sourcing differences between real-world events and a fictional representation thereof may be problematic. But in encyclopedic terms, I regard the exercise to be worthwhile, and at least ostensibly too large a topic to be comfortably accommodated within the main article; I have some regret that the editor who started the exercise isn't around that much, but that should not be a barrier to appropriately sourced research; I don't see any necessity to rush to delete the article, and it can always be userfied for interested parties to work on before releasing upon an unsuspecting world. The change of title is a step in the right direction, but the work needed to bring the article up to standard should not be a deterrent; bottom line is that I consider it a notable topic, worthy of inclusion here, and lack of sources should not detract from that. We seem to tolerate much worse, on a daily basis. --Rodhullandemu 22:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is one for an essay and not an encyclopedia. The information within the article is inherantly OR as nothing in a "fact versus fiction" article can ever logically derive itself from the topic. Unless this article is about the reception of "fact versus fiction within the film The Great Escape", then the article can do nothing more than cite examples of the topic, while an encyclopedia article should demonstrate the reception of the subject in the real-world. Themfromspace (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepAgree w/ Editor:Rodhullandemu. Given the proper guidance and instruction this article has varied potential. The Movie has a vast audience and I would guess is on many viewers/readers top movies (at least most enjoyable) of all time. How it correlates with the facts of WWII is extremely interesting and educational. We are creating an encyclopedia, not duplicating one. The editor(s) has/have done a commendable job. It may be a stretch to say its 100% encyclopedic but it is no stretch to say that it should NOT be deleted.--Buster7 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawal: After reviewing the comments I realize what a fool I've been and wish to terminate the AfD process. The existence of the "factual accuracy" page for a fiction article actually solves a major problem for the main article page and I no longer desire to see it deleted. Thank you, everybody, for your revelatory input.
    Jim Dunning | talk 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, all delete editors have to agree. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong keep per nominator's change of heart. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please keep in mind I don't agree with a single argument posed by the Keepers and my change of heart has only to do with the motivations behind their reasons. So, please, don't take my change of mind as support for the reasons.
      Jim Dunning | talk 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to merge/redirect sould take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-marriage

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

non-notable, no real sources, no evidence of this actually occuring Beach drifter (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to marriage or Common-law marriage; the term "self-marriage" is more commonly used to refer to couples who marry themselves without the aid of an officiant, rather than to individuals who marry themselves. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strangely. [25] is a good source. I agree that a pointer to common-law marriage is also appropriate as that is the older use of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Yes, very odd--but sourced and seemingly notable Vartanza (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quirkyalone

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

non-notable, no evidence of widespread usage, no sources. Beach drifter (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Author has appeared in legitimate news sources, this book has been cited by, among others, the NYT. Article has existed since 2004 and has had at least 10 unique users edit the page.Vulture19 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was about the book I'd agree, but it's about a neologism with very little use. Maybe the article should be about the book? Or added in a section on the author's article? Beach drifter (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "international phenomenon" is a bit of an overstatement. I'm glad to see your sources though, as I googled and didn't really see very much. I think as a book it meets notability but as a word it fails. Beach drifter (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that as a neologism, it's not notable, but I think the cultural phenomenon that has grown up in response to the idea is notable; the book is only a part of the phenomenon, so I don't know that redirecting to an article on the book makes sense. The coverage of the book would mostly be coverage of responses to the book, i.e. the "quirkyalone" movement. I had thought about suggesting a redirect to an article on "International Quirkyalone Day", which is the best-covered aspect of the phenomenon, but that too is only part of the movement. Alternative suggestions would be welcome, as I'm facing some mental block while trying to re-write the article. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After going through all of the sources I'm somewhat confused as to what should be done with this article. The sources make it apparent that this "phenomenon" has had significant coverage, but it seems all the source articles are really just a response to Sasha Cagen's writings and her quirkyalone.net website. Would quirkyalone.net be a more appropriate article? I find it kind of bothersome that the only real source for this phenomenon, the only place that this word seems to be used heavily, is on the website created by the creator of the word. That said the popularity of this website might make it worth an article, or maybe the article needs to be rewritten based around the book and the site and not around the neologism. I still feel that as a neologism it is being promoted by Sasha Cagen and by a few news articles, making it seem as if this is something more popular that it is. Beach drifter (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced neologism. Meets GNG and seems to meet the relevant SNG. Perhaps one could argue "one event" or some such (mainly one book/author) but it's covered. Merging to the book would probably be a good editorial decision at this point. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G3) by Jclemens. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam nicklin

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

Apparent WP:HOAX. Hosts of Prank Patrol are Barney Harwood for BBC and André "Andy" Simoneau for CBBC. A search finds zero coverage for this name and Nickelodeon, BBC, or CBBC. — CactusWriter | needles 17:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - probable hoax, anyway unverifiable. There's a Liam Nicklin on Bebo, Facebook etc but he's 17. This is probably a prank by him or his pals. I too can find no connection with Nickelodeon or CBBC. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly a hoax or prank. No references to this person could be found in several searches. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7 - [26] J.delanoygabsadds 18:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King tef

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

Non-notable rap artist. Whole article appears to be self-promotion and pretty much all Google hits are self-promotion. No hint of independent sources.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on this page and will be adding references and magazine articles that this artist has been in. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASA2009 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is based on truth and facts. Updates will come with time.

Delete - we don't accept articles on "up and coming" people. We accept only articles on people who have arrived. Give this guy a few years and see if he can cut it. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, go ahead and delete. Thanx --ASA2009 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Radio

Broken Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Broken Radio (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability in Question

  • No listing for this movie in IMDB
  • No listing for movie at the festival mentioned - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 14, 2009 @ 17:09
  • Delete both. spam. This seems connected to Michael Wilbur, also up for deletion and also not notable.--Artypants (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. - I too have looked but can find no confirmation of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Another article has been made about this "movie", see Broken Radio (film). Not sure if this new article should be included under this AfD or a new one entirely. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 14, 2009 @ 20:38
I think we are being given the run around. Maybe a good idea for Editors to band together and find out what's going on, and maybe alert an Admin or two. I admit I don't know whether a new AfD is started or get an Admin to speedy delete the new one. --Artypants (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the second article to this AfD and changed my !vote above to "delete both". It would be pointless to start another AfD, the articles are identical and clearly stand or fall together. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to "delete both" as well. Good move.--Artypants (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Delete Broken Radio (film)"" was accidently created
  • ""Keep Broken Radio"" IMDB only posts in-production movies from major production companies (dreamworks, universal, etc.) and not local. Local films are only accepted upon release and certificate of release, and a fee which has been paid if you want a copy of the receipt as proof. I have the films registration with the writers guild of america as proof of it. As for no existance in the listings from without a box, I stated that it had recieved honorable mention in the festival, meaning it was given that title but not accepted into the screenings, thusly it would not be listed. The providence film festival is a private film festival perfromed at providence college in providence, ri and I have in print files proving its award on that if you wish for me to reference, and or scan in for reference those. AS or ghost hunters the site I claimed to be not credible, I joined the crew in late 2008 as an interning prodiction assitant for the new season and will be credited upon the upon coming 2009-2010 season begining on March 18th and thusly I posted the first site to have the proof of said credits. Again, I have the paper work signed and dated by the shows producers as well as pilgrim films declaring my employment as an intern. I also have my certificates of awards won by the films I have produced, as well as links to either the film it self in some that I have only produced and links to trailers of other films in which I have directed and produced. All which I shall have on both sites by Sunday at midnight when all said documents are scanned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no significant verifiable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable film. JuJube (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Non-notable film. Article does not provide support for claims. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable with no prejudice against recreation. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student projects are not notable unless they qualify for other reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It got honorable mention at a film festival whose wikipedia page says has 25,000 attending. Do events that have that many people attending them get a page normally? Is any award given by such enough to make anyone notable? Dream Focus 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to the authors comment above the "honorable mention" is a polite way of saying that the festival declined to screen the film which cannot be taken as an indicium of notability. Indeed anything short of a Best of Festival type of award is unlikely to sway AfD commentators. Full length reviews in edited print or web publications (i.e. not blogs or reprints of producer provided copy) are the best way to establish notability. If they don't exist the film probably shouldn't have an article. See the relevant guideline. Also, to put the discussion in context, Wikipedia generally has a more stringent inclusion policy than IMDb and so is usually a poor choice for promotion if they have declined to host a page on the film. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY back to author User:Mwilbs. When verifiable notability exists, he can bring it on back with a smile. I would accept that the film title exists without seeing it on IMDB as long as I could verify it elsewhere. I could accept that it recieved an honorable mention at a film festival if I were shown a link to the festival page verifying its award. However, neither were supplied and neither can be found. User:Mwilbs needs to understand that if he and his films get a few nice reviews or write-ups, then that would be a whole different story. USERFY this, let him add those reviews and write-ups, and then he can ask for input about what it could need to assure it not being tossed back into AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:Mwilbs was blocked for making legal threats. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 03:44
  • Now that's a pity. Only on Wiki for 2 days and blocked. It was obvious from his growing animous that he was quite new to Wiki and was baffled and frustrated in his lack of knowledge. Its a real shame. But... that's how it goes. Newcomers will never find wiki a welcoming place unless they can accept that their early efforts will be usually tossed out time after time until they get it right. I recommended a userfication so that he might have had that time to learm. Oh, well. Was he ever ""Welcomed". I may be wrong, but it looks like the first thing in his talk page is a Deletion notice. Poor guy... he never knew what hit him. Ouch. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with you to an extent, don't feel to bad; He only came to the pedia to create an article about himself, and I can't imagine he would've hung around after they'd been created/established. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand too what you are saying. He got flustered. He over-reacted. He got himself blocked. Now he's yet one more citzen cursing wikipedia for its confusions. One has to muse sometimes about what might have happened had he been made to feel welcome... and his article placed in a "review" status before being tossed ill-prepared to mainspace. Oh, well. If he does reach a suitable success level, surely someone else will write about him or his films. Sure hope they do a good job. Hate to see his blood flowing from the same wounds.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea I agree, and you'll see I !voted with "no prejudice against recreation", but if he had "been made to feel welcome... and his article placed in a "review" status" he would've still buggered off, he was only here to promote himself. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilbur

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

Notability in Question

  • No listing for movies in IMDB
  • No listing for movie at the festival mentioned
  • No listing for individual in cast and crew reference
  • No listings in Google ttonyb1 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michael Wilbur, Broken Radio and Andrew Tyrrell (now deleted) all seem connected and all not notable. This looks like a planned campaign and is obvious it's using the Wiki to give them credibility. There are no third party independent references.--Artypants (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, he's not in the references and I can find no confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not Delete"- IMDB only posts in-production movies from major production companies (dreamworks, universal, etc.) and not local. Local films are only accepted upon release and certificate of release, and a fee which has been paid if you want a copy of the receipt as proof. I have my writers guild membership number if you would like to see that as a credible source, as well as the registration of broken radio with the writeres guild of america. As for no existance in the listings from without a box, I stated that it had recieved honorable mention in the festival, meaning it was given that title but not accepted into the screenings, thusly it would not be listed. The providence film festival is a private film festival perfromed at providence college in providence, ri and I have in print files proving its award on that if you wish for me to reference, and or scan in for reference those. AS or ghost hunters the site I claimed to be not credible, I joined the crew in late 2008 as an interning prodiction assitant for the new season and will be credited upon the upon coming 2009-2010 season begining on March 18th and thusly I posted the first site to have courage of said credits. Again, I have the paper work signed and dated by the shows producers as well as pilgrim films declaring my employment as an intern. I also have my certificates of awards won by the films I have produced, as well as links to either the film it self in some that I have only produced and links to trailers of other films in which I have directed and produced. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This very much looks like he is using the Wiki to make himself look important and successful, so as to impress people, and if he has been given the opportunity to be an “interning prodiction assitant” (interning production assistant) on the programme Ghost Hunters, then it is even more clearer that the Wiki is being used to impress them. This is not what the Wiki is about. To date, he has done nothing that would class as being notable on the Wiki, and it doesn’t help with him Blitzing Editors, I have replied to him on his talk page User talk:Mwilbs. The Wiki is not for people on an ego trip from nowhere land.--Artypants (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas it seems I've upset Michael Wilbur or Mwilbs as he is known. You can see his very mature rant on my User talk:Artypants. I think this proves the true reason behind his article.--Artypants (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, those who had not read the first comment by fartyinmypanties over here, you can see his very mature comment to me after I had left a civil comment asking him to talk to my face and not ignore any comment I made towards him. As a result things have escalated and action will be taken on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I will now be hearing from, quote: "my agency of william morris' law firms." Mwilbs has made it clear he will also be going against WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. A very nice person indeed. My reply is on my talk page. ttonyb1 had asked that we put a bit of perspective on the "issue", which I totally agree with. For this reason I shall not contribute any more to this AfD, but my vote of Delete remains. Wiki Editors should never be threatened.--Artypants (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Artypants. ArcAngel (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for reasons listed above by everyone. Dream Focus 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY back to author User:Mwilbs. When verifiable notability exists, bring it on back. I can accept that he has made several student films and one of them recieved an honorable mention at a film festival, but User:Mwilbs needs to understand that simply having done so does not mean an article need exist about him on Wiki. If he and his films get a few nice reviews or write-ups, then that would be a different story. And on or not-on IMDB means nothing, as it is already accepted that he has made these films and simply being on IMDB does not confer any notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per reasons listed above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 03:02
  • Delete and salt. Non-notable and self advertising. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G1 - nonsense J.delanoygabsadds 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munim Mohsin

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

I had marked this as a speedy, g3 (vandalism) because it seems to contain very dubious information. My speedy tag was removed by an anonymous IP, so I am now moving it to AfD. Specifically, the article contains very dubious claims such as "Munim Mohsin is a robot created n the megacity of Dhaka, Bangladesh", and the "robots claim to fame was for calling Syhletis 'the scum of the earth'. This was followed by week long protests all over the world..." More so, there is no complaince with WP:N, and no references at all have been provided. Aka042 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedy if possible. This article is nonsense. Note these statements from the article:
    • "Munims claim to fame was when he claimed all Sylhetis are the scum of the earth."
    • "President Obama had even stepped in and wrote a book about his experiences and thoughts on the matter."
    • "John McCain adopted another Bangladeshi."
    • "This story has been greatly exaggerated and is not to be taken seriously."
•••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--it's a joke, and it's not funny. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Genetic diversity. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Distribution

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

Not notable, hoax. Its a science description from the book I Am Legend about a zombie virus, see the first edit. Later edits were just people deleting the zombie part. Habanero-tan (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf's Day

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

Non-notable and unsourced alternate name for Steak and Blow Job Day, or as the the Toronto radio station is calling it, Steak and Sex Day. Note that neither of the two more-widely-known names have articles written about them. Absolutely no support for the "Olaf's Day" name; delete as unverifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense. This entire article appears to be based upon a throwaway joke line from a CNN show in which someone mentioned "Steak and sex day." Also the joke had no mention of an "Olaf's Day". •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only fractionally better than a typical MADEUP topic. Sgroupace (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator is not advocating deletion, and AFD is not where we discuss merges. Non-admin closure. Powers T 21:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho

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

Notability, merge with List of school pranks - Habanero-tan (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Raebareli#Schools. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Vision School

New Vision School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have nominated this article for deletion as it does not provide a neutral point of view, the article does not cite its sources and is not encyclopedia quality. Panpanman (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC). EDIT: After the major cleanup from TerriersFan, the reasons for nomination are no longer valid and I will withdraw my vote for AfD. The New Vision School article may remain as a stub. Panpanman (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the reasons cited by the nominator are not per se reasons to delete, the sources don't seem to be particularly reliable and I don't see any true assertation of notability. It's just a small private school. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Raebareli#Schools where the school is already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by TerriersFan. Considering the dearth of information in the article, and in the absence of sources, there's not much point in maintaining this as a separate article. However, the proposed destination article section is an unannotated list; if this material is to be merged there, the Schools section Raebareli needs to be expanded to an annotated list. --Orlady (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bible

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

Teleshopping presenter. Although there seem to be quite a log of references sprinkled throughout, the only ones which actually refer to Jeff Bible are his MySpace[27] and his own website[28]. I have searched online for some independent references for this article but discovered none.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sin-Jin Smyth

Sin-Jin Smyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Berry

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

The NN star of a NN made-for-the-Net series. Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete The only source appears to be her own website. Unless anyone finds another this fails WP:WEB and WP:BLP hands down. FlyingToaster 17:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as borderline A7, but I declined speedy so it can be discussed here. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Many of the keeps are likely socks, there is consensus to delete. Xclamation point 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Pleitez

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

Article is about non-notable political aide. OCNative (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that there are no articles for any of the also-rans in any of the five previous articles on special elections in California for Congress:
(the exception being in the 50th, but in that election, Kaloogian and Morrow had been state legislators before running and Turner was in the NFL - those three are notable by virtue of being state legislators and an NFL player not because they ran for Congress). OCNative (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a congressional candidate, which clears the bar as far as notability goes. I'd keep. --Weebot (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete. He is indeed running for the seat (assuming Hilda Solis gets confirmed and the whole special election happens, which is not a sure thing at this point), but he is a long-shot and is not one of the leading candidates (Gil Cedillo and Judy Chu are). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Changing my position, due to WP:PEOPLE's guideline of: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" I'm not convinced the coverage is significant yet. The fact that everything written about the subject has been from the three WP:SPA/WP:COI accounts User:Gmuny11, User:Lealspeed, and User:Omrecinos, reinforces this view. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Convinced ? "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The requirements of Significant Coverage has been met according to the notability guidelines. User:omrecinos —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Primary notability guidelines, met. Coverage is available from reliable sources. Candidate is recognized as contender for the seat of 32nd Congressional in California. Media sources are independent of subject. Including Obama Transition review information, interviews by KNBC, KVEA, and KMEX on January 10, 2009. This coverage should be presumed substantive, regardless if it currently is not more or greater than other candidates in the political race. WP:N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2eXcL (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this account created day of this comment. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Question of whether he's the favorite to win is different from whether or not his campaign is being covered by independent reliable sources which it certainly is at this point. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 carterblanchard(talk) 09:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this account also created day of this comment. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important race and Pleitez has attracted substantial media and community attention. User:OCNative has a perceived bias against the candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viapastrengo (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel_Pleitez (4th nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viapastrengo (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Second World. Xclamation point 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Second World

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

No notability asserted. Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handful Productions

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

Non-notable theatrical group. Does not meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find mentions of the group, and event listings but not coverage about the group. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also find only trivial mentions. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue. Please list at WP:MFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know

AfDs for this article:
User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know (edit | [[Talk:User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unneeded page from a user that serves no purpose to the encyclopedia Shnitzled (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a namesapce page! The user in question seems somewhat active, just hasn't done much with the page in question. Why is this even nominated?Vulture19 (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roelstra

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

Contested prod, the reason was Non-notable fictional character. To this, I add that there are no sources and the entire article is writen from the in-universe perspective. --Tone 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Tone 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for Cobra 12 - Full Limit

Alert for Cobra 12 - Full Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and possible hoax. A google search for "Alert for Cobra 12" finds nothing outside Wikipedia [29], though a few Asian websites are selling something called "Alarm for Cobra 12 Team 2" [30]. Katja Woywood is not credited with this supposed film on IMDb [31] (though she is credited with a 2003 TV series called "Alarm für Cobra 11 - Einsatz für Team 2"), while director Stefan Levin (article deleted) isn't listed at all [32]; the closest thing to this on IMDb is "Alarm für Cobra 11 - Burning Wheels" [33], but that's clearly not the same. Finally, a google search for "Alarm für Cobra 12" [34] finds little of relevance, though the top hit is a home made parody video on MySpace [35]. External links in the article offer nothing. Prod removed by IP without explanation. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vocalists

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

Superfluous, and the list would be huge if filled. Category:Singers is more than enough. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 11:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I agree that lists and categories can both be useful, but I don't see the potential for a list that casts as wide a net as this one. As a navigation tool, a list like this is not useful. It's no exaggeration to say that we have thousands of articles about persons who are singers, and that after such a list is (inevitably) split into A, B, C, each article would have hundreds of entries. If I'm looking for a particular needle, a smaller haystack is still a haystack. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this list topic is too broad in scope to be useful. JamesBurns (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Singers. I would say merge and redirect to List of singers, but that is just a redirect to the category, so we may as well redirect this to the same category. Though if this were made into a "list of lists", it would be acceptible as a stand-alone list per the guideline. DHowell (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J.Donnelly

Patrick J.Donnelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was previously listed for speedy deletion, but he depth of the hoax was expanded claim notability. No such person exists. All the cited sources go to top-level domains. And "Tosca, the Opera", please!!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Btw, there is actually someone called Patrick J. Donnelly but he's not an actor. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it appears there is a Patrick J.Donnelly! But I still think the article deserves to be deleted as non-notable. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this may not be a hoax - if you type "Donnelly" into the search box on the Spotlight website an entry does come up, but it only gives the address of the casting agency. My reason to delete is that the parts listed - "Irish peasant." "Soldier in firing squad," "Stand-in double" etc. - are too minor to give notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notabilty grounds per JohnCD. I don't think it is a hoax, to be honest. The section on his service in the Irish army (I presume) is completely unsourced of course, but it does sound entirely plausible for someone serving in the Lebanon as part of UNIFIL, as many Irish soldiers of the time would have done. He is listed at Irish Equity. But unfortunately, it's his acting career that would be generate the reasons for inclusion here and the subject just doesn't seem to meet WP:N. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably not a hoax, but a non notable actor. Snappy (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY back to author at User:Norton3600/sandbox/Patrick J. Donnelly as he has specificaly stated on the article itself that he is new and needs time to bring it into line. Userfication will allow him the time. If it gets improved, it can come back. If not... well, he has shown the interest in learning and that is an appreciable quality. He may not know how or to whom or even what a userfication is. If it is userfied, he may need to be shown just where and how to continue working it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a living person? Assuming it's not a hoax that is! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this Donnelly guy is a great lad but I really can't see him qualifying the notability criteria any time soon. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Man, One Woman

One Man, One Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. No evidence of charting (or even of release) in country stated. Not likely to develop beyond a stub. Paul75 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. Songs that won Academy Awards are de facto notable. This AfD has a snowball's chance of coming to a consensus for deletion. Non-admin closure. Powers T 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or Later (Madonna song)

Sooner or Later (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album track only. Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The song won an Academy Award - that sounds pretty notable to me. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Award winning song clearly meeting WP:NSONGS criterion 2. JulesH (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep An Academy Award winning song written by Stephen Sondheim. What more can you ask for? Pastor Theo (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons above.--Cbradshaw (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. But change name to (Sondheim song) because 1) he received Oscar, main focus of notability and 2) songs should be associated with authors, tracks to recording artists & this is about song not track. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. After weighing the arguments presented by each side, I've found consensus to be that this crash was minor and fails NOTNEWS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

News incident with no lasting encyclopedic notability, fails WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a Brit, but it still doesn't pass the policy and the guideline stated. I also find your assumption of bad faith rather concerning. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do feel free to keep those concerns to yourself. Shnitzled (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, too, am concerned, Shnitzled, and your tone isn't really helpful, either. We try very hard to work against regionalism...I personally have AfD'd a number of similar incidents that have happened in the U.S....far more so than have happened in other nations, in fact. Focus on the issue...it does or it does not meet the minimum criteria. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adequately covered in both London City Airport and BA CityFlyer articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as per proposer. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is notable, it seems as though as if anything that happens in Britain the Americans turn their backs too. It is notable that's why I think we should keep it, as people do like to know this information. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a US airliner did the same thing and got an article I would nominate it here. There is nothing unusual, unlike in the 2007 Dash 8 landing gear incidents or JetBlue Airways Flight 292, nor is there something like a fatality or a suggestion of poor legislation or design error playing a role. While I sympathise with the argument that we can keep such articles and see if laws are changed or aircraft redisigned, in reality too many airliners have such crashes for this to be feasable, with recreation if they become notable being the way to go. See also WP:CRYSTAL Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but I seriously believe that if this had happened in the U.S.A. you would keep it, so I'm sorry but I seriously believe there is a foul play here. Prove me wrong by keeping it. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joey, you are absolutely wrong. Here are 3 that happened in the US that I either nominated or !voted delete in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 528, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 268, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. You are missing the point entirely...an incident doesn't become notable simply because it happens in the UK rather than in the US. It is non-notable because a nose gear collapse just isn't notable...it's a minor incident that simply doesn't rise to encyclopedic level. No one was killed, and the plane is easily repairable. Life goes on. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect Joey? They have so many articles here on sports significant only to the USA, but when it comes to international sports, they get deleted for being "irrelevant". Typical. Shnitzled (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do you a deal. I'll find a similar incident from the US and write an article - hopefully this weekend, but if not then not for a week as I will be away. I'll then take it to AfD and we'll see what happens. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about an article on the helicopter crash involving Sun Myung Moon which happened late last year? You could find lots of press coverage. Redddogg (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look to be prefectly fair, the JetBlue Airways Flight 292 incident was practically the same when you look at it. It had nose gear problems, made a crash-landing, stopped on runway, emergency response, passengers & crew onboard and they all survived, so tell me where the difference is to BA CityFlyer Flight 8456. All I want here right now is to show the world things which are happening here in Britain too, not just America, I ain't got problems with Americans but the thing that annoys me is that we can't have any incident like JetBlue 292 on wiki. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JetBlue can only be considered notable due to the insane press coverage. The thing was broadcast live etc. Otherwise, I would advise that article's deletion, and I might add that it is only barely notable in my book. As for the helicopter crash, it meets WP:AVIATION as it involves a very notable person and I would not even nominate such an article here (although someone else might). I will go out and look for a landing gear incident from America, create it and nominate it at some point. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was, but this incident made top news all over U.K. (so really it too got insane press coverage), some parts of Europe and North America. Therefor it's just fits into notable in my books too. So to be honest I agree with Joey on this one. Zaps93 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To come back to my offer, will you agree that this American incident is comparable in notability (although somewhat different in circumstances)? If so, I will sort out an article and I very much doubt it would sirvive an AfD. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, An incident involving the nosewheel of same aircraft type, at the same airport happened last week. The article ia an important historically should there be (God forbid) a design or engineering issue. I agree with the general sentiments about American-Zionist control. Mohammed Azeem, London, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.245.29 (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, I am fascinated by the idea that the nomination of this article for deletion could be part of some 'American-Zionist' conspiracy... as arguments for keeping an article go, that's got to be one of the strangest ones I've read in a long time. :) Robofish (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. Many people fail to understand that wiki is turning to be an initial ref source for serious acadmic studies (they don't cite wiki, but they use it to research for primary sources). This incident may well be of interest for studies in aviation, transportation and even critcal social theories of media and globalization. Therefore it should stay. Oh, and I am a Zionist. There goes the American-zionist conspiracy theory down the drain...--Omrim (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Interestingness is a good essay which talks about why being of interest is not a good measure of how in need we are of an article on something, and as for its academic use, there's WP:USEFUL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your point. I didn't say it is interesting. I did say it is useful, and as per WP:USEFUL, I explained why it is useful. It is important to note such an incident, for ex, for learning patterns of nose gear failures. It is also, as some implied, important incident in distinguishing the responses of different media outlets to differne aviation incidents, and Those are just two examples. It is not just "usefull". It is important piece of information in the documentation of commercial aviation history. Therefore KEEP. --Omrim (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you: "well be of interest for studies in..." (emphasis added). However, I also brought in WP:USEFUL as I suspected that was what you meant. I would not say that you explained why before, merely noting who it would be if use instead of why, but in your last response you did. I disagree, but that's beside the point: you now have a valid argument. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Things happen every day. If you feel, or make that if notable secondary sources feel that the nosewheel of this model airplane is an issue then write an article on that. Redddogg (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Joey Boeing 777 due to the fact that incidents like this are listed on wiki, but for some reason are all American. This incident made no.1 headline in British BBC News and other news, even made American news. If it was the no.1 story therefor it should be listed down as its part of BA CityFlyer's history and LCY history to be precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaps93 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) — Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment can I just remind contributors that this page is to discuss the notability of this incident and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid point at AfD. Also note like the S-92 accident with Sun Myung Moon article which is mentioned in both his and the S-92 articles, nobody is removing it from the CityFlyer or London City article just that it is not notable in its own right to have an article. If you have concerns about other articles then please raise the appropriate AfDs. Also note we are not all Americans on Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say, i'm not saying all contributers are American because I know thats not true, but to be perfectly honest the people trying their damnest to get rid of this article are American (excluding you). So honestly whats the harm in a small article covering a 'major' incident at LCY. It involved wild news coverage, emergency response and hospitalization. Zaps93 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not American, as noted above. I'm a Brit - I come from the country it crashed in. I've never been to the Americas. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this turns into a racial discussion lets all get back to the topic. It was a major thing to happen to the U.K. Nothing like this happened often here. After reading WP:AIRCRASH I have to say I think it just squeezes into notability. Zaps93 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2009
  • Delete - there does not appear to be anything particularly notable about this accident. For contrast, see for instance British Airways Flight 38 - that article was nominated for deletion, but kept as it was the first major accident involving a 777. There doesn't seem to be anything like that we can say about this one; it was simply a flight that suffered landing gear failure, but landed without serious injury. I don't see any lasting newsworthiness here. (And, for the record, I am British.) Robofish (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered by multiple, reliable independent sources, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:Notability. Afroghost (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, says Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Wroooong. Does the word presume tell you anything? If not, then Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline will tell you: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." Afroghost (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? Today is the first time I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability in a few months. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that I have confused Wikipedia:Notability with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have said that it passes Wikipedia:Notability because is does meet the notability criteria. I already know that policies have precedence over guidelines, which is why I stated why I believe the subject passes Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as per proposer. The nationality of the aircraft is not an issue. Rcawsey (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find the notability questionable. No-one died, and only one person was slightly injured. (PS - I'm from the United Kingdom.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People dying does not make a crash notable. It is reliable, independent sources which are required, and what the article has. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Such incidents of commercial jet aircraft are not common (as they shouldn't be) and by British law will generate volumes of government investigation documentation.--Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The flight itself is not notable. If, as was mentioned in the discussion above, there is a pattern involving BA CityFlyer craft, the discussion is better handled at the BA CityFlyer article and not at flight-specific articles, since the problems would be airline-wide and not limited to a specific flight or plane. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, moreover it is good illustration of London City's steep glideslope. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think London City's steep glideslope is an important topic (and it might be) please write an article about that. Redddogg (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable about this hard landing, even if it did occur in a place where English is spoken. American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc. air incidents are no more notable than those anywhere else in the world. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor incident. If anyone can find other very minor incidents they should nominate them for deletion and discussion. Spikydan1 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "crashed slightly" "one minor injury" - this is not of the "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" required by WP:NOTNEWS. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:News articles is an essay, unlike Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is a policy, unlike Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline. Afroghost (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the coverage is announcements, sports or tabloid journalism, and it's not hard to find multiple sources which do not count as breaking news in this list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You selectively quoted from the policy. Your quote is one example of several of what not to include in Wikipedia. The policy also states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", and this requirement is not satisfied by this article as this is truly a minor, minor incident. Afroghost (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this a minor incident? It is major enough to be covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a crash, not notable in the slightest. Can think of half a dozen similar incidents over recent years, none of which are included on Wikipedia! The only difference with this incident is that it happened recently, Wikipedia is not a news service. SempreVolando (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press coverage only because of major fatal crash in immediate past. Accidents that don't happen aren't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has multiple sources so it passes Wikipedia:Notability, which also states that notability is not temporary. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has many sources therefor it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Also it may become useful information within the near future. Thanks Awkwardwalker (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and what others have already said. Afroghost (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft. My reasoning is: I share the concerns about NOT#NEWS, but I think that after this has stopped being news, it'll still be a marginally notable incident. However, I don't feel there's enough actual content to justify a separate article, and I don't feel it could be expanded to full article status because there isn't enough to say.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - merge not possible - that list has a dedicated guideline, which specifies that all entries must have existing wiki articles. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - so merge it to an alternative list. If no suitable place exists on Wikipedia, then I'll change my !vote to a reluctant keep until a suitable merge location appears or the guidelines for that list change.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the ideal place to merge it to would be the airline's article, and possibly also the article on the airport. If design is an issue, the aircraft type as well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, minor accident. If it's any consolation, I tried to write an article about the time I dinged my car fender, but the American Zionist conspiracy deleted that one too. SkipSmith (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely minor incident. Regardless of the number of newspaper articles about this topic, WP is not a newspaper, nor a news aggregator. -Atmoz (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by sources is how notability is gained. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct. If it is covered in February 2009 sources, it is news. If we think that it's notable enough that it will still be covered by sources in February 2010, or in the chapter of a book in 2019, than we say that it is notable enough for an article of its own. Subjective, sure, but that's how the consensus is determined. I'm not asking anybody to answer this question, but I think we have to ask "would this be notable ten years from now?" Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those defending this article, perhaps you could read WP:AIRCRASH and then come back and explain why this crash is notable by that standard? SkipSmith (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm inclined to disregard WP:AIRCRASH in this case. It's an essay, so I feel it has to yield to guidelines and policies.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for what it's worth, WP:AIRCRASH was built from a long term study of AfDs on aircraft incidents, which tried to incorporate all the typical arguments for and against articles of various degrees of severity. Thus, the attempt was to incorporate consensus as developed by the community in multiple AfDs. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I do understand that, but I feel we're dealing with Wikipedia: Five pillars fundamentals here. This matter received very significant coverage in multiple, reputable, independent sources, and those sources are cited. Therefore it's inappropriate to remove the content from Wikipedia. I feel that the only question that remains is where the information should be held--as a separate article or as part of a more comprehensive one? I realise WP:AIRCRASH is being cited in good faith but I don't feel it can be allowed to disrupt the process of building an encyclopaedia. -- I also feel there's some inadvertent blindness in our American friends to exactly how important this incident is to the British perspective, though I don't agree with the very strongly-put remarks at the beginning of this AfD.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there really is a problem with the landing gear then maybe this artcle should be condenced and used to create a section on BAe 146. Or if other landing gear incidents can't be found then it shoud just be a sentence or two on BA CityFlyer and BAe 146. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment I've seen lots of references to WP:AIRCRASH here, and so I thought I'd explicitly list how I think it rates against those criteria
    General criteria:
    1. I'm no expert but based on comments here seem to be suggesting that landing gear failure of this type is not unusual, but the amount of media coverage of it is
    2. Neither the article nor anybody here appears to be claiming that anyone onboard was notable, so I think it's fair to say nobody on board was.
    3. It's probably too early for air crew to be dismissed/reprimanded over this, but I've not seen any speculation that they will be. At this point it's probably fair to say that they probably wont be. It is definitely too early for maintenance staff to be in the firing line, and this will still be the case when this afd runs out of time. For now I'd say treat it as if nobody is being fired/reprimanded but revisit the issue if this changes in the future.
    Air carrier criteria:
    1. The incident did involve a scheduled carrier, but it did not result in serious injury or loss of life. This would seem then to be one mark for inclusion and one mark against.
    2. Too early to say whether this will change anything, so assume it doesn't unless and until it actually does, at which point this can be reconsidered.
    3. This was not a hijacking and did not involve any sort of military or terrorist action
    4. This does not appear to be either the first or worst accident for the airline or airliner.
    This was not a military aircraft, so the criteria for these do not apply
    General/Private aviation criteria:
    1. There doesn't appear to be any unusual circumstances involved
    2. There does not appear to have been anybody notable on board
    3. It is too early to say whether changes to the industry will result
    4. News coverage was extensive at the time, but the only thing I've seen since is a small regional news item about the airport reopening. Compare this to the continuing coverage of Continental Connection Flight 3407. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my comments above I'm !voting merge into airline, airport and (maybe) airliner articles, keep for now but re-examine in 1-2 months so questions about continued coverage and lasting impact (if any) can be properly answered. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I'd forgotten this already before you reminded me of it again... not a single teeny-weeny-iddy-biddy ounce of a death, word of dramatic landing or any pilots being given the keys to London. I would however reverse that entirely had the plane splash-landed in the Thames. Oh wait, that wouldn't be very original at all – make that Loch Ness instead. Of course that's the danger with a verdict of redirecting to re-examine later – the re-examining bit tends to not happen. ;) --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very notable...the airline was on CNN, the World Wide Web and aren't all airline accidents or incidents notable? Whenaxis (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep - "Strong delete" is a bit harsh, the accident has been on every single reputable news source, it caused a major international airport to be closed for a day, and, it highlights a dangerous design fault with the aircraft concerned. I would like to also add that if this article is nominated for deletion, I think it would be fair to also nominate JetBlue Airways Flight 292 for deletion as well, as to quote User: Candlewicke, not a single teeny-weeny-iddy-biddy ounce of a death occured on that flight either. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled? Afroghost (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, who are you may I ask? You are new here, and you are accusing me of suckpuppetry. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see quite a bit of discussion of JetBlue Flight 292 in this discussion; I don't agree with using the same standard for both articles, and here's why.
I can't say that I remember the flight number, exactly, but I sure as hell remember the JetBlue incident. Not, particularly, because of the incident itself, but because of the media coverage. I remember being convinced we were about to see a catastrophe unfold on live national television, mainly because the reporters' reaction was along the lines of "ohmigod ohmigod ohmigod OHMIGOD OHMIGOD THE PLANE IS GOING TO CRASH OHMIGOD OHMIGOD". So I find the article on the subject less interesting as a document of a fairly minor incident than as a document of the media's sensationalization of a potential accident, if you will. I've given it a cursory glance and feel that it could use some work in that regard, but that's why I'd vote to keep it.
Granted, I'm speaking from the States, but I don't recall nearly that level of sensationalism surrounding this accident. It was picked up after it had happened; once people realized how comparatively minor it was they dropped it again. There was no build-up to some horrific and spectacular finish; there was no anticipation of a fiery end. There was just a brief amount of reporting on a potentially notable story; once it was established that there was nothing sensational about it, it was dropped.
That's my two cents' worth, at any rate. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have not dropped it yet. The number of sources returned by Google News is growing (some added a few hours ago). --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Even so, I don't see that it's become sensationalized, which was my point about the other incident. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I don't think JetBlue Airways Flight 292 should have its own article either. Perhaps both articles should be merged into a longer list or article. SkipSmith (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion is noted, but that article survived two AfDs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These type of articles, when containing detailed, useful information like an aircraft FIN number, flight number and date are good for reference if an aircraft or line is a troubled ship or type. While it doesn't result in loss of life, it was an incident major enough to alter transport traffic flow of a world centre of commerce for many hours. The crash section may not apply or could be ambiguous as other ships of this type have had undercarriage issues during initial investigations of a fatal accident. While not every time the finish gets scratched should be included, if the same logic was used here, no one could use Wikipedia to see a pattern of problems with the DHC8 undercarriage which would leave mentioning of groundings seem sudden rather than something that was the result of many incidents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SirDeath (talk • contribs) — SirDeath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Drive (Video game)

Sex Drive (Video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article tagged by The ed17 (talk · contribs) as being a possible hoax, no hits reported on google or on gamespot. Additionally, fails WP:N and WP:V on CRYSTAL grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION ALL USERS: The user who created this article had registered an inappropriate user name for the user account, and I subsequently blocked the guy on user name grounds after I notified the user in question of the afd. Therefore, if you see an isp address or a very new user editing this afd there is a chance it could be the article's author. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an obvious hoax. ArcAngel (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative identity disorder in fiction

Dissociative identity disorder in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure of the appropriateness of this article. While Wikipedia isn't censored, it should at least be a bit tactful. I'm not sure what encyclopedic purpose this list serves. It's an IPC article about a mental disorder. There's also a danger that some of the listed examples aren't DID but something else (most notably, Willow from Buffy: if my girlfriend got her brain sucked by the devil incarnate, I'd be pretty pissed; mind you, I never watched the show so I can't verify one way or the other). As the article notes, it is a notable concept, but that said, I don't think it's worthy of its own article. Maybe a sourced section in the DID article which discusses how the disorder has been represented in the media... but a IPC article? I don't think so. Sceptre (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Turn into a proper list. I don't think there's a civility concern especially because it is focused on fiction. If it were a list of people with the disorder there might be a debate there. Clearly there are some inclusion issues since it's a pretty common plot devise, but I don't think those issues are particularly damaging. When I look at the article now I just see a list. I'm not sure there's enough content to make it a topic itself. That's convenient though since there's not any non-list content included now anyway. So as a topic I don't think it's notable stand alone, but as a list I think it's fine. Shadowjams (talk)
    • If a subject is encyclopedic, then it's encyclopedic enough to be prose. Lists are basically an admission there are not enough sources to write a structured article. WillOakland (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right on the first count, but wrong on the second. Lists are obviously acceptable under WP policy and I don't quite understand your statement that lists indicate the absence of a structured article. There are plenty of examples of lists that have plenty of content for full articles, and yet remain useful as lists. For a good example see List_of_states. In this case the list is a sub of the parent article, Dissociative Identity Disorder. This is, as written, clearly a list. Frankly I don't know the nuance of WP:List policy, so perhaps my statement that it could be a list but not prose was incorrect. But in that case I think it's a keep as a list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lists created to organize and index prose articles are certainly allowed. That's not what this article is. WillOakland (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the original research in favor of covering the subject in the parent article. WillOakland (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how it's original research since it's a collection of objective works that appears to be relatively non-controversial. It might be better sourced, but that's not the same as original research. And while it'd be acceptable to include it in the original article, this list is pretty long and I don't see the advantage to putting it in the original. It should have a link, perhaps with some prose, in the original linking it to this list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's original research because it doesn't work from sources about DID in fiction, but directly from the fiction itself. If you thought I was saying that the list be moved back to the main article, you missed the point. WillOakland (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is impressive. However, it is really just a collection of information directly from primary sources. Not an encyclopedia about DID in fiction, with secondary sources, as WP requires -- or should require. Post it to another website, there is life outside of WP. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment to both WillOakland and Northwestgnome: Your definitions of WP:OR are too expansive. As I read through the list I don't see an interpretation of symptoms that culminate in a DID diagnosis--that would certainly be OR if there wasn't a secondary source saying as much. But in a book like Sybil, it's not original research to say the book was about someone with DID (or at least diagnosed as such...I'm not making any comments about whether DID is real as a disease). I don't readily see any "unpublished fact[], argument[], speculation, [or] ideas" here, but if there are they are a small portion of the article. In addition, there are WP:RS provided (some at the bottom) and most of the entries could probably have WP:RS found on them. The fact it's not cited now does not mean it's OR. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any problems with this article can be fixed by editing, therefore per WP:DELETION we should not delete it. JulesH (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no, we can't. "In popular culture" articles which are in list-form like this inherently violate WP:IINFO and WP:5P. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact an article can be improved through editing is not a defacto reason to keep an article. WP:DELETION does not indicate as such. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't presented any evidence that this article is any worse than many of the other 'in fiction' articles that have consenus to remain. Why is it impossible to treat a discussion of this common fictional trope encyclopedically? JulesH (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A widely used concept in fiction, not always that much related to the "real" dissociative identity disorder, therefore this list-like article is appropriate. --Cyfal (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not the real DID, it shouldn't be presented as it is. As I said, there may be room in the parent article for discussion about how it's misrepresented/confused for schizophrenia. But a list article like this is problematic for verifiability, accuracy, and encyclopedicity. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then rename it, e.g. Dissassociated identities in fiction, and add at the top of the article a note that many of the representations differ from the real condition in important ways. See: a problem with the articke that can be fixed by editing. JulesH (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - it's still synthesis. The article needs to be rewritten. At least as a stub. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (userfy). Synthesis. Plain and simple. All very well the idea of rewriting it, but we can't make up topics, just because they may be worthy/plausible/academically viable. I don't see any sources for "Dissociative Identity Disorder in Fiction". If someone can find them and show it's a notable topic, then I'll strike the delete - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of sources available. See Horvitz Literary Trauma ISBN 0791447111, Korhonen Tropes for the Past ISBN 904201718X, [36], [37], Campbell Fiction: 1900 to the 1930s American Literary Scholarship 2004 2002(1):269-307, Hayward Consuming Pleasures ISBN 081312025X, [38]. If we broaden the discussion to any form of multiple personalities, the sources don't need to be medically reliable. JulesH (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if the article is renamed. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on the subject of renaming: I should mention that this is Featured Article on medlab.org :D Or was earlier. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Claiming the right to laziness,) someone (else) needs to turn this into a workable stub if we are to keep. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the rename is a poor choice. Dissociative identity disorder is the DSM name for what is commonly called multiple personality disorder. It's a term of art, and the rephrasing of it, while grammatically correct, alters the reference and makes other claims about the content. It needs to be called a list because that's what it is, but dissassociated identities (unclear if there's any research that uses that term) it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it's OR. Basically, does anyone want to write a stub about this or a related topic? I can't see how we can keep the list, unfortunately, as it's one editor's speculative synthesis. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see discussion above about OR. Shadowjams (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple personalities that are a problem to the protaganist(s) is not the same thing as a Multiple Personality Disorder.
It is OR to state that Dr Hyde suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder, yes. Very post 19th century, in fact.
"Disorder", "Syndrome" or anything of the kind makes the list very much synthesis. There's a topic to be had, but this list with this title isn't it.
I mean, read the first paragraph of Dissociative_identity_disorder and then tell me the diagnosis of Dr Hyde is trivially true.
- Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sufficient number of films and other fictional works have in fact been discussed in just these terms(or the previous versions of the terminology,) by very RSs. Therefor a sourced article is easily possible. Its a little absurd to eliminate something which is a critical commonplace and the very basis of multiple well known works. Sufficient specific sources have been given above. A rename discussion belongs elsewhere--I think using the current name is better, because that will be the term used at this point in everything additional that's published, unless the next DSM changes it again a few years ahead. DGG (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean it up. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think where OR is concerned, an argument in the form of what an article might be is irrelevant, until someone actually changes it. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not according to WP:DELETION it isn't. What the article might practically become is what we should be discussing, not its state as it currently exists. JulesH (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a few observations:
    1. I'm not sure I understand the original argument to delete. Is the OP saying that an IPC article about a mental condition is inherently disrespectful?
    2. It's not unusual for movie or literary roles to be used as examples of personality disorders in intro psych classes ( i.e. borderline, histrionic, etc ), so there can be a use for this type of information.
    3. But as far as DID/MPD, it seems to be used more often as a plot device than implied in the character development, and is usually made very obvious. So I'm on the fence as far as whether this article serves a useful purpose.
    4. The argument about whether an IPC aricle on DID is inherently original synthesis is incorrect. To have original research, the article has to contain or deduce some fact or opinion that is only citable to Wikipedia. The "original research" policy doesn't have anything to do with how the data is organized.
      If you're saying that lack of scholarship dooms this article to be a list of facts, I agree that it does. To turn it into prose without sources would be original research. To keep it as a list of randomly chosen occurrences would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The conclusion is the same either way. WillOakland (talk)
    5. However, some of the individual fictions listed may be original research, if the DID is not plainly obvious in the work and we're the first to suggest it. But a sourced list is possible, WP:DEADLINE applies and see what the critics have to say. Also something like the Howdunit series may show how character development works with DID. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close to the point I was trying to make. Most of the examples of this are made plainly obvious in the works so that deducing a diagnosis is so trivial that it would be absurd to consider them OR. I don't think the nuance of the actual DSM diagnosis has any bearing here either--people know what is meant and that's the focus here. If anything that argument suggests a renaming to multiple personalities and not a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the "usefulness" of this article is not so much in commenting on the real mental disorder, but in the literary criticism field, commenting on the use of multiple personalities as a common plot device. That's the angle most if not all of the references I provided above approach the subject from. JulesH (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and clean up. Not sure OR really applies here. Vartanza (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I am unconvinced this article is unsalvagable. The original synthesis argument does not apply to lists like this, as no novel conclusion is being made. It's plain as day that characters with DID are common in fictional works, and reliable coverage of the issue is extant (see above). Nor is there any immediatist compulsion to delete here; we can afford to give time to articles pertaining to fictional topics to get it right, while the same is not true of BLPs for example. To summarize, this is a topic on which an encyclopaedic article conforming to the five pillars can be written, and there exists no strong rationale to delete. Skomorokh 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Underground Alliance

The Underground Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unremarkable myth, no relevant ghits, no refs, prod turned down -Zeus-uc 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bank puts up a statue of the inventer of the underground drilling machine. This means there must be a network of underground tunnels emanating from the bank. Move to Wikiconspiracy. Redddogg (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. If I had a network of underground tunnels I wanted to keep secret I would not put up a statue that draws attention to them. Redddogg (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a red flag move, obviously :) Delete §FreeRangeFrog 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletean unimportant myth, article looks like a conspiracy theory, not an encyclopaedia entry. Rexfan2 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two of the claimed sources are searchable in Google Books, and neither makes any mention of Greathead.[39][40] That must cast doubt on the other sources presented by the same editor. And by searching in various venues I can't find any publication that mentions both Gilliant and Greathead.[41][42][43][44] I suppose this just means that the conspirators have done a good job of keeping this secret up to now - I'm sure they'll be very annoyed that a Wikipedia editor has finally given the game away after all these years. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:WHATEVER… I mean WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Tennessee (album)

Back to Tennessee (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Very little verifiable info yet, track listing can't be confirmed outside of retail sites such as Amazon. Given Lyric Street's penchant for constantly delaying album releases (just ask Sarah Buxton), and the poor performance of its leadoff single, there is more than a slight chance that this album could end up unreleased, much like Jo Dee Messina's Unmistakable. Either way, there are no sources to verify any of the information, and the Amazon description is not by a professional review and doesn't belong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - appears to have a lot of info regarding the album present. As an added note, I doubt it will be unreleased, TenLbHammer, Cyrus has put out plenty of albums with far more underperforming songs -- ie: Wanna Be Your Joe and Trail of Tears CloversMallRat (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those labels are more tolerant tho. Lyric Street is pretty strict. Josh Gracin led off his second album with a Top 20 hit and it still took him forever and a day to get the album out. Furthermore, if there's a "lot of info" where is it? CMT, GAC, etc. had nothing that amounted to anything more than "it will be released March 2009, blah blah blah yakkidy smakkidy". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ALBUM says you can use Amazon as a source of album art and that you can't use it as a source of reviews. That is the only mention I could find there.--NrDg 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it only just over a month until its release date and redirecting or deleting would just be a waste of time. I think its fine. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now - It passes WP:CRYSTAL but does not now meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. It has coverage, at least a mention at Amazon - Amazon is WP:RS for existence, track listings, planned release dates; but not reviews. The coverage is not "significant" though. However I lean towards keep as I have strong expectations that significant coverage for an album by a notable artist WILL happen and be enough to establish notability. Article is a work in progress and a reasonable expectation that notably will soon be established is, in my judgment, justification for a keep. Article has been tagged with {{notability}} and deletion should be reconsidered if a reasonable amount of time has passed without "significant coverage in independent sources" shown.--NrDg 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Only just over a month until its release date, like Speed of Light. Dennissell (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small loom

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

Basically, all it says is that "a small loom is a loom that is small." Manufacturers etc. distinguish between floor and table looms, but other than that, size is very specifically how wide a cloth can be woven. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would suggest merging it with loom, but, in this instance, it doesn't appear that there would be much here that it would be worthwhile to add to that article. Anaxial (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to loom as possible search term, and redirects are cheap. No content worth merging. -Atmoz (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we should put in large loom too? I'd rather avoid any suggestion that there is some distinct class of "small looms", when there isn't. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but no objection to redirecting to loom (If people think that this is a likely search term... if not just delete). Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it doesn't really have any useful content at all, nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect. Hut 8.5 12:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not provide any specific definition of the subject. How big is a loom that is classified as small? What is the definition of small with regard to looms? The only hint to the definition is that the article states that a small loom is designed to be portable. If that is the definition of a small loom, the article should be titled "portable loom" and then discuss the features of portable looms vs. nonportable looms. As it stands, this article provides no useful information, and also is completely unreferenced. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last request (Alfred Abbas Song)

Last request (Alfred Abbas Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Abbas Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hawaii

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

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was bold redirect to Critical Mass. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 07:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago hold-up

Chicago hold-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little sources and original research. Does not seem notable enough for its own article Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It sounds cool. But not enough info, and no sources, for its own article. Merge to an article on bicycle protests. Redddogg (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Critical Mass I was unable to find sources to establish individual notability.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Follow-up: There is already a couple lines devoted to it in Critical Mass. Merging some content should be OK as long as it is notable and properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bid Waiver

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

WP:NOTDICDEF. It's already tagged for moving to Wiktionary, so by the time this AFD is over it'll be moved and even more dic-def-ish. flaminglawyer 07:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is a possible search term, so it should not be a redlink; but there doesn't appear to be enough there to make an encyclopaedic article.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Margaret O'Neill Eaton. MBisanz talk 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Buchignani

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

Being the last husband of Margaret O'Neill Eaton is not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - some old newspaper coverage exists. Perhaps very minorly notable in his day. The current article offers no more than what's in the Peggy Eaton one, though.  J L G 4 1 0 4  02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Margaret O'Neill Eaton. He seems to be associated with WP:ONEEVENT, but his name is a reasonable search or link term and should take the reader to the article about his notable wife. Pburka (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bannon

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

Unreferenced WP:BIO. Really should be a CSD:G4, but it seems to be a different editor than created the original deleted article. I don't see any sources that weren't there two years ago, though, since the only footnote is to the personal website. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Bannon. THF (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced BLP and lack of notability outside of belonging to that band to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 10:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Themfromspace (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atkinson

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

Writes for minor, regional news publications. The refs do not establish any notability, and facebook does not verify anything. Does not meet wp:bio or wp:creative. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atkinson is the President of the Daily Free Press Alumni Association and a distinguished journalist, as named on The Daily Free Press wikipedia page. It is in my belief that Atkinson -- and his position -- warrant his inclusion. Maybe the references are poor, but I would suggest you refer to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Corporation Divison for more information about Atkinson and his worthwhile nonprofit organization.JoseMartenez (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— [[User:JoseMartenez]|JoseMartenez]]] ([[User talk:JoseMartenez]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JoseMartenez]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Subject very recently added to The Daily Free Press by an anon ip. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DELETION. Nothing in the bio or The Daily Free Press article suggests notability. The article in question makes no mention of a non-profit organization that would make him notable. The line about his bicycle being stolen last year adds to the impression I get that Atkinson or a close friend wrote the bio. Pzavon (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - First of all, this person fails WP:BIO completely. having said that, the article is worded in a way that tries to establish notability based on that single event with the firefighter and his helmet, and the "caused an uproar" claim is not supported by the provided reference. The reference seems to be incorrect anyway, since the "uproar" must have been caused by this, but even if there was an uproar it seems to have been limited to the local level [45], and it's just WP:ONEEVENT anyway. The rest of the references are also irrelevant and not WP:V at all. I'm sure he did a good job at the Daily Free Press, but that's not not enough. Given that the author maybe got confused and provided an incorrect reference, I'd invite him to update the article to try and establish that this reporter is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Failing that, I'd say delete. §FreeRangeFrog 01:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would disagree with this judgment. I believe that Mr. Atkinson's credentials speak for themselves. He has written for the Union Leader, the Columbus Dispatch and the Bangor Daily News, among other newspapers. How can those be considered small newspapers? JoseMartenez (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Atkinson wrote for the Union-Leader, which is not a minor regional newspaper, but, in fact, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire and one of the largest in New England.71.232.6.80 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) — 71.232.6.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Merely writing for a notable newspaper doesn't meet wp:creative or wp:bio. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Writing for a notable newspaper should merit notability, but it doesn't. This person apparently has done nothing notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Atkinson has broken stories that have made a national impact. His story on the Newton firefighter who painted the American flag on his helmet raised freedom of speech questions, particularly whether a public employee has the right to display symbols of patriotism even if it violates a city department's dress code.71.232.6.80 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any sources provided outside of the Boston area in the article. That isn't particularly national in terms of impact. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLIB

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

Still no references, no assertion of notability (WP:V / WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.22 Cheetah

.22 Cheetah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no references, nothing to show that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. (Speedy?) Good faith nomination, no doubt, of a terribly underreferenced stub--miracle it wasn't speedied, perhaps. But this is the best-selling wildcat cartridge in the world, more than 4,000 fps, accurate over long range...gunlovers and varmint killers all over the world spooge over this. OK, I don't care for guns, but this product is notable--as you'll see, I hope, when you have a look at the new and improved article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been adequately updated.Vulture19 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere (maybe .22, maybe List of rifle cartridges, maybe Wildcat cartridge). All mentions are passing in the article's references. Many types of ammo have separate WP pages but unless there's a special precedent here I don't see how WP:N is met nor is there enough info. at most of these pages to justify splitting for length. If no suitable rd candidate is found, I would say weak delete. JJL (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Updated, informative, precedent exists for articles covering wildcat cartridges provided they merit mention in the literature. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It doesn't seem particularly important, but it has been improved enough to avoid the chopping block. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an article such as suggested above. It does not rate its own article. --Stormbay (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Fairly well known wildcat, despite having a problem with eating barrels at a tender age. Could use some additional detail being added to the article, but the article is now a good start with cites. Yaf (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kilrathi . MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilrathi War

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

Gamecruft, written in an in-universe style like a game guide. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wing Commander (franchise), the game series article. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erk. I really don't know what to do with this one. The problem here is that one of the things that made Wing Commander notable was that it was one of the first game series to have a detailed story that unfolded as the game progressed. And there are 12 games and 10 or so novels, a film and a TV series all set in this shared universe. That makes the plot detail described here important background that's necessary for understanding all of these stories. But, that said, I haven't been able to find any sources that provide anything other than plot summary. My personal opinion is that a plot summary article like this is fine, and I would suggest WP:IAR applied here, but I know there are plenty of others who think that such articles are not acceptable, so I doubt that suggestion will fly. So I'll wait to see what others suggest, but I suggest keep for now. JulesH (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any merge or redirect is the same as delete. You couldn't preserve that information on any other article. I see nothing wrong with the article. We aren't running out of server space, and no one would stumble upon it that wasn't looking for it, so no reason not to have it. It hurts no one, and will provide reading entertainment to many. Dream Focus 16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kilrathi. The "Kilrathi War" article is currently purely plot summary, and while it's a competent plot summary its scope is too narrow to really justify having a separate article devoted to it (a fictional period of time covering only a portion of the series). The article on the Kilrathi is currently purely descriptional, and does nothing to describe the race's role in the series. Putting this plot summary there will fix both articles. Nifboy (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Kilrathi article would be then too long, and the Kilrathi War article has a lot of things involving humans in it. Dream Focus 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then make room for it. I'm amazed the Kilrathi article is so long without talking about the Kilrathi War or any of the games. Nifboy (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The only reason the nom gave for deletion that has a policy basis was "game guide". It ain't that, so no valid reason for deletion. The other comments are all reasons to clean up. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Perhaps a better term would be "plot summary". However, since it has no basis in the real world, I don't see how it deserves an article more than the plots of other large games. A merge wouldn't be out of the question as long as it stays encyclopedic.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that none of that is a reason to delete. WP:PLOT can be a reason to reduce the amount of plot or add other things, but not a reason to delete. There may be problems with WP:N, but no one has mentioned that, including the nom. So we have no policy based reason for deletion. It's hard to defend an article against charges that are true (too much plot) but not relevant to the issue (deletion). Thus the speedy keep. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or transwiki per Nifboy. SharkD (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Kilrathi looks like it goes into too much in-universe detail as is and needs to be condensed. Merging there might prove feasible once condensed to a proper size. In addition, merging those two and Terran Confederation into a Universe of Wing Commander article might be another option. Pagrashtak 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No shortage of space on the wikipedia. If something doesn't fit in the main article, have a side page for it. Also, for those who wish to merge information, please attempt to put all relevant information on just one page, and see how much you have to edit out. Wikipedia should be detailed articles, not just brief useless summaries with no way of actually explaining things properly. How about making a page for the merged content, and then seeing how it turns out. If it looks good, then you can renominate all the pages for deletion you believe are no longer needed. Too often I see pages deleted, with a vote to merge, and no one bothers to merge any of the information over at all. Dream Focus 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note- Not an issue of space so much as relevance and clutter. Sure, it can support a trillion more articles, but that would defeat the point of an encyclopedia.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of the wikipedia? The overwhelming majority of articles are for entertainment things, people just read it because they enjoy it. They have a pie chart somewhere showing what most of the wikipedia hits are far, and entertainment sections get far more hits than anything educational. So the majority of articles on the wikipedia, and the majority of the ones people go to, would never be found in a regular encyclopedia. Its here to entertain, not to impress anyone. Dream Focus 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dream Focus, it seems you have a problem with wikipedia policy, not this article's compliance with the policy. AfDs are not the place to discuss the usefulness of items like WP:PAPER and WP:IINFO. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia
Someone mentions it is clutter, then this is the place to respond to that comment. Have you never been to an AFD before? People discuss their opinions on why something should be here, or not, and the reasons why. Dream Focus 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typoglycemia

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

Delete: This article is patent nonsense, just an Internet joke email. It was previously AfD'ed as keep in 2005, but I think under current standards it should be deleted as both unecyclopedic and non-notable. RossPatterson (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question While the word may not be real, the study that's being discussed is widespread and well-known and should be covered somewhere. Do we cover it somewhere already? If not, this might need a rename and some cuts. - Mgm|(talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I'd agree about "widespread" - a Google search for "The Significance of Letter Position in Word Recognition" finds a palty 92 hits, mostly either quotes of the joke or copies of this article. There are several references to the Rawlinson 2007 article (based on his 1976 thesis), but that's a pretty poor showing for anything claiming to be an Internet meme. RossPatterson (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as memes go this one appears to have gained some traction (per gsearch) [46], [47]. JJL (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching for this article's title isn't really the best approach. As pointed out in the prior discussion, the name is not mentioned in sources, and the article would be better renamed. Ironically, when I was researching heterography and homography just recently, I came across several sources that discussed research into the mechanisms of reading, with studies done on children and on dyslexics.

    The real problem here is that we have a article by a made-up title that spends all of its time debunking a popular myth about non-existent research, rather than an article by a good title that tells readers about the real scientific research that has actually been done on these particular workings of the human brain. An informative article, possibly several, on subjects such as word recognition, phonological mediation, the dual-route hypothesis, backward recognition masking, and the like, that report the actual cognitive science would be a far better resource for debunking the myth. (We are also lacking the orthographic autonomy hypothesis and other related cognitive neuropsychoogy subjects, although we do have the word superiority effect and the missing letter effect.) This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that we are creating, after all.

    Of course, as demonstrated by heterography and homography, we don't need deletion to get from here to there. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or rename (weak keep): probably not enough for its own article, and certainly not under its current name, but perhaps it could be linked or included as an example of an Internet meme, or, as other users have suggested, move the properly researched parts to a more appropriate place. IByte (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Comment - I agree this is not encyclopedic, but it's funny and it is notable. Perhaps giving it a different name would help, as I'm sure people object to it less for being a meme and more on the grounds that the title is way too close to an existing medical condition. §FreeRangeFrog 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "I agree this is not encyclopedic, but it's funny" is not a valid argument for retention. I've deleted the first paragraph of the article, as it was a copyvio of a published book. Deor (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I just think it's cute. And it is notable. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted Deor's paragraph deletion, as it appears the book lifted the text from the article, not the other way around. That doesn't change my opinion - this article still deserves deletion. RossPatterson (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It shows something of interest, which belongs in any encyclopedia. This is clearly a real thing. If they had a proper agreed upon scientific name for this phenomenon, then of course it should be used, and the common slang redirected to it. Remember, wikipedia states the policies are just suggestions, you are to ignore them and use common sense when necessary. Dream Focus 15:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We should not be legitimizing a neologism such as this. Even if the concept has some notability, this is not a well written article and needn't be kept for fear of losing anything valuable. Powers T 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dletee But I admit it is darn funny. Tractops (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I agree the name is not ideal, but this does seem to be a notable phenomenon, which has been fairly widely circulated and referred to. It does seem like something we could have an article on; alternatively, it might be best if it were merged somewhere, into a more general article about visual perception. The name may be a neologism, but the phenomenon is real. Robofish (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. -- Longhair\talk 00:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Hornor

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

Jill Hornor Ma doesn't seem to merit her own article. This should be merged with Yo Yo Ma, if kept at all. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Lefkowitz

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

Google came up with plenty on David Lefkowitz the unrelated composer (who possibly IS notable) and David Lefkowich the operatic stage director and choreographer, but absolutely nothing on this individual. Zero sources, notability is questionable and likely does not extend beyond a very local scope (i.e. a talk show on cable access and being a personality on a college radio station.) Tagged for both these issues since May 2008 with no edits since then.

In any event, the article is an absolute mess in its current form, in addition to failing WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT, it reads like a haphazardly constructed bio or resume. Even if the verifiability issues can be corrected and coverage in non trivial secondary sources found, this article should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch because of the POV, readability, and non-encyclopedic tone issues. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm by no means confident that my search for sources has been in any fashion exhaustive. David/Dave Lefkowitz is such a common name that I think I've found at least 3 others, even restricting my search to those that are connected to New York in some way. The composer is clearly notable, and we should have an article about him. We currently don't. For the playwright/theatre critic/radio host however, I'm finding nothing except self-published sources. And the occasional trivial mention (e.g. [48] [49]). I don't agree with the nominator that if sources are found the article should be scrapped, as the issues described are easily fixed once sources become available. JulesH (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start an article David Lefkowitz (composer) (not today, its Valentine's Day in the US) and if this gets deleted via this discussion, I'll move it to David Lefkowitz. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Foster

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

WP:BIO one event. 2nd nomination after the intitial reaction wears off -Glorydays203 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:ONEEVENT says to cover the event rather than the person, but since the person's media attention is the event, it can't properly be covered without writing the biography. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hate to be the Grinch here, but WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS, and the news -- under a hundred thousand dollars in additional donations for the homeless -- is relatively trivial. If the Brenden Foster Food Drive has legs and becomes independently notable, and isn't just an ephemeral one-season event, the material in the article can be moved there then. The justifications for keeping it in the original nom were all WP:ILIKEIT. THF (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the reasoning that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, then perhaps you should consider transwikification to WikiNews. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I'm iffy on this one. The death of this individual, or the fundraiser, or the illness, or several other portions of this story (Seahawks paying for funeral, etc...) could be considered distinct events, so I'm not 100% sure that WP:ONEEVENT should apply. However, I'm not convinced the article should be about the individual rather than the response to the individual, so my support for keeping the article is merely support for the status quo. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough diverse and noteworthy facts in the article to merit inclusion.Vulture19 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources here covering several notable events (the initial wish, the food drive, his death etc) involving this person over some weeks so one event doesnt apply. --neon white talk 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The multiple events spawning from his actions are no less numerous or notable than the first time the article was nominated. Neier (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Card Café

Photo Card Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notable: references do not constitute "significant coverage" in secondary sources. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles are in reliable sources and are specifically about the subject so i cannot see how they could not be considered significant. --neon white talk 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Era

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

non-notable social calendar; I'm not quite sure why it was contested. It was proposed on 1 January of this year, hasn't been adopted by any country/organisation/social system and stinks of WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems that you can download a calendar from www.darwinera.org, but somehow the Darwin Era has escaped the notice of the media [50]. (All those Spanish articles that include things like "Darwin era un hombre valiente" need explaining-- "era" is a past-tense of the verb "ser" and means "was". Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Undecided for now. The search term "Darwin era calendar" (in quotes) had 77 hits on Google, including a few from Wikipedia and a few to the source, darwinera.org. There were 38 hits on Yahoo. As mentioned above, no hits on Google News. So it's pretty thin on notability. Verifiable: Yes. Reliable sources: weak. This his sort of thing could become significant in the humanist community, because of their near-worship of Charles Darwin, or it may fizzle out completely and become only a dim memory like Fitzmas. (Who remembers that now?). If this article is kept, it should probably be moved to Darwin era calendar, because the article is not about a so-called Darwin era, as much as the calendar itself. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independant sources, no indication of notability. Probably could have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are thin, reliable sources are close to zero. Tavix (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call Hollow Rd.

Call Hollow Rd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established. Google maps shows it to be a small country road. wp:OR and possible advertising for the camp issues as well. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insignificant road. Not much useful information here that is not already given in the above-named article. A redirect would not seem to be very useful. I added the local name of the road to the article above per Bryan G. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless a redirect to the list would be useful). Unsourced, doesn't appear to be notable. —Snigbrook 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel (singer)

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

Despite claims that he has reached the "top of the sales chart", I can find no evidence that this is the case, the article is unreferenced, and a google search shows little more than a myspace page. Unless there are references to show that Mabel did indeed top the charts, I don't think this meets notability guidelines. Richard Hock (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, there is evidence of singles charting in france (http://lescharts.com/search.asp?search=mabel&cat=s). Not top hits as suggested but nevertheless there's an argument for keeping under criteria 2 (WP:MUSIC). We need an expert to look up the other countries especially Germany, Italy and i can find hints of hits in Russia also. --neon white talk 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per lack of RS. MBisanz talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Emadi

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Mohsen Emadi is a non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Sadra2010 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering the published books and news articles (links on external links section) makes him a notable person. You can find more on Google:"Mohsen.Emadi poet" , etc. My vote's to keep the article. —BEHNAM〈☯|☮〉@20090129145745%UTC 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete--the list is impressive, but I can't find anything in Google Books or News. More damningly, as far as I'm concerned, no hits in the MLA. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder: You cannot find anything in Google books about most of the Iranian famous persons. There is a couple of links to newspapers on the page, and you can find more by Google Search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long feng zhi

Long feng zhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability: No Google results except this article and an amateur website. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Job Productions

Inside Job Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable incorporated association formed by an actor without an article. Was going to speedy delete this one but thought I'd bring it here for discussion in case notability exists. Longhair\talk 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that this entry should be deleted. If organisations such as 'Magnormos'and 'Melbourne Workers Theatre' are allowed to stay then so should this entry for a new organisation that has already begun making waves in the Melbourne Arts Scene and is expected in Sydney at the end of the year to co-produce with Griffin Theatre company.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/focusing-on-the-dazed-and-confused/2009/01/11/1231608516816.html http://onstagemelbourne.blogspot.com/2009/01/review-this-is-our-youth-inside-job.html http://theatrepeople.com.au/review_articles/2009/january/review_insidejob_thisisouryouth.htm http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/crazy-days-of-reaganomics/2009/01/19/1232213538242.html

Just to show a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiki Shaw (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Longhair\talk 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Kiki Shaw. Theatre company with notable productions => notable theatre company. JulesH (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete but persuadable: While the organization does appear to have made at least one potentially notable production, the coverage is primarily for the production itself, and not of the organization. The production might be notable based on the coverage, but I'm just not convinced the organization is notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Poorly written, but most of the wikilinks existed before this article was created, indicating that the production company was able to draw notable people. Author's only contributions, however, are directly related to this article (not necessarily this specific article), which indicates to me self promotion. Also, article was never tagged except for deletion.Vulture19 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azadeh Moaveni

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Azadeh Moaveni is a non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Sadra2010 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. Azadeh is a notable person. She is a respected journalist and published author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.178.135 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also respectfully disagree. Ms. Azadeh Moaveni has published articles in the Washington Post, served as Time Magazine Middle East correspondent, and been interviewed by Mother Jones. My family and I will happily hear the lovely Azadeh Moaveni's presentation on her perspectives of Iran on Feb. 25, 2009, at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, which hosts highly notable speakers. I vote against deletion.

DonL (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil. The subject is noteworthy and appears as a topic in several sources like The Economist and The Washington Post. Majoreditor (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William N. Shepherd

William N. Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography filled with wikipuffery, but no third-party reliable sources. The opening paragraph that chooses to highlight his e-books says all you need to know about WP:N. Has had a notability tag since 9/2007. THF (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails both WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. There does not seem to be significant coverage of him in any reliable sources. Using Google it is easy to find references to his many writings, however it doesn't appear that any of these references occur in peer-reviewed publications. --Megaboz (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Rejections On Display

Literary Rejections On Display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete I don't think the one-time sensation of an author posting on it qualifies it as WP:NN -Zeus-uc 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree that the one-time sensation of an author posting would not make it notable, but a visit to the page and a search suggest that it has been covered for other reasons. The solution is to add this info, not delete the article. At a minimum, merge to Darren Strauss.Tractops (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this....P&W and The Village Voice are certainly respected secondary sources, I think....I also recall there was an article about LitRej in Writers Digest a while back, but I couldn't find it....Maybe somebody more ambitious than me will try? 7triton7 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to meet WP:V and WP:N. Sources seem to check out (quick search). IMHO, link to the site ought to be added Vartanza (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTRAX EDA

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

A promo for a nonnotable piece of software created by a single nonnotable person. I failed to find any reasonable independent coverage. google gives a huge number of download links, which is not surprizing for such things. - 7-bubёn >t 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Self-promotion --Deenoe 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Possible conflict of interest. The software is published by Kovac Software. The author of this article is IlijaKovacevic . •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Crowie Smith

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

Contested prod, the reason was nn biography. The problem with the article is with sources available, with those present I can't decide if the notability criteria is established so I leave it here for consideration. Thank you. Tone 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Given that there are only 2 copies of his autobio in the US, though I would expect some more locally in england, I do not see how his life story is considered notable. There may be more information in the various works about the Salvation Army, but I'm out of my depth in that subject. DGG (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands at present, unless better references can be placed. If there are better references, I'd be happy to change my vote.--Artypants (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice and hopfully - Keep Firstly, thanks to Tone for this discussion in response to my query. I will of course accept the final concensus/decision. As the proposed deletion is mainly based on whether this is a notable autobiography or not, and this is a subjective thing, please would you take the following into account. If it's decided to keep the article I will then add references and inline citations to tidy it up into Wiki standards. 1) The 14 chapter book had 1000 copies printed in 1937. 2) One copy was received by Buckingham palace and remains there. 3) The Telegraph has run articles on Crowie Smith which I've managed to obtain in hard copy of, on April 5th 1971 and March 24th 1979. I could add these as scanned docs to an online resource. 4) I've obtained hard copy poem about him, written by J Clarke Sept 1st 1937. 5) I'm awaiting a photo of him from a family member, which I would upload.

Not all famous people have copious online references about them, which does not help in this case. Thanks for your consideration and comments.Simon777 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science (disambiguation)

Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are only two pages on this disambig. The intent of this disambig can be and has been captured in a distinguish tag on each article. The only articles linking here are its acronym as a redirect (which I will shortly redirect to the UCLA institution) and someone's userspace. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with hatnotes. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hatnotes are already added to the top of the two articles on this disambig. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid redirect with two bluelinks to two Wikipedia articles with a common title. It should be noted that if nom is basing the proposed deletion on the fact that it has only two blue links, he/she is urged to look at [55] (dab pages are in red) and feel free to nominate any and all of the 6000+ dab pages with exactly two blue links. Now, if both of the bluelinks on the nominated dab page point, in fact, to the same article, deletion would not be appropriate, but redirecting would be per precedents of "Foo (disambiguation)". 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only one of the targets appears to actually be called "Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science". While a hatnote is certainly useful in order to assist people confused between the two, there is one clear subject that this page should point to - disambiguation via a separate page seems unnecessary in this case. ~ mazca t|c 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and also delete Henry Samueli School of Engineering (disambiguation), created during this AfD. With the hat notes in place this DMB is not needed since no likely search term is going to take the reader here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powder game

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

Article is about a non-notable flash game. Article reads as a game guide, and seems a bit crufty. Prod was removed weeks ago. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entire article is original research and reads like a vanity piece. --neon white talk 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I wonder how many of the people we have articles about will be remembered 1000 years from now... yandman 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanyan Shilu

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

Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:N MrShamrock (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Leader of an important people group. Just the fact we have his name 1000 years later is an indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was he? I don't see any verifiability of that anywhere MrShamrock (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you missed the four large linked boxes labeled 'Chinese Wikisource has original text related to this article' at the bottom of the article? Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As pointed out by Edward321, we know his name many centuries later, and there are four sources in Chinese. recommend that the article be tagged for expert review, possibly translation.Vulture19 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator mentions WP:N but does not cite. Looking at WP:N#General notability guidelines near the top of the page, we find: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Reading through the ZH article, there is no reason to suspect insincerity of the EN article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in agreement with Edward321. Pastor Theo (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_14&oldid=1142645143"