Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache</sdmall>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvements and withdrawal of AfD request. Thanks to User:S. Dean Jameson for the rewrite effort. Frank | talk 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Zamparelli[edit]

This article has several problems, most notably, it appears to be spam written by the subject. Not blatant spam like you might get in e-mail, but it is self-promoting. Add to that that it has no lead section, is virtually devoid of verifiable references/citations, is not encyclopedic, it has NPOV issues and no articles link to it, this article should be deleted. ~~ Gmatsuda (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article may suffer from formatting problems, and perhaps some other issues, but it is a candidate for rescue, not deletion. The subject clearly has notability. I am all for deleting content that doesn't add to the encyclopedia...but this page does not fall into that category. Frank | talk 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This person is notable, as pointed out by Frank, and the problems with the article were easily fixed in perhaps ten minutes of editing. There's still some work to be done, sure, but why delete a perfectly decent article, when we don't have to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Dean Jameson (talk • contribs)

Article is much improved, thanks to Frank. I'll withdraw the AFd. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Shortland Street Living Arrangements[edit]

Unnotable fancruft of a soap opera. The only people who would care is people who watch the show. See WP:FANCRUFT for details. Tavix (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of how this is notable or has real-world significance. Incredibly inuniverse cruft. "Cruft" is not a delete argument, and usefulness is not a good argument, but I see this as lacking any essential notability. Articles about fiction should relate some real world significance, and I don't see it here. Dloh cierekim 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I am unable to see any indenpendent objective third-party source material here, and therefore, as I understand the Wiki, this fails on notability. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure this is WP:INTERESTING to fans but it is indeed cruft and seems too detailed (and transient?) to merge. JJL (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dloh. No assertion of notability. And Simon about sources. I don't see either. Dimitrii (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. While the arguments for deleting the content are persuasive, so too are the arguments that these lists should be kept and/or moved to Wikisource. Although there is no firm consensus as to what exactly should be done with the content, there seems to be a consensus that it should not be deleted, and so I am closing the discussion as a keep for the time being. Any transwikiing of content can be handled through normal processes. --jonny-m t 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 178[edit]

This is the first of a series of articles that are lists of court cases. By WP:NOT, this seems to be a mirror of information found here. Most of the articles are only redlinks too. justinfr (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for same reasons as above:

Hello,

I have gotten notice that the pages referring to the Federal Reporter, Second Series that OpenJurist is adding have been nominated for deletion. These information on these pages do not exist on Wikipedia and are of the same style as the US Supreme Court Case lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases

I would argue that these cases add value to Wikipedia. They are cases that provide incite into the laws of the United States just as USSC cases do. OpenJurist has been instructed that members of Wikipedia have been wanting to add Federal Reporter cases to Wikipedia for some time. We are fulfilling that mission.

Furthermore, as to the cases existing on other sources, that is also true US Supreme Court Cases that exist on Findlaw as well as on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact that many of these cases are redlined only goes to the fact that there is a lot of information that needs to be added to Wikipedia, not to the fact that it is not valuable information.

(I was not sure where to respond, so I have done so here and the discussion page.)

Openjurist (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a way to make this information more encyclopedic? I agree that supreme court cases are notable and many are deserving of their own articles. It's just this format I find unhelpful (i.e., it seems unlikely that anybody will search for, for example, "List of opinions from the Federal Reporter" rather than the case by name). justinfr (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello andy,

I noticed that on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series,_volume_178

You mentioned that:

"Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

However if you visit any of the US Supreme Court Opinion pages they are also a massive collection of Red links until someone writes articles for them.

Here are some of the USSC pages I chose at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_200

Furthermore, I have discussed this concept with MZMcBride and this work that I am contributing to Wikipedia has been on her to do list:

"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Openjurist&redirect=no

I have access to the resources to create these pages and so I decided to do it.

They would remain redlinks until people know that they are here and have an opportunity to add more information on them, just like the USSC cases.

Please consider what I have written. We are trying to add value to the community by giving people access to these important US Appeals Court Cases.

Openjurist (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally...

The page you refer to as already having this information "readily available elsewhere":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter

Even states:

"The Federal Reporter, including its supplementary material, is also available on CD-ROM compilations, and on West's online legal database, Westlaw. Because individual court cases are identified by case citations that consist of printed page and volume numbers, the electronic text of the opinions incorporates the page numbers of the printed volumes with "star pagination" formatting—the numbers are boldfaced within brackets and with asterisks prepended (i.e., [*4]) to stand out from the rest of the text.

Though West has copyright over its original headnotes and keynotes, the opinions themselves are public domain and accordingly may be found in other sources, chiefly Lexis, Westlaw's competitor. Lexis also copies the star paginated Federal Reporter numbering in their text of the opinions to allow for proper citation, a practice that was the subject of an unsuccessful copyright lawsuit by West against the parent company of Lexis.[4]"

We are providing this information to the public online - not on a CD-ROM or through pay access to Westlaw or Lexis. We are working toward open access to case law. And we are hoping that Wikipedia would like to play a part in this open access.

Sincerely,

Openjurist (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reevaluate in 6 months I am joining Openjurist in this project. It is not just him. I am quite excited about this. --mboverload @ 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - we have added the page that gives access to all of the pages *just like for the USSC cases*:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases

Sincerely,

Openjurist (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delicious new information. I'd like to see where this goes. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete all~~ "Delicious"? "New information"? It's nothing more than a bracketed table of contents from a 1949 volume of the Federal Reporter that's been sitting in law libraries for decades. No offense intended to Openjurist or Mboverload, but the two of you have bitten off more than you can chew. I voted to delete the Supreme Court project as well, for the same reasons. Not surprisingly, that attempt to reserve an article for each decision ever rendered by the United States Supreme Court has resulted in a few articles on cases that people are interested in, and lots of red-links for cases about which an article will probably never be written. It's easy to take a table of contents and put double brackets on each case for future articles, but you'll find that you don't have the time to do, pardon the pun, justice to the project. It's easy to slap one of these up, but I'll bet a $200 contribution to the Wikimedia foundation that both of you will give up on the project before the end of the year, and then you'll leave behind the mess of something started but never to be finished. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On some of the users talk pages, it's been suggested this information be moved to Wikisource. I think that's a great solution. They're just not encyclopedia articles. justinfr (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource definitely sounds like the best approach, that's exactly what Wikisource is for. --Stormie (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The lists are clearly in line with the lists in the List of United States Supreme Court cases which were saved from deletion multiple times. Mansford says that there are redlinks for which articles will never be written but acknowledges that many article have been created as a result of the lists. He then pessimistically predicts that you will give up on the list before it's complete. If you don't finish the list I will so don't worry about it. Although I think the cases themselves would be a valuable reference on wikisource, I think there's a place for them here on wikipedia as well. Some of these cases are really long and need a summary to be readable by the average person.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please.... "If you don't finish the list I will so don't worry about it"? There are 400 entries just in volume 178 alone. And when you get done writing those 400 articles, you'll write 400 articles for the cases in volume 179? Then volume 180, 181, etc? You might as well promise to write articles about what happened for each day in the year 1900, starting with "January 1, 1900" and then pledge to do 365 articles apiece for for 1901, 1902, 1903, etc. Kids, don't make promises that no person could possibly keep. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Cdogsimmons mass produced similar lists of U.S. Supreme Court cases in March 2007, and more than a year later, anyone can see the real story about how much progress has been made by clicking on any one of the entries in List of United States Supreme Court cases. There's a forum called "Articles for Creation" that you should go through when people have a big idea for a big project. This, however, is disruptive. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, when I say "If you don't finish the list I will" I mean I will finish the LIST, not create each of the articles. You're right. To create each individual article would be too large a project for any one person, but it would be a perfect project for Wikipedia. The List of Supreme Court case articles has been a success thus far, allowing for easy creation of notable articles in the proper citation format. Are there articles for each link? No. It's a long-term project. That doesn't mean those cases don't deserve articles. A good synopsis of why the list was saved can be found here. How is this disruptive? Because it can't be completed immediately? Wikipedia would never have succeeded if that was a prerequisite. Oh, and from now on Mandsford, please keep your pejorative comments (Kids) to yourself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I hate to admit it, Cdog, but you've convinced me. I'm changing my "vote" as described belo. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. Perhaps, ultimately, this may end up being trans-wiki'd over to Wikisource, but I applaud Openjurist for his goal of providing open & free access to case law. However, I know this situation is being discussed on an administrative level, so let's all just take a deep breath, sit back, and see where it goes. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource would love these. They appear to have been created by a bot, so perhaps the creation bot can be slightly tweaked, and then the upload to Wikisource can commence. If not, I will work on an Wikipedia->Wikisource migration script to import them and adjust them as required to meet the Wikisource naming conventions. I've commented at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#US Appellate and (possibly Supreme Court) opinion index. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and reconsider after at least six months. There is no doubt that Wikisource would welcome this material, but it is also a work in progress. While maintaining the text of the decisions is clearly a Wikisource task, some of the cases will probably merit encyclopedic consideration. Just because the list has a lot of red links is not a sufficient excuse for deletion; this is certainly a long-term project that needs a chance to find its way. That can't be done if it always has to ward off visions that are too narrowly focused. Eclecticology (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. These are a valuable resource and should be available online, but not on Wikipedia, as they represent an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm a strong supporter of the U.S. Supreme Court case lists because SCOTUS opinions are necessarily notable, being the final word on important issues of federal and constitutional law within the United States, and being the result of the Supreme Court's discretionary selection of which cases to hear. This is not true of decisions by the United States courts of appeals (which is, for the most part, all the Federal Reporter includes), because litigation in federal courts is not per se notable and appeals are not uncommon. Nor are the appellate opinions designated for publication (and hence covered in the Federal Reporter) uncommon, nor necessarily indicative of national or constitutional importance or new precedent, nor are they binding outside of that court of appeal's circuit. So there is certainly no reason to expect, or even to permit, an article for all or even most U.S. COA decisions. This means that these lists cannot function to organize and aid in the creation of articles in the manner that the SCOTUS case lists can. Postdlf (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great piece of contrived bafflegab! Notability has no objective standards whatsoever. How do these COA cases compare in notability to something like the biographical article Ri Kum-Suk? Is it that hard to say which in the long run will be more useful? Yet I would not support deletion of a sportsperson's article. Appeals are often used as precedent, even if only within one circuit, and sometimes long after the date of the decision. You are probably right to believe that it will be a long time before many of these links will lead to real articles, but we are only talking about lists, and some of them may remain full of red links for years. That's fine. It only shows how big our collective future tasks will be. Eclecticology (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of having these, but Postdlf is very right that most of these cases will not be cases that will merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, some surely will, so I propose going in two directions with this: one, transwiki the lists to Wikisource, and two (since transwikiing alone will not delete them here) move the lists from article space to project space (maybe as subpages under Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, so that interested parties can look up the cases and cross out or delete the ones that lack encyclopedic merit, but also catch the ones that clearly belong in an encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep all After Cdog explained what this is all about, I hate to admit that I was wrong. I'm actually persuaded that these articles are fine. I had to ask myself a basic question-- WHY should I, or anyone else, get upset over what amounts to whether there is placement of brackets around each case name? Or more to the point, whether it's in color or not? Taking the first item on volume 178, does it really matter whether it's BLACK (Griggs v. United States) or RED (Griggs v. United States)? As with this and the Supreme Court case lists, the fact that one could create an article from any one of the redlinks doesn't mean that there's a project to try to write an article about each and every case. It just means that if someone does want to write about the import of a particular decision, they can do so in, as Cdog explained, a consistent fashion. I realize, now, that there's no valid reason to erase all these lists, even if most of the cases will (I believe) never have an article written about them. I can say that I will lose no sleep-- and neither should anyone else-- over the aesthetics of whether the volume 178 article is "red and blue" or "black and white". Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. These are fundamentally a directory of cases; something that Wikipedia explicitly is WP:NOT so even though good and usefull in and of themselves they should be housed elsewhere. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or transwiki, anyway don't keep it here. We don't need a list of hundreds of court cases. Note that these span only 2 years and in The USA, if these are worthy keeping, the the whole 200 volumes and those who followed since 1950 should be here too, and also similar ones from all over the world. It is simply too much, too detail, to keep. - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Shoremount-Obra[edit]

This article fails to meet notability requirements for wikipedia. The productions she has been in, although at some notable places, have all been as a student or as a "back up" in case the scheduled artist gets sick. Extensive searches for media coverage have turned up nothing but a passing mention of Shoremount-Obra in one news article and an advertisement for a non-notable recital. The facts of this page are based almost entirely on the subject's own website.Nrswanson (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is ~~very close to~~ approaching notability, but she is under 30 and I can't see any evidence that she has made it yet. I'll reconsider my 'delete' if anyone comes up with anything solid. The article was created by SPA Operanutbabe. --Klein zach 01:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable - and seems to be more for selfpromotion than for useful information.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think her two recordings alone, which are apparently the only recordings of these works, are sufficient to establish notability. I'm pretty sure that neither age nor SPA are reasons to delete, nor can I share Smerus' view about the lack of useful information. (Also, I can't get my head around the fact that Nrswanson committed 24 edits before nominating the article for deletion.) Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article with the hope that something better would come up in my searches for independent news coverage. Some of her opera work with Opera Theater of St. Louis seemed promising and possibly some of her recitals but no media coverage turned up. That's a good point about the recordings. They are student recordings though (made at the Manhattan School of Music). Not sure that is notable enough...Nrswanson (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kleinzach and Smerus. I don't see our notability standard being met here. Eusebeus (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable singer we have here. She is young and rising. She is the founder of a world class opera company that is quickly becoming well-known in the opera world. She is also on the Principal Aritst Roster of the Metropolitan Opera!!! Do you have any idea how presitigious that is? There are only about 30 sopranos in the world on that Roster!! see for yourself: www.metopera.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operanutbabe (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*Note Operanutbabe is a SPA, the creator of this article, and has made no contributions outside of this discussion and to the article in question.Nrswanson (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Operanutbabe: Wikipedia has a 'Conflict of Interest' policy, see COI. --Klein zach 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike what operanutbabe suggests, this achievement is not all that remarkable. Shoremount-Obra has never actually performed in a production at the Metropolitan Opera and the hiring of aspiring artists as cover artists by the Met is a normative practice. Shoremount-Obra has yet to appear in a major role with a notable company (or in fact even a good regional company) anywhere. Also, her non-profit opera company is a small affair without an orchestra and without much press. This is basically a case of major self promotion and a conflict of interest. A note to opera nut, wikipedia does not catalogue "up and coming artist". Artists have to have established themselves to a certain extent before they are notable enough for a wikipedia article. Nrswanson (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there's no link to the so-called 'Principal Artist Roster' either above or on the article. I've googled 'Metropolitan Opera Principal Artist Roster' but again I haven't found this page. --Klein zach 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on there but notice it just says "artist roster" and not "principal artist roster": here. And notice her bio at the Met: [1]. It's totally empty because she has never performed there (do a search in the archives. 0 results.) or anywhere else of note for that matter. Zero notable performances and thus nothing in her Met bio. How can an opera singer who hasn't performed in a notable production be notable?Nrswanson (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I admire the chutzpah in calling a student production 'pre-professional' . --Klein zach 01:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as verbatim copyvio. – iride scent 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Society of Community Outreach[edit]

Declined speedy and sending it here as the UCLA connection might convey automatic notability. (Proceduaral/neutral) Dloh cierekim 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete says the editor who applied the declined speedy. "An article about a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." ~~SISTER~~ 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - student groups with zero reliable sources covering them. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, fails the Google test. --Stormie (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm-- google test is no longer considered an effective measure of notability. Dloh cierekim 00:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Wikipedia:Search engine test covers the things to be cautious of when using Google to explore the notability of a subject, and a lack of Google hits certainly does not guarantee that a subject is not notable. However, when a currently active organization in the USA is not mentioned anywhere on the internet outside Wikipedia, apart from a single entry on a listing ([2]), I consider that compelling evidence that they do not possess encyclopedic notability. Oh, by the way, now that I look more closely, the article is a copyvio of that listing. --Stormie (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed-- tagged for speedy deltion as copyvio from http://www.studentgroups.ucla.edu/sgweb/details_frame.asp?OrgID=594 Dloh cierekim 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelphi Shopping Center[edit]

Non-notable strip mall. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a bit of clean up and added a few sources. The pizza place in the mall is clearly notable, the grocery store possibly so, but as to the whole thing? I'll reserve judgment until the editor who said on the article's talk page they had references to add makes good on that promise. - Dravecky (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as after 55 years of service and serving has home to at least two notable tenants this strip mall should have garnered more coverage if it were truly notable. The Ledo's restaurant is unquestionably notable but notability is not transferrable and that subject is well covered in another article. If more coverage of the mall itself were to be found in reliable sources there should be little objection to recreation of this article at that time. (You can't save 'em all.) - Dravecky (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of European companies[edit]

This is a redundant list that just conglomerates the separate country articles (see here for full list). The separate lists are easier to maintain and won't get quite as big as the full European list. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An outstanding job, unfortunately useless, deletion OK. What is European company, anyway? NVO (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category:Lists of companies by country performes the job much more elegantly. I also agree with the comment "What is European company ?". Definition of European is much to broad for a simple list of companies (read; indiscriminate). If the list was trimmed to be only List of European companies#Other EU companies I would change to Keep, as that could be construed as a viable search term, and would serve well as a disambiguation of sorts. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as web content that doesn't assert importance or significance (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is bob[edit]

Contested PROD. Online children's TV series that does not provide any references for it's claims to notability. A google search does not provide anything either. role^player 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - nn YouTubeCruft. Additionally, the creator (who clearly breaches WP:COI) keeps removing deletion tags; Speedy, PROD, and AfD. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - After noting a peculiar edit by the page creator, I find that part of the content is plagiarised from Sitting Ducks. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, the thing had a CSD tag, and I was checking the history before doing that, when I saw it had been sent to here. (No assertion of significance in the article.) Well the next thing I did was to check for some hint of "significant media coverage," verifiable/reliable sources, awards, anything that would meet WP:N. And I gotta tell ya, I came up short in my search. (Also, there may be bit of a coi thing because the creator's nick is two of the characters joined by a conjunction. But that's as may be.) Ergo-- Delete per nom. ( After ec with Alex, speedily even )Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Delete both Dloh cierekim 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the same user has also created List of All you Need is Bob episodes. I will include it with this nomination, if I am allowed. -- role^player 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Dloh cierekim 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete both - Completely not notable, unsourced YouTube stuff. ~~SISTER~~ 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not meet notability and is unreferenced. If it's really that famous on YouTube, maybe it could be mentioned somewhere in YouTube (along with similar internet "series"). Lady Galaxy 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Explorer[edit]

Unsourced and not notable (the lede describes it as a failure). Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Seems to be about a series that is not known or not popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources about the series -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only are there no reliable sources, I can't even find an unreliable one - it's not mentioned on Anthony Valentine's IMDb entry, despite him supposedly narrating. All Google hits are for Wikipedia and mirrors. --Stormie (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontlines: Fuel of War 2[edit]

Article is based around speculation and offers nothing to verify a sequel. Fails WP:Crystal. --FireV (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and has no sources or ghits. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballery and original research. FireV, you realize you've actually PRODded the article rather than left an AFD template? Someone another 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure unsourced speculation and OR. If there was any valuable content I'd recommend a merge & redirect to Frontlines: Fuel of War#Sequel but there's not. --Stormie (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, is a possibly upcoming sequel. This article should be speedy deleted. There is source or information.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shereth 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition[edit]

It has been seven months since this was last put at AFD, and there has been no assertion of any notability through reliable sources. This article is simply a repetition of plot trivia from various Star Trek episode articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It was closed as keep because the closer totally disregarded the requirement for reliable sources, and as you can see, it has none, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to overwhelming consensus in previous discussion and existence of the phrase in context used here in at least one published encyclopedia. What is good for a paper encyclopedia is good for a paperless one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Clearly the nominator believes the last AfD was at fault, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to open a new discussion. You can say "speedy keep" as much as you like, its not going to happen. -- Sabre (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason it shouldn't happen in this case as the topic is obviously encyclopedic and verifiable and thus the previous close was correct. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attempting to re-hash this violates Rule 16: A deal is a deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a deal is a deal is a deal-- but only with another Ferengi. Dloh cierekim 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Here's the thing.... Anyone who sees my username could acknowledge that it pains me whenever a Trek-related subject comes into AfD. I have an instinctual defense towards all things Trek. I've conversed online with Robert Hewitt Wolfe. BUT... according to WP:N, we need secondary source coverage. Currently the article apparently has one secondary source from outside the Trekverse. Now, that don't mean there isn't secondary source coverage of The Rules of Acquisition. But so far all the sources, save one, are primary sources. The degree of research and sourcing present in the article, though, convinces me it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. It is referenced, but perhaps not sufficiently to establish policy-level Notability. So I would advise being VERY careful of just killing this without allowing further possibility of source additions (userfying.) It's too ungainly as a merge, too much research and well written for a delete, and at present notability not established for a keep, IMVHO. LaughingVulcan 01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sourced, notable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP, passes WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. WP:RS and WP:N are not policies and cannot be used as valid deletion criteria. The nominator failed to delete last time and he brings no new discussion to the table so I find it hard to believe this nomination is nothing more "I didn't get my way so I'll try again." In fact, his rationale is "the admin screwed up" despite ignoring that WP:RS is a GUIDELINE not a POLICY so I don't see how User:The Transhumanist screwed up. No valid deletion criteria presented. Cburnett (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all the criteria except that pesky WP:V, which is completely ignored by this article and the Transhumanist. It should not be ignored this time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content does seem verifiable, so let's all work together to use these sources to improve the article! Let's see what we can do and then take it from there, cool? :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misunderstand me, it would be awesome to keep this article around, if we could find something on how the writers came up with these rules, and what fans think of the rules, or if someone analyzed the Ferengi and their rules to draw parallels with culture or particular ethnic groups. But if none of that exists, or very little, which is what I suspect, then we shouldn't have an article repeating the rules from each of the episode articles, because that's what they are for. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a big trek fan I use wiki quite often and tonight I wanted to see the Rules of Acquisition, and I find it horrible that someone wants to delete it over some source guidelines...well here are the sources...WATCH THE SHOWS!!! Deep Space Nine quotes many of them and this article is a compilation of them and should stay!--Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats the kind of attitude thats going to get the page deleted. Tone down the enthusaism a little, for the articles sake. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:V. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uh. I don't know where the keep votes above are coming from. It is surely verifiable. I have no reason to doubt that. The article is scrupulously cited. What it fails is WP:PLOT and WP:N. Utterly. Every source is a work of fiction in the star trek universe. The notability guidelines are quite clear on this. We are not a star trek wiki. Memory alpha is. They can have all of these without dealing with our guidelines and policies on the subject. Until the notability guidelines are changed, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a big trek fan I use wiki quite often and tonight I wanted to see the Rules of Acquisition, and I find it horrible that someone wants to delete it over some source guidelines...well here are the sources...WATCH THE SHOWS!!! Deep Space Nine quotes many of them and this article is a compilation of them and should stay!

--Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, only using Deep Space 9 and Behr's book as a source makes the copyright problem worse. If there were more secondary sources, an article could be based on those. At the moment, this is just a simple recitation of lines from Deep Space 9 and verbatim quotes from book (quotes central to the book at that). There's huge copyright problems here, and I think deletion is the only solution. --Phirazo (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the problem here is a copyright one, not a notability one. A verbatim republishing of all the Rules of Acquisition, even with critical commentary (which there isn't much of in this article), is pushing fair use too far. Once you remove the infringing material, there isn't much left. I would support an article that talks about the role of The Rules in Deep Space 9 that used one or two of the rules as examples, but this is too much. --Phirazo (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up per WP:AFD. I'll also quote The Transhumanist here - "As the episodes of Star Trek have been seen by millions of people, they are all indisputably notable. The Rules of acquisition have come up again and again, and are a central aspect of the Ferengi way of life, and are prominently featured in dozens of episodes. They are also the basis for the title of a popular Star Trek book. This doesn't seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline, but at this time the status of that guideline is under dispute - but more importantly, consensus trumps a guideline. Reliable sources is also a guideline, and the community can overrule it. It's not a trivia section as per WP:TRIVIA because the items listed forms a logical group. The article is not indiscriminate, as its subject matter is a specific well-known set of items." This certainly seems to be a notable plot device in the Star Trek series, sources need to be added to address the main concern of nom. Banjeboi 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, Google books has 26 searchable books on the subject, The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition by Quark, Ira Steven Behr is devoted solely to the subject; Tal Shiar - Ferengi Rules of Acquisition has what looks to be the list of the known rules (apparently there's nearly 300) including audio clips of them from the series being quoted. Banjeboi 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above fine reasons seems to have real world sourcing and notability a bit of Star Trek lore that escaped into the real world. Needs better sourcing. Dloh cierekim 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS-- brought these google hits over from the last AFD. They contain links to reliable, third party, verifiable sources that support by keep reasoning. Dloh cierekim 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above four comments are flat wrong; the "references" are empty, the article has asserted no notability, no real world sourcing whatsoever, and the call to ignore all of wikipedias guidelines and policies should be ignored. This utterly fails WP:V and WP:N, is most likely a copyright violation as a user above has pointed out, and there is no reason to ignore all of these things. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777, it's fine to disagree but to say that a link to a google book search showing two dozen books referring to the subject are "flat wrong" seems a bit inflamatory. An entrie book has been published solely on the subject of the article. Does your statemnt that this is flat wrong mean you deny the book exists, or that I've made a mistake in my search for sources? It may be more productive to demonstrate that none of the many sources presented as proof of notability do that as the sheer volume certainly suggest that the information is not only notable but also verifiable. Also inferring that other editors are calling "to ignore all of wikipedias guidelines and policies" seems to be a leap of bad faith. Not sure what your aim was there but per guidelines and policies on civility please dial it down a bit towards those who you seem to disagree. Banjeboi 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the truth is inflammatory or upsetting, edit another encyclopedia, but the sources and references given are empty, and to present references that you either know are empty or are blindly posting is wasting everyone's time. Do not post links unless it is to something that you are 100% sure establishes substantial notability, or your are simply disrupting the process by making everyone have to humor you and the empty references. I think I'll ask them to establish a policy for AFD; no more Google searches or internet searches of any kind, it is pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although Judgesurreal777can speak for him or herself, I think when it is spoken of as an "empty source," what is meant is that these are still primary sources. They were written by authors as part of the Star Trek universe. Now, Star Trek itself... you can easily find dozens of secondary references detailing the impact of the show, the production of the show, culture of the show. As I see it, the only non-primary source in the article is the Asia Times article. Even that article isn't about the Rules; the Rules are the hook on which the article's subject is based. So... show me the secondary sources about the Rules, please! I'd love to see those sources *and* see justification as to why FERENGI RULES OF ACQUISITION is worthy of note outside of Star Trek, so I can change my vote! Edit to add: There is also a question of copyright violation above that may have merit... Ira Steven Behr's book The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, are simply a listing of the then-known rules with additional rules published by Behr, together with a little additional material IIRC. Quoting all of them also seems to me to be outside fair use. This would not be grounds for deletion, but pruning the rules would seem to damage the article seriously as it exists. LaughingVulcan 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777, "Do not post links unless it is to something that you are 100% sure establishes substantial notability, or your are simply disrupting the process by making everyone have to humor you and the empty references." Seems to be rather confrontational and unhelpful as well as layered with some bad faith. This is a community process not a battleground. You can disagree but please remain civil while doing so. Inviting me to "edit another encyclopedia" seems rather antagonistic and against the spirit of working together. Banjeboi 23:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Articles can be deleted if reliable sources do not exist, but the Google searches done show that reliable sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major and recurring concept in the DS9 franchise. While most of the sources in the current article are in universe, the two published books on the subject appear to satisfy notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say, "two published books," do you refer to the Behr and Behr/Wolfe books listed in the article? Because those are *also* in-universe books. I'm not trying to pick a fight here... just trying to figure out what books keep getting referred to here, as those two are still primary sources - not secondary. LaughingVulcan 02:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article Ferengi. Since there is such a strong impetus to keep the article (if only there was an equally strong push to improve the article so it wouldn't have to go through AfD), as a compromise, simply merge the most relevant material into the Ferengi article. There's hardly anything here as it is, mainly just a lengthy list which can't possibly be necessary for the average reader's understanding of the topic; two or three items from the list would be sufficient as examples of what the "rules of acquisition" are, I believe anything more would be trivial. It's not as if the world will suffer for the lack if every single referenced rule isn't compiled into a separate list on WP.
At the very least, may I suggest that the article's title be changed to Rules of Acquisition (Star Trek). When I first saw the title I thought it was about an actual corporate procedure; the topic obviously wouldn't be familiar to anyone who hasn't seen Star Trek, so the clarification would benefit the article should it survive AfD (which it appears it will) and lessen the in-universe stance. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a Trek Wiki subject to verification that this is not breach of copyright. I have only seen such compilations in copyrighted publications -- their value to the main Wiki must be doubtful, when we have specialist ones to which researchers would turn (and the innocent can be directed) -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable concept in the Star Trek universe. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Subject is an extremely notable concept in the Trek universe and is covered in print encyclopedias (Okuda, Okuda & Mirek 1999) on the subject, which is more than enough to establish notability for me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the many refs and solid arguments above. 26 google scholar hits[3], even one mentioning editing the wikipedia page on "Rules of Acquisition".John Z (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep Seems that the hits above provide some marginal notability. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verifiable concept that has become notable through its continued reference in popular culture. Deletion would harm the encyclopedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing to satisfy those who think that secondary sources are necessary for articles of this sort. DGG (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the votes above say this sourced. It is, but it is ripping those sources off. If this is kept, I intend to remove the list of rules as a copyvio. --Phirazo (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How is quoting a line of text each from multiple episodes copyvio? Banjeboi 03:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree, that has got to be fair use. The entire list of rules wasn't lifted from somewhere; each rule was taken from an episode. It's fundamentally different from copyright infringement, which would be if the list existed somewhere and was copied wholesale. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notability established from reliable sources of at least limited independence and I could probably dig up a few more if I looked. Any copyvio claims are a secondary problem (i.e. they can be dealt with editorially) and don't require deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept by nominator withdrawal. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Christian School[edit]

~~Fails WP:SCHOOLS and WP:N, nothing to merge it into. Wizardman 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)~~ I'm satisfied with the article's improvements. Wizardman 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rewrite. Needs more sources and more npov, but we do have other such articles, and WP:SCHOOLS failed consensus. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be you could use this Bradford Telegraph and Argus - We'll fight smack ban as a source which covers the school involved in case at the European court of law on smacking. Keith D (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added npov including an infobox. Snowman (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I expect that the page will improve when people who know the school start to notice the page. Articles have to start somewhere. Secondary schools are generally kept as part of WP:Schools AFAIK. Snowman (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the nominator has removed the {{notability}} tag from the top of the article. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a local kid. Never heard of it Sceptre ^(talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also; R. (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which is about the famous and influential judgment involving the school. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't this what in the US would be called a high school only in the UK? Those are almost always kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the smacking story made national news media, now added to article. PamD (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect I have no objection to that. Wizardman 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. Peter Anvin[edit]

Is this page notable? Previous AfD suggested moving the content to another page, but since then the page has been recreated. It seems to be an advertising of User:Hpa. Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't get why they didn't follow the first AfD. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They did; but other people went along and recreated the article later. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; the projects he's worked on are definitely important and his position within them important, but I'm not sure there's much to work on about HIM. However, I think it's an unfair characterization to say "It seems to be an advertising of User:Hpa." As far as I can tell, the article subject has never contributed to an article on himself, which is what saying that implies. Was there any need to point out that the article's subject happens to have edited Wikipedia? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity page for non-notable person. No encyclopedic content to merge. Consists of unverifiable and trivial factoids that are not mergeable with any other article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject seems notable enough - the extent of his involvement /contribution to the projects is beyond scope of Afd. His contribution to NASM alone warrants his inclusion. Annette46 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he obviously has been involved with notable projects but to what extent? The article is silent on actual, notable achievements. Smile a While (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although this discussion has been listed for 12 days the nomination has not received any support whatsoever for deletion. Suggestion: such a radical proposal is best discussed at Village Pump before XfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Arrow Public Schools[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Seascic ^T/_C 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:DIRECTORY is for articles which have no chance at becoming encyclopedic. School districts are considered notable here, and, it sounds like the issue is just with the way the info is presented in this article. That's an issue for clean-up, and not a reason to clog AFD. Neier (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article needs only to be expanded and improved. There are other school district article in Wikipedia: Neshoba County School District, List of schools in Fort Lauderdale. School listings can be an important resource for parents. Rob (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect - apologies, I've already done this having read this as a PROD not an AfD listing. I redirected to Broken Bow, Oklahoma where this has a chance to improve before being slapped with a deletion tag. I'm fine if someone wants to revert my edits based on this AfD. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reverted the re-direct. Someone will come along quickly and get this school district up to speed, but that's a content issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious strong keep - school districts are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consensus is that articles on school districts are appropriate, and indeed the best place for information on elementary and middle schools which are not inherently notable. --Stormie (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauss Pseudospectral Optimization Program[edit]

plus several redirects. Note that lurking beneath the redirect at Gauss Pseudospectral Optimal Control Software is a complete, earlier and similar article. Anilvrao wanted this kept as a separate article but has not explained why.

The Gauss pseudospectral method is a pretty esoteric bit of mathematics. This piece of software is equally specialised. The article has been written by the principal developer of the program, Anil V. Rao. He himself admits that it is new and not yet notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Careful reading of the impressive looking set of references reveal that many of them talk about the underlying mathematical issues rather than this software specifically. Other references given are to its manual. You're left with a non-notable piece of non-consumer software serving a very small niche market. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability of the program, either from the references or from its official web page. Also, the article doesn't contain enough substance, independent of the Gauss pseudospectral method itself, for a merge. Although he could develop a section in Gauss pseudospectral method devoted to implementations. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a contributor to WikiProject Systems and a control theorist, I personally would like to keep this article around, but the the notability issues mentioned out above is, unfortunately, significant. I'm sorry, Anilvrao - perhaps you would consider joining our WikiProject and work on other optimal control articles for now, and return to GPOP in the future? --Jiuguang (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ulvaeus[edit]

Non-notable person having no impressive career except his famous parents. Caspian blue (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not met notability criteria and notability is not inherited. Could potentially redirect to Kom följ med i vår karusell. --Stormie (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to another article. Consensus is that the child is not notable except for her murder, and as such should not be the subject of her own article. The target article for the merger is to be decided on through the editorial process, as there is not yet consensus on which article would be most appropriate. Until that decision has been made, I am redirecting the article to Samir Kuntar. Sandstein 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einat Haran[edit]

Typical case of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. Soman (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me you are joking. The murder of Einat Haran by Samir Kuntar, was covered world wide 30 years ago, and is still on the headlines. It is a matter of fact that WP mentions this brutal murder in several places. It is also a matter of fact that it is considered as the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel. The motives for suggestion for deletion by Soman is the fact that he felt insulted in the Samir_Kuntar talk page... when he was explained that Samir Kuntar is no Nelson Mandela and smashing of toddlers heads is not considered as a heroic act in civilized nations.. (here he meant that this claim is racism..). Please block this Soman so he gets time to do homework on this issue. On.Elpeleg (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made a start with adding one source from the Samir Kuntar article, but I would rather see more references to back up the notability of this event (which is horrid, don't get me wrong). De728631 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Copying the following passage from WP:ONEEVENT: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." In the case of this article, is there any reputable source that relates to Haran in any other respect than her death? --Soman (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~To prevent the confusion or rather vandal attempt by Soman (see talk page on Samir_Kuntar for more of his political activities).~~ It is a matter of fact that the brutal murdering of this 4 years old which made both Samir Kuntar and his "military" operation notable, you can not have an article about Samir, nor about this operation without mentioning the brutal murder of this toddler by a group of well designated terrorists according to all western and civilized states. I pity your attempts to eliminate the evidence of who Einat was and how show was murdered pay your hero, Soman. You went as far as accusing others for being racist when they describe this event as brutal. I think you should think well of this approach of you, it may be a good leading path for progress and self development. Einat's brutal murder is more then one event issue, her killing has been considered as the most brutal terror attack ever been in Israel, her killing and her story of watching her father murdered just both her skull was smashed by the national hero of Lebanon is described again in over 30 years! When it comes to: WP:ONEEVENT You are most welcome to delete his article, he is only notable for the killing of Einat and nothing else, it is a matter of fact!.

Added a "stub" and more links, asked the Israeli Foreign Ministry to transfer Wikipedia both a permission to use the photo as well as more material from the new public file. Soman, I am asking you, please be reasonable, one can not deny the fact that it is the unnatural death of this girl that really made Kuntar such an important person, please play fair an remove this delete request. Now, back to your assumption that I am "racist", as far as I can recall no one ever called me that. And I do not think I am, as stated before, I do NOT accept everything Israel does or did, there are many things I do not like in the current and past Israeli policies, including the occupation, BUT what good does it do to you, the Lebanese or anyone else on earth by attempting to hide this information? What dignity does it serve? Why helping to build a sand tower (hero) for the masses? You know that this action made by Samir's group is considered as the worse and most brutal action ever been in the history of Israel. The revenge of a small baby has not even been created by the Satan. Please remove your delete request. Let this little girl memory speak for itself. Thank you. On.Elpeleg (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to stay on topic here, as well as keeping the discussion to what Wikipedia is and isn't. You had yourself invoked the WP:ONEEVENT guideline at talk:Samir Kuntar, as well as yourself creating the article Nasser Operation. My question again, is there any biographical information on Haran that cannot be covered in the Nasser Operation or Samir Kuntar articles? If a person is notable solely through one event (in this case, her death), then the policy is that separate biographical articles not be created. What if we were to create an obituary article on every victim of 9/11? Or the Hiroshima bomb? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, its an encyclopedia. --Soman (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some correction. It was not me who created the aritcle Nasser Operation, however I started the discussion of "One person one event and WP policy" here: Talk:Samir_Kuntar. It is the victim age and the brutal way which made this event famous and not the militant who did it nor the operation for itself. If you take a look in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Death_stubs you will see several other such cases, eg the 3000th American soldier whom died in the war in Iraq. There was no intention to cover all the 3000 victims of that war, nor any intention to make an article for every victim on the Israeli or Palestinian site, however this specific baby killing is considered as the "most brutal terror attack ever in the history of Israel" ( http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330965865&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and Samir Kuntar 10th line ) and that is not because who did it nor the techniques or ideology back the attack, but because the victim was young and because the victim was killed in a brutal way (seeing her father murdered and then having her skull smashed). One can not ignore the fact that Einat Haran name is mentioned in endless media sources and that the event is notable just because of her. So basically the priorities should be: 1.) Einat Haran 2.) Samir Kuntar 3.) Nasser Operation if one wants to reduce the number of articles. This is with regards to: a.) Notability and b.) sequences of events. To be more specific, should the killing of this baby never taken a place in such a brutal way, there would never be any notable Samir Kuntar nor any notable Nasser Operation. On.Elpeleg (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through any major category systematically, you are bound to find articles that wouldn't stand a AfD. That however doesn't determine the outcome of this deletion discussion. I do not agree with your 'priority' listing. Samir Kuntar is a politically notable figure, became a celebrity in the Arab world during the prolonged campaign for his release, and is a notable figure in Lebanon today. Thus a separate biographical article on him is legitimate. You claim that that the killing was notably brutal, but such an argument only reinforces the notability of the Nasser Operation article. You might find that unfair, but this is a process of writing an encyclopedia, not seeking justice. What could establish notability for this article is if you could come up with references of streets, schools, memorial sites, foundations, etc., named after her. --Soman (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try to hold to the facts. Samir was 16-17 years old when HE did what he did. And after he did what he did to Einat that he became famous. Nothing more, nothing less, these facts and events chronlogy is well docuMented. Without the killing of Einat, no one would ever know about him. Its Einat that made him famous by being a 4 years old toddler needing to watch her father being murdered and then having her own skull smashed by him. I ask you again, play fair. DO NOT HIDE IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC. Notability can be established in many different ways. I am certain that there are gardens, schools and streets named on her in Israel, and sooner or later it would be added. But even it was not. There is NOT one person in Israel that has not heard about what happened to thsi girl, her case is posted in thousands of sites! Search google on Einat Haran and brutal. See for your self. Search for the worse terrorist attack in Israel and Einat Haran and you will see it your self.

On.Elpeleg (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of my monologue... the irony is that the very same people whom require the deletion of this article (one person) is the very same people whom stated in different locations that Samir Kuntar is notable because he is regarded as national hero in Lebanon. Quite self contradicting. Since if he is regarded as national hero and at the same time (lets say all incidentally and regardless of the fact that he is regarded as a national hero), then there is no need to argue anymore, the poor victim here has been murdered by this "hero", and that is a good enough reason to have an article about her. I assume that person whom argued for the deletion meant only good, and just wanted to leave a good impression about that hero, in a way that would simply disregard the other heroes involved (as victims) in his so to say "heroic" act. I fail to see any ethos or logos arguments for deletion, and with all "respect" one may have for that "hero" (designated as a terrorist in all Western Countries).

Summary and last word

1.) The article was first suggested for a speedy delete, because a lack of references-fixed and approved by the person whom suggested that. So speedy delete was removed.

2.) After that, it was added for a delete because WP biographical practice as a reason.

3.) The response for this was that the killer and the victim are both regarded as notable in different geographical locations and in different ways. Einat is regarded as the victim of "the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel" in Israel, while in Lebanon the killer is regarded as a national hero. And therefore both should have an article and not just have the event itself covered. Thus the "one man, one event" where one may choose to write about the event and not the killer or victim, should not be applied here, both for notability and objective reasons.

4.) Last word from my big mouth.. and before the admins take their decision. One is not intended to write about each and every victim of this war either on the Palestinian side or the Israeli side, but in this specific case, the killer became notable because of the charges he was found guilty for. And having an article about him, without having an article about the very specific victim that made this killer notable is not a good covering of chronological or historian events. It is Einat Haran death and the way it happened that made Samir Kuntar notable and not the other way around, it is her age and what she saw before she was murdered in the most brutal way that made the event being regarded as the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel. Please let Einat Haran article stay.
On.Elpeleg (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect ~~Merge~~ to Nasser Operation. Event notable but that article is about it. Not the only victim, and not notable outside of the event. Please remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks here, and that it is easier to read a couple of sentences than a lengthy discourse. Jll (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [changed from Merge to Merge and Redirect to make it clear that I support Einat Haran being a redirect to merged article Jll (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]
It is the specific victim it self that made the event and the killer notable and not the other way around. The victim is notable outside the event, if you follow the references you would see that too. Its not the operation it self that is known either (it was actually called Nahariya . The victim "Einat Harat" is well known in Israel. If you merge this, then also merge the killer article, that is if you want to keep WP as an objective place. Again, check the stub link too, you will see the 3000th soldier victim in Iraq article, it is a part of history. And there is also a need to tell about the victim of the very well notable "most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel". What does personal attack got to with that? I assume good faith, however when I see that a user is trying his best to remove all information about the victim in the other articles, I have great difficulty not to see this delete request as nothing but vandalism, and this why I requested blocking that person.
Google search: Einat Haran (3020 hits) is more notable then Nasser Operation (~~1340~~ 672 hits)

Google search gave:
3,020 hits (all relevant) for "Einat Haran" with Safesearch on. (0.25 seconds)
3,690 hits (less then 1500 are relevant) for "Nasser Operation" with Safesearch on. (0.24 seconds)
1,340 hits (all relevant...unless I missed another Nasser, which is very common Arabic name) for "Nasser Operation" -egypt with Safesearch on. (0.25 seconds).
Please note that the second search also includes atleast 2000 hits on totally different and irrelevant operation by Nasser from Egypt.
Once again as shown, Einat Haran is more notable then the event. Please allow article to stay, documenting the victim of "the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel".

Sorry my mistake, Google search: "Nasser Operation" gives only 672 hits:

672 hits for "Nasser Operation" kuntar with Safesearch on. (0.33 seconds)
Now can we start getting serious? Einat Haran is 5 times more notable then the event itself.On.Elpeleg (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no policy of moral fairness in article creation. Soman covered this with his comments on 9/11 and Hiroshima bomb victims. Both the Nasser Operation article and this one are about the same event, hence my merge suggestion. On the basis of Google hits Einat's father is four times "more notable" than Einat - I get 3,000 hits for "Einat Haran" but 13,000 for "Danny Haran" Kuntar (to eliminate any unconnected Danny Harans). But the merged article should not have the name of one of the victims as its title, since it is about the event and not a particular person. Jll (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense, these 13,000 hits all mention Einat Peculiar I got only 1,830 hits. For: "Danny Haran" kuntar -daughters -Einat -daughter with Safesearch on. (0.42 seconds) I guess the hits I got are either about another Danny or about the letters and videos by his brother and his mother appealing to stop the release of the killer. Can we start to get serious?On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why fixing, mixing and tricksing?
Lets stick to Ethos and logos, the pathos we can leave to those who regard the murderer of the 4 years old baby as a hero. Fact: You suggested to merge Einat Haran with a less notable article for technical reasons, and since now that you see that Einat Haran is more notable than that article, then fine, merge the non notable Nasser Operation article UNDER the notable article about Einat Haran. That is if you were sincere at the first place with the merging idea. 911 issue is not the same thing, it is known to be the worse terror attack in the USA for many reasons. But here the reasons are totally different, there is ONLY one reason why this event here became notable and that is because the main victim, Einat Haran who was forced to watch how her father was executed by ~~the person that Soman considers as a hero.~~ And straight after that was trying to protect her head with her small arms from having her skull smashed by this "hero". It is regarded as the worse and the most brutal terror attack ever been in the history of Israel because the way Einat was victimized (in all the 3000 links above). I found it very irrational and totally pathos that one would promote articles about secondary issues in such a case, because neither Kuntar nor the operation itself would ever be mentioned unless Einat was there, being 4 years old baby and murdered in such away. Again, one can not ignore the chronology and connection between the events in this very specific case and specially when thousands of international media are still talking about the way this girl was murdered in, 30 years after she was murdered. If we are to follow your reasoning we would also need to delete Anna Frank's article, ~~if Soman has not deleted it yet.~~On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Former PM Menachem Begin' speech: Watch the funeral here, see how notable it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYHP6T6q1E&feature=related now listen to what Begin said: "nikmat yeled katan od lo bara ha-satan". Translation: The revenge of a small baby even the Satan himself has not created. Do you start to understand now why this murder of Einat is literally defined by thousands of links as the "most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel".? In some places its also designated as being "the worse terror attack". Never mind that some people see killing babies as heroic, please try being objective. Both the international media and the people in Israel called this terror attack for "the most brutal" and "worse" in the history, while the event for itself is being notable in 1/5 of the links comparing to the main victim of this event. It is about notability and relevance.On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. This child is not notable for anything other than this one event, and this event would have been no less notable if any other child had been killed in the same circumstances. On the other hand, the killing is clearly notable in itself, having gained international attention from newspapers with good reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Also, I note that this girl's name is a likely search term. Considering all of this, a merge/redirect is the best course of action. No opinion on where to redirect to. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I'm with SheffieldSteel there. The event itself was notable, while the child was only one of a number of victims. Merge the content but keep the redirect, so a name search may succeed. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support keeping Einat Haran as a redirect. I assumed that this would happen as a matter of course with the merge, but to make it clear I have amended my opinion above. Jll (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the Samir Kuntar and Einat Haran in to Nasser Operation. Samir Kuntar (one man [killer] one event), Einat Haran (one baby [victim] one event) under Nasser Operation, while the existing articles will be changed into redirect. Will add a suggestion for AfD to Samir Kuntar now. On.Elpeleg (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nasser Operation. All of the merged material either needs sourcing or removal. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info: added suggestion for Delete Merge and redirect on Samir Kuntar both Einat and Samir are cases of One Man one Event. And should be redirected to the event that made them notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nasser Operation is the wrong target. I don't understand the apparent thrust to disappear this article into Nasser Operation, a two-paragraph Wikipedia backwater. IMO Nasser Operation should itself be a redirect to Samir Kuntar, because that's where all the facts are. Einat Haran should also be merged with and redirected to Samir Kuntar, the same as the Megan Kanka article was merged with and redirected to the article on her murderer, Jesse Timmendequas. --CliffC (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to:Jesse Timmendequas Please read: WP:ONEEVENT. Samir Kuntar is a typical case of "one man one event" and I guess that so is Einat Haran, it is a matter of fact that both the victim and the murderer have been very notable in nearly 30 years now. The Nasser Operation for itself as a search term has been much less notable. One could argue that there were "more events" related, eg. the 2nd Lebanon war and others for Samir and diverse appeal from public and family on the case for Einat. However the main event here is the Nahariya Terror Attack (listed in WP as Nasser Operation). If one is to have only one article covering all the events and people related, why would you pick one person and make him "the event". It does not make sense and it may even confuse the readers, if you notice most of the arguments on the Samir Kuntar discussion page was about adding material which does not fit into a biographical article... So the question is: does WP want to limit all this event and its involved, notable people into a one biographical page? On.Elpeleg (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have never contributed to, or even read before this week, any of the articles being discussed, and I thought a fresh view might be helpful. My problem with the Nasser Operation article is that it's a backwater (definition: "a remote place; somewhere that remains unaffected by new events, progresses, ideas, etc.") that will not be easily found by readers – it currently seems designed more as a dumping ground than as a real article. Let's keep all the facts of the event in one article, Samir Kuntar, this will also solve the problem of keeping several articles synchronized in their description of the event, and centralize argument.

- Just for the record, you are replying to CliffC. Jesse Timmendequas is not allowed to post here, as he is serving life in prison. --CliffC (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to comment that in the Hebrew wikipedia they had the same dilemma. Eventually they decided to have two articles: one named "Samir Kuntar"[4] and the other named "1979 Naharia attack" [5].

The logic in this, as has been pointed out by George in [6] is that Samir Kuntar is a man notable of many deeds: (i) he was involved in one incident in Jordan in 1978, where he was captured and served a year in prison (for some reason it is hard to find online material on that), (ii) The murder of the Haran family in 1979 (iii) his release was Hezbollah's stated goal for capturing the two Israeli soldiers and initiating the 2006 Lebanon War (iv) he is notable for the 2008 Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap (v) He is also notable for the hero's reception in Lebanon, the incident between Israel and Al-Jazeera TV [7] etc.

For this reason I believe that we should follow George and the example given by the Hebrew wikipedia, i,e, that there should be an article on Samir Kuntar and a separate article focusing on the "1979 Naharia attack" or Nasser Operation which will be dedicated to that particular incident, to the Haran family, and to how the murder of the 4 year old child was percieved in Israel.

Another similar example can be found in the two articles devoted to the Coastal Road massacre and its main perpetrator Dalal Mughrabi (whose body was also released in the 2008 Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap).

Best,

Tkalisky (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Tkalisky that there should be a separate Nasser Operation article. Jll (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Both Nasser Operation and Einat Haran should redirect to Samir Kuntar, since both subjects are notable only for Kuntar's involvement. -- Nudve (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, since I am the person that started the discussion of "one man, one event.." as well as suggesting to start event and victim page. So please listen. The whole problem started when it was argued that some material can not be added to the Kuntar article, because his article is biographical article... so lets not get back there again, because this is a hopeless discussion. The killing of Einat Haran is designated as shown in the article as "the worst terror attack ever in Israel". It worths a mentioning and description of Einat with her photo, Samir Kuntar article does not fit for it if it is a personal biographical article as argued on its discussion page. So what do we do next? Lets try focusing. Thanks! PS. In Israel Wikipedia they made an article about Haran Family too. In addition to event and Samir articles. On.Elpeleg (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What material are you referring to? All the information concerning the event is already mentioned in the Samir Kuntar article. Also, you are mistaken. In the Hebrew Wikipedia, Haran Family redirects to the event[8]. -- Nudve (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirecting everything to Samir Kuntar is that the Samir Kuntar article contains a lot of information that is not related to the murder (as user:George pointed and I showed above, Kuntar is known for many things and his long article reflects that). The Kuntar article is inappropriate for adding more info on the Haran family (e.g. the pictures, Danny Haran's background and occupation, funural) or the details of the attack itself (there are more details about the attack, investigation and trial which are too large for the Kuntar article). Therefore I think there should be another article such as "1979 Naharia attack" or "Nasser Operation" devoted to this particular attack as was done in the Hebrew wikipedia and in the english wikipedia for the case of the Coastal Road massacre and its main perpetrator Dalal Mughrabi, each of which recieved an article of its own. This will also enable the listing of this attack in catagories such as Massacres in Israel during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [9] or some other appropriate list. Thanks for understanding.Tkalisky (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However, the current Nasser Operation is, as one user called it above, "backwater". There is no substantial information in it that isn't already detailed in Samir Kuntar. I think it's unlikely that anyone will expand it significantly. The Hebrew article isn't much better, BTW. The info on the Haran family (Danny's background, funeral) is, I'm afraid, not noable enough to merit an article. A picture of the family could be inserted to Samir Kuntar. Therefore, I believe one article is enough for now, and that article should be Samir Kuntar, since he is notable for the reasons you mentioned above. -- Nudve (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant merging an WP:ONEEVENT into another WP:ONEEVENT I agree with Tkalisky except that the city name is Nahariya which is by the way 6 km from Lebanese border and not 10 km as stated in Samir's article. Those of you who are for merging into Samir Kuntar, please see the discussion on Samir Kuntar look for: ...As this is the biography of a living person, and not the article on the event itself, their views and statements should be given some prominence. George, 04:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC). I agree with George too and this is why we wanted to start a separated article at the first place. On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: applying WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL to this article: Please note that Einat Haran was four years old when she was murdered. That murder eliminated forever the chance that she would have any additional "events" that would satisfy editors eager to rigidly apply some guidelines. I'm sure she and her family would happily forfeit the honor of ever getting mentioned in an encyclopedia in exchange for her never having had this notability. So let's not be so callous as to compare her with the Joe Blow one hit wonders being debated here. Likewise for WP:MEMORIAL--that guideline is to discourage friends and family to mount memorial articles. The notion that Einat only has notability to friends and family, or that that is who is behind promoting this article is again a bit callous. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I disagree with that interpretation of WP:MEMORIAL. Its true that the text at WP:MEMORIAL says 'departed friends and relatives', but that doesn't mean the logic disappears if it is applied in a broader sense. The basic essence of WP:MEMORIAL imho is that articles should be encyclopediatic, not obituaries. The notion that inclusion in Wikipedia is an issue of 'justice' or 'recognition' is a misunderstanding. No-one disputes that this event is an extreme human tragedy, but that doesn't mean that the guidelines of wikipedia are to be thrown out of the window. --Soman (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Nasser operation is poor right now. But there is more information which I did not yet have time to insert. For example, Kuntar tried to kidnap another father and girl but they escaped when the corridor lights turned off (an otherwise annoying trait of Israeli apartment buildings ...). Also, there was a man who shot at Kuntar's group when they tried to enter his apartment and kidnap him. Also, at the trial, Smadar Haran was ordered to leave the courtroom for offending Samir Kuntar etc., PM Begin's speach at the funural. Also, it is important to state Danny Haran's profession, as some people today claim he was a nuclear scientists (Huh ?) [10] Anyway. Lots of stuff that is too detailed to insert into Samir Kuntar. Also, we need to include this incident in the listings of "Terror incidents" etc. and Samir Kuntar is not a good article for that (take the example of Coastal Road massacre and its main perpetrator Dalal Mughrabi). For this reason I think we need both Samir Kuntar and Nasser Operation. Best, Tkalisky (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere & redirect -- I heavily un-poved the article, but I do not think it's worth keeping. At the moment Nasser operation is not a good target, but I hope Tkalisky is going to expand it. Renata (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misconception:"extreme human tragedy" Einat Haran is not just a personal "extreme human tragedy" as stated above, it is well documented with references that it is a "public tragedy", but most important, it is documented also that this tragedy is designated and qualified in endless links and references (thousands!) as being the worse of its kind "in the history of Israel". Thereby there is a need for an article.On.Elpeleg (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An apology and thanks to Soman

Soman, Thanks for the help and sorry for all the misunderstanding (will strike them above).On.Elpeleg (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Perils and Dangers of This Night[edit]

Fails notability threshold of "available at a dozen or more libraries" in Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Threshold_standards. According to Worldcat, only listed in three libraries. Not listed at national library. Though there are some promotional sites, I found no indication of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books) in the article or online. The article is little more than a promotional excerpt from the cover and marketing info. Although the author has one an award for The Comorant, I don't see him as sufficiently notable that this book would be automatically notable. cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:BK#Criteria. Ghits are listings rather than actual coverage (and many are for the Lutheran prayer from which the title is taken). JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:BK, could not find reliable sources to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hofherr[edit]

Written like a resume, very promotional nature, all the while failing all the notability points of WP:BIO without any verifiable reliable sources. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources and no evidence of independent notability separate from the band 7th Heaven (band) as required by WP:MUSIC. Notability of the band looks fairly thin too. The article created and heavily edited by an SPA User:7thheaven, so this may be a WP:AUTOBIO case too. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, and admittedly, early. The consensus here is almost unanimous, and merging has been effectively refuted. The article creator has also opined delete. No need for this to go on longer. Keeper ǀ 76 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapport (NLP)[edit]

This appears to be an in-universe description of how NLP uses one word, with no actual support for the term as a separate concept outside of the NLP walled garden. I think it's generally agreed that NLP is pseudoscience, and I believe that by giving credence to the idea that NLP has some special insight into the concept of rapport which is distinct from that described at rapport (a questionable premise, I think, but not really germane here) we are giving undue weight to a fringe view, in contravention of policy. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does seem like an extreme amount of coverage, for what could be covered in a paragraph or two at most of a main or summary article. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a paragraph in the main article for NLP but no evidence of NLP's usage of the term having any notability outside of NLP itself. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - The question of "is it real or pseudoscience" isn't that relevant to AFD, where the question is more "is it notable" than the nature of people's opinions exist on it. Doubtless it has coverage in reliable sources, and notability. The argument that it's "in universe" is also not that compelling, since it describes a specific methodology that is already known to be referenced or used by multiple reliable sources outside the NLP world. What decides this one for me is mostly WP:MM -- there's too much topic overlap, and not enough distinguishing it from other rapport-related topics, to justify a separate article. Merge any useful content, and delete -- little need for a redirect as this isn't an article name that people are likely to look for at random. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete isn't possible - you need to keep the GFDL attribution. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the question of "is it real or pseudoscience" is perfectly relevant to AFD. A subtopic of a major subject like mathematics is perfectly OK. A subtopic of a pseudoscience is not, because it suggests cruft, and suggests misleadingly that the pseudoscience has a weight that it cannot have (being a pseudoscience). Peter Damian (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rapport, which could be a good deal larger itself..but be mindful of undue weight. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've just alerted me to what a crap article Rapport is. It seems to be copied from the NLP article. 'Rapport' is of course an English word, but WP is not a dictionary. Is the concept of rapport used in any of the hard sciences, or does it have notable references in the works of existentialists, other mainstream psychologists? Erickson is a hypnotist. Peter Damian (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are 400 Medline hits for "rapport" plus "psychology", suggesting it may have a specialist meaning beyond the dictionary definition. It's worth looking into, at any rate. Thatcher 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neuro-linguistic_programming#Rapport seems to cover this issue much more succinctly and appropriately already. Anything more than a see also sentence in the Rapport article would be undue weight. -Hunting dog (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is more than adequately covered, and better sourced within its NLP context, in Neuro-linguistic_programming#Rapport. The use of references to Erickson, Satir, Perls etc. seem to me to be unnecessary and perhaps somewhat misleading. Poltair (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete summarising anything which is really necessary and adding it to the relevant section of the NLP article. An encyclopedia summarises knowledge- this is not an NLP wiki, of which I'm sure there are several, which are entirely for the subject, and can colonise the entire encyclopedia covering their belief system in meandering depth with numerous articles. Sticky Parkin 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
de-fork I am unclear on the proper procedure for merging/redirecting/de-forking. This article is a fork of Neuro-linguistic_programming#Rapport; it should be de-forked and sent back to the main article, keeping such text and references as appropriate, of course. A Medline search gives only 6 articles that discuss rapport in a specifically NLP context; that does not seem to me to justify keeping the article as a separate fork. Thatcher 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The level of coverage here is totally disproportionate. rootology (T) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicative, and POV. To the extent No need to merge to NLP, as there's nothing relevant not in the main article. Inappropriate to merge to rapport, as its a special and unimportant meaning and there's no relevant content. Inappropriate redirect, as the phrase would not be searched for by itself DGG (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Peter Damian (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find the delete arguments quite compelling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, per Poltair, per Rootology. Hiding T 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a separate topic, this article fails WP:N. The small amount of information on this page can easily be included in the main NLP article where it will be in-context as part of that system. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn in the Spotlight Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour, just a setlist and list of tour dates. Hardly encyclopedic. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED as a G4 recreation, previously deleted here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Up Tour[edit]

Recreated article of a previous AfD, non-notable tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, the article only has tour dates and set lists which has no importance. The tour can be summerized in 1 paragraph in the bands main page. Rebelderbd (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Non-notable tour? This is a tour involving a band that is one of the hottest out there right now, in terms of street buzz and in ticket sales. The article isn't the greatest, at the moment, but the tour is notable... thus the article is worthy, albeit definitely needing cleanup. Winger84 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read Wikipedia's deletion guidelines, you'd know that notability is not inherited. Yes the band is a huge deal right now, that's why I'm not nominating The Jonas Brothers for deletion. Rather, the tour on it's own does not prove that it is notable per WP:MUSIC, and more specifically, WP:OUTCOMES#MUSIC.

Keep, massively popular tour, plenty of press coverage to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator must be oblivious to pop culture. -- Phoenix2 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You must be oblivious to my first post. I never said that the group wasn't notable, but the tour itself isn't notable. A tour has to be notble outside of the fact that the band it's related to is notable, and this one isn't. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under what conditions would the tour be independently notable, in your opinion? There are ample press sources focusing on the tour—do you feel something more is necessary? Everyking (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, take a look at the page for the Soul2Soul II Tour. While it does contain a setlist and tour dates, the majority of the article is content about the tour and events on the tour, including references from notable sources that do more than just confirm the existence of the tour. The problem with the Burning Up tour is that the only actual content is describing what is happening during the tour. Plus, since the tour hasn't happened, there's no way of determining just how notable it will be, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment makes no sense. There are sources all about the tour, not merely "confirming its existence"—during the last DRV for this article I linked to Google News showing hundreds of articles about it, including interviews, reviews of individual shows, and discussions of its popularity and demographic appeal. You are also saying it hasn't happened yet, but it started over a month ago. Everyking (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining. (No really, I don't mean to sound snarky, I'm not explaining this very well.) Essentially, something is not notable simply because it is related to something else that IS notable. In this case, a Jonas Brothers tour is not notable simply because the Jonas Brothers are notable. There is precident in cases like this, including the Change for Change Tour, the Love on the Inside Tour, and most notably, This tour itself. Yes, this tour has been nominated for deletion once before, and the nomination passed, until someone recreated the article. That's why I initially put it up for speedy until someone declined it. Frankly, there just isn't anything particularly notable about this tour. It is a by-the-book musical tour. It hasn't broken any records, nothing unusual happened during the tour, etc. Yes, there are a lot of interviews and articles promoting the tour, but that's true about pretty much every tour ever. By your logic, nearly every tour a band goes on should have an article. I hope I've explained this well, let me know if you have any more questions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that the tour inherits notability from the Jonas Brothers; I'm arguing that the tour is notable in its own right. Something does not need to have exceptional, remarkable attributes to be notable; it is sufficient that it has received substantial attention. Everyking (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, but I just don't think that in this case it is. It's a very standard tour of which little more can be written. I don't see this article progressing past the point where it's at now. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A Little Bit Longer omitting tour dates, ect. I do think that the tour is notable, but it really doesn't require its own article because it really isn't going to get much bigger than a paragraph unless you add in unnotable details. Tavix (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP NOT NOTABLE? Almost all the shows on this tour is sold out in MINUTES! Some even broke records, being sold out within 3 minutes! Still not notable? The tour is going to be a 3D movie in February, 2008. I think a MOVIE is notable enough to have an article, let alone a 3D movie on a tour by Jonas Brothers, Platinum selling artists in multiply countries, including the US, Mexico, and Argentina! ^[1] ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN (i.e. not explaining why and how it is not notable, just declaring it isn't is subjective and we have to be convinced that it isn't) not being a valid deletion rationale and because notability is inherited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, no, notability is NOT inherited. Please read WP:NOTINHERITED for more information on this concept. Sorry, but the article's been deleted before, and nothing has changed since the last nomination. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found that "argument" that it isn't persuasive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. It is persuasive for sure, but it is false logic. A subject must be able to stand alone in terms of notability for it to actually be notable. You can't just create articles on anything related to a notable subject and expect it to exist because the two are related. You have to provide reason why the subject itself is notable. Currently, you're just arguing that the Jonas Brothers are notable, not the tour. Plus, I am of the opinion that a great deal of the tour articles on Wikipedia are not notable, this included. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A paperless encyclopedia, as long as the content is verifiable, can afford to have spinoff and sub-articles. Tours are fairly notable subjects, they're reviewed, many people go to them, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm going to to go with WP:NOT, specifically other terrible ideas. This isn't quite an indiscriminate collection of information, but it's damn close. Wikipedia isn't a directory of any kind, and certainly isn't a collection of tour guides. There's really nothing to say about this tour except a listing of the dates they played in various cities, and there is no reason at all to expect that information to be located in an encylopedia.Kww (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The press articles about the tour found more to say than just the tour dates. I'm sure we can do likewise. Everyking (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rugrats cast members[edit]

This list should be deleted because all the information is already covered in the main Rugrats article and the character articles. Basically, this article is redundant. John Sloan (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question If it's all redundant, what's wrong with the title: if this is the only problem, couldn't it be redirected? Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, a redirect would be pointless. The only article to redirect to is Rugrats, and no ones going to type List of Rugrats cast members to find the Rugrats article. They're gonna type rugrats. Deletion is defiantly the best option here. John Sloan (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Rugrats characters. AndyJones (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to mention the only reason I suggest deletion over redirect is because no ones going to type List of Rugrats cast members to find the main, character or list of character articles. :-) John Sloan (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously underestimating how cheap redirects are. It does no harm to retain this as a redirect just for the benefit of people who happen to have this article on their watchlist, or who once bookmarked it, and as an effortless way of keeping blue the 31 internal links that point to this page. Deletion is such a visible part of the wikipedia process that people assume it is the right way to go for all kinds of matters that can be dealt with through normal editing. A few years ago "redirects are cheap" was one of wikipedia's buzz-terms. Its heard far less nowadays but remains as true as ever. AndyJones (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I must point out that all of the links to the page will be lost anyway. Even if the result of this AfD is redirect. This is because most of them come from the Rugrats navbox and the rest point to this AfD. And if the page is deleted or redirected, the link in the navbox will have to be removed. John Sloan (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is already included in the main template in the Rugrats article, and in the list of characters article. Therefore, it makes the list redundant as the nominator has mentioned and is worthy of deletion. Tavix (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SunRun[edit]

Problems with WP:RS (the New York Times and San Jose Mercury News coverage just mentions the company in passing) and possible WP:CORP issues, too. It doesn't help that the article reads like an advertisement. The sun may not shine on this article for much longer. Nomination withdrawn Due to excellent referencing that confirmed the subject's notability. Thank you, one and all, for your comments Ecoleetage (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added a couple of non-trivial references and removed ad-speak. Gr1st (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate stub. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The newly added references come from strong media sources, admittedly, but their coverage is extremely weak -- they just mention that very young SunRun raised $12 million. I still don't see how the company fares in regard to WP:CORP or even WP:N. Any comments or additional sources that illuminate (no pun intended) the notability of the subject will be welcome. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a little unfair, Eco: the Reuters article looks like a full-blown profile of the company to me, running to two-and-a-bit pages. Anyway, added a further source to the article which may or may not sway you. Gr1st (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added SunRun's mention in USA Today, with a quote from Nat Kreamer weientan —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep to me it smells of WP:ADVERT (I wish it could be expanded) but it seems to have RS and seems to barely pass the notability test.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China at the 1952 Summer Olympics[edit]

I originally created this page for the results of the team that competed at the 1952 Games, mistakenly thinking that "China" in the official report referred to the team from the ROC instead of the PRC. When another editor created China at the 1952 Summer Olympics, I looked into it and discovered my error. I prodded this article (instead of deleting myself as I didn't think G7 was quite appropriate), but an anonymous IP editor removed the prod. My rationale for deletion is that all the articles in this series ("Nation at the year Olympics") are intended for the results of the teams that actually competed. Since the ROC withdrew before these Games, there are no results to report. The only content that could remain is better placed in articles like the main 1952 Summer Olympics article and the Chinese Taipei at the Olympics article, and I see that the anon. editor has actually made those edits. There is no additional or unique content that can be put in this article that isn't already described elsewhere, and it is confusing to have articles for teams that don't compete. We don't have Afghanistan at the 2000 Summer Olympics, for example, and when Brunei failed to appear in Beijing, we turned Brunei at the 2008 Summer Olympics into a redirect and added a fully referenced paragraph to the main article. I agree that the situation with PRC/ROC in 1952 is more complex than Brunei in 2008, but that does not warrant the need for a redundant "results" article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As stated, no point in having an article about something that didn't happen: the standard is not to have articles on "Nation in the Year Olympics" if they didn't compete (what would the point be of Gold Coast at the 2008 Summer Olympics?). Even stronger because the creator, a leading person in the Olympic wikiproject, wants to see this deleted. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They did not compete, and the story is told at other articles already. Edison (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's rationale is pretty solid. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't exist Gary King (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to China at the 1952 Summer Olympics. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete is fine, but it's important to realise that deletion isn't needed in these situations. The nominator could simply have boldly redirected his or her article to China at the 1952 Summer Olympics. AndyJones (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the political situation between the PRC and ROC, I don't think it's a very good idea to redirect from one to the other... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The political situation would cause edit wars over a redirect, and the PRC is not the ROC. Add a paragraph to the main article, and I guess we could redirect to that. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grunny[edit]

Article for a fictional character, no notability outside community ViperSnake151 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real world notability JuJube (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion of notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and unsourced. Gelmax (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussions of a redirect can take place on the talk page if so desired. Wizardman 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back (Demi Lovato song)[edit]

WP:MUSIC states Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This single doesn't approach that status: leaked, off an album that is yet to be released, performed by one performer, no awards, and the performer has never charted at all. Kww (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, confirmed first single from a major artist. Everyking (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Per Everyking. Quasy Boy 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Due to the fact that Demi performed the song on Good Morning America, a very popular morning talk show, it shows signs of notability. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that Demi Lovato and Good Morning America are both owned by Disney, isn't it more a sign of marketing than notability? GMA certainly doesn't qualify as an independent source.
Kww (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back Don't Forget, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there's nothing of significance to write about this specific song. Being a single from a major artists doesn't grant notabilty to every single they release. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demi Lovato (or someplace reasonable) until there is some independent coverage and something to say on the subject. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I found this on Google news. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you point me at the portion of WP:MUSIC that is satisfied by that source? I'm not saying that the song doesn't exist, I'm saying that it satisfies no requirement laid down by WP:MUSIC.Kww (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The song appears in the title of an article on Google news, which we tend to consider the reliable non-fan sources, and is referenced in others, which suggests that it is keepable in some capacity. Plus, reviews exist specifically of this song. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. WP:MUSIC lays down very specific guidelines to apply, superceding the general requirements of WP:N. Which of those very specific guidelines do you believe that your source supports?Kww (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on songs that says "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I see the sources as sufficient enough to write a reasonably detailed article. That section also notes that at worst the song would be redirected to another article, which is not something editors need or would use a deletion discussion to do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently, the only way to make a redirect stick is to have it decided on by a deletion discussion. We are here because Everyking has insisted upon undoing the redirects to the parent album without providing any reasoning whatsoever, or responding to discussions on his talk page.Kww (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has mergeable content, however. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinza[edit]

Non-notable biography, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Google search brings up only 2 results: the Wikipedia article and the forum/blog run by the subject. The article makes no assertion of notability, probably qualifies for WP:CSD#A7 but I wanted second opinions. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the Google search to which I provided the link is for the search string "Jonathan Sinza La'Flesh", the subject's full name. Google search with the search string "Sinza" provides more hits, however most are unrelated to this subject and the ones that are related are still self-published and non-reliable. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked "Jonathan Sinza" and "Sinza knives" in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and could find no sources to help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are found by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notabilility has not been established through reliable sources; Xiphoid should probably have some of the promotional-toned material about Sinza's website cleaned up, too. --Stormie (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yogic Yang Spiral[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, fails WP:RS, promotional piece. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree, to a large extent, this article is an advertisement for a neologism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sankara Swamigal[edit]

Bio of a non notable. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. All that the articles says is that he died. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree, there is only one event is this article and that is the subject's death. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical Phenomenon[edit]

Since there already is an article for High School Musical, there is no need for some obscure phenomenon that is supposed to have been triggered by it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this article is OR. Any meaningful content should be moved to High School Musical.
Kww (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I disagree with the above poster that it is OR, I believe this is an unnecessary fork. The first portion of the article duplicates High School Musical without even defining what the current article is about. The second article is unsourced, although has claims of notability. If references were added, I could see the information being added to the main article, but as it stands, there is nothing to merge. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this looks crufty to me, and the title itself looks like a possible neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with/to High School Musical. Any notable information can easily be merged to High School Musical. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and POV issues Sceptre ^(talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. It looks like someone vomited up some numbers. Also, who the hell is that "growing internet celebrity" or whatever it is the article talked about? mitchsurp (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Oppose Merge - original research should not be merged -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not content which would improve High School Musical if it were merged in. --Stormie (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mackinac Island Ferry Companies[edit]

List of three transit companies serving Mackinac Island, Michigan. Only one of them is a blue link, and since there're only three anyway, I see no purpose in a list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing wrong with a short list in a few cases (for example, the GA List of counties in Delaware), but there's nothing about these companies that makes them comparable to counties, and there's definitely nothing useful about a list of things when most of the things listed don't even have articles. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list can easily be incorporated in the Mackinac Island article. --Polaron | Talk 22:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I was hoping for a section redirect, but there doesn't seem to be an "education" subheader in the city page, I'll poke around to see if I can find anything Keeper ǀ 76 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanael Greene Elementary School[edit]

School asserts no notability. Have tried redirecting to the locale article per WP:SCHOOL (now possibly defunct) and WP:OUTCOMES, but author keeps removing redirect. Would prefer to keep redirect, but requesting consensus to bring this to some conclusion. CultureDrone (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The going practice on elementary schools still seems like the best possible option to me. Townlake (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect that's what normally happens. Note, the photos don't have proper fair use rationale on the page...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I see nothing notable about this school. Dpmuk (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has any one tried contacting the page creator, either on their or the article's talk page, to explain why it is being changed to a redirect. This may have been an easier way to solve this than bringing it to AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, protect the redirect for a few days, explain to the author (edit summaries have explained briefly but he may not have understood). JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've put a message on the authors talk page explaining why the deletion/redirect. CultureDrone (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - incidentally, is it still possible to use the general guidelines in WP:SCHOOL for school notability, or did the failure to reach consensus 'remove' it as a viable guideline ? CultureDrone (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try a Merge and redirect, rather than just a redirect. There's no article on the school district, Pawtucket, Rhode Island doesn't have a section on schools or education. --Stormie (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Wizardman 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eminently not notable. Annette46 (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Pawtucket, Rhode Island as preferred by CultureDrone - useful to keep a potential search term as a redirect rather than delete. Should anyone write a Pawtucket school district article then they can change the redirect to that. Jll (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Dale[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find anything on this on Billboard, Polyhex, AMG, Google ... . - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting this? I spent so much time on research and making and you go and delet it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but please dont delete this, if you are suggesting they didnt exist then you are very wrong. I admit i was there biggest fan for ovious reasons as you can probably guess, but they even appeared on TOTP and buzzcocks and i even found a video on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think the band existing is in question, but rather are they notible. You may have done a lot of research, but have zero references in the article. As it stands, it appears to be original research (aka by you), and what you need is reliable 3rd party sources. There is an assertion of notability in the article, so I will hold off deciding on a delete or keep to give you some time to get your references added. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the band existing is in question, at least in my book. The article claims the band placed five hits on the UK Top 40, this is completely untrue, as a quick search at everyhit.com will confirm. Given that the article contains one obvious untruth, added to the total lack of Ghits for a band who were supposedly popular in multiple countries, I'm going to tag this as a hoax and !vote delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything on the web. A band with even minor reception in the gay community should bring up some ghits at least. As the article is, it lacks either WP:V or WP:N. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Lacks verifiability & reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, I have a old TOTP magazine which features an interview with them, so they obviously DO exist if there in a genuine TOTP magazine. And why would I make this up anyway, that would just be absolutley pointless after all the research and time i spent on making this article based on a REAL band. And i did find a youtube video of them performing at a gig in Bristol, but i remember i once posted a youtube URL link another page and Wikipedia told me I couldnt do it and deleted my link.

And your obviously not looking hard enough on google, because I managed to find a lot of information on them on google after a while of searching, which helped me to write the article. Some of it might not be true but its only what i read on the internet and from what i know being a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a complete list of every non-Wikipedia Google hit generated by the words "Queer Dale" - perhaps you could point out to us which of these webpages provides any information whatsoever about this alleged band.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRather than having had 'five top 40 UK hits',they have in fact not even managed to make the UK Top 100.Their 'huge hit that was a No.2 in the Spanish charts' appears nowhere on Google. I'm also curious as to how the group goes from being a '90s group' in the first paragraph to a '80s sensation' in the last one...Nothing on Youtube either Lemon martini (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sorry for making a couple of mistakes, ill change it back to 90s, bu how come i can find info on them AND on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparent hoax. Claims within the article are trivial to prove false, no Google hits and no YouTube hits despite claims made here. --Stormie (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax! Why would i spend so much time writing up an aticle on a 'fake' band?! Seriously that would just be pointless. You people are not looking hard enough, If you do you WILL find pages on them on google, because I did, and you WILL find youtube videos of them because I did also. I WOULD post a youtube link, BUT i did that one and wikipedia deleted the link and told me I couldnt, so I wont attempt it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it DEFINETLY IS on google, after a few different searches inluding the words Queer Dale and a long time looking through pages I found information. Your all to quick to judge and dont respects the amount of research and time done on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) If you look at my history, I have only made appropriate edits and creations to wikipedia pages, so why would I creat a hoax article is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viola! I found a picture of them, I dont know if anyone here is from Bristol, where Queer Dale originated. Now in Bristol, they have the Annual Harbour Festival, i found on a cached page (been updated because it was from 2007) after a lot of searching. I did not include this in the article because it was a one off event for the band, but they played in a pub nearby Bristol harbour for the event in 2007. In the picture its Brian Wilson on the left(hasnt changed much, has the same hair basically), then its Shane,Danny,and Dale on the right, a bit older fatter and uglier but....if you want to see the picture I am happy to show you, i am not sure about all the copyright and stuff so I wont uplaod it to the article without you wanting to see it first. And If you dont beleive me about the Bristol Harbour Festival, google that. --Hamandcheesemachine (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no assertion of notability.Playing the Bristol Harbour Festival for what you describe as 'a one off event' is not notable(they didn't even headline the event).There have been no charting albums or singles,no tours or collaborations with major artists,no major awards.Lemon martini (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actally they were famous in the 90s, thats why they featured in the Harbour Festival as a combeck. I will provide a link to Photobucket which features a picture of them. Queer Dale 07. Like I said, they a it older obviously. This picture was not actually taken by me, It was on a cached page from Bristol.gov.uk Events (was a cached page so has been updated) but I was at that performance.--Hamandcheesemachine (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you've proved (maybe) that the band played a pub gig in 2007. That's hardly the same thing as being internationally famous and having five top 40 hits, which for the record is blatantly untrue. If the only thing that can be conclusively proved is that they played one pub gig last year then I'm sorry but they're a million miles away from being notable enough to be on Wikipedia.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record that banner behind the band in your photo looks quite a lot like it's been Photoshopped on to me....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certain hoax (the top 40 claims are false and the two pictures don't even look to me like the same set of guys) but in any case absolutely not notable - see Google. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as redirect. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G.N.O. (Girl's Night Out)[edit]

Non-notable song, the song doesn't have a music video, unreferenced and didn't chart anywhere

Delect or redirect to patent album Insuficient information to has a separated article, not referenced informations and didn't chart...Also, G.N.O. doesn't have a music video. It not seems notable to me. Voices4ever 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the song isnt notable (I agree w/ above comments) CloversMallRat (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, non-charting singles are 90% of the time not notable. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it did chart.^[2] EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment charting poorly is not much better CloversMallRat (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Brothers_(album)Jonas Brothers (album)
^ http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=772285&model.vnuAlbumId=1150800

Redirect to album. Barely charted, very little to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC#Songs standards.--LAA Fan 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus, since this is a popular song, it does not need to be deleted, because I'm sure it is searched for very often. Miley has a lot of hit songs, and this isn't one of her hits, so it does not need it's own article. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Melissa Schuman. Wizardman 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Phoenix[edit]

Non-notable band. When searching for "Lady Phoenix" Schuman a total of 5 gHits, 2 Wikipedia, 3 Myspace. The one item in the article that tries to show notability, interview by Vibe Magazine, when searching for either Lady Phoenix or Schuman on the Vibe website return no pertinent hits. The only criteria out of WP:Band that is plausible to show notability is #6. Melissa Schuman does have her own wiikpedia article (sourced only with self-published sources) for involvement in Dream but there does not seem to have enough notability to carry notability for this band. Jons63 (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melissa Schuman, and add a short note with the self-published reference about this group to her article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melissa Schuman#New_Group. Lacks reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owl City[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Article is actively being worked on. "Owl City" saltwater had a few hit on a google search, but nothing reliable. Pirate^Argh!!1! 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite some ghits, with [11] probably being the best source, but it's far from significant coverage in reliable sources, thus fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC.
Delete. --Amalthea^Talk 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC) ike was here[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Nyttend. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balcarce bike park[edit]

Contested prod. BMX bike park with no assertation of notability. CultureDrone (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy mini mpv[edit]

Complete speculation, no factual basis for article IFCAR (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure speculation, no references. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and J.delanoy: this is totally unsourced speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and Redirect~~ ~~to Chevrolet Cruze.~~ Reading the article closely, there is one reference imbedded into it, but the author didn't do the additional research to find out that there is already an article written on the subject. Based on what I read, there is nothing salvageable the main article doesn't already have, so no need to merge. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cruze is something else. No redirect needed. IFCAR (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - my bad - read this [12] article a tad too fast. However, it is a reference for this article. I just don't see it having enough information to warrent its own article at this time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgies (animated shorts)[edit]

~~May be a G4, as a similar page was deleted before if I'm not mistaken (albeit under a different title).~~ Fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Real, but very poorly-written with no sources. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply isn't notable, an article on one of the shorts (Calling Cat 22!) was deleted recently through AfD. treelo _radda 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE. I'm a regular Cartoon Network viewer, which would normally bias me towards keep, but in this case, these are just small, 5 minute-ish cartoons which fill up empty air time. They're randomly aired, not even noted in programming guides. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Mapping[edit]

A prod tag was removed with no apparent improvement to the text. The article's author is also the author of the only citation provided, there is no other evidence to suggest that this is anything except an invented term that's trying to be promoted here, and the term has a much larger number of Google hits with respect to crystallography. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonathan.

I can see why you thought crystal mapping unworthy of an entry. All I can say is that I'm doing this in good faith but I'm not sure how to proceed vis a vis the 'promotion' issue and some of the other problems. You're right I am the author of the only citation - will it help if I cite someone else's article about the subject. Also re crystallography and google counts - how do I get round that? The two things are entirely different?

The background to the term and the subject is that crystal mapping is similar to concept mapping and mind mapping and a number of other such tools and processes but is distinctly different in the way it handles the subject and thus is a new method in its own right. The key to crystal mapping is the fact that it is based on a circle thus representing unity. I have a number of academics who would verify the uniqueness of the idea and process.

This is not a spam / spurious idea of any sort and it is a genuine belief on my part and of others that crystal mapping is a new method and process and the intention is to get it increasingly recognised as such.

Also I note that a brand of mind mapping software Mind Manager has a listing. Could I copy the way this has been listed for Crystal Mapping (i.e. as a branded product in the general area of mind mapping / concept mapping)as a start?

Thsnka in anticipation of your comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a neologism being promoted here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Crystal Mapping Deletion status You are possibly right that it is a neologism - but thats a problem I'll have to deal with in a much more general sense than wiki entry. What if I use the term Crystal Map - would that cover off the neologism? I still can't figure how I can not promote the idea by entering it into wikipedia. Mind mapping promotes mind mapping and same for concept mapping? And surely mind manager is promting mind manager - thats advertising isnt it. I'm not trying here to sling any mud but i just dont know how else to make my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Mark wogan (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Most of what you need to hear from me/us is covered at WP:NEOLOGISM which states, among other things, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That's my rough guess at what's going on here. The crystallography term has many independent third-party citations and seems to be a recognized term within that scientific discipline. Yours was recently invented by you, and seems only to be used by you, and that's the difference. When the phrase gains widespread usage in mainstream media to refer to the process -- and not to the branded product or the book associated with it -- then someone other than yourself will doubtless be moved to create a Wikipedia article about it. Until that time, you might want to look into Wiktionary, which has less stringent qualifications for its neologistic entries. By the way, "X has an article so my article about Y should be allowed" is not accepted around here as a valid argument -- see the page at WP:WAX for a detailed explanation of why that is so. In the meantime, the most valuable thing you can do to make any points on Wikipedia policy that may be of use to you is not here, but at the deletion discussion that you can access by the link within the box at the top of the article; only arguments found in that area will be considered when the closing administrator decides the fate of the article. If you have any questions with which I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Accounting4Taste" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.4.101 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Mark, you say that "that crystal mapping is a new method and process and the intention is to get it increasingly recognised as such" - this is pretty much the definition of what Wikipedia is not: original research, new ideas, a platform for promotion. Once your method has garnered significant coverage in independant, reliable sources, it can be included in an encyclopaedia, but not the other way around. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Crystallography. Single crystal diffraction might be a better target, but appears currently to exist only as separate articles by scatterer. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not like self-promoters. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article does not meet notability criteria and thus has a serious problem. At the same time, numerous editors have expressed their opinion that this is an exceptional case where the GNG is insufficient as a test of notability and their opinions cannot be discounted here. Please note that this "no consensus" closure is not an endoresement of the status quo and interested editors should pursue a proper closure to the broader question of what the fate of this information is, whether that be through further researching and the addition of new sources, through the merging of this and similar "staple modern fantasy creatures" into a single article, or another solution. If the article's failing of current guidelines and/or policies is not remedied, there is no prejudice against a renomination in the near future. Shereth 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 book and game plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warhammer 40k. I don't think parts of a game are notable enough in and of themselves. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Orcs and Goblins#Snotlings. They don't exist in Warhammer 40,000 any more. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge above - The subject of the article is not exclusive to Warhammer 40K and as a race exist in other games by the same manufacturer. Merger if required should be to a more general article as the subject appears in Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40K, BloodBowl, and various versions of the RPG. Goblinoid may be a good place although I note they also leave out the Bloodbowl references. Orcs & Goblins is a specific codex for Warhammer Fantasy and again has nothing to do with either the Bloodbowl appearances, the historical 40K existence, or the roleplay aspect of the race. To confuse the issue even more though, I don't think they require a standalone article either.Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they exist or existed in numerous Games Workshop games in both the Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40K universes. If they are to be merged with anything, it should be a new Greenskin (Warhammer) article about all greenskin races in all Warhammer universes. Ausir (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they have existed in multiple games set in both universes. Nemesis646 (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this demonstrate notability (as defined by WP)? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. While notability is inherited, the article also passes the general notability guideline on its own. The outcomes of the other Warhammer AfDs were unfortunately marred by a deletionist sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No verification has taken place with this topic, no reliable sources presented, as usual it's a keep vote because....well, we just don't ever vote for deletion, regardless of a topics total lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued to and even nominated to delete over fifty articles. I typed in "snotling" on Google Books. A word that gets multiple hits is sufficient verifiable (after all, it's books, not just websites) and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, how many of those books were published by companies other than Games Workshop, BL Publishing or other companies owned by GW? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more relevant question in this case might be, how many of these given in the linked search deal with the subject of the article in question? One of them has a comment to the effect "That guy in the Games Workshop tee shirt looked like a snotling, one of the figures made by Games Workshop." How is this substantial coverage? The others deal with Jewish/Yiddish poetry (getting exactly *one* hit for the word "snotling" in a poem), and one gets a hit because apparently there's a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling, and hence the hit is on the Beckett price guide to baseball cards. So again, how many of these deal with the subjecct of this article? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability adequately sourced. I don't agree with all of GRCs keep !votes by a long shot, but I do agree here. DGG (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in sources independent from the subject, per WP:N. The "keep" opinions above ignore this issue. As pointed out above, the Google Books search results are not about the fictional creatures at issue here. Sandstein 08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They do show that the term is notable for coverage in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly transwiki to some appropriate place). No independent references to demonstrate notability (independent of Games Workshop and/or its subsidiaries, the makers of the games that use this fictional creature). --Craw-daddy | T | 09:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If transwikied then we should soft redirect to that location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are multiple games that use Snotlings, and there's novels (set in the Warhammer universe) with them. Stijndon (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but are there any reliable sources that talk about this? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly transwiki to some appropriate Wikia site for this, but there are no independent references to demonstrate notability as established. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If transwikied, then we should soft redirect to that location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term appears in Google News, Books and Scholar searches, but that is because of people named Snotling, or its use as slang for "child". There is one Google News hit which says, "The bow and crossbow are damaging enough in the hands of weaker characters like the snotling, but when utilized by specialized enemies such as assassins..." which, even though it is a NYT review of the game, is more about the weapon than the race. This one source makes no claim of notability for the race. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means that at worst we can have a disambiguation page on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. The other uses are not notable either. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Collectively they are. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - 0 + 0 + 0 = 0. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        1+1+1=3. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject is appearing to be notable, it has refs, and it's styled somewhat well. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would be mistaken, as there is only one reference, and it doesn't establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google books shows more than one reference. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which have nothing at all to do with the article under discussion. For example, how does a baseball player named Chris Snotling have any bearing on a fictional creature called a Snotling???? How does a poem that uses the word Snotling once have any bearing on the subject of this article (which is a fictional race in a fantasy game from a game puclisher??? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They demonstrate that the term is one that at worst we can use to construct a disambugation page covering these various usages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. I opposevcreating an article about every character, place, device and event in a fictional work or a game franchise when it has no substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game or a game guide associated with the publishers of the game. Edison (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage have been presented above that allow for some manner of article that does not justify redlinking it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The "references" (using the word loosely) in that Google books search are the very definition of "insubstantial".

This one gives us "He looked like on of those Games Workshop creatures. A snotling. ... -- he looked like a snotling hedgehog with alopecia". And that's it.
In this one we seem to find "A snotling peeked out from under her father's plate. Harmony watched in dread as her father cut into his strawberry ..." and "Maybe the snotling was trying to dig out from under the biscuit. If she could just squish it back down..." and nothing more.
Here, here, and here we find the use of the word "snotling" exactly once in a poem (surprise, surprise, it's the same poem in three different books). So a single word in a 378 page book, or a 471 book (and another single word in a book of unknown page length). Pretty substantial, isn't it?
This book also seems to have this word appear exactly once in it.
Another book gives us " 'I did not hit you, you snotling' " as the sum total of its use of the word.
We again find the word exactly once here and, though it's hard to tell from the online print source, it seems to be someone's name in a paper referenced in these conference proceedings.
Finally, the last of the nine hits on the Google Book search is the Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide with, apparently, a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling (I think). So no relevance to the subject of this article.

In other words, in no way does this constitute "substantial coverage" and claiming so is misleading and disingenuous. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are multiple references in published books that constitute substantial coverage of the word "snotling" in some capacity and saying they aren't is misleading and disingenuous. I am arguing that the article should not be redlinked as the word and its use is verifiable in some capacity whether it's the contents of the article or for a dramatic rewrite of the article. I see nothing to convince me that we can't use these sources to have some kind of article on "snotling" whatever that may be. It's not a word a wikipedian just made up. And even in the context used here, they are verfiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Craw-daddy's analysis of the "significant" coverage in reliable sources. Pure game guide material with no assertion of real-world notability. If you want to transwiki it somewhere, [13] would be the appropriate target at Wikia. --Stormie (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If transwikied, then we should soft-redirect to that location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree 100%, I'm definitely in favour of soft-redirects to articles on other Free wikis, when a subject is not suitable for the encyclopedia. However others object to the idea. --Stormie (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The google books search is great evidence that the term, as used in this article, does not have substantial third-party coverage. However, deletion should be without prejudice against the creation of an article about baseball player Chris Snotling. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that article be one called Chris Snotling or are you saying Snotling should be disambiguation page or redirect? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm simply emphasizing that your google books search is excellent evidence for the non-notability of the subject of the article. Nandesuka (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, my interest is not merely in the current subject of the article, but what best to do with Snotling, i.e. can we make a disambugation page, can we merge any of this elsewhere, have the relevant wiki projects been notified, etc. Put simply, is there any decisively compelling reason why the article needs to be redlinked or are their alternatives and if so have they all been fully considered first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into a list of W40K creatures. Not notable on its own. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not only a W40K creature. Ausir (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like this storm of delete-votes is unstoppable, because there has never been a news report or book or anything on snotlings. I just wanted to add that snotlings seem to be of interest to a large group of gamers. Just look at the image results of a google search on snotlings: there's heaps of results, and only the very first one is from Games Workshop itself. This suggests that Snotlings might earn their own page, even though this goes against some of the policies if you want to interpret them in a certain way. Also, if this is deleted, please consider deleting Behir, Beholder, Displacer beast and Illithid, amongst others. They are just creatures from a game with no references outside of a DnD-context. So I cannot say that I can find 'reliable' and 'independent' sources on snotlings, but in this case, I feel that those are not as necessary. Can we merge spoon into cutlery? Haven't read much news about those lately, either. Stijndon (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do keep suggesting other non-notable proprietary fantasy creatures which have articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those should go, too, right? They are just as invalid as snotlings are. Just go to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and PROD them all, with this debate as jurisprudence. It wouldn't be fair to keep those. Let's at least be consistent. Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should all stay. There's no legitimate reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not at worst redirect without deleting these articles. Don't dwell on the disputed and subjective concept of notability. If at worst, WP:IGNOREALLRULES, as the most important thing is for us to be a comprehensive reference guide that gives our community of readers and editors what it wants. As such outright deleting this verifiable article that appears in various incarnations that several editors clearly believe is notable (something that has diverse use, receives multiple keep arguments, and can be verified is notable by any logical standard anyway) would hinder our ability to improve Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should stay. One of the coolest things about wikipedia is being able to read up on almost any random, valid topic! Stijndon (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now that the relevant projects are finally serious about respecting the encyclopedia's standards for notability, I expect that those listed which don't have significant coverage in independent third-party sources will gradually be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources can be used for verification, but not to establish notability. No notability is established through independent third-party sources, because they don't exist. Although I have to say that it is beyond awesome that there is on Earth a man named Chris Snotling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Isn't the fact that loads of people feel the urge to post pictures of their snotlings on the web a form of notability? This is really a question, not some attempt to make a point. I would guess it is - so why isn't it? Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is to any reasonable person. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to self: Maybe I'm not "reasonable"...) I think it's really more vanity/showing off (in a sense), along the lines of "Look at these miniatures I've painted, aren't they swell!" It's not so much that they are pictures of snotlings, or any other creature/beast/man/tank/spaceship/etc, but people showing their painting skills that might happen to be on those models (maybe they *like* the models, but that's immaterial). Some of these types of postings are really "how-to" guides, i.e. "here's how I painted my figures" and are instructional material on painting techniques. There are plenty of "how-to" guides about how to build your own scenery for wargames (with plenty of accompanying pictures), but do articles about how to build bombed-out buildings or tank traps contribute to notability for "Ruins" or "Tank traps"? (And, of course, you should filter out all of the eBay (and other auction) listings as those don't "count" for notability as obviously people display their pictures to flog their wares.) Of course this is my opinion and yours may vary. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how can any modern fictional thing now be notable? Is there any justification for an article on warhammer at all? Its article is a mix of blatant advertising (wrong), how to play (WP:not-a-manual) and copyright infringement, filled up with non-notable things. I find it flabbergasting that an article on snotlings is so strongly opposed, whereas it is obvious that a large group of people may eventually want to read it ("Oh look, it's linked! Let's check it out real quick." And I meant the cocky painters that wanted to show off their mad skills by accidentally having painted a snotling instead of something impressive.) Doesn't "suitable for a specialised encyclopedia" mean anything? I thought that was one of the general includability-guidelines. Where do you draw this line? somewhere above snotlings, obviously, though I do not concur. Stijndon (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry as given that numerous editors and readers have been working on and reading this article since 2004 coupled with the many keep "votes" in this discussion, it is fairly clear that the actual community consensus is to keep as a handful of deletes in one five day discussion does not reflect the much longer community attitude toward this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You draw the line, obviously, at subjects which do not have significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Warhammer Fantasy Battle has oodles of these. Snotling does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had rather draw the line at something that cannot be verified anymore. It is obvious that snotlings "exist," and not only are they suitable material for specialised encyclopediae, they're even published in one. And yes, this was published by the copyrightholders of snotlings, but does that matter? I would gladly PROD anything that seems trivial and cannot be verified, like some obscure musical genre or some aspiring actress's vanity page. But snotlings can so be verified. What is the point in deleting them? Is there a point? At first I wanted to put the {user=deletionist} thing on my page, but this debate makes me refrain from that. Stijndon (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where individual editors would rather draw the line is beside the point, Le Grand Roi's arguments aside. Of course it matters that the only place a non-trivial account of the subject has been posted is in an "encyclopedia" commissioned by the copyright holders: they make money out of selling the miniatures, so it's in their business to cover them extensively. However, if no other source has done so then they evidently are not important to the world at large. The line is not "does it exist", the line is "has it been covered in a non-trivial way by a reasonable number of independent third-party sources". This hasn't. Arguments which fail to address this shortcoming are bogus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are all the non-Games Workshop google images not independent sources? Oh wait, those were posted by painters looking to make a buck by showing off their painting skillz. And the encyclopedia only contained snotlings to further milk the cashcow that they obviously are. Those arguments are so poor! It looks like all sources are getting lumped in the "unimportant" "not notable" or "blatant advertisement" categories, and all keepers are "individual editors who've misdrawn their lines." Nice. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason all sources are being lumped into these categories is because they are. Think about it - Games Workshop sell millions of miniatures every year. If the simple ownership and display of these miniatures in sufficient numbers is an indicator of notability, that basically means any GW miniature is worthy of an article. This is definitely not the current consensus of the project. There is nothing to be said about the subject of the snotling which isn't game-guide or in-universe, which accounts for the complete lack of sourcing, and as such a real-world encyclopedia shouldn't have an article on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that Wikipedia should only have non-specialised articles on general stuff. Stijndon (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's the consensus of the project. The place to change that is not across random AfD decisions, even if it seems likely that the extended opening of this one is going to result in a no-consensus decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really the consensus of the project. If it was thousands of editors would not create, work on, come here to read, and/or argue to keep these articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable fictional creature. Craw-daddy's excellent analysis of the "sources" strongly indicates that this topic has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has received substantial enough coverage for wikipedia and WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining my Keep Are people telling us that they exist as a conceept beyond Warhammer? That would increase the notability considerably. this will of course need references, but if the widespread use claimed is present, this should be possible/ The criterion is of course, sourceable, not already-sourced. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe,and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, its notable. DGG (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be a "double vote" made in good faith by User:DGG. 128.59.179.251 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here we go again. The books, magazines and references on Warhammer subjects are almost exclusively produced under the direct control of the game manufacturer. Because they wield explicit and strong control over their intellectual property, an unlicensed fictional or out of universe account of this unit is highly unlikely. The significant coverage available on this subject comes from Games Workshop publications and publishing houses (White Dwarf, Fanatic magazine, the codexes and the works of fiction are all published and produced by games workshop). The sources listed above in the AfD (as no independent sources in the article are cited) provide a textbook definition of what is meant by a trivial mention. Each source either mentions the text string "snotling" in an entirely different context or only mentions it in passing on the way to discuss another subject. It is plainly not our business to populate this encyclopedia with items simply because some company has published material about them. This feeling is expressed in the guideline WP:N and in the overall outcome for the warhammer AfD's (overwhelmingly, the articles are deleted or redirected). We should respect that consensus and that guideline and delete this article as it fails the general notability guideline and meets no daughter guideline. Arguments to keep the article based on logs of edits, searches, or inherited notability don't cut the mustard. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Apparently, there is an entry for "Snotlings" in a published encyclopedia. What's good for published encyclopedias is good for a paperless encyclopedia and consistent with our also containing elements of sepcialized encyclopedias. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "published encyclopedia" you are referring to Wikipeida or the game guide printed by the same company that has published all other Warhammer related material? --Allen3 ^talk 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to "the official encyclopedia of the Warhammer World". Guess who the publisher is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all fictional items can claim appearance in a published encyclopedia, which just further augments the reasons for keeping. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all published encyclopedias can claim to be an independent source --T-rex 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all works of fiction bother to also make published encyclopedias. Has anyone check for reviews of that encyclopedia? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Goblinoid - no claim to be notable. Zero independent sources --T-rex 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know that zero independent sources does not always apply. Go read up on Taxation in the United States and its sources are all written by the IRS. Hardly independent. The argument about lack of independent sources has been rehashed a lot here, and some of us keep feeling that it doesn't apply. It's just some plot points is another argument we hear a lot. Now go read any article on any minor Harry Potter character and not only is it just a bunch of plot points, it's also purely sourced out of books from the same publisher. I think that snotlings are just getting a huge voting-trend against them that they do not deserve. It's a relatively well-written article, it's verifiable, and to some sub-population it is notable. And there are sources... Horribly pandering, flogging, blatantly advertising sources of people trying to either sell little snotling statues or show off their painting skills. For real? I would think those were acceptable here. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation in the United States has over twenty good references and most of them aren't, in fact, written by the IRS. House-elf isn't a particularly good example of a keepworthy article, but that's not a great argument. We do not have a different level of notability for fiction than we do for other content, no matter how much some editors believe we should, and we should use the policies that have consensus across the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much some editors don't want to work on certain articles or don't like them, isn't reason why those who do can't or shouldn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:JNN is not a a valid reason for deletion when the topic is without any reasonable doubt notable and independent sources exist. Redirectable material is not also deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except nobody in the above 20 comments at least claimed WP:JNN and that there are no independent sources --T-rex 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Someone used the old subjective claim of "not-notable." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jedilofty urged me to expand further on my earlier comment. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe, and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, it's notable. People tend to confuse Notability and Verifiability. For subjects of this sort, V can be done through primary nonindependent sources--whatever the best sources are for the subject at hand. If the game is notable, whether the component parts of chaeacters and setting are appropriate for an article is not a matter of independent notability,but of convenience in dividing an article--only the overall topic need show notability, not the subarticles. The wording of the WP GNC: N=2RS, has confused many people--but its just a back up in case we can't figure out whether a subject we do not understand or have no criteria for is likely to be notable. It does not apply here. WP is not a game guide--we do not want that kind of detail--but the detailed information in a game guide is a suitable source for an article in Wikipedia DGG (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It's no different from plot material. It can be used as supporting fluff to explain a notable concept, but it certainly isn't notable in and of itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unquestionably notable in and of itself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LGRdC and DGG, especially the last sentence above.John Z (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - even after all these days on afd the article still fails to list any independent sources. These keep arguments are not holding up. --T-rex 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. If nothing else, you have to love the old Christmas snotlings! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can't be fixed, because the sources do not exist. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it can be as sources clearly exist as discussed above. Anyway, I have got the ball rolling and would appreciate help. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That blog is not a reliable source, sadly. There in only one reliable source; http://cnet.nytimes.com/xbox-games/enclave/4505-9582_7-30977121-2.html ]. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The combination of these sources and the published books are sufficient enough for inclusion in some capacity, even at worst a merge and redirect to a list of monsters/characters, but I see no urgent need to redlink here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think deletion of the article is the best way to fix this --T-rex 19:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All it would do is diminish our quality as a comprehensive reference guide and insult the editors who have been working on and reading it for years. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the cogent comments by LGRdC and DGG Ecoleetage (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable race which has appeared elsewhere apart from 40k. Given time we can find 3rd party sources I suspect. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only "elsewhere" the race has appeared is in other Games Workshop properties. The word "snotling" is a trademark of Games Workshop. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even its use there is sufficient for keeping in some manner or other. I don't think we'd get much opposition for a compromise merge and redirect if it came down to it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LGRdC, DGG and Casliber. I don't expect articles to be rewritten and sources found in the space of AfD. Banjeboi 03:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion this term doesn't meet the GNG (at least as far as I can find). However, I do think this is an example of a place where the GNG is wrong. The non-independent sources allow for sourcing to meet WP:V, and in my search for this term I read through a lot of sources using the term. Most in the context of the game (mainly painting the minis) but some outside. Further, I found some pretty good reviews/overviews of Snotlings, but mainly in blog/forum type locations (self-published and thus not a RS.) The problem is that the term is clearly notable and worth having here. It is heavily used (25,000-75,000 ghits depending on how you do the search), shows up in RS reviews (as a passing reference) and simply belongs here. So an IAR !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete Author requested deletion under G7. So done. --Selket ^Talk 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Colwill[edit]

Contested PROD. No sources whatsoever, my own search turned up only this article and news about a U.S. Olympic diver of the same name. Never actually competed at the Olympics and has apparently done nothing notable as a lawyer. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N says athletes are notable if they "have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", which I assume is the Olympics (which Mr Colwill does not appear to have attended). Can't find any other evidence of high-level achievement that would count. Ka renjc 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Second in the Townsville Masters 800 metre race does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE. Legal career is unremarkable, also fails WP:BIO. Appears to be a vanity article. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article of any substance and no references on the web that I can find. There's a claim on talk that we're waiting on information to reference participation in the 1992 Olympics, however he was not a competitor for Australia at those games. SPA with probable COI issues, but regardless, terminally fails N. Debate 木 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not to be confused with Chris Colwill the American swimmer. This Australian former runner fails the primary notability criteria for biographies as there is no significant (or even trivial) coverage in reliable secondary sources. I'd interpret the "highest level in amateur sports" more broadly than just the Olympics, but a minor regional appearance in an age 35-39 bracket for an 800m run (in which he came last out of two competitors) does not a notable athlete make. Being a voluntary legal advisor to an Olympic team is also not sufficient - someone who associates with notable people does not automatically assume a notability of their own. Euryalus (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. I also checked Athletics Australia and looked into their historical record of Aussie athletes. There is no listing under the letter "C" for this individual, so it's unlikely the person meets WP:ATHLETE since he would be expected to be listed if he were a notable Australian runner. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment this should probably be left as a redirect to Chris Colwill Beeblbrox (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update The article's creator has agreed on deletion, now tagged as G7 speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Gave You Power[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Not a confirmed single. Also, the reviews are for the cd, not the song. Undeath (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual songs are rarely notable (see WP:MUSIC). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album is filled with links to articles identifying "I Gave You Power" as a song that is both significant to Nas, his albums and hip hop music. Just because the article references album reviews does not mean that the song isn't notable. Also, commercial attention should not be the only factor taken into account when considering a song's notability; critical success should also be a factor. Not to mention, the article is thoroughly sourced and expanded since the past "delete" comments were made.Noahdabomb3 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC#Songs, as the song has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, has not won a significant award or honour, and has not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to It Was Written. It is true that, per WP:MUSIC, "Most songs do not merit an article," but it goes on to state that they "should redirect to another relevant article", not that sourced content such as is present in this article should be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to It Was Written per WP:MUSIC#Songs. There is some good content there, but the criteria suggest it belongs in the album article. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). There is a rough consensus to keep. As I can judge independent sources do exist, and I do not understand how a mere list of real events can "fail to maintain neutral point of view". Ruslik (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s[edit]

The article consists of a list of attacks, many of them deliberate and against civilians, and attributes them to an organization, some of whose members may still be living. Statements of this nature should cite inline several strongly reliable sources. Instead, the main source for the claims is apparently not in English, and may be by militant sympathizers, who are not reliable secondary sources. Andjam (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - notability is established, but no main reliable sources are present to source these strong claims.--S_RX 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considering the historic nature of the event - and the fact it happened 70 years ago - makes me hesitant to call for deletion, but the sourcing issue is real, too, so I can't vote 100% keep either. Can any of the sources in the Great Uprising article be used to shore up the sources on this list article? I have concern that a potentially viable list might be sacrificed simply because Internet sourcing is insufficient. I'm torn because this satisifies WP:N and while WP:BLP may be an issue, realistically most of those involved aren't covered by that anymore. It could be argued that topics relating to World War I could still fall under BLP, too, even though realistically there's only a handful of people left from that era, too. 23skidoo (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add inline citations for each claimed attack. A request for these citations seems to have been made on the article's talk page only two weeks ago and deletion seems premature. As no individuals are named in the article, I don't see why WP:BLP is relevant. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per SRX and nom.Nrswanson (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to verifiability issues this article also has significant inherent issues with respect to WP:NPOV. If merged into one of the articles (Great Uprising) there could be some context but a "list of attacks" definitely fails to maintain neutral point of view.|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there were attacks by this organization in the specified period is clear. Any specific attacks which are not adequately referenced can be tagged with a fact tag and if not refs are found, deleted. The list is cited to Perliger and Weinberg, and discussion on the article's talk page leads me to believe it is an account of the attacks sourced to former Irgun officials. Deletion is not a substitute for editing of an article about notable events in history. These notable events occurred over 68 years ago. Newspapers at the time covered them extensively, but it is not as easy to get access to them as for more recent papers, without paying high fees. One example is [14] from 1939. Newspaperarchive.com has a number of paywalled stories from the 1930s about Irgun attacks on Arabs: "Sep. 27, 1938, Chester Times, "Young Jews to war on Arabs." says Irgun plans to kill an Arab for every Jew, and that they had killed 200 Arabs so far in the campaign.. An article the following day "Jews map plans against Arabs" said that Irgun usually killed 40 to 50 Arabs with each bomb. They considered their actions reprisals. Edison (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no historical dispute about these attacks in general, or any serious sourcing problems. As the talk page makes clear, the Perliger-Weinberg article, the Bowyer-Bell book and the free Palestine Post archive link I just added provide sources. User:Zero0000, an academic in this area, who hasn't been around for a while unfortunately, went through the list some time ago.John Z (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a perfect article to me, sorry if it isn't because I'm pretty new in this site. Is "andjam" trying to censor Irgun terrorist attacks, however? --Soberreh (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as bravura editing by Eastmain and Paul Erik saved the day and established notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myca[edit]

I believe the company fails relevant notability requirements. Borderline spam and no indication of reliable third-party coverage: Ghits are either from the company's website, associated companies' websites or press releases. Pichpich (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:COMPANY or WP:RS and does indeed read like WP:SPAM. Mmmmm... Spam. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the recent alterations I'd say the article now passes both WP:COMPANY and WP:RS. God job, folks! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep. When an article lacks references from reliable sources, it is a good idea to do an archive search at http://news.google.com or (in this case, since the company is based in Canada) http://news.google.ca I was able to find some coverage in a number of Canadian newspapers, and I added some references to the article. Interesting, the Canadian coverage of this company is somewhat critical, mentioning that a virtual consultation can be less useful than a physical visit, whereas the U.S. coverage is uncritical. In any event, I think that notability has now been established with the new references. --Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There appears to be enough third-party coverage to establish WP:GNG notability. I also added a Washington Times article as a source. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Paul Erik's additions - I note also that the company's product MyFoodPhone (now Myca Nutrition) has certainly been the subject of significant third-party coverage, with write-ups in The Washington Post, Wired magazine, et al. Also coverage of the recent "Hello Health" initiative in a Wall Street Journal blog. Gr1st (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Wrestling Coalition[edit]

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. 3 gnews hits, all of which are passing mentions. 43 non-wiki ghits, most of which are blogs, myspace, or mentions of the death of the founder. One obit mentioned the promotion has existed for 20 years, so notability may be out there (which is why I'm bringing this to AfD rather than prodding), but my attempts to find reliable, independent sources haven't panned out. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG and would need a substantial re-write even if it didn't. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:COMPANY.--S_RX 13:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen's correlations[edit]

Another scientific term named after "Ronen," sourcing articles with only Y. Ronen as the author, and having no Google Scholar hits, and no google hits except Wikipedia clones. No third-party reliable sources or evidence of notability provided. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's number.) -- SCZenz (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for similar WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:COI concerns as Ronen's number. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term may get picked up by the scientific establishment but so far it is pure OR/neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, no independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When one looks at how well the references that he lists are cited (by authors other than himself) it doesn't appear that the concept is being applied or commented upon by the relevant scientific community to any signifigant extent. On top of that, the article doesn't even specify what the relationships/correlations are making the article not much more than a vanity page (although to be fair, he doesn't call it Ronen's correlation in his papers). Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original neologism and as non-notable pseudo-science. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desk rage[edit]

Seems a silly spinoff of the Computer Rage article. No sources, no references; a non-notable neologism if you like iliteration. Ironho lds 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contested PROD ... totally unsourced original research. — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen's number[edit]

This article is mostly a discussion of Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis, but it defines "Ronen's Number" as 10¹²⁰. It was PROD'ed (by me) and deleted, with the concern being a lack of references. There are now six references in the article, but they do not appear to establish "Ronen's number" as a concept used in the sciences. Reference (1) is an elementary quantum mechanics texbook, apparently cited as a source for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. References (2-5) are papers by Dirac discussing the Large Numbers Hypothesis; none of them are indicated in the article to mention "Ronen's number" in particular, and I have double-checked this with paper copies of references (4) and (5). That leaves source (6), which I cannot access and may or may not define "Ronen's number," but it is in any case one paper, whose author list includes a Y. Ronen. I have not been able to find any discussion of this number elsewhere: no google hits except Wikipedia, no google scholar hits. Thus this concept, whether mentioned in the article or not, doesn't appear to have been noted or adopted as terminology by anyone. As such, it appears to be original research. I have requested clarification from User:Roneny, the creator of the article, and I'll make sure that (s)he knows about this discussion. SCZenz (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Ronen's correlations and their AfD discussion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. There is also a potential WP:COI issue, given the close similarity of the author's username (Roneny) and the article subject. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May get picked up by the scientific establishment but so far it is pure OR. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original neologism and lack of notability. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR & WP:N. Possibly used as a textbook example in reference #6. It doesn't appear that he's published it in a journal (from a quick glance through his publication record). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference #6 is a book: Statistical Treatment of Analytic Data by Zeev B. Alfassi, Zvi Boger, and Yigal Ronen. While incompletely available on the web, its index is; the only mention of Dirac is a conventional mention of electron-positron production. That it has been miscited strongly suggests that our editor is not Yigal Ronen, and this is a hoax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Text was reposted at the largest number having a physical meaning. I converted it to a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the wub "?!" 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Street railway station, Sydney[edit]

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus on similar articles. Reyk _YO! 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, unlike the other recently deleted proposed station articles, this one actually has some coverage in respectable sources. Its still up in the air if it'll actually happen, but I think there's enough useful material to justify an article for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discusion has been included in the list of transportation-related deletion discussions. Slambo (Speak) 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What's the point to an article about a non-existent railway station on a non-existent railway line that has not even been approved yet? There's nothing notable about a station that doesn't exist and may not ever exist. At the very least, we should wait until the plans have been finalised and financed and construction has been given the go-ahead.--Lester 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a railway being planned might possibly be encycopaedic, but a station proposed on it should not be, at least until it is underconstruction. Many large Civil Engineering projects are proposed, but a great many of these are never constructed. If the article is right, no trains will run until 2020. Delete and Salt until 2018. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - on the basis of comments Lankivel above and in mind the long drawn out tradition of arguments at afds over other rail/train locations in either suburban or country contexts that have preceded this afd - or if it goes to delete - then at least any article about the proposed lie should include any salvageable refs and or info SatuSuro 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the station is more of a WP:CRYSTAL - there is no formal approval or any information that notes it's existence. In addition, in reply to SatuSuro's comment above, there is nothing salvageable in the article that could be kept (no sources or refs, minimal text, the page is a total mess). --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Comment) The article actually says nothing. It has no useful content. There is already an article about the envisaged West Metro line. It's obvious that this article about an individual station on that envisaged line has not got enough content to warrant a separate article. I agree this article should be salted until something actually happens, at least until we know if the line will be built.--Lester 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! How much more consensus is there to be reached? A nom and three deletes v. 2 weak keeps (I know we do not count but weigh - but the weak keep reasoning is mostly that it does not hurt to have the article - the sources provided by Lankiveil just state that there will be a railway station on Pitt Street). The article does not give any useful information (e.g. architecture, when to be built) not already included in the main article. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article makes no claim of notability for this proposed train station. A proposed railway station could be notable if people protested it or something, but this is not the case here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let them build it first -- then maybe an article. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Metro as is the practice for stations on proposed but not yet under construction railway lines. --Stormie (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We are not even sure if the railway station will be named "Pitt Street" given that the station isn't even considered officially "proposed". So I'd suggest delete and salt until it is at least officially announced or confirmed to be constructed. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references provided by Lankiveil are trivial mentions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Undeath (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Peiyi[edit]

Not encyclopedic content Itemirus (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRCD-Hybrid[edit]

Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 Braindigitalis (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.74.62 (talk) [reply]

If it's dead upstream does not make it any more or less notable. Additionally, last I looked, efnet still uses it on six servers, which, is also irrelevant. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with notable sources? They're not required, and, I'd say that while the three links back to hyb's svn or site, are plenty reliable in the context that they are used. I'll try to work on this, instead of deleting it. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added several references, from many different places, and, might go back and add another dozen or so later. It is very very very easy to find references for this article due to how widespread ircd-hybrid is used, and, how popular it is / has been. Therefore, Keep. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe many of these ircd pages should be merged. Many of them cite the same references showing their shared heritage which to me says that a single longer article is maybe more fitting than a seperate page for each, if the article is to be kept at all? Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think (as someone who's worked with a lot of these extensively) they are sufficiently different, to warrant separate articles (except maybe ircd-ratbox / ircd-hybrid / oftc-hybrid and maybe comstud... Those are pretty darn similar, and, are just branches of each other). Either way, this article now has stacks of reliable, verifiable sources, and, dozens more could be added with great ease. I do not think a deletion discussion is the right place to figure out how/where/why to flesh out/expand/force-merge the article, and, I still believe that at this point in time, there is not a good reason to delete this article. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe WP:Notable sources are required. Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no such thing as notable sources. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the nominator started two AFD's on this article in parallel. Below are the comments from the other one, which, I have redirected here. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed above, also a duplicate comment now. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, No one has left a comment since the article's improvement, ergo I'm relisting it. Wizardman 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nom's reasoning no longer applies. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Encyclopedic data--Puttyschool (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion or evidence that this piece of software is in any way significant or notable. Certainly there is nothing to establish notability in the many references used in the article. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC West End Casting Contestants[edit]

Delete extremely crufty list that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, and lacks any sort of context. Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is no article on BBC West End Casting, BBC West End or West End Casting, there should not be a list on its casting contestants. I also cannot find much on all of the aforementioned on the BBC website, it just briefly mentions a "West End Casting director" but does not give any context. From some of the names of the list it is most likely that the casting in question was the BBC show How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria?, but this already incorporates lots of lists on - I guess - the most important candidates. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bears some resemblance to the HDYSAPLM but not close enough. Since the author has provided no references, I will dismiss this as pure fantasy. (Why do talent shows attract this sort of creativity? We have had several fantasy variants of America's Next Top Model.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary list. This seems to be a composite of contestants of How_Do_You_Solve_A_Problem_Like_Maria, as Gunnar mentions, I'd Do Anything, and Any Dream Will Do. The only information not on the corresponding articles (which provide the content in a more sensible form, in order of elimination), is the number of times in the sing-off. Silverfish (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure. Speedily deleted under WP:SNOW as unlikely misspelling of cytoplasm. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyptoplasm[edit]

This article exists at cytoplasm; it's a misspelling. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soopa Heroez[edit]

Article is written largely around speculation about a musical group that was never formed. Entirely unreferenced. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Soopa Villains, despite the latter's also being up for deletion. Both would need more refs to ascertain notability.Wikigonish (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joeseph "Joe" Baker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joeseph "Joe" Baker

Non-notable fictional character. ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:V, Wikipedia:N, Wikipedia:OR. Unsourced article does not prove nor assert notabilty and reads like original reaearch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If article creator Nk3play2 (talk) can address these concerns, I'll gladly change my vote to keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Tetrodotoxin as a plausible typo per WP:BOLD. Non-admin close. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetradetoxin[edit]

A fictional substance(?) StaticGull Talk 14:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info (is there any in it?) with Tetrodotoxin. I do not think it is made up, just misspelled on the fanpage the article's creator got it from. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge, actually. A redirect should suffice. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no useful information, and appears to be incorrect in any event.Wikigonish (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetrodotoxin. Tetradetoxin is an alternate, although incorrect, spelling of a known toxin. The symptoms described in Tetrodotoxin match the ones describer in Tetradetoxin as well as in the only external link provided in the article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as plausible typo. --Itub (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Good Enough Mother"[edit]

See "Waiting for Christopher" below. Book by the same author, NN Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per same reasons as "Waiting for Christopher". StaticGull Talk 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The BLP concerns in the article's history, as well as the state of the article after the BLP concerns have been resolved remain to be problematic. As the information that is left may be worthy of inclusion elsewhere, I will provide the text to interested editors who wish to use it for the expansion of related articles. Shereth 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals of the 2004 Summer Olympics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There are no references whatsoever for the article, which is rather worrying as it largely focuses on living people. Furthermore, it inherently violates WP:WTA#Scandal, affair, and I don't see what's so scandalous about the trademark ban or the existence of tougher drug tests. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first point of the Afd regarding no references is wrong. They are all at the bottom of the article. What is needed is in text references, but that is something to clean up, not delete over. The second point is also an area for article improvement not deletion. Finally, the last point is opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Sceptre has not given any valid reason why the article should be deleted. Should it be re-written? Yes - it is a mess. But once again, not a reason for deletion. It looks like someone is already working on cleaning it up, too. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared out the worst of it. I'd suggest renaming it to 2004 Summer Olympics incidents (or some such) and doing a little more cleanup. RxS (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that a name change using a less weasly word is appropriate. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete is required by WP:BLP, since it makes very damaging statements about living athletes which lack any inline citations. The BLP policy requires that "badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)." Making a lot of statements of guilt for various rule violations and then just listing some references at the bottom of the page is completely unacceptable. I have blanked the text, per WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all the remaining items I left had appropriate references in each of the athletes articles. Should be easy enough to recreate should someone be interested. RxS (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very uncomfortable leaving only one person listed, since only one claim had a reference specifically to it. Recreating with refs from the articles about the various athletes or officials would be preferable to leaving one lone person. The refs at the bottom only included 2 which worked, and one was About.com, which might not constitute a reliable source for this. I do not see enough left in the present BLP compliant article to justify keeping. Edison (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trimming for BLP has left the article with virtually no content and the one remaining listing is dubious. (Although I should say that I'm surprised none of the so-called scandals were notable enough to have sources; I would hope the BLP deletions occurred after a good faith search for sources because normally there should be many sources related to the Olympics, even if link rot is taken into account.) 23skidoo (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Turlo Lumon's assessment. We ought to improve the article with in-line citations from reputable sources. The article is a meaningful one that can provide an excellent repository of historical information that would be difficult to compile elsewhere. I'm neutral on the idea of whether the article needs to be renamed or not. I only suggest that we use a format similar to that used by other "olympic scandals"/"olympic incidents" articles for other games. I agree with Edison's sentiments, although I believe that assigning it to an Olympics-related Wikiproject to find citations for the recently-deleted lists of "scandals" would be preferable to deleting the article. This information will be tougher to compile as the years go by and as information fades.Davemcarlson (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Waiting for Christopher"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Waiting for Christopher"

Unnotable, but can't speedy. StaticGull Talk 13:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Cowen which has just as much content on the book. --JD554 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the author is most likely notable, her books (also see the AfD for "Good Enough Mother" above) are not. According to the article creator's talk page the article has been speedied before as spam. This might not be the case, but the books are just not enough to pass WP:NB. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Magazine (UK)[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, and this nonsense is way too POV @South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a quick search on Google (which is all I did) would have been enough to establish notability. I've added sources such as The Observer and The Independent, both of which confirm the magazine's circulation and its 25 year history. If the tone of the article is wrong, fix it. Deletion isn't justified.--Michig (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is referenced sufficiently for verifiability and notability purposes. - Dravecky (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is heavily referenced and meets notability requirements. Some of the wording may be a little one-sided, but that can easily be changed.Wikigonish (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It ceased publication years ago and was never more than a fanzine for UFO buffs. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there's no expiry date on notability and the article is indeed heavily referenced. The NPOV issue is grounds for editing but not grounds for deletion.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability has now been established; neither POV nor 'fanzine' are a reason to delete; notability does not expire; and no other deletion rationales have been provided. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Well (Phantom Planet song)[edit]

Non notable song. Not released as a single. Media coverage? I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fail notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to The Guest (album) and Phantom Planet (album) as appropriate. It is true that, per WP:MUSIC, "Most songs do not merit an article," but it goes on to state that they "should redirect to another relevant article", not that sourced content such as is present in these articles (however minimal it may be) should be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Guest (album) and Phantom Planet (album) as appropriate. Certainly no justification for their own pages. Smile a While (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Marshall[edit]

Marshall is a non-notable local politician without any other notable qualities. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Donoghue Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Member of Portland city council, which is a considerable amount of notability, especially as one of the first two Green members there. Portland, though only 65,000, is the largest city in Maine. If this passes, I'll take the other to deletion review--it attracted very little attention at AfD. DGG (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's ludicrous to have such an article. If I wrote an article about a politician representing a minority political party from a 65,000 population town in Portugal or Austria or Madagascar, it'd be deleted faster than you can say US-centric viewpoint.--S Marshall (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Mayalld (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the larger Maine Green Independent Party] article. There is no need to have an article for every city councillor who was ever elected.Wikigonish (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the statement above, there's plenty of assertion of notability, so can't be speedied; and as noted by DGG, his being a member of a significant city's council is important. I have to say weak delete simply because of the total lack of sources, other than his own campaign website: if we had good sources backing everything up, I'd be in favour of keeping. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per G4 and WP:SNOW. Shereth 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

No real-world context, fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the first AfD for this article. The article was moved to Emperor of Mankind, AfD'd here with a delete result, then recreated as a redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), under the appropriate heading. gnfnrf (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)#The God Emperor of Mankind I propose the same as above for this version. gnfnrf (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no references to denote notability, and for all the delete reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emperor_of_Mankind. From what I recall (as I'm not an admin and can't view the previously deleted page), this is a substantial copy of the previously deleted page, created about two weeks following the close of the previously mentioned AfD. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Craw-daddy and per failure satisfy WP:N by showing multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage which are independent of the publisher of the fiction or game. Edison (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given all these hits, it's sufficiently verifiable and notable. Plus, the article was only created less than a week ago and so we should Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero evidence of notability through reliable sources, we don't "Give articles a chance" when they give us no reason to. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case the unquestionable notability provided by reliable sources means we have to give this article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted about a month ago, has no references, so your suggestion cannot possibly be serious. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was unujustifiably deleted and can be referenced as seen in a simple search. Imagine what we'd actually accomplish if we all spent time doing that, i.e. actually building the encyclopedia and working together to reference articles, rather than going back and forth in totally unwarranted AfDs... That editors would try again with this article and some work on and argue to keep again is just further proof that the community actually wants this article kept regardless of the same individuals unwilling to help improve it here and there.--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building a quality encyclopedia is as much about what you don't include as what you include. There need to be clear definitions of what is and is not encyclopedic, and things like notability are clear lines that must be respected. Imagine how much you could accomplish if you spent your time taking articles to GA and FA status instead of filibustering the regular cleaning of the encyclopedia of stuff that does not belong. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be able to build more GA and FA articles if others who filibuster for deletion in unnecessary AfDs did not have to be countered. Given that I have nominated and argued to delete over fifty articles, I agree that plenty does need to be cleaned out, but that is primarily hoaxes, libel, copy vios, etc. not verifiable subjects that can be written into paragraphs based on these sources as is the case with the article under discussion here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Speedy delete per CSD G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind. Same subject. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD G4. Roi knows full well that if he wants this fancruft kept then the correct venue is DRV, not supporting single-purpose accounts who repeatedly recreate it and then copy-pasting old keep comments in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. AfDs are not the end all on what content we cover. They are merely a snapshot in time and if after the AfD has closed and editors wish to try again on the article, they are able to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CSD#G4 is a valid reason for deletion. That you disagree with it is irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not valid in this case; there's no reason not to have a new discussion over this non-trivial topic that is covered in reliable sources and passes PLOT. I can't see any reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect to Imperium_(Warhammer 40,000)#The God Emperor of Mankind as obviously editors believe it a legitimate search term if they keep creating the article and we have a clear redirect location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's valid in any case where there was no DRV or other post-deletion discussion, and where the same material as pre-deletion is reinserted again without addressing the flaws which got it deleted (in this case on at least two different occasions). You know this. You can randomly assert that the article passes various standards which it doesn't all you want; it's only weakening your credibility in future AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, editors don't need to DRV articles when they want to start over. We're here to build an encyclopedia and editors aren't definitively bound by any one AfD. People can claim articles fail various standards, but it doesn't mean they actually do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing's stopping you from starting over. It's not a salted redlink. Go on. Start it right now, working from your Google Scholar results. We'll all be thrilled to watch. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing's stopping you either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The UEFA Cup qualifiers were stopping me earlier. Stella Artois is stopping me right now. Sleep will stop me afterwards. I'm not forced to write articles, but nor have I been handwaving about writing them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For those same reasons, then why expect anyone else to have to rush at doing so on a volunteer project? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. I'll trust Sephiroth that this version doesn't address the reasons for the deletion of the previous version. Deor (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. It's just a recreation of an article previously deleted at AFD. --Hank Pym (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Alupoaicei[edit]

Promotional article for a non-notable Christian writer. Speedy declined because the article asserts notability with published works but nevertheless it completely fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO - no references which are "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Google only turns up bookstores and a couple of Christian sites - in-group stuff, not independent. andy (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Dorothy Sargent Rosenberg Poetry Prize is a notable accomplishment. She has also had articles published by the Dallas Theological Seminary which one could say gives academic value to her work as a writer. We should assume good faith by the intention of the articles creator instead of assuming that this article is for promotional purposes.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

comment Marla was also a winner of the Writer’s Digest 76th Annual Writing Competition for Nonrhyming Poetry. Another notable competition for writers. I found that info on the fifth page of a yahoo search with her name as the search. I think the article needs some work, but it seems to pass notability. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the question here is that without any reliable sources specifically about the author are the two awards enough to provide notability. I am leaning toward a keep for this. Anyone else have any comments? --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on the Dorothy Sargent Rosenberg Poetry Prize. Nsk92 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources on published works would be helpful but awards show a level of notablity Captain-tucker (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprenyl for human longevity and restoring the normal levels and normal balance of neurotransmitters.[edit]

Delete as WP:OR and WP:FRINGE unsupported by reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. It's already been speedied once before. The author is an SPA who is placing links to an online pharmacy. andy (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam, fringe and OR, the unholy trinity. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam (like above) or copyvio (which I believe it was speedied for before). A quick Google search shows copy-pasted text. The original source given for the copyvio (first Speedy Nom) was [15], but the author here has renamed the "further reading" section "references". Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Article was speedied once (first article), declined speedy once (second article, copyvio source was misquoted) then brought to AfD (second article). Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Note also that this is a redundant fork of Selegiline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article adds nothing new to what is already in Wikipedia when one searches for Deprenyl itself.Wikigonish (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lovely spam wonderful spam JuJube (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Event planning, as it is a duplicate. - Nabla (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event planning and production[edit]

Nominate for deletion - A non-notable topic, drifting into a how-to, prod was removed --T-rex 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. It's definitely a notable topic - it's a key element of a multi-billion dollar industry, there are nationally recognised qualifications in many countries and many hundreds of often very large companies involved in this activity. But the article is pretty feeble and needs major surgery or stubbing. andy (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nationally recognized qualifications? Are you sure you commented on the right article? --T-rex 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, really. For example here is a UK one which is part of the national NVQ framework. And here is a degree course in Australia. Lots more like that. Beats me, but there you are. andy (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:RS. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worthwhile to event planning (which also needs improvement, but is in comparatively better shape). Topic is notable, but the nominated article is redundant. Townlake (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must be getting old. I had forgotten about event planning despite having contributed to it. I agree with Townlake - merge and I promise to take my pills regularly from now on. andy (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the one who removed the deletion proposal. Didn't realize there was another article on event planning. Wikipedia only needs one, so merging seems reasonable, as Townlake suggested. The deletion proposal said "... drifting into a how-to," and that probably describes Event planning even more than this article, so it'll need cleanup. Fg2 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Problems with WP:OR WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect--I agree with User:Townlake above, move any salvageable content to event planning, then make a redirect. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed...and, truth be told, I never met a Lukwata I didn't like! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lukwata[edit]

Fails WP:N. Only two sources given, and none of them is RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not at my main computer at the moment but i'll try to address these problems somewhat. i think this article is notable, if re-written to show more of a mythological perspective that the external links don't show. also, i'm working on tracking down all my original sources, the first one, which i've just added, is a old journal from the university of michigan, and (from my skimmings of RS) probably qualifies as a reliable source. i'll be better equiped to handle this by saturday, when i get home. thanks Ryan shell (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'm back home and i found one a good source for the article, which should qualify as a reliable source. peace. Ryan shell (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Ten minutes on google convinced me this is the African equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster. Afd process wrongly invoked here. The process shouldn't be used as a shortcut to getting someone else to do the fact-checking.--S Marshall (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - adequate sourcing and notability. This isn't difficult to check, and I'm inclined to agree that this was brought too soon to AfD. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yup, this and this in the article are notable and are probably reliable sources. Other than that, it shouldn't have been nominated for AfD so soon after it's creation... you have to give some time for someone to reference it, and if it has been a reasonable amount of days, sure, nominate it. But in this case, it was nominated too early... but anyway, I'll !vote as keep for now unless something comes up that will have to make me change my !vote. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyote[edit]

Fails WP:RS. The subject has some coverage in only one source [16], google news shows 19 ghits [17], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Even if there is some coverage in news sources, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage and WP:NOT#NEWS.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Joseph Jr.[edit]

Non-notable. Unverified unsourced probable hoax. Self-promotion? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And salt please. Recent vandalism reverted. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. There's a mention of him on this page but I don't think that makes him notable. I don't think the article is a hoax, however. In fact there's a section on him in the Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder article. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination. Almost an A7 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not establish notability. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem worthy of his own article. Perhaps add some of this information to the small sub-section under the Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder article. As is, the refs do not seem trustworthy.Wikigonish (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three references in the article. One to his nomination by an obscure Assyrian magazine as Assyrian Person of the Year 2003", one to an article by him, which was not even properly footnoted until I corrected it, and one (not quoted in the article) questioning the veracity of all the alleged information about Joseph -- including his age -- and highlighting his links to the Moonies. In particular, it undermines the assertion that he was ever a peace activist, which would seem to bw the only reason for his supposed notability. The article is not exactly a hoax, but a very poorly sourced publicity piece for a person of dubious notability and disputed background. RolandR (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable hoaxster, per the counterpunch article I added. Easy enough to find other refs on him.John Z (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only one possibly reliable and independent reference, in Counterpunch(which some would probably question as being a reliable source for all things) and it tends to debunk his claims to fame. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and most of his claims fail WP:V. Edison (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that questioning the reliability of counterpunch is the only way one can claim that this is not a clear keep (in some form) under WP:BIO. That a long piece entitled "The Kenneth Joseph Story" is not substantial "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." is otherwise indisputable. As the counterpunch article and a search makes clear, there was plenty of other coverage of him in 2003. Making it into a redirect to the shredder article under BLP1E seems to be the most sensible course.John Z (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to use the CounterPunch article as the only credible source for an entry on this person, then surely the entry should reflect this article's scepticism about his biography and motives, rather than uncritically echo his own disputed claims? RolandR (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree we shouldn't take disputed claims at face value. I deprodded this article when I saw the counterpunch piece, but did not know of the existence of the shredder article, which already had substantial info on him and the same piece as a ref. So as I said, I have no objection to merging and redirecting.John Z (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per JohnZ and BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've read the Counterpunch article, and don't see how it alone amounts to the "extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources" notability criterion. On the other hand, I can see how the facts about Ken Joseph Jr. covered in that article are required content for an encyclopedic article on the topic of Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Driver's Ed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Green Driver's Ed

I'm not sure if this is spam or OR. Regardless, I couldn't dig up any sources for it. BJ^Talk 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It appears to be a course taught by one driving school in America. I found one reference in a news story (FirstCoastNews.com - Green Driver's Ed) but not enough to warrant a whole article. It might deserve a one-line mention in the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape Hybrid articles. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Brown (Ballroom Dancer)[edit]

I declined a speedy WP:CSD#A7 as the article claims notability (just) - however the subject appears to have only competed at amateur level. Nothing at a first glance on Google and the supplied references didn't seem overly supportive. Seems to fail WP:N. Recommend delete. Pedro : Chat 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Some work has been done to tidy the article up, and it now certainly does not fall foul of A7. Pedro : Chat 13:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenth Stage[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Whilst it doesn't quite meet the requirements of #6 of WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, there have been notable people involved with theirt first album. Found this secondary source confirming the involvement of the ex-bass from Human League. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ian Burden's involvement with the band was as a guest artist on their album. It's clear he's not a member of the band. None of the other guest artists contributing to the first album are notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Murtoa (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, they have a better claim to notability than many other bands that pass through here, but ultimately I think that the guest appearances don't quite fulfil criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC. The band does not appear to meet any of the other criteria, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DMAA: The Care Continuum Alliance[edit]

Recreation of previously prodded article. Original reason for deletion remains, this is a non-notable organization with the article based exclusively upon the claims of said organization. Delete unless sufficient independent sources are provided to allow for a neutral and verifiable article. --Allen3 ^talk 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the listing has received this level of scrutiny, given the extensive collection of similar trade associations already in and approved for Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I offer this:

DMAA: The Care Continuum Alliance is a well-established and widely recognized trade association for companies and organizations that provide prevention, wellness, disease management and other population health services. DMAA (and under its previous name, "Disease Management Association of America") has been cited extensively in the trade and popular press over the past decade. Below are citations for only a sampling of that coverage, which includes stories exclusively on DMAA activites, stories in which DMAA leaders are quoted and stories referencing the organization's work:

Abruzzo, Mark D. (2000). "Despite What You Hear, State Privacy Statutes No Threat to DM," Managed Care magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0004/0004.legal.html

Eisenberg, Daniel (2001-08-20). "Take Your Medicine," Time magazine. Retrieved 2008-08-13. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000614,00.html

Fruedenheim, Milt (2002-02-17). "MONEY & MEDICINE; Bedside Visits, on the Telephone," New York Times.

(2002-12-29). "Corporate Corner," St. Paul Pioneer-Press.

(2003-09-03) "Cost control quest leads to disease management," Employee Benefit Adviser.

Pear, Robert (2003-12-03). "Health Industry Bidding to Hire Medicare Chief," New York Times.

Uhlman, Marian (2003-12-29). "Patients' failure to take medicines undermines medical advances," The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Mulder, James T. (2004-02-08) "Health Works! Employers Take the Lead in Encouraging Wellnessa and Helping Workers Manage Chronic Disease," The Post-Standard (Syracuse, N.Y.).

Zablocki, Elaine (2004-09-01). "DMAA seeks consensus on DM outcome measures," Managed Healthcare Executive magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/Disease+Management/DMAA-seeks-consensus-on-DM-outcome-measures/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/121921?searchString=DMAA

Belli, Anne (2004-12-28). "Programs aim to control health-care costs by managing diabetes, other diseases," Houston Chronicle.

Carroll, John (2004). "DM Standards Off and Crawling," Managed Care magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0402/0402.dm_standards.html

ElBoghdady, Dina (2005-08-02). "A Nurse's Healing Touch, by Telephone; Medicare Program Uses Call Centers," The Washington Post, page D-4. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200310_pf.html

Glabman, Maureen (2005). "12 DM Trends You Should Know About," Managed Care magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0508/0508.twelvedmtrends.html

(2006-03-27). "Excellent health benefits help attract, retain top employees," San Diego Business Journal.

Glabman, Maureen (2006). "'Take My Word for It': The Enduring Dispute Over Measuring DM's Economic Value," Managed Care magazine, Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0604/0604.dmvalue.html

Butler, Kelley (2007-01-05). "Solving a benefits Sudoku," Employee Benefit News. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://ebn.benefitnews.com/asset/article/39743/solving-benefits-sudoku.html?pg=

Willett, Hugh G. (2007-04-20). "30 percent of employers offer wellness programs; more planned," Knoxville News-Sentinel.

Benko, Laura B. (2007-01-15). "Payers and Purchasers: Numbers that count - Disease-management industry is taking steps to deliver more reliability, consistency in data on program outcomes," Modern Healthcare magazine.

Bridgeford, Lydell C. (2007-07-24). "Health care reform must recognize chronic care," Employee Benefit News. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://ebn.benefitnews.com/asset/article/151769/health-care-reform-must-recognize-chronic.html?pg=

Vesely, Rebecca. (2007-09-18). "Reporter's Notebook: Disease-management group looks to larger role," Modern Healthcare magazine.

Llewellynm Anne (2006-12-11). "Disease Management Outcomes Guidelines Report," Dorland Healthcare Information, Retrieved on 2008-08-13.

Krizner, Ken (2008-01-01). "Updated Disease Management Guidelines Impact Investment Perspectives," Managed Healthcare Executive magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/Disease+Management/Updated-Disease-Management-Guidelines-Impact-Inves/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/482217?searchString=DMAA

Additionally, DMAA is a recognized partner organization of groups with similar interests in chronic disease. See the member listings at these links:

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease: http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/about/partners.cfm

Strategies to Overcome and Prevent (STOP) Obesity Alliance: http://www.stopobesityalliance.org/members.htm

Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative: http://www.pcpcc.net/content/executive-committee

National Quality Forum http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/list_of_members.pdf

Please let me know if you need further documentation of our organizational status. Thank you for your consideration. Cgrazian (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs to be rewritten slightly to both include these sources and meet WP:NPOV (right now it reads like the first few pages of an annual report), but the subject meets WP:N. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. 99.207.177.26 (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Still too POV and "unencyclopedic" for my palate. Annette46 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To what, specifically, do you object? "Rewrite" isn't much direction for making this article comply. Thanks. Cgrazian (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have reviewed the article, and must conclude that the sources/external links in the article make no mention of the subject, so the verifiability issues are unresolved. As an example of things which are strange, among the links are one to the Royal Horticultural Society, which comes out of the blue and has nothing about this. Since WP:V is a core policy and and an extremely important element for ensuring that Wikipedia's articles remain factual, those requirements cannot be lowered as has been suggested. If someone has sources which actually mention JOCPT, then this can be reconsidered. At present, I am closing this as delete since there is insufficient evidence that this actually exists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Operation Computer Project Team[edit]

No reliable sources to show notability or even existence. No ghits, suspect WP:HOAX. Author removed PROD without offering a reason. JD554 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started this article in order to attract more information on this important stage of British military history. As yet there are no official books or any other written histories. And yet this is the stage when the British Army moved its battle control systems from the middle ages to the computerised age. Mercurius (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is verifiability, not truth. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. --JD554 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request to the admin officer of the Royal Signals Association to see if members can produce the necessary newspaper and magazine articles, and and book references. Mercurius (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed two website (one on Wikipedia and one external website) which support aspects of what I have written. These relate to Project Wavell and to Ptarmigan. What I have written provides added background to these. Mercurius (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to this internal wikilink, which is one you added yourself. That and the two external links provide no information on the main topic of the article, ie the Joint Operation Computer Project Team. --JD554 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information about Ptarmigan already existed and I saw an opportunity there to expand its information. It does not detract from the fact that Ptarmigan exists and must therefore have a history. The article did not provide that history so I added a some.

Since what we are dealing with here is brand new unpublished information I have now contacted the Royal Signals Museum at Blandford in Dorset, UK, to see if they can provide any information (and hopefully documents and photographs). Mercurius (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A significant museum's publications, if they would be produced, would be reason to keep this, but otherwise delete, as this information is admitted by the creator as being unverifiable. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request to the Ministry of Defence under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for confirmation of the existence of JOCPT, the names of its personnel, its terms of reference and its achievements. The process will take up to 20 days. Mercurius (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unit does not pass the notability requirements in WP:ORG. The unit needs to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to warrant an article - MoD files aren't appropriate sources to establish notability as they're not independent of the unit (which, presumably, created most of the files anyway) and are routinely generated for all units. Sources from books, magazines, newspapers, etc are needed to establish notability. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the papers lodged with the National Archives at Kew regarding the work of JOCPT are Parliamentary, which presumably are considered independent of the unit concerned and the MoD. Mercurius (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The military is not independent of the government in the UK. This seems like you're getting into the realms of WP:OR, Wikipedia needs reliable independent sources as per WP:RS. PS, please indent your replies so it is clearer what comments you are replying to. --JD554 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament in the UK is certainly independent of Government in the same way that Congress or the Senate are in the USA. Mercurius (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. However, per WP:ORG you need more than one and they need to be secondary sources for establishing notability. --JD554 (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page creator seems sincere, the article seems notable if true, but he will have to really get the article upto all Wikipedia's policy including WP:Vand WP:RS. Alternatively Merge, Redirect with Projects Wavell / Ptarmigan. Annette46 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as given the age of the information WP:V and WP:RS hurdles should be lowered accordingly. Topic may provide enough leads for someone sufficiently motivated to follow. MediaMob (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. No sources found at all. I searched by "Joint Operation Computer Project", still nothing. The source provided in the article does not mention any Joint anything. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to consider changing the title if there is genuine objection to this article appearing under JOCPT. However, it should be pointed out that Wikipedia does not have any pages dedicated to any of these topics: Project Mallard, Project Wavell, Project Ptarmigan. There is a reference to Ptarmigan (as an up and running system) but under a more general article about communications systems and this article would seriously unbalance what is really meant to be a brief summary. All these projects existed seperately in their own right and were vitally important to this aspect of the military history of communications. JOCPT is where they all came together, Mallard as the pathfinder, and Wavell and Ptarmigan put into action by JOCPT. Wikipedia needs seperate articles on each of these three projects, or under this one roof. I believe that the four books I have included and the newspaper articles are sufficient third party proof of the existence and importance of the projects. Mercurius (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on Plessey. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the Plessey article makes clear, Plessey were only involved in one small aspect of the entire project, that of supplying some of the computer hardware for the Ptarmigan side of the system. To merge any of this in what is essentially a small paragraph on the history of Plessey would be inappropriate. Mercurius (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge After some research on this subject, I opine that notable subjects like Projects Wavell and Ptarmigan are insufficiently represented at Wikipedia. I suggest Nigel could concentrate on these 2 as articles instead and take off on JOCPT when he gets his sources. Hansard for example 1 and 2 has quite a bit on Projects Wavell and Ptarmigan. Also 3. Articles like this are going to have inherent WP:V issues and we should cut dedicated editors like Nigel some slack. Annette46 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Hansard references which I have added. Mercurius (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but do not salt), fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. It might be right but if it can't be verified then we have no way of knowing. Do not salt, since if sources emerge then an article will need to be recreated. Perhaps the article could be moved to user space since if sources emerge (and it sounds as if they might) then it would be a pity to have to start from scratch. Jll (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - verifiability concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SKYbrary[edit]

This article is about an aviation wiki. It lacks reliable sources verifying that the web site is notable, and I didn't see evidence of notability when I conducted a google search. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability and verify the facts cited. Wiw8 (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's notable. It has no commercial intend, it states official rules/regulations backed by official bodies like ICAO, EUROCONTROL and the Flight Safety Foundation. Evidence for this can be found here: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/About_Skybrary All content is reviewed before publicaton by aviation professionals and/or safety professionals.Knowledge Hunter (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request If you think it meets the notability criteria for web pages, you must have found some independent reliable sources verifying the notability, not just the page itself. You forgot to include them here, though- what were the sources you found that confirmed notability? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RS by having no secondary sources. If the site were notable, surely more sources would be available? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One possible secondary source to confirm notability has been brought up, and assuming the link provided by captain tucker leads to a non-trivial mention of the subject, the subject would meet the bare minimum of the GNG. Further research and scrutiny of sources is warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Dinosaur Adventure[edit]

The only sources that I can find are book sale sites and pages with only a short plot summary. Schuym1 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell, as it has not been the subject of other published works or won any awards, it does not pass the notability guidelines on books and makes no attempt to establish its notability. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can find one source so far will see if there is anything else:
- School Library Journal; Dec90, Vol. 36 Issue 12, p101, 2p; Abstract: Reviews the book "The Fantastic Dinosaur Adventure," by Gerald Durrell.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There does appear to be one more source here, the Math in your World article but I can not tell how good it is. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to author article) or merge, unless there's a convincing reason to do otherwise. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability for inclusion. Annette46 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this going to end anytime soon? Schuym1 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this subject is insufficiently notable for inclusion. As it is a potential search term, it will be recreated as a redirect to The Sims. After reviewing the article and the target there's really nothing here worth merging, but I am willing to provide a userfied version of this article if someone requests it for the purpose of expanding related articles. Shereth 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Goth[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Certainly notable within The Sims community which is substantial. I'm reminded of the Pokemon test here (which Mortimer Goth would pass with flying colours). Alternatively, if the article absolutely must be deleted, replace with disambiguation page linking both The Sims and The Sims 2.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize the pokemon test has been made completely void by the listification of all but, like, four pokémon? Nifboy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Current article appears to be copy of an old version of the one currently on the Sims Wikia - however would suggest if sources could be found it should be Merged to Sims 2, with a disambiguation page per S Marshall. Does not have notablity independant of the seris, but an article on the family may be a reasonable breakout from the various Sims articles. NullofWest (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response good point--disambiguation page should also direct to The Sims wikia!--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't. We haven't got any special relationship with that Wiki, we should not be linking to it as it is unreliable. NullofWest, could you please link to where this has been copied from? This article is probably a copyright violation. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. The article is located here: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Mortimer_Goth - but there wasn't actually an old diff that looks like ours NullofWest (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no copyvio issue here ; if it came from the wikia page, which is GFDL, then its fine here (and vice versa). However, on the point of linking to Wikias, that is what we should be doing for content that otherwise doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as long as the Sims editors on WP have decided that that is a reliable Wiki for such additional information. It is the necessary compliment to where material should go when it is not notable or part of WP's normal coverage. --MASEM 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking something from a GFDL source and not citing it is a copyvio issue, which is what I thought had happened here. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, if the article was copied from the wikia to here, the history needed to be copied as well per GFDL. However, I cannot figure out if this is the case or not. --MASEM 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, the GFDL doesn't speak of requiring history which is very much a wiki concept. The main point is retaining the details of the contributors, which we generally do by history, but copying the history from an unrelated wiki where the users may neither have an account here or be completely differenet users with the same names here would make no sense. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link back to the Sims Wikia (preferably in a few places- edit summaries, external links/references, talk page) would be sufficient in terms of GFDL. If the page was then deleted on the Sims Wikia, we may have a problem- I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HereFord 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unoriginal research? It's based on the authors' experiences playing the game- not a single source cited. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a cool for Wikipedia:SOFIXIT not deletion as reliable sources exist. Plus, the article was created a mere two days ago. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sims, as the subject is covered in all the appropriate detail there. Nifboy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion of real-world notability. Three mentions in "the official strategy guide" for the game is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Stormie (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are nevertheless references in reliable sources and demonstrate notability in that the subject is not a one-off character. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An official game guide is not a reliable source- "official" = first party. Furthermore, we are not a game guide, and so if the only material available is suitable only for a game guide, it is not suitable for us. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing a game guide no more makes us a game guide than citing an "official" government report makes us the government. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Including material that is worthy of only being in a game guide makes us a game guide, but the source is still primary- not reliable. Thus, this article fails our policy on verifiability. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I find that a good deal of material in game guides is actually wikipedic and the idea that primary sources are unreliable is inconsistent with encyclopedic tradition in that primary sources are reliable when used in certain manners and in the manner used here we have no reason to doubt them. For the secondary source information, I recommend preview or reviews that mention the character. Collectively, these pass are policy on verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Primary sources are sometimes useful for referencing uncontroversial material, but they are usless for determining the notability of a subject- the worthiness of it to be included in the encyclopedia. If reviews that have extensively discussed the character are provided, then perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion- until that time, keeping the article on the off chance that some exist (especially when this article is weak and based on original research anyway) is foolish. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see anything "controversial" about this material. Not every video game character gets mention in game guides, especially not in multiple ones, as not every game gets a guide, which means that inclusion in guides is measure of notability in itself. As for reviews, Salon's review does cover the characters. To me the multiple appearances in the games and coverage in multiple publications provides the notability of this character relative to characters who do not appear in multiple games or who are not covered in multiple guides and the out of universe comments in reviews of the game provides information that can be used in a reception section. I am not sure if PC Gamer has an online archive, but I would be curious if any back issues have interviews with makers of the game, that could provide some of the creation information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said there was anything controversial in the article- come on, you're an intelligent person, you don't need to resort to twisting my words. Verifying information and judging the encyclopedic value of subjects can require different kinds of sources- the official game guides may provide some information which would be relevant in an article, but one could not base an article off them, and one could not justify an article existing because of the primary sources discussing the subject. The review you mention has only a passing mention, and, again, the mention is irrelevant- it has no encyclopedic worth; there's nothing we could extract from the article for use in our own. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, what about this article which starts of with a few paragraphs on the character, i.e. he seems to be a fairly central character. Why not instead of outright deletion at least merge and/or redirect without deleting the edit history to List of Canon Sims Characters#The Goth.27s or The Sims 2#Characters. Obviously a number of editors believe it a legitimate search term, so we could always redirect to one of those sections and then as/if additional sources come up go from there. I think that would be a fair and reasonable compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. --Hank Pym (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? As indicated above it passes both. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, as indicated above, it passes neither. You hold a minority view- confronting everyone who disagrees with you directly can be intimidating. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I indicated above, it passes both, but I just noticed something seriously disconcerting about the validity of this discussion above. So, hold on a second, please. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As you indicated above, this meets your very loose notability guidelines, not Wikipedia's own. Mentions in first party sources and a passing mention (by name only, no details) in a review does not assert notability. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My notability guidelines are consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. They assert notability by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hank Pym has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Fredrick day, please disregard. --Stormie (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Please note that neither myself nor Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles are sock puppets of banned users, so our comments in reply should not be ignored. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Expand To Clarify my current postion: I belive that Mortimer does not on his own meet WP:N, but that the family as a whole can, therefore I propose the article should be merged with those on Bella Goth and Cassandra Goth into something like Goth family (Sims Seris) - with information on Alexander Goth as well, if he's deemed noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NullofWest (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per J. Milburn and Stormie, and yes LGRdC I'm aware of WP:PERNOM. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, see rationale below. Delete, completely unsourced with no evidence of notability, and I haven't seen much evidence that there is significant reliable source coverage of this character out there at all. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two published game guides and references in reviews equals both notability and coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - After the addition of some sources, I see a couple of reviews that open up with a brief mention of this default character as a way of providing an in-universe flavour of the game... I think Lovelac put it very well in that this guy is the game equivalent of the guy that comes with the picture frame. Overall I think there's probably about a paragraph's worth of verifiable information which would be best merged to List of Canon Sims Characters, along with his fictional family members that also currently have articles even worse than this one. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Sims - a fictional character in The Sims, zero claim to notability, zero independent sources --T-rex 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The appearances in multiple pubolished sources and multiple games equals notability and reviews of the games equals independent sources. Redirectable material is redirected without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am only stating that there is no content worth merging. I have no problem if the article is redirected while leaving the history intact. --T-rex 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. The character is never discussed in anything other than gameguide terms in reliable third-party applications. The mind, she boggles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, the character is indeed discussed in reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were not discussed, they were mentioned. There's a big difference. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Multiple times though is significant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Mortimer Goth is not a well-known video game character like Mario, Sonic, or Link. He is the digital equivalent of the guy who comes with a picture frame. Lovelac7 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirectable material need not also be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but it needn't be kept, either. Could go either way, Lovelac7 is simply indicating that (s)he believes it should be deleted when redirected, perhaps to prevent people reverting to the current version. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When in doubt we keep. There's no compelling reason to delete it as there's no reason presented as to what Wikipedia actually gains by deleting it. One can redirect keeping the edit history intact and protect the redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the game. The article reads like his character bio in a strategy guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the game" is. Please be fair in how you represent the arguments of other Wikipedians. It's one thing to disagree. It's something else to misrepresent what they're saying. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't when it is not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then say "that's not true", and WP:PROVEIT. Please stop misrepresenting !votes as WP:JNN if they contain information about how or why the article isn't notable. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I already have. I can hold a banana up to someone and they can say, "I don't see a banana", but it doesn't change that I am in fact holding one up. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad you held up the "banana". But I'm asking you politely to stop using the WP:JNN essay when someone has attempted to explain how an article has failed our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The user in question has said it is his mission to delete articles and that he would never argue to keep and in fact never has. Therefore, the claims of not being notable or how it is not notable are never really made open-mindedly or objectively from that particular account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you ever argued to keep an article? Seriously though, a user who edits solely to rid Wikipedia of crappy articles on non-topics is doing a good job in my book. We're all volunteers- we can edit in the areas we wish to, and this user wishes to help the encyclopedia by arguing to remove articles that should not be here. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I have argued to keep articles. Do you mean have I ever argued to delete? If so, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams equation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagot Beast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint McGeady, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian's identity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy-cook rice (joke), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy Your Plague, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatzfeldt Syndrome, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make a Chocolate Souffle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Smith (musician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Langton's Speech, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Nixoer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurtis Krow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Foresta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tracy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenge Of Chucky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape secret letters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabahad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Levy (MMA Fighter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Creed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serg Klimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes One To Know One, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Patrick Star Show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy "Biggs" Soper, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft, etc. (yes, I have argued to delete in even more than the preceding examples). And I am willing to chance my stance from delete to keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis) when new sources are available. A user who is never willing to do that is not fairly or accurately reflecting the reality of the article and its potential. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia and merge to List of Canon Sims Characters along with Bella, Cassandra, and Alexander Goth. This fits much better in that list. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the general notability guidelines because there is no significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources independent of the game. The only source that was found only mentions the character by name, and does not offer any factual or critical information to write a WP:VERIFIABLE article. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes the general notability guideline because there is substantial enough coverage of this subject in reliable sources and is verifiable by any reasonable definition of the word. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only source you found does not verify the contents of the article. I'm quoting: "I set to work fixing Chris up with Mortimer Goth from across the street; five or six visits and about 20 compliments later, they finally kissed." That's it. You can't write a verifiable article with that. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - With that and with the other sources mentioned above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't cite reliable, independent sources which would grant it notability under the WP:GNG. We haven't enacted WP:FICT as a daughter guideline, so we can't claim any inherited notability from the larger work of fiction. The sources listed in this AfD but not added to the article either seem to be tangential (reviews or one-liners) or not independent. I don't see a problem with a redirect and nothing should stop us from transwikiing the article, but both of those are editorial considerations. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per per LGRdC and S Marshall's commentary (no sense repeating it -- they said it best and first) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

I noticed that the article was only created on August 11 and that no merge or redirect discussions were attempted on the talk page first. Therefore, per Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, we should have first been discussing the article's potential with its creator and exhausted these other options on at least the talk page for at least a couple of days or so before coming here. Barring there were hoax or libel concerns, we should give editors that courtesy and then if they say they don't have any other sources, okay, but the AfD actually now seems a bit premature. After all, a mere five days is hardly sufficient time from article creation to the end of the AfD to have sufficient exhausted all possibilities as to what to do with our coverage of this notable and verifiable fictional character. After all, consider how the article for even the most notable video game character "developed" after in its first five days: [18]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this character is evidently not one millionth as notable as Mario despite having appeared in a series of games which have sold more copies than most of the Mario series combined, I find this to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. It is my considered opinion that this article could be left for five years without developing into a worthwhile article. I sense that what I about to hear is a proposal that it be left for five years just in case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If I'm honest, I didn't expect the AfD to be controversial in any way. However, this is a modern subject, a youth subject and a computing subject- all three of which are factors that would imply the vast majority of information could be found online. For this reason, I would argue that fives days was more than enough to find and assess sources- all that have been found are primary sources, unreliable sources and the briefest of mentions- nothing that we can work with to produce a decent article. If that is all that can be found on the medium suited to the subject, what do you honestly think we will be able to find offline, even if given a long time? J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Chris, why not? Notability is not going decline, it could only increase. Less sources are not going to be found, only more could be. I see no reason not to give more than a few days. Why not contact the article creator and request he look through some game magazines without online archives to see if they cover this character? To J, I subscribe to EGM and GameInformer and they have sections on fictional characters without of universe coverage all of the time. Sometimes, if I am reading by a computer I even cite the magzines. Take for example the July issue of GameInformer. Its cover story focuses on a game called Infamous. On page 47, the bulk of the page is taken up by giant labeled images of three central characters with section headings on them titled "The Voice of Survival," "The Ex," and "The Nut." In the whole paragraphs devoted to each of these characters is not merely an in universe description but out of universe comments such as a comparison of "The Ex" as "Lois Lane with synringes." I would be somewhat surprised if multi-page magazine previews and reviews on The Sims do not have similar coverage. Yes, Google will find some results these magazines post on their affiliated websites, but the magazines do not regularly post all of their coverage online. Now, I do not subscribe myself to the PC magazines, so I am not in the next few minutes able to say go through those, but I would expect that a character with appearances in at least two games and coverage in at least two strategy guides (I own a good deal of games, most of them actually do NOT have published guides), has a realistic potential for us finding this additional out of universe material. Given that we do not have deadlines, why outright delete it? Why not at worst merge and redirect it? Why not userfy it for the article creator (not me, I have as much as I can handle of userfied content for now!) and request he/she add some additional sources before placing it back in mainspace? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I was just about to cite the Game Informer stuff to the article I mentioned above and lo and behold someone already did so in this section! By the way, please note that the article under discussion here has been improving since nomination and if I was able to do that much in so short of time, I belive it establishes enough potential for it to realistically be saved in some capacity, even if merged and redirected. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the principle characters in a very notable game. The article is not sufficiently detailed to serve a a game guide, so that's irrelevant. Anyone who has actually worked on these topics as I have will know that the material is poorly indexed, widely dispersed, and elusive, and requires considerable time for sourcing.We do not delete as unsourced, only as unsourcable, and it would take quite a lot to convince me that none of the scattered discussions of this game cover the character significantly. In any case, there is no reason not to merge. DGG (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to various targets outlined above. At some point we need to be practical; the topic of an article should be notable, but not every notable topic deserves an article - this character is a prime example where a better discussion of the character can be made when talking about all the characters in the game as a whole. We can still provide the search term and the redirection and further coverage on a sims character page and the link to the sims wikia, but a full article is not needed. --MASEM 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge to List of Sims Characters. Notable character in notable game. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to a list of the Sims characters. Does not appear to be notable outside that game's universe. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, you've already 'voted' above to delete. Could you strike whichever comment no longer applies? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Medflight[edit]

Not notable, per WP:CORP. Created by User:Angel Medflight who obviously has a conflict of interest in the matter. Contested prod. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not demonstrated. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be provided that meet WP:RS, demonstrate notability and verify the facts stated in the article. Wiw8 (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company seems to be remarkably adept at getting its press releases plastered across the web, but there's nothing in the way of reliable third-party sources. Gr1st (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the article provides no evidence of the scale of the cpmapny's operations, making it difficult to judge whether it is notable or NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does ruralnorthwest.com demonstrate notability? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not asserted above other medical transport/retrieval services. JFW | T@lk 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They clearly have a competent PR department because all a google search brings up are copies of press releases and directory entries. No independent, reliable sources on which to base an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with List of Doraemon media. Later split-out may become feasible as more information becomes available to support a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon The Musical: Nobita and the Animal Planet[edit]

Delete nn musical. Only 1 GHIT (incidental mention) Mayalld (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A more reasonable rationale would be WP:CRYSTAL. I note that most likely all information at this point would be in Japanese, so the incident English g-hit is not at all a convincing evidence of non-notability. I note also that given the strong notability of the franchise, that if/when the musical happens, it will almost certainly pass WP:N. Withholding !vote till evidence of Japanese searches are brought forth. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Planned production within a month of opening. Reference establishes that it's scheduled. Extremely noteworthy franchise. Even if it doesn't draw a megamom it may still merit an article; see e.g. Breakfast at Tiffany's (musical). Fg2 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doraemon Media, not enough info to merit its own article. Gelmax (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doraemon media per my above and Gelmax, with no prejudice against recreation if/when more information supporting its notability is discovered. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doraemon media - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G7 - first editor's request. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle.com[edit]

article focused on the history of a specific domain name ccwaters (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CCWaters, do you think I should change the article so that it follows the current Gazelle.com company instead of all of them? (In fact, the current company is the most notable in terms of press sources.). rllerner

If it passes WP:WEB, which will be debated here. ccwaters (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:WEB article says that significant coverage (ABC, NBC, CNN, TechCrunch, and many more) is important as are awards:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9XXM_Pm6hI CNET Best of the Web]. As far as the impact that Gazelle has had on the world (outside of its services), it is on the leading edge of green service companies in America. It has been mentioned by many authoritative sources (Earth2Tech, cNET Green Tech, PC Magazine) as the "Netflix of Recycling". The company has pioneered a different kind of recycling strategy.rllerner(talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ seems to fail WP:V regardless of whether it may or may not pass WP:WEB, WP:CORP, or even WP:N. Reliable 3rd party references are needed and the article doesn't seem to have these. Youtube is not a reliable source as far as I'm aware. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with you as to the company's lack of reliable third party sources. First of all, the Youtube video's purpose was not to highlight any connection to Youtube, but to show the content of the video: cNet gave this company their Best of the Web award. As for reliable third party sources, I guess I do not understand why ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, Tech Crunch (one of the internet's most subscribed-to blogs), Gizmodo (another authoritative blog), US News and World Report, PC Magazine, and Fortune do not count as "reliable third-party sources." Regards, rllerner(talk) 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that "ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News" weren't reliable though I can't find these references. As for Tech Crunch and Gizmodo my understanding is that blogs aren't considered reliable sources in general on here. If you can point me to the place where reliable 3rd party sources have covered the article's subject in a non-trivial manner than I'll look again but, I haven't seen it yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are: ABC, PC Magazine, Fortune, cNET Green Tech, US News & World Report, CNBC, The Today Show. And the Youtube Video that I linked to shows the cNET Best of the Web Award. Regards, Rllerner (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) why aren't the references in the article? 2) why when I click on the ABC link to I get just an advertisement for doors and windows? 3) PC mag one looks okay to me 4)Fortune one is apoears to go to a blog as does the US News one. Continuing to look. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some confusion on my part comes from the article's current content (for instance is it meant to be about the IP address, about the domain, about the company, about the history of one, two, or more different things? Maybe someone that knows more about the intent of the article can clean it up and reference it better? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was holding off on putting them into the article in order to first establish whether or not the article will remain. As for ABC, the video is hosted by ABC, and they display ads before their videos. Just wait for 20 seconds while the ads run and you will see a 5:00 minute spot covering Gazelle on ABC's Ahead of the Curve Segment. The blog's should be fine, I thought, because they are the official blogs of these news agencies.Rllerner (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. That makes sense. I guess I will change the page so that it covers the company instead.Rllerner (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've relisted this because I wish someone else weighed in on the notability of this. Personally, I would like to see the article cover the company for whom these references are, as the domain name itself is not particularly notable (especially not, say, the information DNS has on it such as the IP address it points to). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR in trying to claim domain name itself is noteable. Seems to be just attempt by author to include mention of current company using domain, as shown by 99% of other contributions. [19] [20] [21] Has now created article at Gazelle (internet company) if that is notable enough to stay I'm still sure it only needs one article! -Hunting dog (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
deleteYes, I agree with Hunting dog and am now in favor of deletion. The page for the current company should be enough by itself--I guess that is more notable than the domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rllerner (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per the above request/authorisation by author/main contributor. So tagged. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akoie[edit]

Delete nn new software package. No sources found outside of the creator, download sites, and blogs Mayalld (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google says there are 815 sites about Akoie, sourceforge says it was downloaded 736 times. This is no spam-article. Its a article about a good open source software! --Alteslego (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, 815 GHITS. Now take out blogs, take out wikipedia, take out sites owned by the creators of this software, take out sourceforge. Can you point to any Independent, reliable sources that have written about this software? Mayalld (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of notability is absent ... and if it's only been downloaded 736 times it would seem unlikely that it could be shown at the moment. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There are no references to denote notability of the characters in this game. This is largely a plot summary and consists of some WP:GAMETRIVIA and game guide material (for example, detailing how interacting with some characters "opens up" side quests, or how others can help improve your in-game skills) that contravenes WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article has already been discussed, and rejected. Why is it being brought up again? -FeralDruid (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the closing statement on the last AfD, you'll see that the lack of references was noted there, and as a result couldn't "in any good faith" be closed as a keep. There are still no references to demonstrate notability (as I stated in my deletion argument above). --Craw-daddy | T | 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of reliable sources and original research. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide or a collection of trivia. No improvement whatsoever to the pointed-out lack of sourcing in the first AFD 8 months ago. Roi must have read a different article from the one being discussed here, in terms of lack of demonstrated notability and presence of original research , or has a different understanding of the use of those terms in Wikipedia than the consensus of most editors. Edison (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, a tremendous amount of reliable secondary sources and unoriginal reseach exists and the consensus of the majority of editors who create and work on these articles (i.e. rather than the couple who vote to delete in random AfDs) is that these sources are sufficient enough for inclusion. Plus the article meets Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A google search does not equal the establishment of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The results in that search do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have any reliable third-party sources to meet the WP:V or WP:GNG requirements. Google search only reveals trivial mentions of the characters, or unreliable sources. Keep voters and article authors have not discharged their WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden is on those arguing to delete, i.e. making an overwhelming case that this article can never be verified, merged, or redirected to justify deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's incorrect, and I have attempted to clarify our policy to you repeatedly. From WP:BURDEN (a subsection of WP:VERIFIABILITY):
    The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  - If the sources exist, the burden is on you to produce them and cite them properly. I'm not even asking for a citation here: just show me some specific sources, because none of us have found any. As of now, a WP:Search engine test is insufficient. We need to see multiple reliable third-party sources that actually provide sufficient coverage to write an article. If you continue to be uncooperative with our WP:V policy, I hope you'd at least have the courtesy to refrain from filibustering and stonewalling. Perhaps there is another editor who can actually produce the sources that none of us have been able to find, and "proof by assertion" may prevent other editors from seeing my unfulfilled request. Randomran (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The characters are specifically addressed in an interview as evidenced by the title of this IGN article and the subject of this video, and they are also referenced in out of universe context in [22], [23], [24], etc. Also, Icons of Horror and the Supernatural by S. T. Joshi discusses them on page 403. Surely, these sources can be used to write an article? And I see no reason why if I could find these sources, you couldn't instead of filibustering and stonewalling to get the article deleted here. Why not help look for sources that were relatively easy to find and help us to incorporate them into the article? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please assume good faith. I am not trying to stonewall or filibuster. I couldn't find sources, and the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep the information to provide adequate sources. I saw the sources you have produced, and they do not verify the contents of the article:
        The IGN article focuses on character design, and does not verify the major OR minor characters in this article.
        
        The 1up article also focuses on character design, and does not verify the contents of this article.
        
        The gamespy article focused on character design briefly, and then on combat. Still nothing that verifies the character information in this article.
        
        The gamespot article covers character design, and its impact on a "seduction" mechanic.
      - None of these sources WP:VERIFY ANY information on ANY of the major/minor characters in this article. Do you see why a google search isn't enough? The actual contents of the sources matters. The sheer mention of the subject matter is not enough, and sometimes even misleading and off-topic. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want me to assume good faith, then please do the same. They verify information on characters of Vampire: The Masquerade, i.e. some article on this topic. My suggestion is to use these sources to revise the article, but the subject as titled is notable enough while the article like practically all of our articles is an improveable work in progress. My sense from looking at Google books is that there's Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and it seems discourteous and unnecessary to expect volunteers to spring to action in five days. And I think we would accomplish more instead of having an AfD by using these sources to improve the article as best we can. Another approach is to search for individual characters mentioned in the article. Or [25]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can continue to assume good faith so long as you at least attempt to abide by our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. Not that I expect you to be infallible, but when someone points out your WP:BURDEN and you respond with proof by assertion, the discussion cannot move forward. I appreciate your effort to find sources, and hope you'll continue to look for sources in the future. Including this article, if you still believe that it's notable contrary to what several other editors have found.
        There is nothing discourteous about an AFD for notability issues, particularly when the article has been tagged for such issues since 2007 and efforts to find sources have failed. Assume good faith: we're trying to help maintain Wikipedia's high standards, and have given the article ample time to respond to the issues. The first step to assuming good faith would be to stop suggesting that the AFD process is inherently discourteous.
        The sources you have found cover a different but related topic. Preserving this article's contents, let alone its history, have no value. And it the notability of another topic neither helps nor harms this article. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My feeling is that this article meets the verifiability and notability guidelines based on the sources mentioned above and I see no persuasive reason to delete the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for producing the sources either way. Others can now read them and decide for themselves if they actually verify the subject of this article. Randomran (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Happy to help. Have a pleasant night! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article's content is drawn entirely from game guides and the game itself. Primary sources can be used for verification but not to establish notability, and game guides likewise. The sources provided discuss game content, but do not discuss the characters. The difference is elementary if one considers that Lara Croft has an article separate from Tomb Raider - this is because there are sources which actually have Lara Croft herself as the subject. No non-gameguide sources of that type exist for this article for the simple reason that the characters therein simply aren't as notable. And if they're not notable, they are not article material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above reliable non-game guide secondary sources exist for the topic as titled; please help to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to cite reliable sources in contravention of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources have been presented above and you can help us to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've provided a Google search and Randomran has already explained why that isn't enough. This is heading for WP:IDHT territory. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The results in the Google search are enough by any reasonable standard. We should be working together to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive plot information and game guide material. Absolutely no sources to verify any content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the sources presented above; that statement is simply not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No reliable sources (NOTE: I am not happy about the sources presented above - so don't lecture me about them). --Hank Pym (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid topic outside the scope of what is appropriate in the main article on the subject, necessitating a subarticle. Add references. Everyking (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. The present article is entirely plot summary, and as such inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have independent sources on real-world aspects, then first the main article on the game should be expanded using these sources (it could really use some!), and only if this is not possible, breaking out a "subarticle" should be considered. (And even then, the concept of this subarticle should be radically different from what it is now.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fix, in this case, is to remove the inappropriate material. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be better to add the sources discussed above and even in the worst case scenario, I am not seeing any compelling reason we wouldn't merge and redirect without deletion to Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines#Characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability to meet WP:NOTE. No need for a character list for a single game. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability * criterion only applied to the pages on the series taken all together, and I think it would be agreed that the series as a whole is notable. Everything else is a mater of editing. This is a split subpage to get the material of characters together without making the main page too long for some browsers. Demonstrating its separate notability is irrelevant, so the various deletion arguments above above are none of them based on policy and can be rejected in toto. There are only two questions 1/is the series important enough that a paragraph or two on each of the characters is necessary,and b/ where should the be put, on the single main article, on individual pages for each character, or on a combination page like this. Personally, I think this sort of combination page is the obvious compromise except for the truly most important series where there is sufficient information on the main characters to justify individual pages on each.I a therefore very troubled by those who want to delete compromise pages like this one. If they think our coverage of these topics is excessive--a tenable view, though one i do not agree with--they should support such ages and I would expect a chorus of enthusiastic keeps. Only if they ant to reduce the coverage of the topic to the bare minimum would they want to remove pages like this, so I assume its their objective. Its an objective which, like all other extreme positions, such as including only 1st place winners in the Olympics, that will be harmful to the encyclopedia. Its an extreme deletionism--the only thing left to do after that is to not cover fiction at all--I've heard that proposed also. (Just for the record, though not really relevant since this is not a stand alone article, 1/ plot and characters are different though related elements of fiction, and NOT PLOT means only what it says, that our overall coverage should not be about plot exclusively. 2/content can be drawn from primary and closely related secondary sources if it is not controversial 3/ there was a challenge for sources,and GRdC supplied them. That the nom had not found them indicated an inadequate and careless nomination in the first place. This does not however satisfy the challenger, who will presumably find some reason to challenge and source brought forward. very source brought as not being substantial enough. In short, this is the sort of good and appropriate combination article which we ought to have a central to our coverage of these topics. DGG (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I entirely disagree. There is no free pass for including plot summary material (rather than, as per WP:NOT#PLOT, sourced analysis) in arbitrary amounts in separate articles, once the main article passes WP:N. Rather, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, separate articles should only be created from a fully developed article, and if they separately meet WP:N. In the case at hand, already the main article, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, consists to a good deal of plot summary. A separate article just to add more of it is unwarranted. The fine distinction between "plot" and "characters" that you try to introduce is something that I cannot see in WP:NOT#PLOT; what we have here is plot summary, just in a reorganized form. And if we really want to boil it down to that level: The article does not serve the project's goal, to create an encyclopedia about the real world. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the topic is important to people in the real world it is consistent with the project's goal, otherwise over 5,000 people would not visit the article each month and numerous editors would not volunteer their time to build the article and argue to keep it across two AfDs now. A handful of editors unwilling to work on it does not trump that overwhelming reality that the community believes this article passes WP:N, is an acceptable spinoff or sub-article, and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG sums it up well, it is a spinout list in effect, spun out due to length reasons. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Melbourne produced TV programs[edit]

Delete listcruft, better achieved with a category if needed Mayalld (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLN - there's no reason to delete a list just because it would also work as a category. Townlake (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Australian television series. I can find no other WP article devoted to TV programs produced in a nominated place. There is only Lists of TV programs set in a nominated place. Rather than spawn a whole new genre of Lists of TV programs (produced in every large city in the world), use should be made of existing, well-populated, lists. This article about Melbourne produced TV programs comprises only unsourced material - no references or in-line citations. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mayalld, convert into category. Wongm (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is this a list of notable things? This is the sort of cruft which gets 2.5M pages Annette46 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bayle[edit]

Non-notable driver. References listed don't actually explain what they are referencing or indicate notability. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Michael Aquino. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was it's just like, it's just like, a no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flea Market Montgomery[edit]

WP:WEB, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, oh no! This don't pass 'em, not the Market. I'm talkin' 'bout Flea Market. Montgomery. It's just like, it's just like, a mini-mall! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) (note this is a serious AfD, I just decided to take some liberties with the nomination) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. The nom only gave reasons to keep this. Besides being the subject of in depth secondary sources (including The Associated Press and The Ellen DeGeneres Show), [26][27] [28] the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB and WP:CORP (don't know why the nom threw in WP:NOT), it's had well over 3 million youtube views [29] [30]. Add another million with all the variants and parodies. --Oakshade (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Specifically, I was referring to WP:IINFO, WP:NOTADVOCATE; the content of the article is little more than a WP:COATRACK biased towards discussing the meme, which I still suggest is of questionable notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article subject has been the focus if significant coverage in several local and national reliable third-party sources. The meme itself is well-referenced and while the article could use further expansion it appears to meet the verifiability and notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were a small shopping center or minimall, and without the claimed viral video fame, it would doubtless get deleted. 3 million views of a YouTube video does not confer automatic notability. It has coverage in the local paper and in a paper from a neighboring state. The entrepreneur managed to get on a TV show because of the ad video, which argues more for his notability, or for the "catchy jingle's" than for the flea market's. In fact many refs call it the "worst commercial" ever rather than a "catchy" jingle.(It's just like, it's just like..being waterboarded.". to listen to the "catchy jingle.") Edison (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press and The Ellen DeGeneres Show, in addition to VH1 which did a long piece on this [31], are all national media. Even putting aside the national in-depth coverage this has received, there is no "local sources don't count" clause anywhere in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:SOURCES. While the reason for this establishment's notability is quite silly ("worst commercial" claim for instance), that doesn't mean it's not notable. The 3 million-plus youtube hits is only additional evidence of notability, not the core reason for it. --Oakshade (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No notability has been shown for the almost-like-a-minimall, just for the catchy jingle. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming there's an inherent notability with this topic. The topic, catchy jingle or not, is notable because it's been the in-depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. If it was not, your WP:NOTINHERITED point would be valid. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mall gets passing mention in national/interstate coverage of the jingle. The mall lacks evidence of notability. The only discussion of the mall is routing pro forma coverage in local papers, and such coverage has not saved other articles about small shopping centers. Read the references: they are about the performer or the jingle, not the mall. Write and article about the performer, or an article about the jingle. Edison (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are partially correct that the business is famous because of the commercial and jingle, but that doesn't mean the business isn't famous. It's impossible to separate the flea market and the commercial, as flea market is what the the commercial is about. Besides "local" publications being acceptable to WP:NOTABILITY, two of the publications listed in the article are not local. Knoxville, TN is over 300 miles from Mongomery with several media markets in between (Atlanta, Birmingham and Chattanooga for examples). And the Canadian CityNews of course isn't local to Montgomery either. --Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Oakshade's excellent explanation of satisfaction of WP:N Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about the market itself. This is a self perpetuating publicity cycle, where the inclusion in Wikipedia itself will guarantee another 1 million YouTube views which shall be used to justify its retention here. Annette46 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ien Chi[edit]

High school student and budding filmmaker. Sole claim to notability is what appears to be a fairly minor award, and I don't think this is enough to meet WP:BIO. Article also has a COI issue; not too difficult to figure out who User:Ienthekorean is. PC78 (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the award is entirely unnotable, if you go to the website you will see that it is a local org that gives out about 25 different awards. I also find the (un-cited) statement that he was awarded 10,000,000 dollars extremely dubious; I would assume that such an event would get at least some coverage but a search for his name and the name of the film that supposedly won him this, "Ien Chi" Crippled[32] returns 6 hits, none relevant. Nearly no relevant Ghits for anything else on him either. - Icewedge (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually it says he was awarded 10,000,000 Won = about 10,000 USD, somewhat more believable but less impressive. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awards do seem minor, and searching doesn't throw up anything extra -Hunting dog (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it I'd say winning 10,000,000 won is pretty impressive for a high school student. SCFF confirms it. Try searching for him in Korean. Milkyway2009 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)— Milkyway2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can we get a source then, I tried searching again, in Korean too. Still no dice. - Icewedge (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It would be excellent if you could post a link for the rest of us. PC78 (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link has been added. Milkyway2009 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a talented young man, but minor film awards do not add up to proof of notability. Edison (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Music Chart[edit]

Chart with no indication of notability. Brought to us by Pollis (talk · contribs), who created and re-created the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart and who does not appear to be here for much more than writing articles about charts published by the "Mediatraffic" company. Sandstein 06:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Pollis has been indef-blocked. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of references demonstrating notability. Possibly salt for reasons given about constant recreation. (How many times has it been recreated?) --Craw-daddy | T | 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a first with this name [33] --Amalthea^Talk 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Amalthea^Talk 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for lack of notability and verification, and block User:Pollis for continuing to post these very similar inappropriate articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, salt, and block chart is not notable and this is a recreation of a deleted article; salt along with Mediatrafic where he has already recreated it, and block editor for self-advertisement and spamming. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above - eo (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), passes WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xilina Spathia[edit]

Unencyclopedic and is written in greek Loquacious conundrum (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of those is a deletion reason, and, if accurate, it's patently not "unencyclopedic". (I hold no position on whether it is accurate). Anyway, the only part that's written in Greek is the list of album titles & labels, and while I've no idea what the MOS says on the matter, listing things in the language in which they were published hardly seems a strange position. – iride scent 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and translate the discography if possible. The band is notable (verified by a Google search for "Ξύλινα Σπαθιά" which turns up 58000 results), and both extwiki and elwiki have articles on it. This article is a perfectly valid, if somewhat unreadable stub in English. nneonneo ^talk 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Needs clean-up, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even satisfies the basic requirement for its listing being removed from WP:PNT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Eyez[edit]

This artist appears to fail WP:MUSIC, and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Budgets[edit]

WP:OR essay. Failed prod by author removal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject itself is a government policy, and is notable. However the page as it stands is an embarrassment. I would rather see a stub than the page as it currently stands. If the author cleans it up, and wikifies it, I see no problem with a page about this subject. lk (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While it may be possible to create an article on this subject, this article is not going to be the starting point. I think even the keep vote above agrees with this position. Delete it and allow it to be created with a properly sourced article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing demonstrates notability in this article. As stated, even if this is a government policy, this is not the correct starting point for an article. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking notability, little useful information. If a great deal more info is obtained, sourced, and logically organized, there may be a chance of an article on the subject, but this is no help to the creation of a new article and is not useful in the meantime. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augeant[edit]

Apparent hoax. I can't find any evidence that this place in France exists. An article exists in the French Wikipedia, but I have nominated that article for deletion as well for the same reason. The French AfD discussion is here. The INSEE code (19023) shown in the article belongs to Beynat. All towns are notable, except for hoaxes. Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eastmain. I could find no evidence of the existence of this commune in France. I looked in Google, the Corrèze department's website, my AA 2005 Maxi Atlas France and found no references. I checked the French Wikipedia, and found that the INSEE code on that article (19014) is for the commune of Auriac, Corrèze. Kiwipete (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention in INSEE, or anywhere else outside Wikipedia for that matter. C'est un canular. Gr1st (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete if it doesn't exist. I didn't start the article ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hoaxes are specifically excluded from the CSD criteria; this could be blatant misinformation, but that's different from a hoax. Townlake (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the French AFD discussion appears to be strongly in favor of deletion. Actually, note that CSD G1 says that hoaxes may be speedied in blatant cases, and if there's a blatant lack of existence for this place, as the editorofthewiki and Kiwipete say, this sounds like a pretty blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a perceived hoax has even a remote chance of being plausible, it should go through the AfD process, to bar re-creation (via easing of future speedy process) if nothing else. While I agree the facts and errors here make this place look dubious, it simply strikes me as better process to let this go through the wringer just in case. Townlake (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Malik[edit]

I'm not certain that this person meets WP:BIO. He has received a few awards and has held a few positions, but at the same time I'm having great trouble finding reliable sources about him in detail, at least online, and book sources covering him in detail have not been proven to exist. Deepecologyfanboi (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that the Padma Shri award is sufficient to show notability. I added some newspaper references to him. --Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think this is a bad faith nom. The Padma Shri is a notable award and recipients are undoubtedly notable. I just did a plain and simple google search with the terms Keshav Malik Padma and I get reliable sources on the first page itself. This is by the Times of India, and this is by the Ministry of Home Affairs. No question of not finding reliable sources online for him receiving a national award. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as per =Nichalp. This should not have been nominated for Afd. --GDibyendu (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Padma Shri Award, gnew hists [34] and this review: World Literature Today; Summer93, Vol. 67 Issue 3, p676, 1/2p;Abstract: Reviews the book `Islands of Mind,' by Keshav Malik. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical phenomena[edit]

A crufty list that is impossible to define and impossible to maintain. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. JIP | Talk 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that would be impossible to define clear and explicit criteria for inclusion in a list with this title. But it hasn't been done. Hence the present sorry state of this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has no editors interested in it, and is of questionable value in any case. Pdbailey (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del its had plenty enough time to improve and that's not happened. --Salix alba (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined and vague list in a very bad state. Eklipse (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined list without any clear purpose and with barely any substantive links to it. Qwfp (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A rename to remove the word "important" from the article is probably a good idea but beyond the scope of this AfD closure to dictate. Shereth 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in statistics[edit]

This is a disorganized list that is impossible to define and almost as impossible to maintain. It appears to have been abandoned and now appears to be a repository for 'favorite textbooks.' —G716 <^T·_C> 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you consider this impossible to define? Why is it any more difficult to define than any of the other "lists of important publications", such as list of important publications in mathematics, list of important publications in computer science, list of important publications in biology, list of important publications in physics, list of important publications in economics, list of important publications in psychology, etc., etc., which you don't seem to have currently on the AfD list? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this article because I cannot come up with a reasonable, definition of what "important" is, as applied to statistics. Furthermore, based on the current list of publications, I don't think there is a consensus of a definition. The statistics list appears to be a random collection. I'm looking forward to read others' opinions on what constitutes "important." What's yours? My recollection is that the biology list survived two AfDs (both with no consensus), and I think another list (geography?) failed an AfD. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in statistics and the other article listed by Michael Hardy are part of The science pearls project. Creating the list should be the first part of the project. In later stage a wiki article should be created for every paper. We are aware of the problem with the inclusion criteria in the current stage and we try to cope with it. The chemistry page is modified by some wikipedian that discuss in depth each paper. In the computer science page I consulted many Turing award winners and other experts. Sometimes there are entries that are not justified but I see it as the evolution of usual wiki article. We don't delete article due to imperfection.APH 06:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally - poorly written articles should be fixed, not deleted. But I don't know how to define the fix in a clear, comprehensive way so that this article becomes stable, meaningful and not a listcruft. (And yes, I spent a great deal of time reading the pearls article, and the talk page and the talk pages of some of the other "List of..." articles.) Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move all articles from "List of important publications in $x$ " to "List of publications in $x$ . The title is redundant. All the entries in the list must be important or notable (as verified by reliable sources) as per WP:N; otherwise it wouldn't merit inclusion at all.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as per WP:LIST, "important" is a word to avoid when titling lists: "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles, and instead the lead makes clear that that list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members."--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd... they used to be called "List of publications in..." and were renamed with the argument that the title should make obvious that these lists do not aim to be comprehensive, but only list historical and groundbreaking works. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination). --Itub (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to rename all these articles. That is what happened last time. The word "important" was added. Now you want it removed. The discussion on renaming should take place on the talk page of the science pearls project, with editors informed about it happening on the talk page of everyone of these lists. --Bduke (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I find on that page:
Mathematics

Natural sciences

Social sciences

List of important publications in economics
List of important publications in psychology
List of important publications in sociology

Michael Hardy (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me. I wasn't involved in the previous discussion. The part on how "important" a publication needs to be in order to be included needs to be discussed and extended upon solely in the introduction of the entry.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list does need to improve. It is quite likely that all these entries are important. However there is not a single reference that points to the importance, significance or notability of any entry for the discipline. These should be added. This list needs work by people in the field. It does not need deleting. --Bduke (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I suggest removing recent textbooks and focusing the article on important works of historic importance, with third party references attesting their notability. --Itub (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems insane to not speedy keep this and work on the overall policy on "List of important publications in X" in a more sensible place, and then apply that to all articles equally. This proposal is not about this article and AfD is not an appropriate place to discuss this. Pdbailey (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lists given at the top by Michael Hardy, especially List of important publications in mathematics, show that good lists are possible. The present article gives criteria for inclusion at the top of the article, so the list is not "impossible to define" (although the definition is subjective). I agree that the article needs cleanup: the descriptions are skimpy and the entries are written in several different formats. The fix is to attract the attention of people knowledgeable about statistics who can provide some more details on the existing entries (and add new ones if needed), not to delete the article. --Uncia (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Defines its inclusion criteria and meets requirements of WP:LIST. May need some cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After removing a few of the more modern text books, the list has many of the key publications in statistics. These lists do need occasional maintenance, but serve as a useful historical view of the subject, it is these key works which define the subject. --Salix alba (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for drawing attention to the fact that this needed work. That's no reason to delete it though. Qwfp (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it's beginning to snow. My concerns were apparently unfounded. —G716 <^T·_C> 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Project[edit]

The author seems to think giving context is unnecessary. I am dubious about the notability of MERRY EXPO -Book of global exchange- which is the context. But as for this Merry Project article it is simply a catalogue of dates. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Questionable notability for the group and the book. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures were used in the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics. 24.21.142.206 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and patent nonsense. The alleged Olympics reference is irrelevant Annette46 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Blues[edit]

Unremarkable film LAA Fan 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced; ~~might be a hoax.~~ --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly is not a hoax, as some very brief research revealed. Come on, guys, let's do better than this. ^S._D.Jameson 03:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay, you're right, clearly not a hoax; but does it (the film, not the book) have any notability, given that it isn't even out yet? I still say Delete, because it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation to say it's gonna be notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say when one of the sources is the New York Times, notability is established. There were a ton of other available sources as well, I just picked a few of them to illustrate why this should be speedy kept. ^S._D.Jameson 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A stubby listing like the one you provided from the Times does not constitute substantial coverage. I feel that this is still a WP:CRYSTAL violation (but I do want to commend your research efforts, Dean). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I research every AfD I comment in--especially those in which it's asserted that the subject is (or might be) a hoax. I don't assert that the Times gave it "substantial" coverage, just that the coverage it did get, combined with all the other potential sources out there, make your crystal-balling concerns moot, in my view. ^S._D.Jameson 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that it is not a theatrical release, but a made-for-TV movie. Not everything on the tube is notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's beginning to sound an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Mike. Certainly, not everything "on the tube" is notable, but we're not AfDing those hypothetical, non-notable "everythings", but this notable movie. ^S._D.Jameson 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Notability has been established. Article sure needs work though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it does, I do not deny. Which is why I've placed the list of sources I've found so far on the talkpage, and added a couple to the stub. I have so many irons in the fire now with articles I've created that I don't know if I have time to work this one up myself, but I may try some tomorrow. ^S._D.Jameson 05:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a further quick search. Jameson got it veryright. Wow! There's lots out there. Changed vote. Lack of sources is no longer an issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The directory listings posted above don't impress me much, but I'll take this one as evidence of notability. 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I've added another reference (Daily News (New York)). Axl (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! (Speedy, even, if that will resolve this debate sooner and remove the delete tag from the top of the page.)

I'd like to thank those people who recommended this article for keep, particularly those who have had the experience and knowledge on Wikipedia to match and counter the arguments of the article's detractors.

I chose not to create an article for this movie until I was able to specifically make sure I had a copy of it in my hands and I knew that it would be debuting on the same television channel the other three in the series had within less than a month. Another user was the one who changed the link of the main Donald Strachey page to reflect that Ice Blues was out with a definite rather than speculative year of release, not me, and it's only because he had done so (after he'd personally watched the movie through official channels) that I followed his lead before even making the decision to perhaps create an article for this movie at some point in the future when there were enough factors for creation of a stub to be appropriate, and furthermore this user is an admin. I am not sure about the hierarchy here at Wikipedia, but from what I have looked for and not found on their user pages, neither of the two people who are pushing hardest for deletion of this article can say that about themselves. Hopefully, it takes more than jumping on an article faster than white on rice with inaccurate speedy deletions that are changed later to deletions and then pretending that those speedy deletions didn't occur mere minutes ago to earn that coveted status.

I have been avoiding even coming back to this page for several days because of this "debate". Time that could have been spent updating it. Frankly, all this kind of thing does is dampen my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, and perhaps enthusiasm in general from many potentially very useful contributors.

I also find it highly suspicious and distasteful that the same person who seemed to be "helping" me avoid 'speedy' deletion also wound up recommending that this be deleted, particularly when he didn't seem to waste any time pointing out "incorrect" use of hang-on tags, but didn't seem to take the time to do the research to verify that this movie is clearly not a hoax. In other spheres we call that "concern trolling". FYI, the article *WAS* nominated for speedy deletion, in fact the nominator actually, whether deliberately or inadvertently, sent a speedy deletion notice for the movie to me twice. The first time, nominator got the impression that the article was about "a person or group of people" despite the fact that the stub clearly stated that it was a movie. The second time, nominator thought it was about a "club"; again, information clearly stated what the article is about. After realizing neither was correct, nominator decided the film was "unremarkable", at least once (s)he figured out it was a film.

If before nominating this article for deletion (speedy or otherwise), users concerned about the article's conformability to notability requirements (let alone that the existence of the movie was entirely a hoax) had gone to the entries for the first, second, and/or third movie(s) in this series (clearly linked from the stub article), and checked those pages' histories, they would have found out that a) they are movies, b) not only are they obviously not hoaxes, but c) the articles for said three earlier films have all been going through an ongoing process of modification -- the second and third had started as stubs but are largely becoming full articles -- before this whole 'controversy' started, I was even working on synopses for all four, starting with the first. The distaste caused by some people who clearly want this page deleted has turned me off of putting the same degree of effort into updating it since the rush to delete started. Hopefully this debate will be closed at some point soon and I can get back to work on fleshing it out as I have the others, and continuing the process with the others as well, which are far from full-fledged articles worthy of a finished Wiki product.

Perhaps a silver lining to this is that it got some of these movies noticed by others and those who are better versed at what are suitable for footnotes and citations have added some. I would welcome similar notations on the entries for the other Strachey movies; specifically, this one. Also, a citation for Shock to the System's screening at the Outfest film festival (as noted in its article) might be helpful; here's a tip on where to start. While I've got people's attention, I'd welcome tips from more experience Wikipedians on how best to pursue a section on how the books differ from the movies; should I just put a general overview on the main Strachey section or compile things specific to each individual movie vs. the corresponding book it's adapted from? Any tips would be appreciated, and I can fill in the gaps for people who have little or no info on the individual books/movies.

I had more to say about this, and more comparisons to be made to other articles that should and were kept by overwhelming consensus simply by factors analogous to the mere fact that a series of books that began in '81 and (presumably) ended in '03 have been adapted into films, it meets Wikipedia's notability standards (citing other comparable articles where the deletes were overwhelmingly outnumbered), but I'm guessing my point has been sufficiently made and I won't get into that. I trust that a consensus is being forged and this discussion can soon be considered closed. Homoaffectional (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look to your talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it. I've already issued an initial clarification (which is available as a response to your entry on my talk page, and you can check it out there) and am working on a full response. It should be ready within the hour. Homoaffectional (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we're okay. Ice Blues will be a great addition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. I would suggest that interested editors revisit this issue post-election to determine whether the provided sourcing indicates sufficiently notability for a standalone article, but should not be restored prior to that without the emergence of significant new sourcing. As there is no consensus to delete this material, the edit history is preserved beneath the redirect. Shereth 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Manion[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Manion is a first time congressional candidate with pretty much no notability prior to the campaign. If he wins, then obviously he is notable, but any assumption about future notability would be more or less crystal balling. Montco (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, candidates are not inherently notable, and sources are weak. If he wins, recreate. Huon (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. WP:BIO makes it clear that mere candidacy does not equal encyclopedic notability. --Stormie (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was previously closed as delete, but then after discussion with the closing administrator, the deletion was reviewed at DRV, and it was determined that this should be relisted to allow review of new sources. I have converted the original closing comments to a generic comment below, and have restored the article for the purpose of relisting. To review the deletion review discussion, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 6. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Is an appropriate redirect so will create redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. No reason to lose the information in case he wins, after all. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. Nearly every congressional race generates news coverage. However, it does not necessarily follow that every candidate is notable, even if they are the nominee of one of the major parties. Sources are more or less his relation to this house race and little else. If he isn't notable on his own, a merge to the campaign would be appropriate. Otherwise, you have to assume that notability is inherited from candidacy. Montco (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Now/Re-Post. Just being a candidate for congress does not make him mentionable on Wikipedia. If this were the case, Wikipedia would be the larges free political campaign site in the Country. I think the poster should delete this listing for now and repost it should the candidate win and become a congressman. Alienlady24 (August 13, 2008) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In most instances, becoming a major-party candidate for Congress is enough to confer notability. There might be exceptions for candidates who attract little notice because they're put up as sacrificial lambs against well-entrenched incumbents in heavily partisan districts -- I'm a politics junkie and I can't even remember whom the Republicans ran in my heavily Democratic district last time. In this instance, though, the district is fairly even (D+3) and the incumbent is a first-termer, so being the Republican challenger is notable. JamesMLane t c 08:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree to keep this article, this race has attracted significant national media attention (FoxNews, Bloomberg, CSM, NPR off the top of my head) which is significant for a house race in August. Obviously the attention is from both candidates attachments to the Iraq War. Also, I see no problem with his notability coming from the campaign...he's a major party candidate running in a competitive house race that has significant coverage outside of his district and is going to be one of the most expensive in the country..keep it. Bellz (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Mulchandani[edit]

Unsourced claims and unverifiable notability. Article has been deleted and recreated several times. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been among those who have speedied earlier versions of this thing (those didn't mention any movies or awards and were therefore A7 candidates.) Current version mentions some awards and such, but not of it is sourced, and I cannot find a single relevant Google hit either, and for someone who supposedly has lots of awards and movies, this is rather suspicious. Fails verifiability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJJ Music[edit]

DELETE and REDIRECT: Not notable, he has been involved in much bigger business ventures. It should e redirected to the Michael Jackson article, where a short about it can be added if necessary. — Realist² 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new section in the main Michael Jackson article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly any notability Annette46 (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Wizardman 03:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Puppet Theatre[edit]

DELETE: Not notable at all, a collection of trivia at best. — Realist² 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Countdown_with_Keith_Olbermann#Puppet_Theater as per Doc Strange. There's not a whiff of a claim of meeting WP:Notability here, and really not enough to be said about this subject that a spin-out article is warranted. But, the search term is valid, so help the reader by directing them to the info.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Countdown with Keith Olbermann - while the show as a whole is notable this minor part of it is not --T-rex 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Jackson Company[edit]

DELETE: Not notable, he has been involved in much bigger business ventures. At the moment nothing important has really occurred that would justify the need for an article. — Realist² 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Michael Jackson article While Michael Jackson is probably one of the most influential people in musical in the last 50 years, this seems to be something that he's just starting to do. Merge it into the article about him, and ~~when~~if it grows and becomes notable, lets do its own article. --Seascic ^T/_C 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new section in the main Michael Jackson article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable- no news article exists about this company and this company is not registered. Raymone Bain is also no longer in Michael Jackson's employment and therefore cannot be the president of such a company. Also, Michael Jackson is clearly using MJJProductions as his main company, with proof of this on all of the new Thriller 25 albums, singles and merchandise. MJJProductions is still operational; The Michael Jackson company is not.Marnifrances (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Jackson Show[edit]

Delete: Lacks notability, also major neutrality and BLP issues. — Realist² 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not some show on some obscure cable company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.24 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has received approx 7 edits in 2008. I would say it's quite obscure. — Realist² 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits isn't relevant to establishing notability, as Wikipedia has no deadline. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV Funhouse, not enough notability for a standalone article but can be mentioned in TV Funhouse article. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is a serial within the TV Funhouse series, it has enough notoriety to stand on its own. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know much about media, so I'll not "vote" on this, but please note that obscurity by number of edits really isn't significant at all: the four districts of Swaziland (comparable to a Spanish autonomous community or a Mexican state) have only received 19 edits in 2008 between them, of which 14 are the addition or correction of external links. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Time Around (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

Delete and possible Redirect: Lacks notability, no music video, not an official single, appeared on a very minor chart. Might be worth redirecting to "Earth Song" — Realist² 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A track on HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I that though not released as a single, received considerable airplay within the year following album's release. A news archive search of the years 1995-96 reveals plenty of WP:RS describing this song. Sebwite (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article it only appeared at #23 on the R&B chart so I don't think it received "considerable" airplay at all, "moderate" would still be an exaggeration and where are the sources? — Realist² 02:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few more sources i would love to add, including an excerpt from an interview with the late Notorious B.I.G. on how he reacted when MJ called him to collaborate. i will try and add it shortly. Also, i dont see why it should be tacked onto "Earth Song", seeing as how it was released promotionally on its own accord.MaJic (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could get sources (not fan sites) such as interviews etc that would help assess it's notability great. All we have at the moment though is a moderate radio hit at most, thus at the moment it doesn't warrant or need it's own article. Expansions by reliable sources will be a great help. — Realist² 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while and the article hasn't been improved. — Realist² 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Jackson Experience[edit]

Delete: Lacks notability, amounts to promotion or advertising. — Realist² 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly lacks notability with little WP:RS and is written as an advert. Artene50 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jonas Brothers. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.O.N.A.S![edit]

Well, this show was going to be named J.O.N.A.S, but now it's untitled, and it was going to have spies, and now it's not, and maybe it'll be like Flight of the Conchords, but maybe not, but there aren't any reliable sources for this, except maybe a Good Morning America interview, but no one bothered to remember what date the Good Morning America interview happened, so we can't use it as a source either, but I'm sure whatever these guys do will be really neat, because they're the Jonas Brothers. Maybe there could have been an article about it, too, but this thing certainly isn't it. Kww (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Jonas Brothers - details are sketchy at best --T-rex 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonas Brothers, only until exact detail is revealed regarding the show. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonas Brothers until further information becomes available. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Done by Orangemike under G3 criteria. Malinaccier (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kliegle[edit]

Google search for "Clear Channel Communications" and "Max Kliegle" returns one self-promotional site. A hoax? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) The website is not Self Promotional. Nfanslim (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - sorry. The only websites that turn up in that Google search are wikicopies. [35] -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You were wrong. Nfanslim (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Haden[edit]

The only claim to notability is that she's married to Jack Black, which is a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N: [36], [37], [38]. Yes she's generally mentioned with him, but is often mentioned and is described as "the cellist". She has a lengthy music history. I think she makes WP:N. JJL (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But simply mentioning that she is a cellist and giving some background information on her in an article like that still does not establish notability separate from Black. If she hadn't married him, those articles would not exist. Also, you'll notice that in that second link, absolutely every article found is about Jack Black, not her. Notability is not inherited. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per User:JJL's arguments. JIP | Talk 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JaimeAnnaMoore 7:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per speedy keep, nom withdrawn, no deletes. Ty 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Weber[edit]

Non-notable artist, only slight claim to fame is having done the cover art for a Sonic Youth album, which doesn't seem to be enough to make her notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Weber is represented by a major contemporary art gallery, one of the most acclaimed in the US. Her work is in notable collections and institutions around the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.239.171.246 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What "major contemporary art gallery"? You're going to be more specific, plus you need sources to back that up. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Patrick Painter in Los Angeles, Praz-Delavallade in Paris, Marc Jancou Contemporary in New York, and Simon Lee in London? Are these major enough? Her work is also in the permanent collection at LACMA. If you'd like me to get more specific, I'd be happy to provide you with the artist's extensive CV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstamp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 08:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs external sources - especially the LACMA work, press articles. Who are FRAC? Lots of the article links go to the wrong subject. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a bibliography on her Simon Lee gallery CV.[39]. Some refs: NY Arts, Art Basel, LA Weekly, LA Weekly, Art Forum, Pasadena Weekly, Art Review (photo of work), Miami Herald (short text, part of group show), Hammer Museum, LA (Saatchi site editorial post), The Art Newspaper (subscription), Art Forum (7 results - enter Marnie Weber in search box), google books -- Ty 10:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs cleaning and copyediting, but the notability is there, IMO. Many of the links are a bit spammy. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - I cleaned it up a bit & removed most of the spam. I think that helps. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep - Significant evidence has been provided by the article's creator that the subject is notable. Could someone close this? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blieder Drive[edit]

Not notable. I would suggest a merge to one of those other links. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable? I'm in the process of including more references. Wlmg (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have citations for Blieder Drive from three novels, one television series, and a comic book. Imho it is a notable article and worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Wlmg (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by primary sources. You need someone unaffliated with the subject to write something significant about it. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable per WP:N. 8 ghits consisting of a few fansites/forums and some spam. Exceedingly doubtful this device has been received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have to agree with the nominator here. The article is about something that appeared in a couple of sci-fi stories over fifty years ago, appeared in one episode of a TV show that's been over for more than twenty years, appeared in a comic series obscure enough that it's not even mentioned on the linked Wikipedia page, and in one novel released earlier this decade. With its extremely weak Google presence, I'm guessing it didn't play a significant enough part in any of those to end up being mentioned by secondary sources. Gelmax (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete for failing WP:N. For an example of a "drive" that HAS some claim to notability, at least by getting lots of articles in sci-fi pubs and Popular Mechanics, see Dean drive. Edison (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of vehicle registration plates of New Brunswick[edit]

This article contains basically the same information as Vehicle registration plates of New Brunswick, and there is no need to split the information between an article "History of..." and another "Vehicle registration plates of..." as these articles contain the same information. One of the articles should either be deleted or redirected to the other. Canjth (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar duplicating of information on Canadian license plates in other jurisdictions:

Merge and delete - per nom. Of course, there's no need to have separate articles for a couple of current VRPs and a couple of others for the history of the same VRPs! -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Per nom. Almost a no-brainer. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Should probably also be done for such articles as History of vehicle registration plates of Missouri. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above; unnecessary sub-articles. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging requires not deleting the articles.-Wafulz (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Brown[edit]

Dicey neologism - a Google search doesn't confirm its definition. A speedy delete was swatted away -- let's roll this and see what comes up. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOR and WP:DICDEF, plus no sources are provided to back this incredibly trivial information. Canjth (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Canjth. Wonder how the speedy misfired Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I tried the original speedy as db-nonsense but it was declined as not nonsense. I suppose that technically it's not. 07:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:OR, WP:DICDEF, and possibly WP:CSD#A3. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Craps. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Canjth effectively covers the relevant policies. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minus 2 Formula[edit]

seems like a copyvio from this Global Politician page Xorkl000 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom., unreferenced. --Meld shal 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. Now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymone Bain[edit]

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

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: Lacks notability. She's only known for being Michael Jackson's spokes person during his 2005 trial. I'm nearly 100% sure he has since fired her so I cant see any further notable events to come. — Realist² 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this person has received non-trivial coverage from reliable third party pubs. JBsupreme (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WP:SPA socpuppets collapsed - recommmend disregarding comments Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. Ms. Bain is a very respected African American woman, who has

been a trailblazer in the sports and entertainment industries. These comments to delete her bio seem quite petty and spewed with venom. She has represented a variety of athletes and entertainers including Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Hector "Macho"Camacho, The Kings of Comedy, AKA Bernie Mac, Steve Harvey, D.L. Hughley and Cedric the Entertainer. It is without question she is the most efficient and effective spokesperson Michael Jackson has ever had. These comments also reflect that the writers are ignorant of Ms. Bain's continued role with Mr. Jackson and should read the Washington Post's October 8, 2007 profile of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swelvekid (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. Read the thousands of archived articles on

Raymone Bain. Her bio should not be deleted. Sports, Entertainment, Politics... she is a major player. Bobette1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobette1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: Coverage by the Washington Post and appearance on Geraldo, USA Today is enough to satisfy WP:BIO IMHO. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per above- Bain is a notable person, and just because she is not representing Michael Jackson any more does not mean she is less notable now.Marnifrances (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood, Thunder Bay, Ontario[edit]

Trying to follow precedent: "Larger neighborhoods are acceptable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage". The name has some usage (mostly phonebooks), but I can't see how anything is verifiable by people who don't live there except to piece together stuff from phonebooks and company sites which would be OR. Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other entries in Category:Neighbourhoods_in_Thunder_Bay,_Ontario all have references and are better written. I'm not sure if they are inherently more notable or just given more attention. Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep. A quick online search does seem to indicate that this neighborhood has a distinct character and the name does have widespread usage. The other neighborhood articles might also be an indication at the potential for expansion if someone is willing to do some research. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus on WP:Inherent notability of well-defined neighborhoods. Additional sources should be added to flesh out the article. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a separate ward of the city, it would surely be well-defined, which makes it qualify as a keep in my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JIP | Talk 04:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been working on creating articles about neighbourhoods in Thunder Bay but it is taking a while because I'm not going to create one until it's well sourced and relevant. This was created as a stub and I expanded it with what I had. When I have more time/ambition I will complete this and possibly other related articles. I have some citations and I'll work on adding them. I only added what I had to this article so far because someone else created it as a stub. vıd ıoman 08:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All verifiable places and neighborhoods are inherently notable. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vidioman promises to fill it out beyond the stub level. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN I'm clearly wrong, at least I learned something. Consider it withdrawn so a non-admin can close if they want. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish terrorism[edit]

Unnecessary sub-article - subject adequately covered by List of designated terrorist organizations. Also, the opening line contains a somewhat dubious definition. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'OMG KEEP' it may be libelious, but as long as it has references, we can say anything on Wikipedia, NPOV be damned! Seriously, though, delete, per WP:TERRORIST Sceptre ^(talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm and strawman arguments are not helpful in Wikipedia discussions. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A similar AfD came up not too long ago. The rough consensus was that there was no clearly defined Hindu terrorist movement, and there were insufficient sources to establish notability. However, this topic seems to be better established. Chapter 3 of this source and others seem to address the topic directly in detail. POV statements or any other temporary problems are a good rationale for improvement, not deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm going to exercise my right to "not go there" and abstain, except to say if this article is keep, it needs to be given another title, as the current title is inflammatory and violates WP:NPOV. 23skidoo (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think we should do the same thing with Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per now. At some point there might be needed a centralized discussion on the various 'terrorism by topic' articles (like Christian terrorism, communist terrorism, nationalist terrorism) which have serious delimitation problems and are generally unuseful, but pending the outcome of such a process, I'd say that this is a valid article on real-life political phenomena and could thus stay. --Soman (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a valid subject of note. There's nothing wrong with the title, it is clear and neutral. Wikipedia is not censored. I think the article could do with expanding to cover historical zionist terrorism such as King David Hotel bombing which is oddly absent. --neon white talk 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when I saw the title, I thought it was about terrorism by Jewish Zionists in British Palestine and related activities towards establishing an Israelite homeland, but the contents of the article don't match my expectations... if there is such an article, redirect to it. 70.55.84.50 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what I was expecting too, and I'm still looking for it. - Denimadept (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article Zionist political violence is being consider for a merge. I'm not too sure, there are obvious overlaps but not all political violence is terrorism but most of the article does seem to cover what would normally be considered terrorism. --neon white talk 14:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have articles on terrorism from other major religions.The title 'Jewish terrorism' seems to do exactly what it says on the can-outline that the article is about terrorist groups of a Jewish nature-without showing either support or opposition to them Lemon martini (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added in order to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying the sources do not exist (see above), or that no one has gone to the trouble of adding them yet? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what this article needs is to be improved with things like links to groups such as Lehi (group), and Irgun, not the JDL. - Denimadept (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or merge with Zionist political violence. The article can be improved with the inclusion the the original organizations like the Stern Gang and Haganah and an explanation of the groups' religious character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am86 (talk - Am86 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep, obviously notable has reliable sources, expand yes, delete no.^MY♥_INchile 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-sourced valid topic. Article needs further development, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW; easily meets WP:ATHLETE. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Ishimatsu[edit]

Non-Notable athlete who didn't win any medals at the Olympics. If we have an article for her, why not have articles for each and every athlete who ever competed at the Olympics? Kilmverdarkness (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not to sink your boat, but the 2008 Olympics are still going on. She's got press coverage, and personally I think being told "you're one of the best swimmers out of the 300 million people in this country" kind of makes people notable, yes. The Notability guidelines for athletes reads "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.". Does that sound like an olympic competitor to you, because it does me. I'd also view the actions of any user who's first act is to post an AfD as highly suspicious. Ironho lds 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Don't think this fits a speedy criteria. However, plenty of good RS via Google, ditto via Google News. Townlake (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please read WP:ATHLETE, especially the part that says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Yes, we SHOULD have an article on every athlete that competed in the Olympics!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needs some work, yes, but Ishimatsu is certainly notable. On the 5th best team in the Olympics, several silver and bronze medals at both international and national competitions. I'm adding as we speak. Calebrw (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every single competitor from every single country at every single Olympics is notable per WP:ATHLETE, and rightly so. Maybe she didn't voice one sentence of dialogue in an anime, but competing at the top level in the world is considered notable. --NellieBly (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I'd hate to accuse another user of making a bad faith nom, so call it a snowball keep as MP's are inherently notable. User:Dlohcierekim

Marcel Danis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marcel Danis

non-notable person and fails WP:Notability guidelines Oaktreebrand (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:POLITICIAN says that members of a national legislature are notable. Not only was this man in the Canadian Parliament: he was in the government. I'm wondering if this is a bad faith nomination. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Nyttend. This guy wasn't just an MP, he was also a member of the Cabinet. This is roughly analogous to nominating Lloyd Bentsen or Mo Mowlam. --NellieBly (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly notable. Possible disruptive nomination. Newly registered editor who also removed entries from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 13. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Brothers_(album)Jonas Brothers (album)

[2] ttp://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=772285&model.vnuAlbumId=1150800

[1]

[2]