Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Hayward

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

The result was speedy delete under G12: blatant copyright violation. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Youth Soccer[edit]

Article violates WP:NOTHOWTO. Blehfu (talk) 23:09, 29 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 Cheating in online games. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look-ahead cheating[edit]

Neologism DimaG (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheating in online games and Lockstep protocol. This jargon is a neologism that does not need its own micro-article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. It's a neologism. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 04:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:25, 5 September 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. --Angelo (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Carolan[edit]

No professional league appearances for Crystal Palace. Currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a general lack of RS and his entry on the usually comprehensive football.co.uk[1] which lists him as playing in no league games; fails WP:ATHLETE. - Icewedge (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Recreate if and when he makes a professional appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, recreate IF he makes a game. GauchoDude (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 18:02, 31 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 This Is Me Smiling. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kaltenhauser[edit]

Four articles for four band members that have done nothing notable outside of their band. Only one of the articles cites any sources, and one out of the two of those is a site for a company that the band member works for. DonelleDer (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect them to the band's article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. I would normally think merge but there are no reliable sources given for the individuals and I suspect their bios are based on personal knowledge. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Outland[edit]

Likely hoax, per Pete Hurd in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Studies Foundation. The books he is claimed to be the author of do not seem to exist. See also the comments by Hurd in Talk:Mark Outland debunking the other claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparent hoax, fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per my comments at Talk:Mark Outland (note also that ISI returns no hits for "Outland *" in the Lancet, and googling "American Academy of Birth Studies" turns up this Biography and nothing else). Obvious vandalistic hoax, CSD-G3. (thanks to David for listing for me) Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Studies Foundation as unverifiable and almost certainly a hoax. Also, JHU appears not to have a "James Swafford" fellowship. -- Dominus (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax.John Z (talk) 22:30, 30 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 All. The articles listed here are part of a family of articles whose deletion was previously voted, so I am deleting all per speedy G4. (Some titles are new since the original AfDs, but the idea is the same). Salted these titles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diego García(DJ)[edit]

Biography of an Argentinian DJ with no claim to notability. All albums are downloads only; all references are self published. Aparrently autobiographical. According to the article itself the individual is in fact a high-school student.

I am also nominating the many related "albums" and "singles". Ros0709 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - as someone who's been patrolling new pages lately, I've seen this editor try again and again to create articles about himself and his music, all of which fail musical notability guidelines. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. G4 on Diego García(DJ). He was already deleted twice per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Diego Garcia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Diego García(DJ Of Argentina). Klaxon Beat is also a repost. The rest are just not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact analysis[edit]

This has been sitting here for over a year with no rewrite or sources. This is not an article, it's an essay. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources.--Grahame (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be either original essay or unreferenced primary source material. Not particularly notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Edge (weapon)[edit]

~~Proposing a merge of salvageable information into Soul (series),~~Proposing deletion (see below), because as a stand alone article on the blade will not have adequate discussion in third party sources (they simply don't exist). Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the second nomination for the article subject matter: the original subject matter was merely spliced directly into Inferno (Soulcalibur) after the deletion. Subject matter was not improved afterwards. Previous AfD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons --Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything had been merged, then that article needs to be undeleted per the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NO assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are lots of mentions of the weapon in articles, like the nominator said, the mentions are of a trivial nature and not substantial to the conception and the cultural/sociological impact of a fictional weapon. I highly doubt there is such information in the current article, so the article can be totally deleted without concerns. Any in-game description on the weapon can be gotten from the game or guides and need not be attributed to this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is not a necessary article. JuJube (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is being proposed for a merge, what is it doing here at articles for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as nomination rationale is to merge, not delete, which is a separate discussion. Also, we're talking about a titular weapon that has been made into a real life replica steel sword. Few video game weapons have actually been made into purchaseable replicas or are titular. Astonishingly notable video game weapon (arguably one of THE most notable weapons) covered in profound number of reliable sources. Also, additional references and mergeable information can be found at this page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't really references at all there that I'm seeing...at least nothing to confirm third-party notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm more than aware of that. However none of those are actively discussing the sword in a citable context. There's a difference between mentioning something in an article and discussing it even if briefly. Instead of blind links, show quotes that will be sufficient to get it to GA status through reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any search of reviews show enough comments on the sword to justify at worst a merge and redirect without deletion. To be honest, there are times when the topic is so obviously notable such as this where I feel that looking for and posting additional sources in the AfD is just unnecessary as something that is titular in nature, has appeared in multiple major games across a host of systems, and has even been made into a replica is simply notable by any reasonable standard by these achievements alone and thus should be covered in some capacity as clearly people come here to read about and work on this article. I cannot imagine any reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect without deletion or use the article for navigational purposes to comment in a concise manner on the differences of the sword across these games and as a replica. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a career in politics? You dance around the issue enough for it. The problem isn't that Soul Edge isn't an important topic or not that could be worthy of an article, it's that third party discussion revolving around it doesn't exist in an adequate fashion. There's been a replica, dandy. But you brought that up in the previous AfD. How will discussions about the blade's changes bring any real-world relevance to the table? If you're so certain there are sources, please by all means introduce them yourself in the article, because talk is cheap.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought that maybe running for some office down the road could be worthwhile. Third party references exist in an adequate fashion for the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You have presented no compelling reason as to why this article should be redlinked. In fact by bringing an article to AfD claiming it should be merged, you don't seem to understand how AfD works. I strongly suggest you withdraw this AfD, which should be speedy closed as keep. Finally, I and others have indeed already been improving the article during this AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per LGRdC. Edward321 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge — Le Grand Roi is correct. A merge proposal per WP:MERGE should be initiated, as suggested per WP:AFD guidelines. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion (at least not yet). MuZemike (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki to SoulCalibur Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Banjeboi 14:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There are a few reliable third-party sources that mention the weapon, but they offer only trivial facts about it such as that it's powerful, or that a character wields it. Not enough to WP:VERIFY the article's massive contents, and no significant facts about this topic are notable. In the alternative, I'd support a drastic clean-up of most of the information that doesn't meet WP:PROVEIT, and a merge with a brief summary into the main soul series article. Randomran (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is beyond not valid in this case when it is a titular weapon that has appeared in numerous major games and that is one of only a hanful that has been made in life-size replicas and that is discussed in secondary source reviews. As for the whole "so prove it" line; somethings are notable enough that if those wanting to delete cannot see the sources, then... After all, we don't have to prove Napoleon can be verified as anyone is able to find sources with ease. Similarly, I cannot imagine anyone not being able to find sources on this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained why this was not notable, so please do not misrepresent my position as "just not notable". This line of argument is completely unproductive: the Soul Edge is not Napoleon, and you can't just make up your own metrics for what is notable. In fact, that reinterpretation of notability was resoundingly rejected. It would be much more productive to actually address the article's failure to meet policy: the lack of reliable third party sources for this topic. Randomran (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying this is not notable and that reliable third party sources do not cover this topic is just dishonest. The majority of the community in practice, i.e. those who actually create and work on these articles and come here to read them believe them notabile, regardless of a vocal minority in any one talk page discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:DIRECTORY.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:IS. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, per Randomran, who admits there are reliable third party sources that provide evidence for notability; the details can be taken from any reliable source--third party sources are not needed for content if uncontroversial and straightforward descriptive like this is. And per Kung Fu Man, who admits that the topic and could be worthy of an article; he is however wrong that it matters whether third party discussion revolving around it exist in an adequate fashion. All we need is enough good information from any source to write the article, once we now its important. DGG (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...are we reading the same WP:N? Because it specifically states that's needed, and plenty of AfD's have revolved whether a subject can secure notability or not. The majority of the sources within the article to cite it properly would all be first party. There is no available information on the development of the sword save basic sketches amongst Nightmare's design bio. Right now not even *one* third party source discusses the subject in a fashion strong enough. Can you as an admin really say reception and development should be omitted because there are no sources discussing them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also forgive me for saying it, but you're skewing the facts: I can find an article saying someone wielded a rapier named Tiny Tim as a weapon, that does not validate an article called "Tiny Tim (weapon)". Nor does an article saying "Tiny Tim is powerful." Which is what Randomran stated existed for the subject in terms of third party coverage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable third party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. That's why this is not notable. You're welcome to your own interpretation, but you're NOT welcome to misrepresent my argument to prove a point. Randomran (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is patently false and any honest search of sources reveals otherwise. It is notable, because it is one of only a handful of the millions of video game weapons to be made into a replica. It is notable because regardless of a few delete votes in a snapshot in time AfD, hundreds of readers and scores of editors have seen fit to volunteer their time over two years to work on this article. It is notable because the sword is a major part of a series that has also been made into a DC comic book. Thus, it is notable by any reasonable or logical standard of notability and I cannot imagine any reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not cover this verifiable information that is obviously significant in the context of video game culture. That a video game weapon would be made into a replica, appear in other media (comic book), etc. demonstrates real world notability and cultural influence/phenomenon. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTABILITY is a Wikipedia guideline that has to do with reliable third-party sources, not whatever standard you feel like making up. Don't accuse me of spreading falsehoods and then simply start making up your own guidelines. You know what the notability guideline requires. You know what WP:BURDEN says about articles without reliable third party sources. You know better. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article meets that guideline. Saying it doesn't is false. You know better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I don't know that I'm wrong, and you don't either. There still isn't substantial coverage by reliable third-party source. On the other hand, you DO know better, because you've been repeatedly warned against making up your own criteria (such as "multimedia makes it notable") which was resoundingly rejected. This is not the venue for proposing changes to longstanding guidelines, and you already know that. So just stop it. Randomran (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have never been warned in good faith or honesty by anyone. You are repeatedly making up your own criteria, which has been resoundingly rejected in practice. Instead of using AfD to propose changes to long standing guidelines, why not actually help to improve articles? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then consider this a good-faith warning from someone actively improving these articles. Sincerely, Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No because, it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep but heavily cleanup by removing all excess material and actually using some of those reliable sources Le Grand Roi discovered above instead of using some asininely-described strategy guide. MuZemike (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost entirely WP:GAMECRUFT, largely fails WP:WAF. No independent substantial coverage of this game item alone (the gamercc interview will serve the SC IV article well, and I'm not considering tripe like the ScrewAttack reference as reliable.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a good job that I didn't use the "its cruft" reason then. Please take another look at that essay, and then look at the reasons I cited (which detail the relevant policies and guidelines as ITSCRUFT suggests.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The idea that a titular weapon that appears in several games, toys, a comic, as a replica, is covered in numerous published strategy guides, and referenced in reviews is deletable "cruft" defies the imagination. Sometimes I can maybe see where people are coming from on the deletion side of these AfDs and I believe it worthwhile to grant them some deal of reasonability with their contentions, but times like this are another story. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand how a sword should be considered notable because a miniature version of it is packaged with an action figure of a character that wields it. That seems to be putting undue weight there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if that was the only example of notability, but it is notable because not only is there a miniature version of it, but also a life size steel replica, and due to its titular appearance in several major games, a comic, etc. All of these factors combined make it notable and stand out from the typical game weapon. Only a handful of game weapons are titular. Only a handful have been made into toys and museum quality replicas. Only a handful are covered in multiple strategy guides. And so on. That obviously thousands of editors and readers come here for and believe Wikipedia covers this non-hoax, non-liberlous information is suggestive enough that at worst we would be doing our community a service by redirecting without deletion or merging, but I see no convincing reason why right now all work must stop and the article must be outright redlinked. That simply does not make any sense to me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I'm stating that that shouldn't count as a bit for notability: should we start an article called "Azure armor" becuase he happens to be wearing that if other sources talk about azure armor? It's a "duh" reference: it's an action figure modelled after Nightmare. Why would it *not* be included with the character?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see no reason why not to redirect Azure armor to the character page for nightmare. And again, it's apples and oranges. Azure armor has as far as I know not also been made into a lifesize replica like Soul Edge has. Nor is Azure armor the TITLE of a game like Soul Edge is. Given the request for comment on notability, it is obvious that it is interpeted incredibly subjectively by the community and that the community has strong disagreements about it. I would much rather err on the side of being more informative and therefore useful (preemptively linking!) and comprehensive as a paperless reference guide than not. Surely given enough time and effort (more than the five day AFD ultimatum) we can eventually augment the reception section with even better comments from reviews on the descrition of the sword or reviews/previews of the toys/replicas. I see potential here and not a critical need to squash that potential this week. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am assuming good faith, but you already voted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, thought this page looked familiar :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you wrote is not true and WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that Gamercc's interview constitutes work from a reliable source. I can, however, not agree that the other sources cited (a forum and two merchandise sites) are reliable. Even if those sources were reliable, the sum total of the content that could be attributed to them would be "models of the Soul Edge can be purchased whole or as part of nightmare". The discussion of the reliable source cited (insofar as it discusses Soul Edge the weapon, not Soul Edge the game) is minimal. And by minimal I mean it is a stretch of logic to claim that anything in that interview refers to "Soul Edge" the sword in any meaningful sense. The uncited but mentioned sources are published as works for hire by Brady games--their editorial control over selection of material is probably nil or close to it. As such I'm not inclined to treat those as possible sources conferring notability to the subject. Given this dearth of sourcing, I don't really have any choice but to say that the article doesn't meet the general notability guideline. No daughter guideline for fictional works has found consensus within the community, so we have no other inclusion criteria to turn to. The article itself represents in universe plot repetition and indiscriminate information. As such, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Update: Article has now been satisfactorily improved enough to be at least merged and redirected without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources you can find do little more than confirm the item's existence. The only reliable third-party information is "the sword represents evil". I see no substantial coverage, as required by the GNG. Randomran (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can find plenty of sources and any honest search by anyone demonstrates substantial coverage to any reasonable editor. For once, I would like to see someone else actually use the relevant sources that are found with ease and add them to the article in question. To be honest, on this particular topic, the mere idea that Soul Edge is not notable by any stretch of the definition is outright laughable and I refuse to pretend otherwise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources then post them. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. If there are genuinely useful sources that can be built into the article I'd love to see them worked in there, because a suitable Soul Edge article would be nice for the featured topic project. As it stands though there's nothing suitable there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing an article to AfD with the proposal to merge is disruptive abuse of AfD. I strongly urge you to withdraw this nomination. Usually I do not mind presenting additional sources in discussions, but some topics are so easily sourceable from any reasonable searches that it is outright insulting to have to prove what anyone should be able to find for themselves. The idea that someone cannot at least merge information noting that the sword has been made into a replica as demonstrative of the influence of this article or that it could not at worst be redirected is outright baffling and I am not willing to humor such things. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kung Fu Man. Relying on proof by assertion, let alone proof ad nauseum, and repeatedly refusing to actually WP:PROVEIT according to our policy standards is disruptive. It's not personal or subjective. It's about constantly ignoring policy, despite repeated warnings to actually read WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with common sense and logic. I rely on proof of simple Google searches that turn up reviews that mention the sword of that demonstrate the sword has particular notability for a video game weapon. Saying otheriwse is disruptive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not a reliable source, and will turn up TONS of sources regardless of reliability or independence. We can't find the sources. If you think they exist, find them. Don't ignore WP:BURDEN and filibuster good faith questions about where these sources actually are. Randomran (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and subsequent improvements demonstrating notability. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:27, 5 September 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. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Children's Foundation[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this Google News search and this Google News archive search for abundant coverage in reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it reads like an advertisement, then it can be rewritten. Certainly appears to be a notable organisation though. --Canley (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tone of an article is only a criterion in deletion in the case where the subject cannot have its notability established. Google News currently reports nearly 300 articles on this charity. Cleanup would appear to be preferable. For that matter, other than the trademark spamming, the article doesn't read like an ad to me - a bit gushing, perhaps, but not an "advert" in the sense usually meant in AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 2 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Avenir[edit]

Subject is not notable and the article falls under WP:ONEVENT --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's set up a FaceBook group to get this deleted The JPS^{talk to me} 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would violate WP:CANVASS. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he was kidding. The person in the article set up a Facebook group to engage in academic misconduct. MuZemike (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, I have removed the canvass warning as I think it is rather unnecessary. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable event, made worldwide news. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a very short period of time, yes. And I agree that the event should be mentioned somewhere- probably in Ryerson University. However, the article isn't about the case, it's about one person involved in the case, who really isn't notable to warrant an article for himself. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 23:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his only claim to notability is one event. If the event itself was notable there should be an article about it, but not the person. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - this is a tricky one. It made a lot of news in Canada and around Toronto, and continued to be in the press for quite some time. However if I were to look back on it in a years time it would be completely non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for an article of his own. At most, his situation might be deserving of a sentence or two on the Ryerson University article. PK T 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Canterbury Tail is right - this is not "of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current news does not automatically equal notability. If there ends up being a major, lasting long-term fallout from this on Facebook or on university academic policies in general, then certainly this incident would merit an article (but even then, it would be an article about the incident, not the person). However, right now it doesn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. DigitalC (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. There is no further coverage of the person beyond the incident. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 3 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard RoBards[edit]

Publisher of a WP:NN paper fails WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of the extensive coverage in reliable independent secondary sources required to pass WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe notable but not verifiable, esp with main ref not working. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:29, 5 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby R. Himes[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:BIO. Only award was the Kentucky "Unbridled Spirit" Award, not a particularly notable award. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- overall life story touches encompasses both politics and education. He won at least four major awards too and a fifth award named for him. He was eulogized on the floor of the U.S. Senate by the Minority Leader.Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you be specific? Otherwise it's heresay. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in the article with documentation: 4 awards; Unbridled Spirit, two "Man of the Year", "Outstanding Educator" and "Outstanding Social Studies Teacher". Also non-ficton writer.Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a fifth award is named for him.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification::None of these are considered major awards that would condone any level of notability.

“Man of the Year” designations from Campbellsville civic groups - not a notable award
Outstanding Social Studies Teacher - from Kentucky Council for the Social Studies - not a major award
Outstanding educator - not mentioned in the article.
Unbridled Spirit - arguably the most significant award, but still, not a WP:Notable award.

None of them are enough to satisfy:

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." which would be needed for Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. which would be needed for WP:BIO

The key words are notable award. While in Kentucky they may be notable, they're not WP:Notable on wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gotta say there, that kentucky spirit award, while notable in kentucky is also notable as per wp:notable and trumped by common sense. --Buridan (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a chronic lack of Ghits but there are a few sources which I believe established a base level nobility. (eg. [2][3]) - Icewedge (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are obituaries which are typically not used to establish WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. In terms of WP:PROF there is almost no record of Himes having published anything (except for a kind of autobiographical book "Life in the Shadows of Hartford College and Campbellsville University") and no evidence of his research having made substantial impact in the field: no citations of his work, no reviews or anything else. There are some local awards such as "Unbridled Spirit" award, but it is not really an academic award and not significant enough to satisfy criterion 2 of WP:PROF. For WP:BIO one would have to look at possible notability for his political activism. Having been a county chairman of the Republican party is not enough, especially in the view of the absence of significant news coverage, even at the local level. There is an obituary in the local newspaper, cited by Icewedge above, and McConnell's Senate floor speech. That's not enough to pass WP:BIO in my opinion, in the absence of wider state and national coverage. GoogleNews: zero hits[4], GoogleScholar: zero hits[5], GoogleBooks: 2 hits[6], plain Google search: 54 hits[7]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Toddst1 & Nsk92 have it right, fails WP:BIO and fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes general notability, might be a regional effect, but is notable in the state of kentucky to a significant degree as demonstrated in the article. we need to be careful to avoid systemic bias against regional notability in cases like these. the question is, 'is he notable?' the answer is 'yes', the question is not 'where is he notable?' answer 'only kentucky, then delete' --Buridan (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not consistent with WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF guidelines requirements and the de facto consensus on how such cases are usually treated. In the presence of well developed special notability guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:PROF, they should take precedence over WP:N. Academic notability is defined in WP:PROF as notability in one's academic field of study, not in a particular location, and such notability requires wider coverage. WP:POLITICIAN (a portion of WP:BIO) says the following regarding local politicians: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". There is a footnote defining significant press coverage there whose relevant portion reads "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." It is fairly clear that these requirements are not met here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice lawyering, but wp:iar and wp:common, just because someone slips through the guidelines of x or y, does not mean he's not notable. he's notable in that he has won significant awards, he has participated significantly in local politics, he was a longstanding professor at a local college. i ask, does having the article of a noted local person improve wikipedia? is this information that others will benefit from and makes wikipedia richer? is it verifiable? yes, yes, yes. he's notable, it's verifiable, and it makes wikipedia better. thank you for pointing out why the rules don't apply here though.--Buridan (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawyering"? Please. I have presented rational arguments for my position based in existing policies and guidelines and based on prior consensus on how such cases are usually handled. You want to present counter-arguments, fine, but throwing out denigrating adjectives at other users is unseemly and does not help you case. Please look up WP:CIVIL. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to make your case, make it on common sense. if you have to cite the policies, especially when it is clear that your line of argument relies on those policies in areas where they are not always applicable, then you will get called on it. The gentleman in question is notable, you've provided no argument against his notability, you just claim that he is not notable under policies that do not fit him well. so i cited two things that we look to when the rules don't fit. So you think he is not notable because he doesn't seem to be notable under policies that don't fit him well. ask yourself, is wikipedia a better encyclopedia with this entry. my answer is that yes, it is because it fills in a substantive part of history, culture, and relationships in kentucky politics. --Buridan (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an argument based on the existing notability guidelines in the areas where they are applicable, WP:BIO and WP:PROF and have provided arguments why I think the subject of this AfD does not satisfy the requirements of either. I happen to know something about them, with a fairly extensive AfD participation and having written most of the current version of WP:PROF myself. Nsk92 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I pointed out those don't work in this case, as it is atypical and regional and doesn't fit either of the models provided. I'm sure you are are fairly knowledgeable as you indicate, but that you contributed to an established policy does not make that policy apply. as for our relative experience in wikipedia, i'm sure you have the better of me in many categories as you seem quite passionate about policies and rules. on the other hand, i'm not sure having the better of someone matters much. --Buridan (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor academic, professor in an unimportant college with no apparent publications except a local memoir. Minor politician, never even ran for office. Not even notable in Kentucky as a state--notable in his college town only. WP is very much a better encyclopedia without articles on people of this low degree of significance. The most relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to DGG You should not be so critical of smaller institutions. This one is officially a "university." You should not consider a politician to be one who runs for office only: there are behind-the-scenes politicians. This one was eulogized on the U.S. Senate floor and also noted by the Kentucky legislature. Being notable in KY is sufficient reason to be included. Also, his overall life story makes him compelling.Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comments. I've tried my best to stay out of this one, but I attend Campbellsville University and I never even heard of this guy until this AfD. The article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion, and I'm not sure how much weight the "he's notable in Kentucky" argument should really hold. I'm sure you've put a lot of hard work into this article, but I'm just not convinced that it's suitable for Wikipedia. As DGG pointed out, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Perhaps the article could be preserved in the author's namespace if they so wished? —MearsMan ^talk 14:39, 2 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Dolcelli[edit]

Contested PROD of NN entertainer ... lacks sufficient WP:RS to WP:V the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was a contested prod but no explanation/improvement occurred. The subject lacks notability at this time. --Stormbay (talk) 22:07, 29 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. Article fails to assert notability and no evidence of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Smashville^BONK! 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ak'sent[edit]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that their debut album, International (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), has an unexpired PROD on it ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability (chart success etc. - WP:MUSIC). Waggers (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom an per above. Btw, albums were prodded by me. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: previous content was, at least sometimes, deleted as a copyright violation. This should not matter at all to this discussion here. The first reliable source I looked at (all music guide) has a bio on her, and she's signed to a major label. Whether this is "enough" is debatable, but it's not nothing. Friday (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on the Article talk page, the artist must have released at least two albums through the major label. Being signed with it is not enough. Victor Lopes (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for mentioning the unrelated prior deletions in the nomination; in my haste, I merely saw the what, and completely ignored the why … My Bad! :-) … BTW, All Music Guide is not considered a reliable source; just because it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article does not mean that it is reliable, or not have a conflict of interest. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - AMG is not a reliable source? Why do you say that? Friday (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:RS says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." … AMG does not carry the same degree of confidence as The New York Times … note that Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, obviously not everything has the same reputation as The New York Times. However, that completely fails to answer the question, or to show how AMG does not have the fact checking reputation you cite from WP:RS. I fail to see what Wikipedia's reliability has to do with. Please explain how AMG is unreliable. —Giggy 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment International (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had already been deleted once as prod in the past; I redirected as NN album; Can be deleted if artist is deleted. In general it is a good idea to co-nominate musicians and their albums. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thnx fer that! I'll add, "In general it is a good idea to co-nominate musicians and their albums …" to WP:FLAG-BAND. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done — _{The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Strong keep. Artist easily meets numerous criteria of WP:MUSIC. As well as a biography and album reviews on Allmusic (AMG/All Music Guide) [8], she's mentioned on Billboard.com [9], Rolling Stone's website [10] (includes discography), MTV [11] and numerous other sources. Article needs work but the topic is clearly notable. —Giggy 07:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Billboard tells us she's "an 18-year-old rapper", Rolling Stone's website tells us "Ak'sent - video 'Zingy'" and MTV merely mirrors Allmusic. I'm not seeing "substantial coverage" anywhere but Allmusic. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:48, 4 September 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. I've discounted the long and confused SPA rants. Sandstein 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schneider (writer)[edit]

NOTE: Per discussions on the Administrator's Noticeboard, people have lost patience with SPAs, attacks and endless circular fighting over this AfD. The consensus of established editors both on this page and ANI appears to be that the subject of this article is notable and the article should be kept--and protected--in its current well-sourced version. Because I have been involved in the discussion here, I will not close this AfD but ask someone else to do so since its obvious this SPA junk isn't going to resolve anything.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Quick note- I support this motion 100%- Closure with consensus 'Keep' with NPOV safe). StevenEdmondson (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is protected so I am initiating an AfD per the suggestion of another editor on the admin noticeboard, rather than necessarily as my own opinion. That said, I have performed the customary Google test and while there is a certain amount of talk about this writer, it appears that much of it is the result of some fairly assiduous self-promotion; there is something of the walled garden about it, with his notability being supposedly boosted by his promotion of his criticism / blogging / whatever of more notable writers' work. The article has been the subject of long-term POV-pushing (hence protection) by a decent-sized nest of WP:SPAs, and there has also been spamming of the subject's website on numerous articles often on fairly tenuous grounds. Previous AfD claims large numbers of ghits, I see only around 8,000 for "Dan Schneider" +poet - omit the quotes and you get more but of course many of those are for other schneiders and with Dan in the page somewhere. Dan Schneider the director plus some poet references also account for other unrelated hits. Perhaps Google is not really helpful, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I'm the original author of this article. It appears that the article has been subjected to a lot of edits by SPA in recent months. However, I have now reverted the article to an earlier version, which was both NPOV and filled with a number of reliable sources proving that this subject is notable enough for an article. This is essentially the same version of the article that was subjected to a previous AfD, where the decision was to keep. While I don't agree with the SPA POV pushing, this is a notable subject and a good article. I should also point out that because there are multiple Dan Schneiders, the Google test on his name is not a good measure. Googling his website Cosmoetica (which is a unique name) yields 30,000 hits. But either way, what matters are the reliable sources and media mentions to establish notability, which are in this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about some of those sources - can people take a look as there are a lot of them and just me reviewing them will take a long time. I intend to have a good look at them in the morning and then !vote. --Procutus (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you questioning--the sister paper of the Village Voice, the New York Times, the Star Tribune, or the Cambridge University Press? All of the sources are valid. I have a long track record here of writing articles about literary figures who, while not well known to the general public, are quite notable in their area of writing. I always back up my articles with reliable sources.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

STRONG KEEP: I am the SPA who has been editing this page, and as I stated there, on the TALK page:

Similarly, you have removed all of the other sources that back up all the quotes and claims in the article.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Schneider passes easily.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]

Schneider passes easily.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]

Schneider is an interviewer with the only in depth interviews many of his subjects have given. Schneider passes easily.

In short, the article, even in your truncated forms, meets both Basic Criteria, as well as many secondary ones.

So, again, if the article easily meets notablilty requirements, has survived earlier deletion when it was even less notable and popular, and is heavily sourced with direct links to the sources quotes and information is taken from (or was, before thee vandalism), then why are you trying to remove it?

All articles- on celebrities, films, books, writers, politicians, scientists, have their own fans who try to improve the articles. Are you seriously suggesting the improvements I made, fully sourced, have not made the article better, expanded information on the subject, and generally given a reader information to better find out things about the writer, the site, and the many contributors to the site?

In short, I have followed Wiki procedure to the letter, sourced all the relevant information, and called many of the vandalizing editors on their vandalism- if Websites such as:

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

few sources and neutrality disputed

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

no sources and non-notable

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

sourced

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

lightly sourced, and a list of contributors far longer than this site's, plus an accuracy warning

that lack sources and are pov are on Wikipedia, so too should be this page, as well as one for the website Cosmoetica.

This is nothing but blatant hypocrisy, and another example of why Wikipedia is often derided online.

In short, there has been the blatant removal of firsthand and second hand information about numerous notable people simply because certain editors do not like this page.

Again, there were many sourced pages with direct quotes, from numerous sources, by numerous people, all associated with this page's writer and website. To not recognize that reality is silly. It's time to end the childishness.Cop 666 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have no idea why this is even being discussed. Cosmoetica fits ALL of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Self-promoted or not, your point is irrelevant -- Cosmoetica easily has some of the most content of any literary website, as well as consistent quality and great notability -- hundreds of long, detailed essays, most of them penned by Schneider himself, and often covering subjects and writers no one else covers. Find me another website that makes such significant critical mention of James A. Emanuel, Judith Wright, Robert Hayden, and others.. you won't. And, the above writer is correct: Schneider has interviewed many well-known figures, in ways they (or anyone, for that matter) have never been interviewed before: in-depth, and covering everything from detailed biographical information to some of the less discussed aspects of their work. Combine that with the fact that Schneider's poetry (as well as that of the other featured poets') is some of the best today, and you have a damn important website that also happens to be one of the most popular literary websites on the planet. Bekaymecca (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I actually think this article should if not be deleted, be protected to reduce problem with editors inflating to ridiculous sizes. (Also due to the author/subject's tendency to use sock-puppet accounts, it is diffcult to tell how many saying 'Keep' are genuine). The article was and is full of irrelevant information, critic is not notable other than for his self-promotion. Ultimately, this article seems to exist only to promote his work. If kept I think it needs to be protected, so it cannot be inflated to a ridiculous extent again. On the basis that it seems a further example of the critics self-promotive tendencies and does not seem balanced, with parts of at least some forms seemingly obviously being written by Dan himself, (see Cop66's post). (StevenEdmondson (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Strong Keep Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Daniel Wallace, Desmond Morris...these are not obscure names. The interviews with these figures are the most in-depth you'll find. The user StevenEdmonson, who edited the Schneider page, has some personal issue with Schneider; note how he described his film reviews as 'silly'-- he's obviously never actually read one, as they are very in-depth reviews, with many appearing in web publications outside of Cosmoetica. Really, there is no reason why the most popular not-for-profit arts site and founder should not be on Wikipedia, especially when you already have entries for sites like Blogcritics, which 'only' amounts to reviews by assorted bloggers. The Wiki page for the producer/actor Dan Schneider is full of irrelevant material that really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, yet for whatever reason StevenEdmonson and MarnetteD haven't bothered to clean it up--probably because they are too busy wasting everyone's time trying to delete this page. Wikipedia readers should not have to lose out just because of someone's pettiness.Uprightgreen (talk) 30 August 2008 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Cosmoetica easily has some of the most content of any literary website"

Immaterial

" as well as consistent quality and great notability -- hundreds of long, detailed essays, most of them penned by Schneider himself, and often covering subjects and writers no one else covers"

Thats very debatable. In my opinion the essays are of a shockingly low standard (and many people on the internet seem to share that opinion) but on the other hand it does get quite a few hits. To say they are of 'great notability' though is ludicrous.

"Find me another website that makes such significant critical mention of James A. Emanuel, Judith Wright, Robert Hayden, and others.. you won't"

Immaterial.

"Combine that with the fact that Schneider's poetry (as well as that of the other featured poets') is some of the best today"

Says who? Has any critic of importance ever discussed these poems?

Personally I think the whole site is a massive ego trip for the writer being discussed, and the editing of his page (by sockpuppets) only confirms this self-promotion- but my opinions on his merits are not important so I think the article should be kept, just not in the form it is at the moment.

I'd also debate the actual importance of him being referenced in the New York Times and the Cambridge University Press (both of which I recall were passing mentions, correct me if I'm wrong). If wikipedia started including everyone who's been referenced in the New York Times then the site would get out of hand very quickly. Tmwns (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a personal problem with Dan Schneider, my problem is with him using sock-puppets and wikipedia to massage his ego. Interviewing famous subjects does not give the interviewer equal notability. Page came to my attention because of a) spam links, and b) ridiculous size of article, even now it has been pared down. Yes, I did describe the reviews as "silly" because they are, and of low quality, but that was pertaining to the spam links, rather than anything here, so is irrelevant.

" note how he described his film reviews as 'silly'-- he's obviously never actually read one, as they are very in-depth reviews, with many appearing in web publications outside of Cosmoetica."

The above quote shows how this article and the editors is not balanced, and are biased. Essentially Ego-massaging. Spam-links have already been identified as such, this is not the matter being discussed.

Self-promoted or not, your point is irrelevant

Being self-Promoted is not irrelevant, because it means the article is not balanced.

Ultimately, does the article need deleted? Perhaps not. Have these edits shown that it needs protection from inflation and needless detail? Unequiviocally. Sock Puppet accounts need removing. Personal preference would be article pared down, then made so only admin, or something, can edit it, to prevent what happened last time from happening again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC) StevenEdmondson (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only someone with a personal axe to grind would call his reviews 'silly'--again, proving that you've not actually read them. Either way, your personal thoughts on the essays have no bearing on whether or not Schneider deserves mention on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were truly about weeding out 'silliness', the actor/producer Dan Schneider wouldn't be on here for those bits of fluff he's contributed to pop culture. Links to the film reviews aren't spam, because they are relevant to the films in question. And, an interviewer who conducts in-depth interviews with distinguished figures across different disciplines doesn't give the interviewer notability? I wonder what exactly does give an interviewer notability, then.uprightgreen (talk) 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I said equal notability. Do not twist my words.

Only someone with a personal axe to grind would call his reviews 'silly'--again,

I did not say that here, nor does it pertain to the matter in question. Also, no it doesn't.

proving that you've not actually read them.

No it does not, and I have. This matter is irrelevant to this page however, the links have been deemed spam by admin already. Not by just me. The fact that you've taken such offense at me calling the reviews silly, previously on a different page pertaining to a different matter, suggests that you have a vested personal interest inthe subject, and as such are biased.

your personal thoughts on the essays have no bearing on whether or not Schneider deserves mention on Wikipedia.

Agreed. But that's not what I have suggested, it's what you have suggested that I have suggested. StevenEdmondson (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Only someone with a personal axe to grind would call his reviews 'silly'--again, proving that you've not actually read them”

Or someone with an opinion different to yours? Of course we all know personal opinions on his work don't matter- lets cut that out. What does matter is that his articles are popping up everywhere on wikipedia and they are certainly not notable enough to be included. Its also the only reason why I've been riled up into actually doing something about it- perhaps if people had been more subtle all of this could have been avoided.

“the actor/producer Dan Schneider wouldn't be on here for those bits of fluff he's contributed to pop culture”

Snobbery should have nothing to do with it. Mr. Schneider may think that because of the topics he writes on he is somehow more worthy than everyone else, but that is not up for debate in why this article should be kept. Tmwns (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This long long rambling back and forth isn't focusing on the main issue, which is the notability of the article's subject. The simple fact is that the article subject meets the WP guidelines on notability for people, which states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." All of these criteria are met with regards to Dan Schneider, as evidenced by the citations in the article. That said, there is obviously an issue with SPAs around this article, so I think the article should remain protected for the near future.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SouthernNights, however the protection I think will need to be permanent. If the article is kept, there is no point keeping it only for SPA's to come all over it again. StevenEdmondson (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone who’s had a whole article written about them by a sister paper of the Village Voice I think is notable enough, not to mention that that was before his website. Shukichisanzawa (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of SPAs is far worse than I thought. I've deleted as many unnecessary links as I can (around 100)but there are probably more. I'm starting to think that a vast amount of cosmoetica's hits have been a direct result of this outrageous spamming. Whats more, all edits have been done by sock puppet accounts with NO exception. Either they have been anonymous and come from IP addresses starting with 4.230/231, or by accounts that do nothing but link Mr. Schneider's articles. Here is a list of all accounts I have found doing this:

Theovetes Lazarus86 Mathemaxi Ingupper Athenosia Filialprojector Fordhawk Vandenflexor Wallaby Jones Stratuspower88 Mondocanetoomer Rebeccamack SouthernLights Verbaleaux Verdipun Sunstruckglass Alfonsogloriano Ambersoniata UmaPa Deadsandsflashing Anatolikarpantov Corinthiani Chasfagan Lyledag Timesawaste Slopack Tallulahdor Nathanor Landoloch Good Shoestore

and Cop666 who has elongated the Dan Schneider article.

There are probably much more. It is also very likely that all or most of these accounts are Dan Schneider himself. At least 2 of these accounts (Cop666 and IP 4.230.147.227) have shown themselves to be Schneider by arguments on Talk pages and their personal writing style, although neither admitted it. I was in support of the page being kept, but in light of these underhand tactics I'm not too sure if it even deserves one anymore.

"Anyone who’s had a whole article written about them by a sister paper of the Village Voice I think is notable enough, not to mention that that was before his website."

Not really. That article seemed to portray him as a frustrated writer with laughable delusions of grandeur.Tmwns (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? One could apply the same logic to Ed Wood re: filmmaking, yet few would deny that he’s a notable filmmaker. I do not compare Schneider with Wood, I merely say that the fact that the article portrays him negatively doesn’t negate any notability? How do you think most articles on Hitler portray him? Not that there’s any comparison, but is he also unnotable? Shukichisanzawa (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to film reviews on pages devoted to films is hardly 'underhanded,' and you've zealously deleted them with no regard for the content of the actual quotes, and how they are relevant to those pages--you've only deleted them because you dislike Schneider. The 'frustrated writer with laughable delusions of grandeur' is another personal, emotion-based slam against Schneider that demonstrates the emotional bias of users Tmwns and StevenEdmonson. The emotionalism of these two is ultimately why their arguments against Schneider should be discounted; their agenda is personal, and is not a neutral assessment of what belongs on Wikipedia. uprightgreen (talk) 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.43.219 (talk)

So you want to ignore all the evidence of underhanded tactics and self-edits just because I've mentioned I'm not too keen on his writing? As I've said, what I think of his writing is irrelevant- what is relevant is the spamming, and the admins agree. I think cosmoetica has now been blackballed from wikipedia because of this. Anyway, I have deleted them because the site is not of notability enough for them to be included - and the sections added not professional enough to deserve place in a Wikipedia article. The argument is not emotion based (although I freely admit, personally, I also think the writing is too poor to be included in wikipedia when most articles consist of rants, snide asides at critics who happen to disagree with Mr Schneider, and a woeful knowledge of film in general). The links are spamming, and the number of sock puppet accounts is enough for the links to be taken down and the article questioned. Stop trying to divert the argument from the points at hand. Tmwns (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out, that when I did see reasons for quotes to stay in, I left them as they were. I did this for articles on people who Schneider has interviewed in depth, as the content is not Schneider's own work/words but that of the subject and of interest to people reading the article. I have not just zealously deleted any mention of Schneider I can find, I have judged their relevance and taken the appropriate action. Its unfortunate that about 99% of these came up short, and were merely self-plugging. Tmwns (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vested personal or emotional problem with DS, spamming with SPA however, is still spamming with SPA. That however, is not the matter this page was intended to discuss. StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven: As I stated earlier, I am not Schneider nor a sockpuppet. Second, as I stated earlier, on the talk page of Schneider, there is only one issue- the two basic criteria of Schneider's notability.

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Schneider passes easily. CITY PAGES, NY Times, Cambridge University Press

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]

Schneider passes easily. CITY PAGES, NY Times, Cambridge University Press- a lengthy profile, a high recommendation as one of the best sites online, and a lengthy quotation in a TEXTBOOK by one of the world's oldest Academic presses

Any other information is irrelevant in regards to the article. The prior deletion attempt was made when Schneider's page contained even less notability.

Manifestly, you have a pathology toward Schneider, as you do toward many of the subjects in your contributions list. I earlier mentioned IMDB- like Wikipedia, that is a site that contains NO new information. It is an aggregator site. Al of its information can be gotten elsewhere, so why link it, unless there is a financial arrangement between the two entities? The fact that I have edited the Schneider page is because, like some other posters say, I find the site a refreshing change from most online places, and accordingly, I followed Wiki sourcing guidelines to the letter. That you do not like the online sources, which included National Public Radio, the Internet Archive, and a number of other independent places, again shows your pathology.

Manifestly, you have gathered a band of ranting editors who are clearly sockpuppeting- a number of the "editors" who have posted on the various discussions here on Schneider have only posted here and nowhere else, just as last time, there was clear sockpuppeteering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob

Here's one of several. This sockpuppet claims to be from Minnesota, which is where the article on Schneider from last decade was written. Now, what are the odds that he/she, and you and your band, are nothing but anti-Schneider sockpuppets?

And I won't even get into the egregious reversions and deletions you've made on many articles you've obsessed over, long before the Schneider imbroglio. Clearly, you have control issues, as well as paranoia issues. That's not an attack, but simply a calm view of the way you've been acting.

Your opinion of Schneider is irrelevant, as he clearly qualifies on the two basic criteria. He also qualifies on most secondary criteria, but they are irrelevant since he is two for two on the Basics.

And to call the placement of links on articles spamming is ludicrous, especially when IMDB, and many other film sites, are relentlessly linked. Schneider's review, or the many other reviews I've seen from websites, newspapers, etc. are naturally, going to "promote" the paper or site, in the general sense. The relevant question is does it add anything?

You've removed relevant information from many articles simply because you've disagreed with it, even if sourced. Similarly, you use the same logic you use here- I don't like that mention, comment, opinion, etc.

So, we see that you and your band are using sockpuppets, you have removed relevant links to the Schneider article, and any objective scan of your "contributions" will show you have a willy-nilly bias against anyone or thing you simply do not "like," to many, many articles. And this is manifestly pro forma in all these sorts of debates.

Let me state, I would not object if all references to websites, blogs, and the like, were removed from Wikipedia. If you and Wikipedia really feel they are not notable. However, if you state that some can stay, then Schneider and his site should stay, at least before cleaning out about ten thousand or so pages of blogs and websites that are less notable in terms of popularity, and have contributed less to independent information, much of which you remove by removing information from the website, and links to articles and interviews from it.

You really are in a bind, Steve. Your massive ego and lack of any real purpose is in conflict with the very rules that Wikipedia lays down, which I followed to the letter.

I pointed to several websites that are far less notable than Schneider's, and their pages are clearly on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of advertisement. I won't even go into the thousands of pages devoted to YouTube celebrities and the like.

"I think cosmoetica has now been blackballed from wikipedia because of this." Another editor even revels in his ignorance. "I have judged their relevance and taken the appropriate action. Its unfortunate that about 99% of these came up short, and were merely self-plugging."

As another pro-keep writer mentioned (above)- and that was not me, nor me as Schneider- although it could be Schneider as the other editor, or you- what link does not promote? Again, it's the sort of promotion, is it merely to advance an understanding of the work at hand, or just to say, "gee, my (blank) is cool!" Schneider's clearly is the former. And the above editor's judgment is not explained. Yet, clearly, IMDB, or Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes links are 100% promotion for their sites, because all of their reviews and information are gathered elsewhere. There simply is no reason to link them. Choose the 3 or 4 best reviews, and let the remainder wither. Metacritic, for example, has no reason to be promoted on Wikipedia if the relevant reviews are available elsewhere. And, many of these aggregator sites are just "blogs' or "websites" too, which means your rationale against Schneider's site has no basis, save that you do not like his site, but you like these other sites.

Obvious bias, obvious sockpuppeteering. I'd say shame on you, but I've seen too many of these arguments (and, yes, I've been involved in other disputes unrelated to Schneider, as have you) to know that folk like you feel none. If you did, these argument and admin pages would be 1/100th the length. Cop 666 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet. I have one account, and one account only. Nor do I know of anyone using sock puppet accounts to delete your edits. Show evidence to prove this, not just random claims and waffle.

Second, as I stated earlier, on the talk page of Schneider, there is only one issue- the two basic criteria of Schneider's notability.

Yes, that's exactly what I just said! You've stopped twisting my words, you've taken to rewriting them.

And finally, this has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. Again.

Also, you are Dan Schneider. Obvious because of a) your writing style and b) Usage of the word "Manifestly" all the time.

You really are in a bind, Steve. Your massive ego and lack of any real purpose is in conflict with the very rules that Wikipedia lays down, which I followed to the letter.

Followed to the letter? By sock puppets and spam? Not true. [User:StevenEdmondson|StevenEdmondson]] (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this discussion can go no where/ StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. If you can't see the difference between IMDB, Metacritic and your site (yes it is you Mr Schneider - its obvious to anyone who's ever read your work) then I despair and give up. IMDB and Metacritic are massive, world-famous film sites that compile reviews from various sources - your site exists merely to publish your own reviews. IMDB and Metacritic are often checked everyday by film-fans- the former is THE page you go to to look up a film, and the latter to check reviews. This is enough for them to be included. Although the link situation is a different matter - cosmoetica is not a reputable enough site to start linking reviews to every single film you've ever written on, nor are your criticisms reputable enough to slip in to articles. Whats more every single editor who has added links has only added links pertaining to you. You must admit this is very suspicious.

Anyhow - no-one is saying you can't have an article - I think its been established that this page will be kept. What is out-of-order is the extent to which you have extended the article, so much so that it far exceeds pages of the most famous critics of our time, or any other. Can you not see this is unacceptable?

As for your sockpuppet accusations (nice tactic to switch the accusations) - I have little knowledge of any prior disagreements about this page, I wasnt a member when it was debated. Nor has there been a flooding of editors on this page. No editor has called for the page to be deleted, and there has not been a flood of editors agreeing with me. Infact it seems the only other person is StevenEdmondson, and he seems to have a history of editing various articles. So please retract your claims. The only people with SPAs here are you/people who have been linking your stuff. What happened in the last discussion is irrelevant to this one. Tmwns (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manifestly, you have a pathology toward Schneider, as you do toward many of the subjects in your contributions list.

What are you talking about?

Also, may I respectfully request that Cop666 posts in a succinct a manner as possible. Thanks. The waffle makes it difficult to respond to what he's saying, especially when he's accusing me of things. StevenEdmondson (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for all intents and purposes, this discussion should end here, with the article remaining under protection. Cop's Sock Puppets and spam links, which have already been identified as such by others, not me, and the subsequent consequences are a discussion for the admins, at another place. NOT here. StevenEdmondson (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 1000%. Arguing with this ranter is a complete waste of time. It is now up to the admins to ban him for his spamming, for his self-promotion, and for his outrageous and disgusting personal attacks against you and other human beings. We need to make sure that no more Schneider spam is ever added again to Wikipedia articles from now till the end of time. We need to make sure he is given a lifetime ban. Then we will be able to edit his article in any way that we like in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia. That should show him. Ovenknob (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think this has gone too far now. Steven is right- this discussion should end as soon as possible, the article protected and let the admins deal with the sockpuppetry/spamming going on. Tmwns (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tmwns: Since you are a bit more rational than Steven, let me address you. "I think its been established that this page will be kept. What is out-of-order is the extent to which you have extended the article, so much so that it far exceeds pages of the most famous critics of our time, or any other. Can you not see this is unacceptable? "

At least you recognize Schneider's page meets all criteria. Second, and again, I am not Schneider, I am not one of the delinked editors of edits, and I am not one of the above editors. As I stated, I am a fan of the site, and sought to expand it. I did go too far, I admit, but did so with a purpose; because I had noticed a link to a Schneider article on a film that I had seen before, and which I had read, and saw it missing. I saw another editor- not you or Steven, had delinked it for no good reason, another editor- not the original one who deleted nor restored it, tried to restore it, and as Steven did, delinked it again. It only took a matter of minutes to see that this had been done many times with no rationale. As I had had run-ins in the past with editors, several years ago, I knew that an edit war would not work, so I went to Schneider's page, some weeks ago, and followed the Wiki edit policy and link policy to the letter. You cannot show one single unsourced thing in all the edits I made. I did so so that no one could state that policy was not followed. It was. Its length is open to debate, but I grant you, I threw in some things I didn't give a fart about. here is why.

I did this knowing full well some editor would see the page, and having delinked Schneider's link, would come to his page, and expose themselves and their hypocrisy. Knowing full well that Schneider and his site easily passed notability standards, I knew that you folk would do exactly what you did- delink other links, and try to remove this valuable resource.

As I showed with the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob

This is clearly a sockpuppet. In looking up the earlier deletion attempt, there was also blatant use of sockpuppetry. As in my initial search of Schneider's info, this took no time. But it has shown that you, Steven, the above editor, and a number of others who have delinked, are using sockpuppets. The fact that this editor is dumb enough to reveal that he or she is from Minnesota, the state where Schneider resides, speaks volumes about the arrogance and stupidity of the mission you are on.

"We need to make sure he is given a lifetime ban. Then we will be able to edit his article in any way that we like in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia. That should show him."

And this is not evidence of an anti-Schneider bias?

From Ovenknob's personal page: LOL !!!

Schneider's loathsome egotistical self-serving self-promotional irrelevant spams have now been wiped completely off Wikipedia !! And they will be wiped off and wiped off and wiped off and wiped off again and again and again no matter how many times he and his sockpuppets try to spam them back on here!

Really, no bias?

In short, sometimes you have to being things full boil to expose the blatant biases of some. As stated, I've seen these edit wars, and knew full well that people who act in good faith cannot win, and a look at Steven's edits, as I stated, show full well his biases, long before Schneider. But, as you admit, Schneider and his page and site clearly are notable. That's on the basics. The secondary reasons I could go on with, but I do not have too. I have stated this in length to be unambiguous, and since you clearly like to obfuscate your methods.

Now, I've admitted the page was too long, but said why I added it. I basically sniffed some worms out from under a rock because of their biased and willful mistreatment of work that is among the best I've seen, and done so for wholly biased reasons. Steven has shown a lack of shame.

Let me ask you- can you not be man (or woman) enough to admit that, as I went too far in length, you went too far in this whole folly? I don't know Schneider, I don't give a damn about him as a person, but I find the site a source of much vigor and intellect. The way it was being treated, and still is, is a shame. However, the above user is clearly a sockpuppet- be it Steven or a friend, and clearly has an anti-Schneider bias, and clearly is likely one of Schneider's numerous enemies for some reason or another.

If you cannot see that this, and the earlier AFD show that Schneider has irrational people who hate, and seem to stalk him, then you are not being honest.

And as for IMDB- and I admit I followed their formula for the Cosmoetica section. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodfellas

Notice the info box with cast and crew info? All of that info is available at many other sites online. It is redundant to mention IMDB, or any other site, since that information is not sourced from them, it's available to the public on the back of a DVD box. Therefore, the only reason for the IMDB link is because Wikipedian editors feel that fans of the film might want to read a bunch of immature losers who spend 24/7 at a site bitch about nothing. Oh wait, that is Wikipedia.

Lastly, thanks for thinking I'm him, but I do not care for poetry, only film, which is how I found his site, through another website BTW. But, when you and Steven claim that I'm Schneider, because you can judge writing, and yet you make such silly edits as the one a day ago, where you claimed Schneider's sources needed citation, and you left the citation in below, well, can you blame me for laughing at your claimed critical skills?

Now, can I ask, which of us should start the Cosmoetica page- you, me, or Steven?Cop 666 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Stop this silliness. I am not a sockpuppet, stop saying this or prove it. My previous edits do not show a bias. How do you mean, most of them are small edits pertaining to Kate Bush or Ulysses? StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! If you think you are in the right, Dan, then all you have to do is start reposting all of the hundreds of self-promotional links about yourself that you've been adding to hundreds of Wikipedia articles, links which I and others have only now just finished in completely wiping off here. Go ahead, try it, Dan. Try reposting even ONE of them. Put your little fingers on your keyboard right now and try it. The admins are looking for you now. Go ahead and put your little fingers on the keys. A big admin hammer is going to come slamming down on them and it is going to hurt. Go ahead. Just try to spam again. Just try it. No, you don't have the guts to try it now, because you know that YOU ARE IN THE WRONG. Ovenknob (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see that this, and the earlier AFD show that Schneider has irrational people who hate, and seem to stalk him, then you are not being honest.

I was not involved in the earlier AfD.StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is getting slightly ridiculous now.

At least you recognize Schneider's page meets all criteria

Well, I'm undecided upon that. I don't think the mentions he has are of massive importance, theyre all mainly passing mentions at best, but I am happy letting the page exist if the admins think so.

Second, and again, I am not Schneider

Yes you are. Or you're someone trying to copy Schneider's writing style. Please don't lie.

You cannot show one single unsourced thing in all the edits I made

True, but then again I could set up a page on my life and source it well. It still doesn't make it valid.

I did this knowing full well some editor would see the page, and having delinked Schneider's link, would come to his page, and expose themselves and their hypocrisy. Knowing full well that Schneider and his site easily passed notability standards, I knew that you folk would do exactly what you did- delink other links, and try to remove this valuable resource.

This is clearly convoluted nonsense. I knew nothing of your site up until this month when I saw the spamming going on. Perhaps the fact other people have already taken issue with it might have given you a clue: give up and stop spamming.

As I showed with the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob

This is clearly a sockpuppet.

Most probably. If he's serious he also needs some help. I'm actually undecided as to whether he's a complete idiot or a ploy of Schneider's to make people opposing him look irrational. Whatever it is, he is obviously not a puppet of Steven's nor mine. I live in Britain btw.

Really, no bias?

Well not from the people who have commented sanely on this page. Stop using this strawman to detract from our arguments.

and a look at Steven's edits, as I stated, show full well his biases, long before Schneider.

What bias? What are you talking about?

The way it was being treated, and still is, is a shame.

No its not a shame. What is a shame is 30 seperate accounts existing totally to put cosmoetica links into film pages. You have been called out on it. Stop complaining.

Notice the info box with cast and crew info? All of that info is available at many other sites online. It is redundant to mention IMDB, or any other site, since that information is not sourced from them, it's available to the public on the back of a DVD box. Therefore, the only reason for the IMDB link is because Wikipedian editors feel that fans of the film might want to read a bunch of immature losers who spend 24/7 at a site bitch about nothing. Oh wait, that is Wikipedia.

What goes on on the imdb forums is totally unimportant. What is important is on IMDB you can get FULL cast listings, multiple release dates, awards, and technical information as well as all the reviews and discussion that comes with it. IMDB is a specialist filmsite and one of the most important and viewed sites on the internet. Now please...can you not see how cosmoetica is entirely different?

But, when you and Steven claim that I'm Schneider, because you can judge writing, and yet you make such silly edits as the one a day ago, where you claimed Schneider's sources needed citation, and you left the citation in below, well, can you blame me for laughing at your claimed critical skills?

I never made such an edit. Looking at the history of the edits, it seems that Steven did not delete the passages because they had no citation, but because they were unnecessary. The way you are taking this so personally has now left no doubt in my mind that you are the subject of the article.

Now, can I ask, which of us should start the Cosmoetica page- you, me, or Steven?

You know well that the answer to that is neither. Cosmoetica does not deserve a page seperate from yours. Its one or the other Dan. Tmwns (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that in bringing this whole thing up a few days ago, I've started off some kind of personal war that has been going on for some time. Please stop it. It's childish, delusional and not the sort of behaviour that should occur on wikipedia. This has nothing to do with emotional attacks, or personal grievances - just with sorting out an article that has gotten out of hand. That is all. Tmwns (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may need some restructuring and reorganization, but the sources it provides establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was ready to leave this well alone, but now I have serious enough doubts over the notability of the subject. First of all, the sockpuppeting as shown on the Admin Noticeboard is more widespread than first thought - theyve been clogging up articles with links, and have slowly been adding to this page. Now those links have been deleted, new SPAs have been adding them back. Articles have been deleted for much less. Also note that all the 'Keeps' have been made by sockpuppets, with the notable exception of Southern Nights.

Which leads me on to my next point. Now I don't have any doubts about Southern Nights' motives in creating this article - he/she seems to be a bit of a legend on wikipedia, but I do think he/she is wrong on this one. I've looked at the links and this is what I think. First of all, the City Pages article never makes out the subject to be a local celebrity (at best), and a local troublemaker (at worst). Nothing is ever mentioned about his notability. Secondly, the Village Voice article mentions him passingly in a joke horoscope article. Whilst not denying the notability of the publication, this is surely not a valid reference. Thirdly, the New York Times reference I think is the most reliable, although Cosmoetica is mentioned briefly amidst 20 or so other obscure internet pages. Do all these have wiki articles too? Theres also the Cambridge University Press, but the passage in that is a few lines long, and merely an excerpt from a review he wrote. Not anything of substance about him. Also note that Schneider later wrote an article on this complaining at how brief a mention he received (among other things). All in all, I dont think this is nearly enough to merit an article on wikipedia.

The most important evidence though is that though Dan Schneider and cosmoetica seem to get enough hits on google, a trawl through all those references show that the vast, vast majority are of articles on his website/other websites he has written for/blog entries where he keeps his real name/self promotion on other sites and various other mentions which are merely self-plugging. In the first 10 pages of google, I barely found any secondary mentions of him at all. No reviews of his site/ no reviews of his writing/ no reviews of his poetry. All those I did find were negative, but those were few and far between.

So all in all, it seems as though this writer's 'notability' is merely self-plugging, and the spamming on wikipedia seems to only be one branch of that. Whatever the merits of Schneider's writing, or the earnestness of Southern Nights to introduce obscure writers to Wikipedia, I am now of the mind that this writer doesn't really deserve a page at all. After all, would a notable writer really go to these lengths to clog wikipedia with his links and opinions? Thoughts anyone? Tmwns (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CCC and WP:STICK. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 September 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. No sources and none presented during the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources, it hasn't won any awards, it was not written by an author that is historically significant, and it has not been adapted. Schuym1 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uhhh... John Peterson, the author of The Littles series of books, isn't significant? Scholastic Books isn't reliable? I beg to differ. I did this article in the first place because it was a non-Littles book by Peterson, and a sequel to an earlier Peterson book. Scholastic Books sold both for years, via school book clubs. Sounds to me like you're setting the bar a mite high, or being a little too selective. Zephyrad (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the author HISTORICALLY significant? Schuym1 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you never read any of The Littles. (I also see from your bio you are a teenager, and not a parent or teacher... and have had several of your own articles deleted.) HISTORICALLY (I can use caps and bold too) is not for me to say; that's up to history. If that is your standard, perhaps you should nominate him and The Littles for deletion also. Zephyrad (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what me not being a parent, teacher, or teenager has to do with this AFD. Same with having several articles deleted. You don't have to be a a parent or teacher to participate in AFD no matter what the article is. Also, I have learned a lot since the articles were deleted.Schuym1 (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying you're likely too young to remember the books, or the cartoon, or the impact either had. Touched a couple generations, they did, and so did their author. And someone who's had several of their own articles deleted may well be inclined to want to see articles by others deleted; the tone you've displayed so far leans toward that. (I could debate what you've "learned" since, but this isn't the place.) Zephyrad (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, being rude with your last comment. Schuym1 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By answering your questions in a reasonable way, instead of employing tactics like yours? Don't think so. Zephyrad (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by the guidelines, ~~jerk.~~ Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a personal attack, by an admitted vandal. That'll really build your case. Zephyrad (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find Zep's argument to be fair. The Littles while not a huge foot note in literary history did serve a purpose and even inspired a childrens Saturday Morning cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vitiman (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC) — King Vitiman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You seem to be a sock puppet. Schuym1 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you seem quick to accuse. Admins, feel free to investigate this "sock puppet" accusation. Zephyrad (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the account single purpose.--PhilKnight (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a lot of work, especially in the themes section, but I see no reason to delete it. My opinion is that every commercially produced novel, from the Littles to Star Trek to Whatever, deserves an article. Lots42 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree the article needs work; some bells and whistles (i.e., additional links, boxes, etc.) would help. Zephyrad (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zephyrad, can you please shut the fuck up about me? Schuym1 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First a personal attack, and now rudeness. Does the truth hurt, or something? Zephyrad (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being rude to you because that is what you're doing to me. Schuym1 (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least you admit it. Please show me where I have called you a name (other than "teenager", which you used yourself on your user page), sworn at you, accused you of sockpuppetry, or done anything other than question your motives and bias, with examples to back it up. Zephyrad (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what historically significant means. Articles have got deleted because the notable author did not make the book notable. Schuym1 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you used a term you don't even understand, in making your case... and reversed your position on Peterson's "significance". This is getting even funnier. Zephyrad (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done watching this page. I don't need to take your crap. Schuym1 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, care to take down the debate (that is, cancel the AfD tag), then? Keep it open and I'm sure I can find printed sources to further establish the book's notability. A quick Web search, which I suspect is all you did, probably wouldn't yield much, compared to an actual library visit or two. Which I can do. "Take crap" from me? You encouraged it, repeatedly. (Hm, someone tags an article, then bails on the discussion. Interesting.) Zephyrad (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Zephyrad finds their sources WikiScrubber (talk) 07:31, 5 September 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Catalan Countries[edit]

The so-called "Catalan Countries" have no substance in everyday life, but it is a quite controversial political construct by Catalan nationalism. As such, it is legitimate, but POV all the same.

Excerpts of the (minimal) text in the article like "Catalan Countries have a multi-party system" dont make any sense, because the so-called Catalan Countries are a transnational merely political-theory construct with no common political institutions at all, no common legal system, no common ruling institutions.... not even a common language (not everybody speaks Catalan in the so-called Catalan countries).It is such a mere theoretical concept that we dont even know which is the right grammatical number: is it "political parties in Catalan Countries"? shouldnt it be "political parties in THE Catalan Countries"? so is it one country or several?

All in all, to have a list of the political parties in the "Catalan Countries" amounts to admitting that those "countries" do exist politically at all and are united by a common political system, something which it is definitely not true, but a desideratum of some political minority.

Then, if we sticked to the strict philological reasoning of Catalan-speaking, it doesnt make much sense either, not only because, as I mentioned already, in some of these territories Catalan in its various forms is spoken only by a minority, but, also, because we wouldnt make an article listing political parties of countries which speak, say, Portuguese or French in a single article, what for?

To back the purported political motivation of this article, the creator him/herself of this article is a self-proclaimed Catalan nationalist which bears its political banner in its very username user:Independència (Catalan for "Independence") only contributes every once in a while to add Catalan nationalist POV to the articles s/he is interested in, nothing more, and nothing less. Looking at the article's history, only two users (one its creator the other, an anon...who could well be its creator itself) have contributed. In my opinion, absolute lack of both activity and comment there speak out for the fringe, unencyclopedic and whimsical character of the article (I only came across it by chance). All in all, having this collection of parties based on a controversial and very partisan concept such as "Catalan Countries" is too POV too handle. Of course, an article on the "Catalan Countries" is fine, but assuming from there that there are common structures like a political system for the Catalan Countries is both wrong and POV. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The Catalan Countries are now simply a cultural and linguistic region, even if some advocate for the creation of such an independent state. "Catalan Countries" is not POV (whatever sense that acronym is supposed to carry, point of view?), it is a concept, abstract if you will, that exists even if we disagree with it or not. It is rather the title which is rather POV, in that it treats the "Catalan Countries" as if they were indeed a clearly-defined political entity, which they are not. In the best case scenario, the title would make sense as "List of political parties in Catalonia, the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands" or perhaps "List of political parties of the Catalan-speaking autonomous communities of Spain". --the Dúnadan 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 7, 9, and 10. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy Savage[edit]

User Elsav2 (talk · contribs), an SPA, created a number of biographical articles about presenters for the BBC's "Newsbeat" and "Newsround" programmes, and inserted names into existing articles as "Notable alumni." They were all speedied WP:CSD#A7, but this one was recreated and second time round was tagged for notability and references. The article says she works for "Newsround" and has reported for "Newsbeat", lists other stations she has worked for, and has a gossipy section about her charity work and her "relationships". None of that gives notability, certainly not to the standard required for "television personalities" by WP:ENTERTAINER. Nor do I find much on Google - 265 hits, which is not much for someone who appears on television, and some of those are for a Vancouver softball player of the same name. The only references provided were her employer's web-site and a blog. Sorry, not notable: Delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't like the looks of the speculation in her Personal Life section. For someone who is apparently 'notable', there is a poor showing of references. I agree with everything that is presented above my own reply. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:16, 29 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apricitabine[edit]

In some four-odd months of existance, this article has hardly undergone substantial updates and change. It consists of a single paragraph which will be of little or indeed no use to medical students researching the drug. Added to the fact it is merely experimental and no information is given of it's current status, I doubt whether anyone has or will take major interest in the role of keeping this topic up-to-date. Seeing as it is also classed as being low in importance, would Wikipedia really suffer as a result of it's deletion? It's information box is devoid of any detail whatsoever. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please have a look at WP:NOEFFORT. The fact that an article is not being worked on does not mean it is unsuitable for inclusion, and it certainly doesn't mean there is no information around that could be used to expand it; the German-language version of this article is much longer and contains quite a bit of information that could be carried over here. Twenty-one scholarly studies concerning apricitabine have been published in MEDLINE-indexed journals, and it is currently in Phase III clinical trials. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I never actually knew of the links Fvasconcellos pointed out. Apologies. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I translate the German version? (Could take a few days, since I won't have internet access over the weekend.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your happy to take the time and effort, that would be great. You'd be both improving the article considerably and making sure it won't be nominated for deletion again! Two birds with one stone. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great idea—I don't speak German :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to a speedy close? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:16, 29 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/redirect to Cheating in online games; action completed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cham hack[edit]

Neologism DimaG (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEO.--S_RX 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheating in online games and Wallhacking. This jargon is a neologism that does not need its own micro-article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge " WikiScrubber (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ningauble. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:21, 5 September 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deryk Houston

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (book)[edit]

Non notable book DimaG (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as it meets none of the criteria set out here. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable book. Schuym1 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, a quick google search turns up only hits for companies selling the book. Basement12 (T.C) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put some sources in the article to show notability. There are more at Google Books and Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete didn't check new refs, but article is ordinary. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:35, 5 September 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. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost character[edit]

Delete. Bit of a pointless article to be honest. Can't be merged with anything, as the individual play's articles have infomation on these characters anyway. Fails WP:LIST and WP:NOTE. Dalejenkins | 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate concept, though easily misunderstood. There are clearly other sources that use this term with reference to authors other than Shakespeare. [12] Paul B (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not a reliable source. Dalejenkins | 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Amazon is simply the link to the book, which is published by Cambridge University Press. You can use its preview facility to see the contents.Paul B (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A familiar concept in the discussion of old plays: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. It's worth a stub. Deor (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than ample sourcing found by Deor, Paul B. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant concept in the scholarly literature. Plenty of sources available. AndyJones (talk) 18:46, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laird-Dunlop House[edit]

Non-notable. House not on NRHP. No sources epicAdam (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not really sure about the notability rules on individual buildings but it seems to have a lot of book mentions [19] -Hunting dog (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. Not an NRHP listed building but abundant WP:RS coverage found in Google and Google Books searches. "...some of Georgetown's most exemplary 18-century architecture..."[20] It appears to be a contributing part of its historic district. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt has many references in books, but these are only visible in "snippet view" except for two, the above cited and one other which has a couple of sentences. In addition the National Park Service has a paragraph about it [21]. It was the home of a judge removed by Lincoln as a southern sympathizer. It was the longterm home of Linclon's son Robert Todd Lincoln, a notable attorney and industrialist. It was the home of Washington Post publisher Ben Bradlee.It got a paragraph in the Washington Post which described it as "historic." [22]. It is called a "historic residence" in "Washington Spaces" [23]. It is listed in the District of Columbia [24]inventory of historic sites. It is included in guidebooks. Absence from being listed on the National Trust does not require deletion. Edison2 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a good chance it's a contributing property to the Georgetown Historic District, which is a National Historic Landmark district. I don't have any definitive proof that it's a contributing property, but given that it's listed in a National Park Service walking tour of Georgetown, that makes it look notable enough. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the references indicated above. Buildings can be notable per Wikipedia inclusion standards even if they are not on the NRHP. (If that weren't the case, then bye-bye Verizon Building and Hollywood Bowl) --Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 31 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 non-notable/hoax. ... discospinster _talk 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marge and the Marjorettes[edit]

Google test comes up with nothing, no sources. If real, the band probably isn't notable. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of sources do this page no good. There is no list of their albums, no articles on the band members or any pictures (which would have probably provided a good case against the call for deletion). Until someone comes up with the goods, we have to assume this is not a notable band. I support the motion. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an A7 - claims of notability hold no water. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax, so tagged - article claims a no.1 hit, but there are NO Ghits except Wikipedia and a mirror. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 29 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. Keeper ǀ 76 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Franks[edit]

This was originally a spam Speedy Delete candidate, which I chose to decline because I felt there was still encyclopedic material. I PRODed it instead as a way to get the original author to add some notability claims, but he merely deleted the PROD. The author's username is LC Franks (Lawson-Corey Franks?), which leads me to believe this is probably an autobiograpy, however that tag was also removed by the author. In short: this article makes claims of notability but it doesn't actually meet WP:MUSIC. L'Aquatique[talk] 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. L'Aquatique[talk] 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. I think your right, LC Franks does seem to be the man whose topic we're discussing. No notable links or references to be seen, just a load of useless ones to FaceBook and other websites. Neither are there topics for his band or recording company. Plus:

“

I think you know where I’m going with this…a little kid in a studio with a million buttons to push, big mistake!! Corey’s interest in recording came long before his interest in actually singing. Never the less, here he is, at the top of his game!

”

is that a joke or something?! A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's off the chanklas for sure!" WTF? Spam, spam, spam. Best claim to notability is the top 30 on American Idol, but beyond that whether he's getting any traction or not is impossible to separate from the ... rather unique marketspeak in here. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom, the spamspeak, the removal of templates without supplying the sources they requested, and the absence of proven notability. If the claims are true then the article probably scrapes by WP:N, but without citations it should be deleted. Ka renjc 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed the "problems" that you guys think I had on the site, Im still new to interent stuff, Im trying here. So thank you for belittling me!! Hope it made you all feel better! -Corey Franks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lc franks (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mnimi[edit]

This page is about a fictional character and fails to recognise such, is grossly mis-categorised, and is about a character who fails the search engine test for existence. Moreover, it fails, in my mind, to demonstrate notability as an element of fiction according to these rules. Proginoskes (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching Mnimi on google myself, none of the hits had anything to do with this goddess. They were about matters which had nothing to do with divinity or mythology. After reading the article, one feels as though it's just a load of bullet-points joined up for the sake of creating a topic. With no notable references or pictures, I find it hard to take a different stance on this. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems hoaxy, no sources of any type. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Atlantean deities??? If not a hoax, it is a complete goof. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a fictional Greek goddess from books by Sherrilyn Kenyon. I'm not seeing anything else. Might be notable as a fictional goddess (minor character list or something) but I can't source it very well. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In form, the name Mnimi represents the Modern Greek pronunciation of the word for memory, corresponding to Classical Greek μνήμη. We have an article for a goddess Mneme, but neither in that article nor in any ancient sources available to me does she have the characteristics or parentage attributed to her in this article. As Hobit says above, this particular "goddess" appears to be a creation of modern fiction. Deor (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently false. The Greek goddess of memory is Mnemosyne. JuJube (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See here. According to this source, Mnemosyne is indeed the Greek goddess of memory, but Mnimi is the Greek goddess of latent memory. See also page 266 of this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out how much of the article consituted a copyright violation. I've removed the offending material. Other than that, all you've done is reinforce the points made above—that the first three words of the article ("In Greek mythology") are false and that this "goddess" exists only in the fictional works of Ms. Kenyon. As mnimi is a perfectly common word in modern Greek, I'm afraid that your second source, showing that a Greek theater company chose to use it as their name, is wholly irrelevant. Deor (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any mention in Robert Graves, so suggests it is a neo-theologism. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carillon Point Marina[edit]

Delete nn business per WP:NOTDIR Mayalld (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable buisness, delete per WP:NOTDIR, Google only has 656 hits. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. Basement12 (T.C) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. It gets a few passing mentions in the local papers for the restaurants there. The non-directory entry stuff was purged as copyvio of primary sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple references to the restaurants there (I added a second reference) are an assertion of notability. In general, though, I would like to draw parallels between railway stations and port facilities; the simple fact that they exist (or that they once existed) is a strong hint that reliable sources about them exist and that they ought to be considered automatically notable. As I said at another AfD,I don't think that including listings for marinas is in violation of WP:NOT, any more than having listings for dead politicians or dead popes. There are parallels between ports and railway stations which would argue in favor of automatic notability for at least some ports (and airports as well, although I realize that at least one small airfield has been deleted at AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This "editor" is adding at least four articles per business day, all following the same format of creating an article, scraping basic content word for word from 1-2 official/government websites, sourcing some of it, adding a template, adding the article to List of marinas and then ignoring, recreating or readding content to the minority of articles that get deleted or tagged for copyvio or other violations.

The "editor" ignores warnings concerning notability and copyright violations, and solicited suggestions concerning how to write articles to make them notable, such as including news, history or any other content sourced to anything remotely resembling WP:RS.

The question is: are these daily 4x cut-n-paste articles worth all the copy-vio corrections, fact checking, sourcing, categorizing, template cleanup and portapotty info removal? If so, then are you going to fix 8x articles a day? Then 16x? 32x?Flowanda | Talk 08:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and in the absence of dialogue with the user consider a block. There is merely spamming in another form. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:29, 2 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embry Hills church of Christ[edit]

Someone's removed a prod on this, but this is as deletable an article as I ever saw; only the vaguest assertion of notability, borderline spam, and mainly a laundry-list of members. – iride scent 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

“

Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. [FAILED]
Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. [FAILED]
Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. [FAILED]

”

A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: No references. No sources. Minimal content. I'm not aware of a specific set of criteria that defines when a religious body is notable. Going purely by WP:ORG it lacks notability. Going by the website of this organization, there is no difference between this congregation, and any of the other congregations in this non-denomination.jonathon (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing here to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N. There is also nothing to satisf WP:CONG which was created as an attempt to have a notability guideline for chiurches and religious congregations, but which did not gain consensus. Edison2 (talk) 21:49, 29 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. — Coren ^(talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Clinch Marina[edit]

Delete nn business per WP:NOTDIR Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 (blatant advertising). No assertion of any notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Also note that the creator of the article has started a number of similar topic non notable articles. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Basement12 (T.C) 01:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is creating a guidebook/directory of marinas (against WP:NOT) and is basically copying and pasting primary sources (chronic persistent copyvio). That said, Duncan Clinch Marina seems to have some regional, but non-trivial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added an article from the Traverse City Record-Eagle, and I think that this article probably passes notability now. I don't think that including listings for marinas is in violation of WP:NOT, any more than having listings for dead politicians or dead popes. There are parallels between ports and railway stations which would argue in favor of automatic notability for at least some ports (and airports as well, although I realize that at least one small airfield has been deleted at AfD. --Eastmain (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles cited contain just general community coverage that any local business/place would receive at one time or another, but there's no indication of the kind of WP:N Wikipedia requires. Flowanda | Talk 01:25, 4 September 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. A7 or G11. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeerMe[edit]

Article devoid of any verified or notable content. Have not had a significant update in over 6 months -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article, while not being extremely popular, is still nonetheless notable – I mean a quick google search brings up at least a few secondary references ([25], [26]), and therefore is, in my opinion, keepable.--daniel folsom 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:36, 5 September 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 close) RMHED (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Republican[edit]

In the United States people belonging to one party often vote for candidates belonging to another party. This type of article could be written about any candidate in any election, but there is no evidence of lasting notability. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the related page for the same reason:[reply]

Delete both as neologisms. These are terms that will only be used for this one election, as the nom says there's no evidence of lasting notability. I guess these sorts of things can be notable but only if the labels are relevent in future elections, e.g. Reagan Democrat. But we obviously can't keep articles based on guessing what the future importance of them might be, see WP:NOT. But considering that, a protected redirect for both to United States presidential election, 2008 would be fine. --Rividian (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the other side of the Atlantic, it seems to me that the issue of "cross-over" voting has been more prominent in this presidential election than in most previously, from Obama's winning of independent votes in the primaries to the Hilary supporter issue in recent days. Hard to say if this will last long, but I'm weakly minded to keep as there is short term notability. Following the election, merging into an election article might be sensible, but I'm reluctant to be defintive now. MikeHobday (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment seems Obamacan (which redirects to this page) might be a notable neologism worthy of an article as it is found in most of the sources. However I only found 'Obama Republican' in one of the sources (only looked in the first 7 or 8) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Obamacon or Obamacan has been thrown around enough in the media as a mention of aisle crossing notable to this election, and Obama in particular.--Loodog (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both They are not terms that have not gained widespread use and, as User:Northwestgnome said, it is common that people belonging to one political party vote for the other party's candidate. At least Reagan Democrats gained a lasting notability and many are still referred to as such. Happyme22 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both The articles are well-sourced and useful to people following the election. They will also be useful to people in the future studying the history of it. Regardless of who wins, the cross-over voters will play a role (forgive my crystal-ballism please) and will be topic worth studying. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really can't ignore your "crystal ballism" because your rationale is based upon it: it will be a use to people in the future, cross over voters will play a role, it will be a future topic worth studying... That's all speculation, perhaps excluding cross over voters playing a role (but that is nothing special because cross over voters play a role in every election cycle). Happyme22 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Sort-of) I think List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements should have a section for Democrats and independents while List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 should have a Republican or independents section. It's an interesting issue every election and right now some names I put on McCain Democrat aren't on his endorsement list. However after those sections are made I think these articles should be deleted. So this is kind of a merge recommendation.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both Both articles are well sourced, informative, and discuss terms that are fairly widely used.--Mr Beale (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for the terms being widely used? I only found that Obama used the term in one speech and that the speech has been quoted.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to search for the terms. Even placed in quotes "Obama Republican" gets too many things that are essentially "For Obama Republican Jay Finklemeyer's attack ad has..." or whatever. Same with "McCain Democrat." "Obamacan" gets about 14 GNews hits.[27] Unfortunately there isn't the same kind of cute word for "McCain Democrat." "McCainocrat" gets just 2 GNews hits.[28] "Democrats for McCain" gets 21 though and most seem relevant. Still I'd prefer something more like "cross-voting in the 2008 election" or my original idea of merging the two with endorsement lists.[29]--T. Anthony (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Satisfies WP:N by multiple independent and reliable sources which use the terms and have substantial discussion of them. Edison2 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep both Standard mainstream american political concepts and language. I totally fail to see the point of this nomination. Such crossing over has been a major factor in almost all presidential races. The argument presented by the nom for deletion is in my view an argument for keeping. And of course they will only apply to one election. a US presidential election can safely be predicted to be of enduring notability. We may possibly have too many small articles on individual aspects/events of this campaign, but these two are not among the ons to be eliminated. DGG (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because crossover voting is a notable concept doesn't we need an article for each term someone has for each type of crossover voting... it's hard to imagine a bunch of disjointed articles serving readers better than one unified article.--Rividian (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have Party switching in the United States, but these articles aren't really about that. Some of these people may leave their party, but it's far from certain all of them will. Could we have like a Cross-party voting in the United States article? Does any article serve that purpose? (If you look the Reagan Democrat article it doesn't name anyone in specific, but this could)--T. Anthony (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people can and do cross vote should be explained in the article on political parties in the United States. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well cited. Consider that this describes about 7,000,000 people for each. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People with brown hair and green eyes would describe even more people, but it does nothing to make it an encyclopedic article topic. --Rividian (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cited as a coherent topic. Analysis by reliable, second party sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both, in both cases there are reliable sources that define and use the term. Would pass WP:N under those circumstances, in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep both They are well-sourced and are about clearly defined, notable (and important) topics. Borock (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Checking out the sources these are clearly notable topics, especially "Obama Republican." (The sources for "McCain Democrat" are a bit weaker. Even though there seem to be just as many of them, they have gotten less press coverage.) Redddogg (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Existing sources are sufficient to establish notability of the subjects.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Of the "sources" listed to define the terms, only one addresses the terms in any significant way for each article. The mere number of sources does not make an article well cited. In this case I think we may be stretching "reliable" a bit too far: personal and political blogs, a guest editorial... A transcript in which Obama himself is the only one mentioning any of the terms. Mere lists of Democrats who support McCain. Delete until the terms have actually received significant and deep enough coverage that they can be cited and reliably sourced. user:j (aka justen) 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep both When the Reagan Democrats were found, it was after the Elections. Its too early to write about these group. After the election, I think we will be able to know the power of these group, and how they help the one who is elected president. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. If crossover voting is common and frequently discussed in all elections (as the Northwestgnome avers), then it is notable. Seems like a no-brainer. It seems especially relevant in this election, where both campaigns are actively and openly trying to poach each other's traditional constituencies. Demesne Lord (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as notable, well-sourced, and unoriginally researched. Any issues with the quality of sources, WP:CURRENT violations, etc, are all reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per T. Anthony. If either (or both) prove to have lasting notability beyond the election season, they can be re-instated as separate articles.--JayJasper (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Multiple reliable sources for the concepts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep both. It is definitely very notable in this election and can't be diminished as a usual "cross-over-voting". On top now, with McCain's VP-pick of Sarah Palin this articles has the potential to gain even more importance. Referring to an entry above: It would be rather a "Crystal ball" assuming less importance in the near and far future. Besides that, one positive part of WP is the comprehensiveness unlike "standard" encyclopedias can offer and counters for certain unreliability do to the constant changes. Do we really want to scrap one of our unique advantages? --Floridianed (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unnecessary, non-notable neologisms. Superm401 - Talk 14:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Rividian. Recentist US-centricity that's got well out of hand. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Certainly, I've been seeing these terms increasingly being used by the media. Although they are neologisms, how else can you put it? New terms pop up all the time. Just because they are new, that doesn't mean that we should exclude them from Wikipedia. - XX55XX (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Well cited informative information -- penubag (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Maybe add a mention in Aisle_(political_term) under "Crossing the aisle". Horselover Frost (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. The phrase "Obama Republican" is in widespread use (unlike say "Kerry Republican" in 2004) and the underlying concept is much discussed for this election. That is less true for "McCain Democrat", but I think in the interest of parity we should keep that article too; having just one may implicitly seem partisan or POV. Crust (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as they are an important phenomenon of these elections. I wouldn't have found information about it if there hadn't been dedicated articles. Plus, they are concise, neutral, clear and well-cited.--Gogu (talk) 22:00, 3 September 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSPseq[edit]

no evidence of notability. Random online blog coverage doesn't give notability. Notability comes from significant coverage by reliable sources. It being an "underground" software, web only software, etc doesn't give it a pass on the same requirements all articles must meet. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information and this particular software doesn't meet the requirements that the community have created. If reliable sources start writing about, I don't oppose recreation. Crossmr (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 06:03, 25 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, MuZemike (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources found to denote this software's notability (i.e. no reliable source showing substantial coverage). Jappalang (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete seems to be nn WikiScrubber (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Two of the external links look somewhat respectable and demonstrate a minute amount of coverage. I would redirect to PlayStation Portable homebrew in the remote chance more coverage can be found. Though if the consensus leans towards deletion, I really wouldn't oppose. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete - The BoingBoing and CreateDigitalMusic items are more akin to press releases rather than substantial coverage, explicitly ruled out by WP:N. The HackADay site is currently down but the link promises a "short interview" which is good, but I query the reliability of the site and I would prefer multiple coverage anyway. I may change my opinion once I can actually get a look at the link. Marasmusine (talk) 17:18, 3 September 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 G3 speedy. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids![edit]

Recreated after expired PROD, concern was: Unremarkable, unreferenced article about a forthcoming show, promoted by one of the actors. Note also that the external links are invalid. Ningauble (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and way WP:CRYSTALly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have also added a prod tag to List of Kids! episodes. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we're not a crystal ball. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:48, 1 September 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, nominator withdrew. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fureai (band)[edit]

No sources to indicate notability per WP:N. Lists 3 albums but no music label; beyond that, no reason to think this might meet WP:MUSIC. ~~Delete.~~ Mango juice^talk 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what MangoJuice said. Also, over half the article's in a foreign language, mostly because it's lists. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: pretty darn stubby, I admit, but clearly meets WP:MUSIC C10 (ending theme for a network television series) and seems to meet C5 with albums from Pony Records (if I've interpretted that BARKS profile correctly). That there's parts still in Japanese is a reason to get it translated, not deleted -- there's even an active translation project hereabouts. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Quote from C10 .."But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article". Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Redirect per WP:BEFORE and, try to remember that AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. Neier (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It meets #5 in that WP:MUSIC. Go look yourself. http://music.ponycanyon.co.jp/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalive (talk • contribs) 09:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being able to read Japanese, I'm having a hard time with that. But in any case, meeting WP:MUSIC is only one requirement: another is that the content be verifiable, so useful sources must be produced eventually. Mango juice^talk 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kalive: If you could extract a specific URL showing Pony released albums from Fureai, that would help. (I note that a primary source is sufficient to validate the existence of albums from an artist, and that's all that's being asked by WP:MUSIC C5.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the links resulting from googling "ふれあい site:ponycanyon.co.jp" would probably suffice, no? Neier (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ponycanyon.co.jp/arts/fureai/bio.html is probably the best one, though. Neier (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a Japanese-speaker, I can verify that there is indeed a bio on Fureai (band) on the Pony Canyon website. ~~Unless I'm reading the bio incorrectly, however, it seems that they only cut one album with Pony Canyon (per WP:MUSIC, WP requires "2 or more albums on a major label," doesn't it?).~~ My problem with this band is that after running a LexisNexis and Factiva search in both English and Japanese, I get no positive hits whatsoever (there are a few false positives). That's not a good sign for meeting WP:N or WP:MUSIC criteria. Does King Records have a bio on them? I agree that claims made need to be verifiable in some way. J Readings (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just re-read the Pony Canyon bio page. It appears that they did cut at least two albums on Pony Canyon, which (unless Pony Canyon is *not* considered a "major label") makes them notable. So the question really becomes: Is Pony Canyon a "major label"? I would think they are. J Readings (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to ouR article on it, "Pony Canyon is a major leader in the music industry in Japan, with its artists regularly at the top of the Japanese charts." —Quasirandom (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep based on the above. I sincerely hope someone will use the information uncovered here to add reliable info to the article. Mango juice^talk 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link given above as an external link; what's really needed is someone who knows Japanese who can clean it up, translate titles, and add details from the links (as direct references). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:45, 1 September 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 All. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Cold (Akay song)[edit]

A series of likely-hoax articles about songs. Created by Adamknufc (talk · contribs), they were all originally credited to a non-notable/non-existant artist called Akay (A.K.—Adam Knufc?). Two weeks later, 90.198.184.194 (talk · contribs) changed the artist name on all articles to Vicious D or Vicious Dog. None of those names show up on Billboard.com, despite claims of all the songs charting well. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V miserably. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Delete as utter bollocks. Once again, we need a speedy category for hoaxes. (Not enough people seem to agree, unfortunately...) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for notability fr33kman (talk) 15:28, 31 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 Article was speedily deleted per CSD G5. Non-admin closure, justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Before Death[edit]

PROD removed without explanation or improvements to the article. PROD reasoning was that this is a crystal ball article on a non-notable album by a redlink band. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not even mention the "major studio" releasing the album. (I was a bit disappointed that the article was not about Pre-existence, a much more interesting topic.) :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the album hasn't even been released yet, why start the topic now? In the present situation, hardly any information is provided. However I would not object to the re-starting of the article, once the album has been released. At least then someone may be able to add more detail such as the number of sales and etc. But for now, it's just not good enough. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WHO? (Alas, that second one is a redlink...) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is now a sockpuppet case related to this article here because of the repeated bad-faith removal of AfD notices and recreation of deleted articles related to "Lil Twinn" Beeblbrox (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Twinn -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Known vandal and sockpuppeter User:Troyrodriguez361. I've tagged for speedy deletion. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:41, 3 September 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) Cirt (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative optimization[edit]

Contested prod. A vanity article about a single author's neologism. Is this notable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a neologism and the user hasn't cited anything except his own books. Bvlax2005 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In and of itself, just because the article was created by the inventor is insufficient reason to delete. The topic is notable. It has appeared in many peer-reviewed journals and I have started adding references to other author's papers. Delaszk (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not related to a recent AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification, in case anyone was wondering. Also, so help explain some of this, please see User_talk:Jiuguang_Wang#Cooperative_optimization. It actually is quite helpful. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has POV and COI issues, but I think it is notable per the peer-reviewed and third-party sources that have been added. --Itub (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of peer-reviewed articles referenced to show notability. We should be pleased that one of the leading experts on the subject has written a Wikipedia article, not condemning that fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 3 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Codes[edit]

Non-sensical. Please note connection to article Knowledge Based/Knowledge Acquisition, which is authored by same user (user Richardlord50), and likewise nominated for deletion (here). Neither article has hope in my view. BCST2001 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article acknowledges that it's a neologism with no showing of notability: a newly formed neologism concept,its central ideas are this:That a society constructs its scientific knowledge on the basis of its knowledge gathering, it can then be studied (knowledge assimilation) and it is this gathering of knowledge which can also reveal its(society) knowledge codes and in turn can reveal its power strucure and how,that or,societys work (see) Knowledge Based/Knowledge Acquisition . If that's an "idea", I'm Catherine the Great. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V. Basement12 (T.C) 17:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: this is an unverified neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above reasons, violates WP:NEO and definitely has WP:V problems. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense (G1) WikiScrubber (talk) 13:40, 1 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.G. Tha Problem Child[edit]

If claims in article were true this person might be notable, unfortunately I can't find any references to back up anything in it. There is a myspace page for someone called "A.G. Tha Problem Child", but even that doesn't contain same claims. Lots of name dropping but no sign of him being mentioned in the cast lists of the blue linked films /series. No evidence that the red-linked films / songs and albums exist. Hunting dog (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find absolutely nothing to prove anything in this article. Google search results came up empty trying to prove the existance any of his supposed albums, film appearances, marriage, anything. This is a blatant hoax. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As on par with the every one of the reasons provided above, the lack of any credible links undermines the numerous claims considerably. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody ridiculous hoax. Speedy delete as utter nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 29 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tipton Road tram stop[edit]

Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May possibly deserve an article one day but definitly not at the moment. Basement12 (T.C) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This line went through through a public enquiry several years ago. I am not clear if the order has actually been made, but presume it has; nevertheless, even the order means nothing. Only when the scheme is funded and the construction contract let is there a reasonable prospect of actual construction and therefore opening. The scheme might be amended and the tram stop (station) never built. Until then it is WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Midland Metro#Line Two): funding has still not been provided for its construction; fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:08, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Ways tram stop[edit]

Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Undead Warrior[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This line has been through a pubic enquiry. I am not clear if the order has actually been made, but even the order means nothing. Only when the scheme is funded and the construction contract let is there a reasonable prospect of actual construction and therefore opening. Until then it is WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epsom Hospital Radio[edit]

Hospital radio station in England fails WP:ORG. No evidence of WP:RS coverage or even a reach beyond its grounds. It was cleaned up for advert-style appeals and outright copvio. Prod was challenged by author, who shows a possible COI. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as previous prodder. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Entertainment indicates that "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air." This is an in-house station. There is no article on the hospital to which this could be reasonably merged or redirected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A radio transmission to people in a hospital is no more notable than talking to them over the public address system, or the Muzak playing in the elevators, or the inpatient health videos on the "telly." Edison2 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hospital radio station is not notable enough to be here. No citations to sources, no reliable information. Anymediaguy (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Far from notable, if this is notable, then so is all the department store music stations you hear in Wal-Mart, Sears, etc. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 01:38, 3 September 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 Mr.Z-man 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PC-over-IP[edit]

This page contains virtually no real information on PCoIP. The protocol is proprietary and no information on it exists at the Teradici web site. The tone of the article suggests that it was written by Teradici. The only editor to really work on the article is not a registered user, and has made no edits to other articles beyond adding a few references to PCoIP. This behavior points to the editor indeed being a Teradici employee. Ronark (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 09:24, 3 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim communist party (Maoist)[edit]

Possible hoax. Article created by banned sockpuppet, reference leading nowhere, googling gives no hits at all. Soman (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. I'm not sure why a link to the University of Worcester would be a source about a political party in India anyway, but the creator, whose name was "Never the better for it", is banned as a sockpuppet [30] of someone who has a history of unreliability Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G5) — Creation of an article by a banned user. MuZemike (talk) 18:05, 29 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Bihari party[edit]

Possible hoax. Article created by banned sockpuppet, reference leading nowhere, googling gives no hits at all. Soman (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. I'm not sure why a link to the University of Worcester would be a source about a political party in India anyway, but the creator, who used the name "Never the better for it", is banned as a sockpuppet [31] of someone who has a history of unreliability and has earned the reputation of the boy who cried wolf. The creator's main contribution seems to be entertaining screen names. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 29 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Amos[edit]

This is a auto-biographical article, essentially a CV, by a fairly run of the mill journalist, who has also established a web site for non-woven polypropylene bags. It has no independent sources and nothing here seems to be genuinely notable. Grahame (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a journalist. So am I. I've interviewed celebrities too. And if it were my article I'd say delete to that too. No indication of notability outside of his usual duties as a writer/publisher. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search on Google found a number of people named Chris Amos but none of them matched the person described in this article. This article attempts to be a whole-of-life biography of Amos. This is inappropriate because WP is not a blog (WP:NOTBLOG). The article fails to demonstrate any particular notability for the subject so the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:23, 30 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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Hoyos[edit]

Has not made a professional appearances for Newells Old Boys as yet, which is made clear in the lead "He is yet to start a match". Currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article itself gives the reason, recreate if and when he makes some appearences. Basement12 (T.C) 20:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has never played football at professional level, therefore fails WP:FOOTYN E P 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 17:04, 2 September 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. I just bought a copy, so it clearly exists after all! Nevertheless, it requires clean-up and the removal of speculation. Some third party sources would be nice to. I'll see what I can do later when I'm not onthis damn'd iPhone! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor Who DVD Files[edit]

The article might just be wishful thinking rather than reality. Certainly GE Fabbri don't list it as a product. A website was offering pre-ordering of the magazine, which set blogland afire, but now isn't. Blogland continues to talk about it, but peoples' speculations do not an enecyclopedia article make. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL until it can be rewritten without future tense, and verifyably so. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More info has been added today, but there's no evidence that this actually exists. Doctor Who - Battles in Time from same publisher was test released in the Westcountry and Grampian areas so this may be an expanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgepedia (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This UK Magazine has been advertised on TV. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are looking at notability this may require deletion, but it definitely exists.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-man 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Dion[edit]

Procedural nom, was PRODded. While not a reliable source, I found some evidence she's done enough to pass WP:BIO. Think it needs discussion and no doubt some work, but there may be enough here. No comment as of yet on notability, need to look further. TravellingCari 14:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete While it grieves me to strike a negative note against the executive producer of Assault of the Killer Bimbos (1988), I have to acknowledge problems regarding WP:N and WP:RS. I did find news that she recently became regional director for Special Olympics Southern California, Tri-Valley.[32], but that doesn't quite help her case here. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for same reason I prodded. Wizardman 12:38, 3 September 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. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Marsden[edit]

Seems to be non-notable broadcaster. Also see self-identification here: [[33]] Bradley10 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden was program director of CFNY-FM, which was one of the most influential radio stations in all of North America, not just Canada, during the time he held the position. This article did historically contain sufficient referencing, which has been removed for no reason that's immediately obvious to me. He's been written about by Marshall McLuhan; he's been profiled (twice, under different personas) in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That's pretty damn notable. And I'm mystified by the notion that an article subject having posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk about something other than his own article has any bearing on whether his article should be kept or not. Keep; I'll devote some attention to getting it back up to snuff. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Independent sources given non-trivial coverage. notability is easily established. --Rob (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources which establish notability. - DigitalC (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 1 September 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. --Angelo (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pattison[edit]

Football player who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed without explanation by the article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Does not ascertain notability, and fail WP:ATHLETE. PerfectProposal 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non Quentin X (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never played higher than Conference National, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Person is clearly non-notable. GauchoDude (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 18:01, 31 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Großorient von Österreich[edit]

Does not meet with the notability requirements set out at WP:ORG. The article is entirely sourced by the organization's self-published webpage and contains no sources that are independant of the organization. A search through both Google and Google Books (using both the German title and the English "Grand Orient of Austria") return no hits... which indicates that no independant sources exist. While the title of the organization indicates that a claim to being national in scope might be made, a look at the orgs webpage demonstrates that this is not in fact the case... the organization consists of only 5 Masonic lodges, all located in Vienna. There are several other Masonic Grand Lodges in Austria that are truely national scope (with chapters in cities and towns throughout the country). Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to find sources for this type of organization. Weak delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 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 by JForget per G7 (author blanking). Non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Light (Tatyana Ali album)[edit]

Disputed prod. Unsourced stub on a forthcoming album, fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL. No sources provided, no reliable sources found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vacuous, unverified one-sentence speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums—unreleased albums are non-notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Hello Control's reasoning. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:55, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawley[edit]

Unnotable motorcycle racer that fails WP:ATHLETE. It is also an unencyclopedic article with no sources for verification. Tavix (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find mention of him in any major races other than the Isle of Man TT, in which he never placed higher than 7th. I'm not quite sure whether that counts as the 'highest level of amateur sports' as in WP:ATHLETE though: I will defer to the opinion of someone knowledgeable on motorcycle racing. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:36, 29 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, Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverifiable. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the creator's name, this is almost certainly written by a family member. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 07:37, 5 September 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. Sandstein 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical knowledge[edit]

Does not look like an encyclopedic topic. Someone's particular system, not mainstream and no evidence of notability. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Notwithstanding that the tone is wrong because it reads like original research or summarization of an unidentified primary source, what we have here is a WP:POV ~~attack on~~ usurpation of conventional usages of the term, which get over 10,000 hits on GoogleScholar. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC) moderate my tone ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom as while this is outside my field of knowledge, the phrase Towards a definition does not have a place in an encyclopaedic article. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:46, 1 September 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 All. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ULEB Eurocup 2008-09 First preliminary round[edit]

Co-Nominating;

Delete One article on this competition is sufficient. We do not need a dozen articles listing every single result in minute detail, per WP:NOT#STATS Mayalld (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per mayalid. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all We don't need to know every single detail imaginable for it. One article will do for it and the rest is just cruft. Tavix (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:USEFUL, but more appropriately WP:NOT. There is just too much trivial detail. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is indiscriminate detail. Looking back from twenty years hence, all we will have needed is a list of entrants and their final rankings - in the main article. For anyone who finds this level of detail WP:USEFUL, Wikipedia is not the right source. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 16:04, 29 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 - see WP:N, WP:V, WP:STUB. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postliterate society[edit]

Nearly completely unreferenced, looks like original research, ~~neologism~~. Correct me if i'm wrong. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stub article needs work, but this is definitely a notable term for a notable concept. Frankly, I am surprised there are only about 600 hits for the phrase on GoogleScholar. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, i should have tried Google scholar. It is obvious now that it is not a neologism, so i am striking it out. Still, the article as it is now quotes no reliable sources and has too little content to be meaningful, so i still say delete. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable concept. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:46, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Holly, Minnesota[edit]

The subject is a town "founded" in 2005, with a population of four. In a nutshell: Some guy tries to declare his house a town, but is rebuffed multiple times by The Man. Finally, on his drivers license renewal form, he declares his residence as the non-existent town of "Mt. Holly", and the paperwork successfully goes through. He now has a driver's license that shows "Mount Holly, Minnesota" as his residence, but I wouldn't think this qualifies as legal recognition, strictly speaking. There was some degree of news coverage at the time, but it doesn't appear to be exhaustive enough to validate what is essentially a publicity stunt. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The crux of this is, "Did the stunt deliver?" If he managed to obtain official recognition for being a stroppy git in the driving licence office, then he's now the mayor of what is the smallest recognised town in Minnesota. (Somewhere has to be the smallest.) I see no reason to doubt the sourcing that's already on the article. Is anyone in a suitable time zone to just phone the guy up? I imagine he has a file of press clippings. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has recieved coverage in press, referenced. Just needs some cleanup. RedThunder 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI googled, and typed it into the News google archive. There have been precisely two articles in real newwspapers, both in Minnesota. Nor has the town been "recognized" by the state. If you read the article in "the Rake" it describes a process where the guy filled out his driver's license with the name of the town he had invented and the clerk didn't change it. This is an amusing stunt. But as a phenomenon, it doesn't amount to much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All verifiable places are inherently notable. Also, being the smallest town in a state seems to give it extra notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is "The Spot Where I'm Sitting" inherently notable? It definitely has latitude and longitude, and is verifiable. This goes to an absurd extension of making every village notable. A house is not a village, and not even a hamlet. Edison2 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with all the above keeps and after reviewing some of the blog and press coverage, I suspect that come the 2010 Census, Mount Holly, MN will make the list.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I honestly don't know where to draw the line on pranks and cranks. Perhaps somewhere along the lines of notable only for one event, which is not directly applicable because the article is about the prank rather than the crank. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) No offense intended. I am a bit of a crank myself. Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a town named Mount Holly, Minnesota. The fact that the drivers' license office made a mistake is not notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The town only exists in Haag's mind. The "stunt" is not notable enough for inclusion. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, this is just a gimmick news item. -Hunting dog (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more notable than the town of The House I Live In. Totally ridiculous notion that every person in the world is entitled to declare his house a town and have an article about it in the encyclopedia. Delete also per WP:NOTNEWS. It is a prank that got a splash of publicity. Edison2 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article from The Rake states, "The location of this city is in the city of Shakopee." In other words, he lives in Shakopee. Unless and until he forms his own municipal government, which takes care of its own infrastructure and levies its own taxes and such, he's still a resident of Shakopee. So, this article should be deleted as a hoax. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clerical actions do not merit encyclopedia articles. I know someone who is the second-generation holder of a name and signs his name " ... II." A state once issued him a driver's license on which the Roman numeral Is became 1s, and an extra one slipped in, making him the 111th. An amusing slip-up but not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Neither is Mount Holly, Minnesota. Fg2 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a quick note, I cleaned up the article and added some reliable sources. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all in favour of the "every village is notable" viewpoint, but this isn't a village, town or city - it's simply a clerical error. Having the name mistakenly put on a driver's licence in no way makes it "official". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clerk makes error. Film at 11. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:39, 5 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Williams (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

A fictional character with no appearances so far. Article has not references, no evidence that the character will be a main character in the show, no media coverage. Fails notability and seems like CRYSTALBALL. Magioladitis (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article about a supposed character in a television series. Offers no evidence of notability or even any evidence that there will be a character by this name in the series. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if this character appears then maybe it will merit an an article. You look better naked (talk) 11:04, 29 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Hart[edit]

A fictional character with no appearances so far. Article has not references, no evidence that the character will be a main character in the show, no media coverage. Fails notability and seems like CRYSTALBALL. Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is referenced to blogspot.com (dubiously sourced) and offers no evidence that this future fictional character in a television series will be notable. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if this character appears then maybe it will merit an an article. You look better naked (talk) 11:05, 29 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Nintendo System (2009)[edit]

Someone removed the PROD for a supposedly formal reason. That does not change the fact that this article is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. According to the entry the release has not been officially confirmed and there is nothing known about the specifications. It doesn't even have a real name. All there is are blog entries and other rumors. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — with the user refusing to indicate any sources whatsoever, it gives me reason to believe that this is complete WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of the two sources given make any reference to anything vaguely resembling the title, other than that there is a rumour Nintendo might release a new portable console. Delete without prejudice (if this is true) when there is more information, provided by mainstream sources. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure CRYSTAL BALLery. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original quote's just a market analyst from an outside firm speculating. That being said, I think saying that all there are only "blog rumors" to back it up is a little misleading, as Kotaku is generally considered to be a reliable source. IGN and The Edge (where you can read the orignal quote) have also mentioned it, although its all still speculation. S. Luke 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Luke (talk • contribs)
Delete per above. Snowball fight anyone? Tavix (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the PROD. This was a mistake. I came back this morning to put the PROD back, but the article had already been listed for AFD. Sorry! -- Dominus (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Basement12 (T.C) 18:56, 31 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 G7 - Author Request. Other edits were present, but they were tagging the article for references, deletion noms, and restoration of blanking; I can find no substantive content that wasn't from the author, who properly blanked the page and thus requested its deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers: Kazuya & Chitose[edit]

Contested WP:PROD in the form of the article's creator blanking the page. As stated before in the prod, it's an unreferenced article in which, after a cursory search, I could find no verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the page was blanked by the creator and only real contributor, how about a speedy under G7? Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it does, tagged as such. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:28, 29 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 Pinoy Dream Academy. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen Nichols[edit]

Game show contestant only really notable for this event. No third party references or sources to support a claim to notability. CultureDrone (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the associated game show (Pinoy Dream Academy) or relevant subarticle thereof as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 09:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect {{r with possibilities}} is the best choice. Currently the article is full of trivia (he likes Justin Timberlake and has a twin brother) and his only claim to notability is only one event. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per noms. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could I also direct your attention to an AfD on another competitor in the same competition, which seems to have been overlooked: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bugoy_Bogayan CultureDrone (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains more information about the particular person that's why it can be considered an article. So its NO to deletion. --Fetch dickson (talk) 02:27, 1 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Match Game panelists and other key personnel[edit]

This is simply a list of people that have some relation to the show, I see no reason why it can't just be incorporated into the article the normal way, instead of being transcluded like it is now. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no stance: It does not appear to be transcluded now, and as it is a fairly sizeable whack of text and wikicoding, not to mention being a sea of blue, I would be hesitant to include it straight-up into the main article in its current form. -- saberwyn 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look in the links area, you can see that it is currently transcluded to the Match Game article, this was done by the same person who created this sub-article. I didn't know what to do, so I nom'd it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the epitome of an indiscriminate collection of information. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Agree with Ameliorate. WTF?? We will be getting cast and credits for all TV series next!! Ohconfucius (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually my understanding is such articles are already being allowed, but for drama shows, not for daily game shows. 23skidoo (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old Man Periwinkle said, "I think this article is a big list of indiscriminate information that could almost never be sourced. Therefore, it should be ______ed." No seriously, Delete as indiscriminate and unsourced. Some of these people were Z-list celebs even then (such as Gene Wood, who was mostly an announcer). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That is a terrible idea. So are other indiscriminate collections of internal links that are not notable topics on their own. I just don't like it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 29 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krusty Dz[edit]

Probable hoax. Article has been speedied at least once before. I can find no mention of the band on the website of Rough Trade, their supposed record company. They supposedly finished recording their debut record "by the late summer of 2008" (which is, of course, right now) and are now broken up. Fails WP:MUSIC. Movingboxes (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this appears to be a hoax, however, hoax or not they still fail the notability guidelines for music and the dubious sources (including Wikipedia) bring the verifiability into question. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND. WP is not Myspace Ohconfucius (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly a joke, definitely not meeting notability criteria. -MrFizyx (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please add Da Craigy Special to this AfD. It is allegedly the duo's one and only record, so notability (or lack thereof) would apply to it as well. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That page is a redirect to the article that is up for deletion. If this article is deleted then the redirect becomes a speedy-deletion candidate for being a redirect to a deleted page (unfortunately User:RedirectCleanupBot can't delete it automatically because there appears to have been some minor edit-warring over the redirect).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wants the content for merging, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Work to Come: A Tribute to Senator Edward Kennedy[edit]

A non-notable short documentary about Edward Kennedy shown at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Yes, Ken Burns did produce it, but the short was shown only once, and aside from being posted on YouTube (I assume), it hasn't been released elsewhere. I just don't see how this meets WP:MOVIE or any other applicable notability guidelines. (Contested PROD, removed by anon IP editor without any explanation whatsoever.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge to 2008 Democratic National Convention (details about the musical score probably do not need to be merged). There are several films along this line shown during every major political convention, and most of them do not satisfy WP:MOVIE, nor is this one likely to do so. Also note that Ken Burns was just one of four producers on this 8-minute film, and not one of the directors. If the film later proves to be notable, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slight Merge' proposed by Metropolitan90 until such a time as the notability and long-term importance of the short film can be established through the use of multiple, reliable sources. -- saberwyn 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an 8 minute movie directed by two red-links and produced by three-redlinks + Ken Burns. Wikipedia:Notability (films) makes no allowances for where the film was shown, why it was shown or what's in it. This film was not widely distributed, it is not currently historically notable (and there is nothing to suggest it will ever will be), it has no major awards and it's not "taught", therefore it fails the notability guideline for films. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article on the convention. It was a notable part of the event, but there is no indication as yet that this is considered a standalone production. It's no different in context than any of the tribute featurettes shown during Oscar broadcasts. If the film is released on its own, however, then it would justify a separate article, with the Ken Burns connection establishing sufficient notability. But at the moment there's no indication it'll even be shown again. 23skidoo (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per ameliorate. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:40, 5 September 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 close) RMHED (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial[edit]

Re-nominated, as the request was withdrawn within ~~an hour~~3 hours, 40 minutes last time. This article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article cites many articles which would be considered editorials. I do not believe this article could possibly be re-written with a neutral point of view, as even the title seems biased. Global Warmaing is an on-going debate, just because one side disagrees with the other, it doesn't mean they are in denial. Brougham96 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without question. I have suggested before that this article was a giant piece of POV. Yes, there are reliable sources suggesting climate change is occurring. However, it is not scientific fact, nor is it even close, just because there are groups of people who think it is true. Its difficult for me to fully explain what I mean. Point is, article (even the title) is written like Climate Change is pure scientific fact and that you have a sort of disease for denying it (it makes it sound like that), so delete. I'd suggest an article that represents the arguments of both sides of the climate change debate, and I'm more than willing to talk with the biologists on this site that heavily support this article to explain what I mean. WIKIPEEDIO 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I mostly agree, please look at WP:BIAS. MuZemike (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether climate change is happening or not an article such as this can still exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A concept can be denied independently of the existence of scientific proof; thus your argument is vacuous. Since when was Delete without question an option anyway? RTFM. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep (changed from delete per Olaf below - much better said) POV fork, makes heavy allegations based on opeds or unreliable sources Jaimaster (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erb? Sources include Science, NYT articles (not op eds) and a Newsweek cover story. Parts might be bogus for all I know. But the article has fine sources that support what it says. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is a POV fork, article size is already 40k so this side of the argument deserves an article of its own. Your claim that the sources (eg newsweek) are unreliable is farcical. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing farcical here is you mentioning a mere fraction of the sources used and claiming that validates the entire page. The vaster majority of sourcing on that page is oped garbage. Jaimaster (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as AfD is concerned it does validate the whole page. As I and others have said, all we need to establish here is that the topic's covered in reliable sources sufficiently to establish notability; no number of dodgy sources in addition to that is enough to warrant deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Changed to weak keep based on the article needing improvements that may never happen. Jaimaster (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or partial merge into Global warming controversy. Seems to be a POV fork of that article. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article size is already 40k which goes a long way towards justifying a POV fork. In any case there are various denial communities (eg Holocaust denial) which are verifiably notable, and this is one of them. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By POV fork I mean a fork that is biased towards a paricular POV, rather than providing neutral coverage of it.

Delete a POV fork based on synthesis and dubious sources. Anything of value in that article already exists at Global warming controversy. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like most of the sources are quite reasonable. Could you explain your "dubious sources" comment? Hobit (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination might have been withdrawn within an hour, but a review of the previous AFD and the one before it clearly shows WP:SNOW in favor of keep, so unless the have been substantial changes to the article since the last AFD, I have to vote a procedural keep here as the article has now passed two AFD with snowballing. 23skidoo (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me we do not have a snowball this time, as we started off with 5 deletes, including the nomination. The 1st nomination was over a year ago, and certainly was not a land slide (note the length of the debate) and the 2nd nomination wasn't left open long enough to have a sensible debate. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8-9 keeps plus a merge vs. only the nom for deletion? It was short, but well attended. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but keep in mind the debate was only open for 3 hours, meaning that most of the people who responded most likely had the page on their watchlist, and had some interest in in personally. --Brougham96 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced. As far as the NPOV stuff, are we going to delete holocaust denial too? The article seems fine and recent AfD was SNOW keep. I just don't see even a vague case for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, something similar to this was a cover story at Newsweek. [34] Found in a previous AfD (and the article itself, but under a different name for some reason). Title is "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine " Hobit (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that it would be acceptable to write an article about Athiests and call it Denial of Religion? There is no question in my mind that the word denial inherently endorses one point of view over another. Also, as noted above, there are several very bold statements in the article that are only sourced with op-ed articles, the holocaust remark, for example. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) the word "denial" isn't POV in my opinion. If "Denial of Religion" were a well-sourced term, I'd be perfectly happy with such an article. b) As far as the bold statements, I'm not seeing anything "noted above". Could you clarify? And finally, I really don't think Global Warming is an on-going debate. At least no more than evolution or the Holocaust or smoking causing lung cancer. The science is largely on one side. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With "noted above" I was simply refering to Jaimaster's comments wich previously noted the op-ed articles used as sources. As I'm sure you know, we have an entire artilce about Global warming controversy.. see specificly Global_warming_skepticism#Controversy_concerning_the_science. There are two points of view on this matter and that article has reliable sources showing an opposing view. Since we have a well souced article about the debate, I wouldn't say that there is no on-going debate. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page for this article, I'd say the use of "op-eds as sources" hasn't stood up. Could you give actual examples? Hobit (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up against he clock here and have to get going, but off the top of my head, reference number 8 is [[35]] which even in the url can be seen that it was in the Opinion section. I can look into this more later today. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the statement in the article it's backing up is that "opinion journalists...describe it as a form of denialism." It's reasonable to object to an op-ed being used as a source for a statement of fact, but a statement about what opinion journalists have said backed up by four references to opinion columns doesn't seem at all problematic to me. Either way, bad sourcing is not a reason to delete as long as good sourcing is also available. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As remarked in the previous AfDs, the article global warming controversy is about genuine debate on the veracity of the scientific consensus on global warming: the purpose of this article is to focus on politically or otherwise motivated denial which does not seriously address the scientific community's arguments. The nominator says "just because one side disagrees with the other, it doesn't mean they are in denial" which is of course true: however, there are people who are in denial and whether or not they are correct about global warming the fact that they do not engage in scientific debate differentiates them from those on both sides of the argument who do. The word 'denial' is therefore perfectly appropriate in my opinion: it's not about people with legitimate arguments, but those who just say 'no it isn't' without addressing the science. The references in the article indicate that the latter group is significant in size and notable in effect, so the article has a place in the encyclopedia - independent of the existence and size of the former group. As to whether individual facts are correctly backed up: I haven't checked them all but there are certainly plenty of sources there which aren't just opinion pieces, so the subject is notable and can have a well-cited article. Whether it does so currently or whether there are many statements lacking non-op-ed sources is not a question for AfD. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD and plentitude of verifiable sources. Also, I sense some WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW?? When the discussion is 5-to-5? Huh? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a valid topic, and seperate from Global warming controversy, in that while that article is about people who can see the evidence and draw different conclusions, this is an article on the significant amount of people who seem content to stick their fingers in their own ears and the ears of the public and yell "LALALALALALA". The fact that its well sourced doesn't hurt in the slightest. Baased on the size of the article, a merge would be impractical. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unclear on where in WP:NPOV it says as long as you refence biased sources, a biased article is okay. Not to say every single source is biased, but quite a few of them are. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe quite a few are - I haven't checked all or even most of them. But as long as there are enough non-biased sources that a decent article could be built from, and I strongly think there are, the article needs cleanup or rewriting at most but not deletion. Violation of NPOV is not grounds for deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that a proven violation of WP:NPOV is perfectly accptable grounds for deletion. Can anyone provide a second opinion on that?-Brougham96 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a content fork is on the list. NPOV is usually a cleanup problem unless it can't be fixed. If any case of POV problems were a reason for deletion, we wouldn't have any articles. See WP:DEL.

This certainly seems like a fork of Global warming controversy to me, and I really don't thinks this article could be fixed. It's title is even biased. Phrases like..."'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby." ...are speculatory in nature, as they are speculating on the motives of a person or persons. If it were just one sentance it wouldn't be a big deal, but the whole article seems to be built around that idea. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that would be a good/valid reason to delete. But the existence of op-eds in the sources isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources support the statement that the phrase 'climate change denial' is often used to refer to disinformation campaigns. I don't see what's inherently speculative about that claim given that it's attested by multiple reliable sources. Olaf Davis | Talk 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. There are clearly at least some solid sources there. If a source seems inappropriate, the correct course is surely to challenge it at the article, rather than attempt to have the whole article deleted. N p holmes (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic. I must say that I would like to see articles on liberal denialisms, not just conservative ones. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Any suggestions? Hobit (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gender difference denial? Northwestgnome (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since were off topic here, I would submit 9/11 denial would qualify. (note that page is a redirect which isn't subject to WP:NPOV) -Brougham96 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are subject to WP:NPOV: if I made a redirect from 'England's prettiest city' to Ely it'd still be a POV violation. The relevant point is whether the phrase can be sourced to independent sources annd has wide usage, not whether it appears in an article's text, the title or a redirect. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is not about scientists disagreeing. This is about a "denial industry" which has no regard for evidence, much like Holocaust denial. This denial industry has been written about in reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison2 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there might be some issues with POV, but those can be fixed rather than deleted. The article is magnificently well sourced and clearly notable. Reyk _YO! 00:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable topic. Any POV concerns should be tagged as such. POV issues are not a reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a POV fork, hence it will have POV issues. That in itself should be used as a reason for deletion. The article has a lot of citations, so it's not like some extremist tried to take a quick stab at this. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification Your vote is for keep, yet in your comment, you indicate that the article is a POV fork, and as such a deletion would be justified, unless I'm reading you incorrectly. Could you clarify? J. Langton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator falsely claims that the last AfD debate was withdrawn within an hour when in fact it survived 3 hours, 40 minutes and attracted 9 keep votes and 1 merge with no deletes. They quickly withdrew because Stephan made a convincing argument how this article can be made to be am NPOV, balanced accounting of this somewhat controversial theory and had a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing anyway. The debate happened anyway (contrary to what is implied here) and invariably would have been a Keep result. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with prejudice as the subject is undoubtably and verifiably notable (there is a well established denial community, not unlike Holocaust denial and others). Even if it were a POV fork this article size alone (>40k) already nearly justifies splitting and global warming controversy almost certainly should be divided at 150k. Future nominations should be promptly closed too. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the first two voters have history with this topic and it's not surprising that the next two followed the flow. With a dozen or so Keep votes in a row we can't be far off invoking SNOW now. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE Note: first dif above isnt even from the article in question. Sounds like someone went on a fishing expedition Jaimaster (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether people have previous issues or not, let's not let the debate turn into an argument about this. While I can't see this going anywhere but keep, I also don't see much harm in leaving it open the extra <30 hours if a WP:SNOW close is going to irritate people. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie to this debate considering the fair application of Wikipedia's deletion policy I wanted to know why the first votes were Deletes given the previous snowballs, and wasn't in the least bit surprised with what I found (though not the same article, The Great Global Warming Swindle is on topic wouldn't you say?). In any case looking at previous contributions is fair game for such debates: This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments.. Oh, and I agree that we should let this run its course, just pointing out is all. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldnt be suprising that the first people that commented have been involved in the issue before. When the template was added it pinged watch lists. Im sure its fair game to point out that person x has view y shown by dif z (just as its to fair to say you went fishing and didnt catch a whole lot), though I have to say I am lost as to what it has to do with sock puppetry :\ Jaimaster (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if global warming is disputed the existence of global warming delianlist isn't disputed.--OMCV (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have this brilliant hypothesis about electricity being the outcome of the wrath of electricity trolls, who reside inside all electrical equipment. The hypothesis is in excellent agreement with computer models I myself have made. Anyone who doubts the hypothesis is in denial.

The hypothesis of global warming caused caused by CO2 is mostly based on computer models, and it needs considerable rework to be scientifically based:

1. Warming according to the present hypothesis should occur chiefly at Arktis and Antarktis - we observe it at Arktis while Antarktis has been frozen stiff these last 30 years, except for a narrow peninsula stretching towards South America.

2. The upper part of the Troposphere (8-12 km height) over Equator should warm about twice as fast as the surface of the Earth below - doesn't happen.

While some people undoubtedly are in unreflected denial, the science behind the "hot house" hypothesis is flawed and the use of the expresion "Climate change denial" is contrary to the simple scientific rule that those who promote a hypothesis must demonstrate it to be correct, not the opposite. John.St (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us are well convinced by the demonstration of the hypothesis by computer models (which get more refined with every tick of the clock) - including those, like me, who have just joined the discussion. Perhaps you can point us at the Wikipedia policy requiring application of the scientific method for inclusion so I can go about nominating the entire religion category for deletion? WikiScrubber (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this article is not (or should not be) about whether one side or the other has demonstrated the veracity of its position; it's about non-scientific denial. That there is denial of climate change for non-scientific reasons is demonstrably the case even if climate change is incorrect. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is mostly a settled issue in science, and this article documents a phenomena that has been documented in newspapers, books, and scientific publications, thus meeting criteria for an article. Verbal chat

Keep Well sourced and encylopedic article about a notable and specific position in the global warming debate. Could be more NPOV in places, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whitewashing this article would violate WP:FRINGE.Sumthingweird (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubting AGW is not WP:FRINGE as it is easy to nominate prominent adherents Jaimaster (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the sources used are not particularly reliable. More importantly, there's absolutely no reason for this article to have a separate entry from Global warming controversy, as this is just one specific facet of the controversy. The article is poorly-sourced, at least borderline POV, and unnecessary. J. Langton (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just piling on here, but there's not much to add. There are denialists for nearly every reasonable theory or historical fact, including AIDS/HIV, Holocaust, and Global Warming. They discuss a socio-political issue that is notable and interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a fork from the main article for POV. I believe we are changing the climate however this article simply should not be here. It could be renamed but probably should be deleted and any balanced content placed in the main article or in an article discussing alternative views. Mohummy (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think would be a more appropriate name? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olaf Davis and Orangemarlin make the point that this article is about a social movement at least as cogently as I could. Additionally, we very recently discussed the issue of merger with the scientific controversy article, Global Warming Controversy, attaining a consensus that the articles deal with separate topics and WP:CFORK is not being violated. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:56, 4 September 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 Caló (Chicano). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicano Caló words and expressions[edit]

This belongs to dictionary DimaG (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Years ago I was arguing for all "articles" like this to be removed from Wikipedia. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:IINFO as an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of foreign words. Tavix (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Caló (Chicano). Caló? Anyone home? Fink, McCly, fink! Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Caló (Chicano). ¿Como se dice "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" en Caló? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand this correctly, an example of rhyming as used in Chicano Caló (only in English) would be Merge it, Serge? Eauhomme (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. It's too important a cultural phenomenon to throw away. clariosophic (talk) 19:02, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. Please note that this article does not fall under WP:CSD#G4 because it has never been deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pungeon crawler[edit]

Non-notable term used once on a podcast this week. Rob Banzai (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to closing admin: Unless there's some strange outside chance that this article is kept... please note that this article was PRODed a few days ago, and the creator of the article vowed to re-create it over and over if it was deleted. It appears as though they are following through on that promise. For that reason, please consider a delete and salt. (I've already voted delete below.) Randomran (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Word madeup on a podcast - while still more notable than 99% of everything else that falls under WP:MADEUP - that is not difficult to achieve, and it is still madeup nonetheless. Also, the dubious source: http://www.justin.tv/...Pungeon_Crawler_source_for_the_wiki_page, looks like it was created specifically as a source for the article. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and subsequently WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:NOT#OR. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 04:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly made up. If you watch the video that they claim as a "source".. They even say "put that on Wikipedia". -Brougham96 (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OR and also fails WP:MADEUP. You look better naked (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. (article was also already deleted via WP:PROD) MrKIA11 (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism from a single source Ohconfucius (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this made up single source neologism! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. Show me how more than one person has actually used this term in any serious way, and explained what the heck it means with any detail. Randomran (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G10) and salt — Judging from the video, the purpose behind this article seems to be to game the system and to wikibash Wikipedia. MuZemike (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from the video, this is moronic. I mean that in the most WP:civil, WP:NPOV way I can possibly mean that. Randomran (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My recommendation or the article? MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha, the article. Or at least the video that supports making this article. "PUT THIS SHIT ON WIKIPEDIA". Morons. Randomran (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the sucker. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I was the original prodder; my reason of "Neologism with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Zero google hits; zero gnews hits" still stands.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per, er, everyone. Speedy because it's snowing.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salt the earth of this mindless garbage and send it to the pungeon. Violates WP:MADEUP and should have been speedied as nonsense. Nerdluck34 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion Note — While it does not quite meet G10, it certainly does meet G4, and I will WP:BOLDly tag it as such and squash this AfD. MuZemike (talk) 22:00, 31 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 keep, invalid deletion rationale. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Rodriguez[edit]

After constant edit warring and concensus with most of the editors, except one, I am proposing the William Rodriguez page for deletion. Please AFD.Sharphdmi (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: fixed above. lifebaka++ 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the reason for your opinion on deletion. Is edit warring a reason for deletion? Seems to me that rather, it's a reason for educating, cautioning, and disciplining the warriors, and encouraging them to discuss the edit policies and arrive at consensus. Seems to me that people who refuse to explain their edits, don't seem to mind featuring erroneous information, and who cut solid information for bogus reasons need to change their ways. {[User:Contrivance|Contrivance]] (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and verifiable. The nominator appears to have taken exception to the Wrong Version™ of the page being protected. See: Talk:William_Rodriguez#Blocking_of_Page ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no valid rationale given for deletion. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - article subject is notable. Continue to hash out disagreements on the talk page. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 04:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to Sharphdmi's assertions above, it is not even remotely true that there was consensus among the editors except for one, with regard to Sharphdmi's numerous edits that are and were clearly non-neutral. There are many editors who do not agree with Sharphdmi's constant and numerous non-neutral POV edits, and it is Sharphdmi himself who has been doing most of the edit warring over the past year or so (while, in my opinion, utilizing various identities). The article had, in fact, reached a pretty good consensus prior to Sharphdmi's most recent incarnation, and was well on the way to being neutral, informational, and encyclopedic prior to the recent craziness between him and Contrivance. From reading the talk pages, there appears to be a history of Sharphdmi accusing Contrivance of being a particular person in real life, and a history of Sharphdmi accusing Contrivance of having an agenda in real life against Sharphdmi - without any evidence provided by Sharphdmi - so Sharphdmi is not an unbiased source for purposes of nominating this thread for deletion on the basis that he is getting tired of edit warring with Contrivance. Further, it is highly suspicious that Sharphdmi wants the Rodriguez article deleted now, after spending so much time and effort trying to bias it in favour of Rodriguez. It appears that Sharphdmi is motivated by the fact that Rodriguez's many inconsistencies, exaggerations, outlandish conspiracy theories, and unfounded, unsupported accusations and allegations have been brought to light, and it appears that Sharphdmi hopes now to quash the truth rather than promote it. So, Sharphdmi's motivation for nominating this article for deletion appear suspect to me. Thus, I will vote to keep it, unless compelling arguments to the contrary are presented by others, in which case I may change my mind. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy keep There's plain no reason for deletion. Looks very like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above no rational for deletion and seems notable. You look better naked (talk) 11:10, 29 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 Keep per WP:Snow. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Amant High School[edit]

I doubt this is notable. At any rate, it only mentions alumni, and it's poorly written and not citede/ El aprendelenguas (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy keep. "Poorly written" is not a valid reason for deletion. "Not cited" is also not a valid reason for deletion but you could put a CITE tag on it. So we're left with "I doubt this is notable". There isn't a consensus about whether schools are inherently notable or not, but Wikipedia tends to be kind to scholars and educational institutions--I'd personally argue that a high school is notable in its own right.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--recommendation changed to speedy keep because it's snowing.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the invalidity of the reasons offered by the nominator ("poorly written and not citede"^[sic]) and as S Marshall said there is no consensus as to if schools are notable (or criteria to define their notability), that leaves this completely up in the air, but past precedent seems to indicate that schools are notable. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we delete when pages can't be sourced not, as here, when they can but haven't yet been and there are plenty of sources to meet WP:N. Unusually large number of notable alumni, in addition. TerriersFan (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep High schools are notable. Tavix (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable, just needs expansion sources and a major cleanup on the alumni section. RedThunder 11:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots and lots of coverage on Google News, ensuring notability for the school, and a considerable amount of verifiable content. For example, the school's band has played at Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando at least twice and perform nationally.[36] EJF (talk) 14:07, 29 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 Parkway School District. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claymont Elementary School[edit]

Unnotable Elementary school. Tavix (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Parkway School District#Elementary schools per established practice. TerriersFan (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It doesn't make much sense to redirect to the school district as there are a "Claymont Elementary School" in Delaware as well. What makes this school more important than the Delaware school that we have to redirect it to the Missouri school district?Tavix (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we work. We don't keep the most important and drop the rest, we create disambiguation pages. So make this target a dab, and include a link to both school districts on that dab would be the way to handle that. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to school district per TerriersFan. Only passing interest from the local newspaper found. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom but good district site so merge benjicharlton (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Google hits seem to be either directories of schools or non-independent (the school or the district). Google News turns up nothing - I suspect the best sources will be local newspapers - and there is no assertion of notability. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect schools are always up in the air as there is no consensus as to what makes a school notable, however as past precedents would see this redirected to the article about the school district. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Dab; create dab page and make redirect links on it to the appropriate school district articles. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above and WP:SNOW. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:41, 5 September 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. A combination of criteria G3 and A7 apply here. There is clearly hoax content in the article, with bogus claims of political office. Either the article is removed entirely due to the false claims, or the false claims are removed from the article, which leaves us an article about a policeman in Tuvalu—and an article without an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Martineau[edit]

Pure, undiluted hoax, pushed by two SPAs, one of whom vandalized the Tuvalu and related articles. Prod removed by anon IP without comment. RGTraynor 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP. The relevant Google hits (or the lack there of) lead me to concur with the nominator that this is indeed a hoax. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some checking when prodded, clear hoax.John Z (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this sort of nonsense should be speedied forthwith. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that hoaxes are explicitly not grounds for speedy. G1 is specifically for unintelligible gibberish, not for idiocy. RGTraynor 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, G3 is for vandalism - a term that might well be applied to hoaxing. Punkmorten (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.-gadfium 08:49, 30 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LouLou Ferrari[edit]

Non-notable drag performer. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22loulou+ferrari%22 SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails on WP:BIO, as all is available is a single interview. Movingboxes (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a drag performer that owns a non-notable nightclub does not make a person notable, even more so when policies state that one event does not develop notability and even further so when one argues that owning something is not an event. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. You look better naked (talk) 11:11, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Ain't Right[edit]

This is an HBO special that lacks notability. There are also no references to verify the special at hand. Tavix (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and makes no attempt to establish why this is any more notable than any other HBO special. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvageable to Bob Saget, NN on its own. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Basically non notable but if a bit of the material can enhance another article; that's a bonus. --Stormbay (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:42, 5 September 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 CSD G11, blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplaying camp[edit]

Neologism and advertisement DimaG (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question--Why not just use the prod tag? Would be simpler.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add my recommendation if the Afd runs, sorry. Delete.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this meets criteria for speedy deletion G11: Blatant advertising and have tagged it as such. If the admin who responds to the request chooses to let the AFD run then obviously I propose to Delete per notability and promotion issues. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:06, 29 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Saves[edit]

Contested PROD. After doing a cursory search, I could not find any verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability of this product. MuZemike (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability and I can't find anything indicating that it is. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTE. Without significant coverage in reliable sources this is not an encyclopaedic topic, no matter the rather high number of ghits. --Amalthea^Talk 08:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOURCES (by not having any). -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though not a hoax at all, it's non-notable and and is little more then a dictionary definition. If anything, copy to wikitionary. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a non-notable commercial product, so a dictionary term wouldn't make much sense. MuZemike (talk) 20:13, 2 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casha[edit]

Claims notability for being on one Yung Berg song and on a deal with Koch Records. Seems not to be notable yet, per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two references were myspace references, only one wasn't implemented correctly; when I tried to fix it my edit was caught by the spam blacklist (myspace blog). That leaves this article failing the notability guideline related to its topic and dubiously sourced. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has a top 40 pop and top 10 urban single. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe notable, not verifiable. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:43, 5 September 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 Consensous for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Rowsell[edit]

Non-notable junior cyclist, and the claim of winning a gold medal on Beijing is shockingly false. seicer | talk | contribs 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to article being re-created by someone less reckless. Mandsford (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: seems obvious candidate for speedy deletion, as it makes no real claim to notability and is unsourced as well.--Grahame (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ delete (edit conflict) false claim of notability. Per WP:GRAPEVINE incorrect information about living people should be removed; that shortens the article to Erick Rowsell, currently 18, is a cyclist brother to Joanna Rowsell and as notability is not inherited that particular relationship is irrelevant. Additionally, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully" and this article offers no sources. Complete violation of the BLP policies. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 02:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Per the changes made; I still move to delete, given that this person is only notable for one event, if other information comes to light then I may change my stance, but more now, delete as not-notable ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep Hold on a second. There actually is a Erick Roswell, and he did recently win gold at the British Men's Junior Road Racing Championships . I am not sure if that is notable enough for an article or not. spryde | talk 02:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the article using actual sources and stuff ;) I am still digging. spryde | talk 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Spryde's saved it.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE yet since he had only competed in under 18 championships so far. WP:ATHLETE requires having competed "at the highest level in amateur sports" which is not applicable to junior championships. If there was significant media coverage, one might make an exception under the general WP:BIO provisions but that does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I edit-conflicted with Nsk92 yesterday when I was going to post a comment much like his, and I decided to think about the matter further before adding my opinion. After consideration, I still agree with his reasoning that this doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Deor (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is a Junior national champion in an Olympic sport who has had media coverage [37] Racklever (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has mentions in multiple reliable sources (cyclingnews.com, Cycling Weekly) about more than one event (British Junior champs, Tour of Wales) so would seem to just about meet general notability criteria. Severo^TC 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A national champion, as it says above is referred to in multiple reliable sources. He is a member of the British Cycling system which developed riders such as the Olympic medal winning Steven Burke (who is two years older), few riders get selected for this so the National Governing Body obviously though Rowsell's performances were notable.Thaf (talk) 10:34, 30 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.(Non-admin-closure). Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of AMD processors[edit]

Article does not contain all AMD processor information and seems to contain the same information as on could find by looking through List of AMD microprocessors. SOL Basic 01:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see nom's declaration of duplication on the List of article. Since "Comparison" is a tabular article and "List of" is a simple list, they clearly contain different information. And as for not all AMD processors being provided, that is a reason for expansion, not deletion. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two articles contain substantially different content, enough so to warrant two separate articles. This is a wiki; we don't delete articles because they are unfinished. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two articles are entirely different. Whereas the "List of" article is simply a list, the "Compaison of" article contains tables of more detailed information. There is no duplication of information. As for not all AMD processors being described, it is not a reason for deleting an article. Rilak (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you and am now going to start expanding the article to attempt to include the other types of AMD processors, ~~if someone could close this AFD, I would appreciate it.~~ Thanks SOL Basic 13:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of the older model processors, and looked through the newer. It seems to be up to date. So I say Keep. SOL Basic 14:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rilak. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as when I look into the current versions of the articles I see them being very different, the List being a list and the Comparison being a table with lots of data. Perhaps you were talking about previous versions of the articles? NerdyNSK (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rilak. SF007 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SNOWBALL.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 04:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (btw...SNOW already?) as per Rilak. I am wondering if someone experienced forgot to log in or are we actually having non-vandal anon IPs participating in AfDs now... - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely WP:SNOW now. WikiScrubber (talk) 18:35, 1 September 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 artist does not currently meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Smashville^BONK! 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sammeroff[edit]

Article created by COI editor using what appears to be several socks. All refs except one point to his own webpage, the one independent ref that there is isn't enough to establish notability. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: fails WP:MUSIC, notability not established. Cliff smith ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dubiously sourced BLP that does not meet the notability requirements for a music related article. It may also be worth noting that the account which removed the CSD tag has edited nothing other than that article and the user who created the article has edited nothing other than the article itself and the redirect page Jono (currently points to Jonathan Coleman). ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can be established thus under the following categories:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
---sources cited include the jTelegraph and the Sunday Herald, both established, highly respectable and reliable newspaper publications. There have been many more but these are the only I could find that were still available online.

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country
---jOnO has toured the UK with widespread coverage from numerous BBC radio stations, appearing at interviews & live sessions lasting up to an hour long in length.

12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
---jOnO performed a 1/2 hour live session and interview on the Alan Thompson drivetime show on BBC Wales which broadcasts across the entire country.

ooops i forgot to sign! :D Peenapplay (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_Sammeroff"

Question is the telegraph piece referenced in the article. I can't find it. The Sunday Herald one a real short. As for the radio interviews is there any way that you can prove what you are saying here. Do you appear on a BBC website anywhere? The words "non trivial" are the important ones here. In particular can you prove the Alan Thompson interview, do radio stations publish records of who appeared on them? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Thanks a lot for giving this article your attention Theresa. The telegraph piece was referenced but I believe someone removed it. I have added that source in again. Also removed for reasons unclear to me, but now reinstated are references to BBC 6 Music and Myspace Radio; both major UK radio stations. The Sunday Herald article may be short but it is by no means "trivial" according to Wikipedia's own explanation of what qualifies as trivial on their page on "notability". Also added is another link to a non-trivial article in The Sun newspaper. It also states on that page that only one of the twelve criteria are required to prove notability. This now qualifies the article for criteria no.1 of establishing notability.

Regarding criteria no.4 and no.12 of notability, which the second part of your query is addressing, radio stations are not bound to publish records online of playlists and of who appeared and when. In fact BBC radio stations tend to remove their archived playlists after a few weeks. The only referenced BBC station that keeps their archived playlists online is BBC 6 Music. I cannot prove the other ones with online playlists. However if you would like evidence that he was at the cited BBC radio stations there are pictures of jOnO with all the DJs on the photo page of his website. source: [38] Is that worth citing in the article? I didn't think so! :D
Peenapplay (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

I would also like to say that information proving notability is constantly being removed from the page since this debate began. It is possible that these are being incorrectly removed by a bot. I am saving my edits in notepad anyway. Peenapplay (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

Comment: Because you are attempting to assert notability by using myspace links. Myspace is not a reliable source and information from there does not confer notability. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: it's Myspaces ONLY UK radio station and is therefore not your typical myspace link. This is not to confer notability; it is simply a point of interest, as not just anyone can get played on there :) Peenapplay (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

If he were notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia there would be multiple references to him in reliable sources. The Google test isn't a fool-proof method but it does give a reasonable place to start, and "Johnathan Sammeroff" only returns seven results. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Bah, sorry about that. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Firstly, you mis-spelled the name. Secondly, look up his stage name "jono" and his album name "sentimental anarchist" or his single "stuck in the city" in google and see how many results come up. Thirdly, even though you will find this google search to be fruitful, this has absolutley nothing to do with whether or not the article warrants satisfactory criteria for entry into Wikipedia according to notability requirements anwyay. Fourthly, I have demonstrated that satisfactory criteria cited by Wikipedia to meet notability requirements have been met :)
Thanking you, Peenapplay (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Peenapplay[reply]

Comment Looking at google Sentimental anarchist" jono gives 81 hits. That's not that many actually, but it's quality that counts here so we need to go through and find the good ones. My thoughts at the moment are that you are not famous enough at the moment (But I will look for the refs later). I see that you have just released a single, it would be interesting to see how that does. A chart success would definitely tip you in my eyes but I can't help thinking that your motivation for writing this page about yourself now is to try and foster that chart success. I'd much rather it happened first then the wikipage. Still I will look at the references more closely in the morning, I'm too tired to do it tonight. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Thanks for your comments Theresa. But I can't help wondering if I am missing something. No one is taking my side on clear evidence of notability. Whether or not you personally think that jOnO is "famous enough" does not really have anything to do with notability criteria cited by Wikipedia. It seems clear to me that being famous enough and meeting notability criteria are in fact one in the same. Therefore, jOno is both notable and famous enough. Thanks also to everyone else who has taken the time to join in this debate. Even though it is me vs the rest of you, I have still really been enjoying it :)
Best wishes to all from Raymond Peenapplay (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)peenappley[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Shop Awards[edit]

Contested prod. There is a notable award bearing that name, but it is for the best fish & chips restaurant in the UK. This article has nothing to do with that, and has no reliable secondary sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Keep It's right to say that this article does need sources and citation and it was of a completely unacceptable quality and tone in its original form. But I have to disagree (as stated on the discussion page of the article itself) with the idea that it should be deleted. This is a genuine awards scheme and is well known in the advertising and design industries, particularly in the UK. It is notable as a rare awards scheme that focuses on ideas in that it does not require creative work to have been published or commissioned in order to qualify for entry. Though I can't verify this, and therefore would not put it in the entry, I believe the scheme is the first and only one of its type. The original grounds for deletion were lack of notability. I would say that the calibre and notability of the scheme's judges is proof enough of its notability. Names like Michael Wolff, co-founder of Wolff Olins, NB Studio, Lewis Moberly, and Leo Burnett are significant within these industries. These were all involved in the 2008 judging panel. The awards would not attract such a panel of judges if they were not relevant and important. As for sources, please see the Design week citation now in the main article. Design Week is a reliable and secondary source. This is a genuine and important awards scheme that is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. It does need further improvement. But where articles can be improved they should not be deleted. I believe this should address your concerns and that the deletion tag should be removed. If you have further concerns please post them here. Robiati (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references appear to confirm the notability of the award. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete doesn't seem to have much news coverage, and what there is now includes a call to help save the WP article! [39] -Hunting dog (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references do nothing to indicate any widespread notability - the one ref in Design Week is really it, that I can see. If it's got more actual media refs, then let's see those sources; until then, it fails WP:N. The meatpuppet call doesn't help at all, either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More secondary sources are certainly needed. But to quote from WP:N "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable". As a professional within the design and advertising industry but with no connection to the Chip Shop Awards I believe this is a notable topic. I think the Design Week article and Michael Wolff's comments within it are good indication that the notability of this topic can be established. On that basis it should not be deleted but tagged for improvement, as it has been. Wikipedia is not about instant perfection. Robiati (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got five days during which this runs, if you can find sources that back this up as notable, I'd be happy to reconsider my opinion. At present, the awards seem to be confined to the industry involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support the point about the need for more sources but I believe deletion is premature and excessive in this case. On the industry-specific nature of the topic, I wasn't aware that this in itself was a reason for deletion. If this is the case it would certainly strengthen the argument for deletion here since these awards, though in fact open to anyone, will be of limited interest outside the design and advertising industries. Though on that basis you could argue for deleting articles such as that on IMechE. I don't see how industry-specificity is a relevant measure of notabilty. Robiati (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because other things exist isn't a good argument for keeping, and associations are often notable; my point here is this isn't notable enough to be of interest to generate more than a couple of short refs in industry-specific publications. If you have other references, please add them in the five days of this discussion to be considered. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources haven't shown up. Time's up. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 5 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing of Ingo[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that shows the book's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the article content appears to be copied from the blurb. Look at the synopsis under "Product Description" at this Amazon link. Additionally, offers no claims of notability. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series of books which are also notable, by a prize-winning author, published by a major publisher. The blurb definitely needs work, but that's not cause for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not inherited, so any claims to fame from relation to the other books are moot in this case. The book has not been the subject of non-trivial works (Notability (books) criterion #1), it has not won a major award (criterion #2, the author may have but that notability is not inherited), the book has not been made into a film (#3), nor is it the subject on instruction at schools (#4) and the author is not historically significant (#5. She is notable, but not historically significant). ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poor article, but book by notable author, part of tetralogy. PamD (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of that stuff makes it notable. There isn't any reliable sources independent of the subject, it has not won an award, the author is not historically significant, it has not been adapted, and it has not won an award. Schuym1 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has received no coverage from any major media organization. I cannot find even one reliable source for the article. This book is not mentioned on Google News and has very few Google hits from which reliable sources can be derived. Perhaps this article could be merged into the author's article, Helen Dunmore. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo WikiScrubber (talk) 07:44, 5 September 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 moot , speedied by Lar, see below. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiron (baby)[edit]

Delete. Not notable beyond WP:ONEEVENT, the poor child only survived four days. Already mentioned at Polycephaly#Humans which seems more appropriate. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polycephaly.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (edit conflict) I agree that the mention at Polycephaly is satisfactory and is inline with WP:ONEEVENT's "Cover the event, not the person" policy. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polycephaly; merge any info. if appropriate, but it looks like a rd will do. JJL (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one event, little room for expansion; merge any missing info into Polycephaly#Humans. Redirecting this title seems unnecessary as Kiron itself is a dab page. Maralia (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Polycephaly.~~ The child was mentioned in reliable sources, and probably deserves a mention in the parent article. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the child is already mentioned in the parent article, significantly more so than the other five. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case... Redirect to Polycephaly. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough this article was a test. I conducted a test to see how long it would be before it was up for AFD. I would have just added the info in the parent article but I wanted to see how long the non notability brigade would take to come across it. Surprisingly it took this long. It is still referenced though to notable sources. Merge all info into the parent article as suggested as it is a notable case of the condition certainly but perhaps not for its own articles. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you were essentially disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting wikipedia? Go and ride your bike elsewhere. If thats what you call spending time creating content and seeking out references on a curent notable event disruption. And no I didn't create the article to prove a point, I did wonder how long it would last as a seperate article thats all. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you didn't create the article as a test to see how long it was before the "non-notability brigade" got to it? Because if you had just added the content to the parent article to start with, instead of forking it, there would be no AFD and everyone who has contributed to this AFD wouldn't have wasted their time. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find The Bald One's statement to be amazingly arrogant. It smacks of WP:POINTY, WP:OR and borders on WP:Trolling. The author has confirmed that this was a deliberate test of WP process and not intended to remain as a genuine article. Disgraceful behavior. 220.253.176.247 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's are often a waste of time. If the nominator had asked me forthright if I thought the information was best presented in the parent article I would have fully agreed and saved you all wasting your time with another AFD when there are more serious problems to fix. Nobody can deny that the case it worthy of mentioning there. Most of time AFDs can be prevented if the nominator shows some courtesy to the creator and either asks him to expand or improve it to assert notability or propose to redirect or delete it first before going ahead with the AFD. I'm not saying that some AFDs aren't necessary and aren't a good solution to some articles where notability is debatable and a wider consensus may be needed, but in many circumstances such as this one it is obviously more appropriate to cover the event in the parent article as it is a notable event rather than a notable person. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention the poor baby on Polycephaly. Redirecting seems unnecessary, since no article currently links to Kiron (baby) and it's very unlikely that someone will be looking for an article called exactly "Kiron (baby)". --Damiens.rf 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-Delete as moot, since creator agrees and we're going offtopic here. --Damiens.rf 12:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect certainly. If you look at Kiron the articl eis linked there. The redirect is appropriate because somebody may be looking for an article on the baby in Bangladesh. If they find it and it redirects to the main article, problem solved. Other than that delete the article and redirect and just have the link to the main article from the Kiron page. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Kiron already links to dicephalus. Wouldn't it be pointless to have it to link to Kiron (baby) when it's just a redirect to dicephalus? I'm for K.I.S.S.. --Damiens.rf 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That page currently breaks WP:MOSDAB for having multiple blue links per line. I'll fix that now. If the article is deleted then the entry can be changed to "Kiron, a baby born with dicephalus (two heads) in Bangladesh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediLofty (talk • contribs)

Yes exactly thats what I meant The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this article. Someone might be looking for an article about that baby. It was a very well publicized story. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person will more likely try the article called "Kiron", and not "Kiron (baby)". That's why I believe JediLofty's suggestion above is the best option. --Damiens.rf 20:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect is pointless - this is not a disambiguation page, so no-one will land here. The redirect should be applied to Kiron, not this page. 220.253.176.247 (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this article as a courtesy to the victim's family. If the outcome of this discussion is keep, which I doubt it will be, someone can restore it. But this is such a clear BLP issue I see no reason for the article to remain and get further picked up by the Google spiders meanwhile. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KB Theatres[edit]

Non notable epicAdam (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning towards Weak keep. No opinion on this yet, but I have several things to note: (1) According to this there were apparently a total of 19 theatres across the life of the chain. (2) The actual name seems to have been K-B Theatres, with a hyphen (3) The Washington Post referred to it as the area's largest theatre chain, as of 1980... and the DC area is obviously a pretty major market. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to a reliable, verifiable source they are notable, the fact that it was published in 1980 is irrelevant given that Notability is not temporary.

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Sugggest that nominator relist the rest separately. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (character)[edit]

Delete as they all fail WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS

Dalejenkins | 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aladdin and Jasmine are both notable, as both have become significant Disney characters with a "life" outside the original film. As for the rest, there might be a couple of merge possibilities in there, but I don't see anything that calls for outright deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aladdin, Jasmine, Iago. All are notable, and indeed are pervasive characters in popular culture. Weak Keep on Magic Carpet for being less pervasive. The others should probably be merged into collective character pages for the movies/TV series. -Dewelar (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aladdin, Jasmine, and Iago. I think that the rest should be merged. Schuym1 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aladdin, Iago, and Jasmine, merge the others. JuJube (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Aladdin, Iago, Jasmine and merge the others. Speedy because it's snowing.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree with this -- maybe create a new AfD just for Magic Carpet (Aladdin), which lacks consensus either way. -Dewelar (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aladdin, Jasmine, Iago... and I'd vote for the Magic Carpet too, since it had its own animation team, just like the main characters. Aladdin and Jasmine most certainly do have notability outside the Disney film Mandsford (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have merged it....Aladdin characters Schuym1 (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have undone your redirects to the page. They should only be redirected if there is consensus generated here that they be merged. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it's a good idea to be mixing movie and TV series characters into a single file as Schuym1 has done. There's also already a page at Minor characters in Aladdin that some of these characters belong in. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I put a csd-g7 on the article that I created. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) Aladdin, Jasmine and Iago; notable Disney characters. Delete the rest as they have already been merged to Aladdin characters, with possible exception of Magic Carpet (weak keep) as it had its own animation team (as others have pointed out). ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 02:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I propose to Merge the rest, I didn't realise they had been merged and redirected during the course of this AFD. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 02:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alladin, Jasmine and Iago. Notable Disney characters with considerable independent notability. Not sure about the others (although Magic Carpet probably deserves a keep too), but it would be much better to unpackage this AfD into several separate ones. Nsk92 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as community consensus shows Alladin, Jasmine and Iago to be notable characters. Take Magic Carpet (Aladdin) and the others to a separate AfD. Ottre (talk) 06:12, 29 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Studies Foundation[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the information is correct, then i think that it deserves an article. However, i tried to Google up sources for verification and couldn't find any. So it fails Verifiability. I couldn't find the website of the foundation, and i couldn't find prof. Wilbert Staynes Richardson mentioned anywhere outside Wikipedia. It may even be a hoax. If sources for verification are provided, then it should be kept. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and almost certainly a hoax. The Institute has no web site, an absurdity in itself for a "nationally known" organization that publishes a journal and hosts an annual conference. I can't locate any references to Richardson or to the Foundation in Google Scholar or any other search I've tried. "The Critic" would be an unusual title for a journal of Islamic studies, and the stated topic "abnormal Islamic psychology", is off-kilter. The University of Pennsylvania library catalog does not include this journal or any books published by this foundation. The article claims that the Foundation is on the UCSD campus, but the UCSD web site has no mention of it at all.

The article has been substantively edited by only one editor, User:Edgarallenpoe, who made two edits to this article, but never anything else. One user, User:Projectuser, claims to verify that the Institute does exist but has no history of editing Wikipedia except this one claim.

The amount of available information about this organization should be at least comparable to them amount available about, say, the Penn Genome Frontiers Institute, my employer. But it is not only much less, it is exactly zero. There is not one shred of reliable, objective evidence that this organization even exists. It cannot be anything but a hoax. -- Dominus (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax, or indistinguishable from a hoax. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Related biography on Mark Outland is of equally suspicious status (comments at Talk:Mark Outland will file AfD when I have time). Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has aleady been already AfD-ed by David Eppstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Outland. Nsk92 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. Most likely a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax. I tried searching the UCSD web site and found nothing; UCSD certainly has Islamic studies experts (e.g. Hasan Kayali) but their pages don't mention this supposed foundation. For that matter, "foundation" is a strange name for an academic research unit as this claims to be; "center" would be far more likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, attack page.John Z (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried every approach I knew on this and found nothing. I'm not sure it's a hoax exactly. I think it's a former local organization within a university department set up solely as an minor administrative or financial measure to sponsor a few unpublished unnotable lectures that has disappeared without any traces, even at that department. DGG (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that it is still hosting its annual conference and publishing its quarterly journal. -- Dominus (talk) 20:53, 2 September 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Levkovich[edit]

Unreferenced WP:COI vanity article from an apparently non-notable Javascript programmer. McGeddon (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. I cannot find a single reference to him in any reliable source -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable autobio. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:05, 30 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.