Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirected to Saint Catherine Labouré and closing this discussion as moot. I have to admit that I did a double take when seeing this up for deletion. The article was a very slight stub about a St. Louis elementary school. It seems that redirecting this to the page about the saint is the Obvious Right Thing. If a fuller article about the school should be made, it should be made under a disambiguating title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catherine Laboure

This is an unnotable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 20:31, 30 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) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. RockManQ (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the topic is deemed unnotable, we should convert the page into a redirect for Catherine Labouré. Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article title were actually about the school, I would have suggested a redirect to St._Louis,_Missouri#Private_education, but since the title is so vague, a redirect to the saint page seems more appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 04:25, 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 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omarion's third album

Another unnamed future album. See WP:HAMMER. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pray for Deletion- Crystal, Hammer, you name it. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a crystal hammer. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop, hammertime. JuJube (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal Hammer I like that, I may use that myself from now on :) doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smite this with the hammer: no title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by hitting it with the crystal hammer. Edison2 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.vsd.nu

Does not appear to be a notable website. Defunct as well, for over five years, so unlikely to grow in notability. rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, the website is not notable; it does not meet WP:WEB, it does not meet WP:N, and the website is defunct. This is not About Us. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB and the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 3 September 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) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:WEB Tavix (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not notable and specifically fails WP:WEB --Pmedema (talk) 00:24, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Men Rule

Despite being in print for more than 15 years, the book does not seem to have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Even its controversial topic does not seem to have been enough to generate third party interest in writing much about the book or commenting on its place in society. There does not seem to be enough reliable, third-party, published source material for a Wikipedia article on the topic. It probably can be covered in Steven Goldberg sufficiently. Suntag (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] seems like an impressive review. I'm puzzled as to how the nom concludes no coverage exists; I see a lot of citations of this book, and that one very lengthy review... it seems there's a lot of stuff to be found out there. --Rividian (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see a lot of unrelated hits at Excite.com, as well as some related hits for online shopping sites, and a few consumer review sites. We delete way too many articles out of sheer laziness. The article may never be able to obtain featured article status, but there should be enough reliable information out there to at least keep a stub about the book. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first edition, published in 1972, was instrumental in winning the now uncontroversial "anthropological consensus" (see "Patriarchy" Britannica) that all known societies have been patriarchal. The first edition also popularised the rationale that hormonal effects on brain structure could explain the data. Brain Sex, contemporary with Why Men Rule (the revised and expanded edition), brought awareness of the hormonal model to public attention. There's very little that's controversial in Why Men Rule. It's old news, well established in many subsequent publications, and MRI and genetic results reinforce the cruder hormonal results. Feminist anthropologists like Cynthia Eller even extend Goldberg's data into prehistory. Cognitive Scientists like Stephen Pinker and Evolutionary Biologists discuss the same conclusion.

Why Men Rule explains the foundation for feminism, if men didn't rule, women wouldn't need to organize to challenge the imbalance. Many feminists, like Naomi Wolf, writing in 2008, champion the welfare of women, clearly cognisant of the anthropological and biological data. It is purely a matter of history that Why Men Rule, in its first edition, was the earliest attempt to collate the data and observe the correlation between hormonal effects and the sociological category of patriarchy.

Why Men Rule contains a lengthy (almost tedious) chapter supplying answers to all criticisms of the first, 1972, edition. To my knowledge, there was no new criticism of WMR, simply because by 1991 the views it expressed had become scientific consensus. It makes two claims: all known societies patriarchal (Britannica calls this "consensus"), male and female brains in Homo sapiens include some substantial hormonally caused differences (well-known scientific datum, MRI since the 90s has given us pictures).

The point of the WMR article is that it provides an opportunity to lay out the argument of the book for a reader's inspection, something that would be inappropriate in the same level of detail at Steven Goldberg. There was a storm of criticism of the 1972 edition, which is discussed comprehensively in WMR although by that time the criticism had been essentially rendered obsolete by popularisation of the relevant science.

WMR is a classic work, still cited in academic literature, by scholars both progressive and conservative.

Nicole M. Capezza, "Homophobia and Sexism: The Pros and Cons to an Integrative Approach", Journal Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 41 (2007): 248–253.
Catherine Hakim, "Dancing with the Devil? Essentialism and other feminist heresies", British Journal of Sociology 58 (2007): 123–132.

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are several more reliable sources, these along with what has been mentioned above prove that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself and therefore passes WP:BK
- Byfield, Ted. "A sociologist explains why men make such disappointing women." Alberta Report / Newsmagazine 21, no. 4 (January 10, 1994): 44. Abstract: Considers sociologist Simon Goldberg's `Why Men Rule,' a book which explains how the feminist movement, in educating women to see the roles associated with males as the worthwhile ones, has left the feminist role diminished and the masculine role inflated.
- Weeks, Jeffrey. "Telling stories about men." Sociological Review 44, no. 4 (November 1996): 746-756., Abstract: Reviews several books about men. "The Making of Anti-Sexist Men," by Harry Christina; "Masculinities," by R.W. Connell; "Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance," by Steven Goldberg.
- Ridley, Mark. "Patriarchy is avoidable." TLS (July 1994): 5., Abstract: Reviews the book `Why Men Rule: A theory of male dominance,' by Steven Goldberg.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the sources listed above there are loads more found by a Google Books search such as a four page discussion of the book here and five pages here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 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. While there were several comments from unregistered or new users which are customarily discounted, that didn't knock out enough support to warrant deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gallagher (footballer)

Football player who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but prod removed by IP without explanation.

Also nominating Darren McKenna and Vinny Perth who play for the same club and have never played in a fully professional league. Prods removed by same IP with claim that prodding them was vandalism. Same IP also removed the AfD tag from this article on another player from the same club, which is also heading for deletion. Another AfD on a player from the same club also recently closed as delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep changed to Keep~~ I'm seeing several relevent hits in Excite, but I'm not sure that these articles are factually acurate. Please note that this is not the first time the articles have been to AfD, and they were kept last time. We delete way too many articles out of sheer laziness. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a link to the previous AfD debates? I can't find any previous AfDs linking to any of the articles, and there is nothing on the talk page. If there was a past AfD it may have been do to lack of clarity on whether the Irish league was fully professional or not, but now it is clear that it isn't.[2] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these pages up for deletion?? These are League of Ireland players and no they are not professional as only some of the premier clubs are. So what? There are links provided to prove that they play for these clubs. BTW the Irish League is in Northern Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk • contribs)

Delete All per nom. Quentin X (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These clubs seem pro, and that allows them to pass WP:ATHLETE. I've heard there was a debate a while back where a soccer player (yes, soccer) from Iceland was kept because it was determined that the league he was in was the highest achievable for him. If I'm wrong in saaying these are pro, please tell me why. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "If I'm wrong in saaying these are pro, please tell me why" - see this news story, which establishes that at least 33% of the teams in the league are not professional, which means it isn't a fully pro league as required by WP:ATHLETE - ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every club in the League of Ireland pays its players. They are semi professional. With all due respect this is a facile, pedantic argument. Are you going to delete almost 1,200 League of Ireland players?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if they haven't played in a fully professional league, then yes, because they fail to meet the criteria. I don't see how the fact that these people clearly fail WP:ATHLETE is facile or pedantic. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good point above. A lot of fans have created pages for LOI players and you want to delete them? Changing the criteria rather than needlessly deleting pages would be a better start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that "A lot of fans have created pages" is totally irrelevant (and if anything, is actually slightly negative, as fans tend to be somewhat biased and unwilling to admit that their subjects do not pass the notability threshold - see WP:FANCRUFT). As for changing the policy, go ahead and try; but for now it is clear: Not played in a fully professional league = no article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This side has played in European-wide competitions; it has won honours in competition with professional sides. Football in the Republic of Ireland is run on the margins between professional and semi-professional, but it not non-professional (in the sense of being amateur). Similarly, the teams are run as professional business concerns (and are punished for not adhering to good business practice: [3]), so that although the players may not derive the whole of their living from football, they are nonetheless retained by businesses in order to play football, which is the business carried on by their clubs. In that sense then, the league is unarguably a wholly professional one, even if the players are not all fully professional and that seems to be the notability test. The problem here may be a lack of clarity about what makes a person a "professional" sportsman. On another note, independent sources (including Irish national broadcaster, www.rte.ie and other national print media outlets) refer to this guy and his colleagues so he may well pass general notability if re-written with more refs. Brammarb (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE doesn't say anything about playing in Europe or in a league with fully professional sides. There is no lack of clarity whatsoever; it must be a fully professional league, and the ROI leagues are not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What about Wikipedia:FOOTYN? I am a little uncertain about the status of this guideline, but on the specific sub-category of footballers, it seems that these guys fulfil the second sentence of guideline 1 subject to references being provided and some of them will fulfil criterion 2 if they played in Longford Town's UEFA Cup run. It seems to me that if the proper references of national level football +/- European football (within the professional UEFA structure) are provided, then these guys should be kept. Will try to provide this info over the next day or so, if time permits. Brammarb (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FOOTYN was not accepted by the community so should be ignored. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've had a few AfDs previously for players in national-level leagues from major countries where are not completely professional and the result has been that the articles should be kept; this is not different. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, perhaps you could help us by giving us a few examples. I don't/can't recall any. --Jimbo^[online] 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they did, it was an error, as they very clearly fail WP:ATHLETE. Look at the two other AfDs linked in the intro of this AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say that one was an error; suggesting that 100's of articles of fully professional Irish football players, that play on fully professional teams, who meet WP:FOOTYN be deleted, simply because a few of the clubs in the top league in the country are not quite fully professional, violates WP:CS, WP:BIAS, and is WP:POINT. Please don't do it. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd say that repeatedly !voting keep on articles that you know fail WP:ATHLETE, consistently referring to WP:FOOTYN when you've been told tens of times that it's irrelevant, and attempting to downplay the fact that 5/12 clubs in the league are not fully-professional is not only a violation of WP:POINT, but also a serious violation of WP:DICK. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:14, 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. Mr.Z-man 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim entertainers

Biography of living persons issues here. There is *no* sourcing, and I've already seen complaints about it such as in otrs:1882285 in which one list member was not happy to be added. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unmanageable and poorly defined list. As NonvocalScream points out, this has no sources. If a list of this type is really necessary, and I see no reason to believe that it is, perhaps it should be split into separate, manageable lists like Musicians who self-identify as Muslim,etc. as "entertainers" is so vague that this could encompass any number of professions. A ni Mate 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone is on that list that doesn't belong there, than that indivdual should be removed. The list should be moved to List of Muslim entertainers, but it should not be deleted. We have lists very similar to this one, including Lists of African Americans, List of Christians, List of Italian actors, List of military brats, List of military commanders, and List of cheerleaders. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Let's try and keep this debate focused to this article only. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once again agree with NonvocalScream. I still don't see any argument that explains why this list is considered encyclopedic. I'd have no problem if this list had defined boundaries, but this is just a list of random, not sourced people who may or may not be Muslims and may or may not be entertainers. A ni Mate 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a major breach of WP:BLP and WP:REF as there are no references to support claims of religious affiliation. Placement on the list appears to be based mainly on the name, race or nationality of the individual. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant intersection of religion and profession. Bulldog123 (talk) 23:45, 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. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Corsham School

Non-notable school, per WP:ORG. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant high school with a sixth form. Plenty of sources are available to meet WP:ORG. We improve such stubs not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand We delete too many articles out of sheer laziness. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The consensus is that all high schools are notable; this is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as WP:Snow. All high schools are notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:11, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeyfield School

Non-notable school, per WP:ORG. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant high school with a sixth form. Plenty of sources are available to meet WP:ORG. We improve such stubs not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The consensus is that all high schools are notable; this is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as WP:Snow. All high schools are notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:14, 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. A portion of this discussion was invalidated, because poor-quality articles do not get dealt with as such at WP:AFD; instead we send them through the slightly longer process at WP:EDIT. But this article's subject does indeed fail notability, and therefore the article is to be deleted. But not because it is rubbish, or because nobody cares enough about it to fix it. In fact, we recently decided that there is no deadline. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Henschke

Article does not establish any notability. According to Imdb or filmportal.de he was indeed the producer of several films, which in itself are notable, but not incredibly important either. There is zero biographical information even on filmportal.de, which is usually quite extensive when it comes to German film people. This indicates that he probably does not satisfy the notability criterion, in particular subject of independent coverage. All I could find are him being mentioned in connection with films produced by him, and that is it, nothing more. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Does being the producer of award winning films count as notable? Schmidt, ^MICHAEL

Q. 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Did a bit of cleanup per MOS. I'll take a look and see if I can find notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete rubbish article - if someone cares they'll fix it. WikiScrubber (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a rubbish article is not enough to delete. However the article does not establish notability and I'll lean towards a delete. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know but I'm more likely to want to find reasons to hang on to a good one. WikiScrubber (talk) 23:55, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Sole

Was previously deleted as he failed WP:FOOTYN notability. Fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. That level is not notable. GauchoDude (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is incorrect, as he clearly passed WP:FOOTYN, having played for Woking which fits the criteria of "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (FPNL club).". Although he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE he also meets WP:BIO with national media articles such as this. Nfitz (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that article is hardly enough for him to pass WP:BIO. The BBC produce lots of articles on non-league footballers who fail WP:ATHLETE announcing contract deals etc. WP:FOOTYN isn't a notability criteria, it doesn't over rule WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 20:23, 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. BJ^Talk 02:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and Hell's first studio album

Delete as an unnamed album. More info can be found at WP:HAMMER. Tavix (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime you see an album with no hype, delete JuJube (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: another case of WP:HAMMER; no title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator this is yet another unnamed album which does not conform to our inclusion guidelines for such articles. RFerreira (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this article but can see it is non-notable. Please use proper edit summaries when you nominate something for AfD. It was something I was picked up for earlier and I think it is good practice. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a vote, but a consensus. Your "vote" isn't needed here unless you can bring up a convincing argument or policy. Tavix (talk) 02:40, 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 Redirected to Saint Catherine Labouré and closing this discussion as moot. I have to admit that I did a double take when seeing this up for deletion. The article was a very slight stub about a St. Louis elementary school. It seems that redirecting this to the page about the saint is the Obvious Right Thing. If a fuller article about the school should be made, it should be made under a disambiguating title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catherine Laboure

This is an unnotable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 20:31, 30 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) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. RockManQ (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the topic is deemed unnotable, we should convert the page into a redirect for Catherine Labouré. Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article title were actually about the school, I would have suggested a redirect to St._Louis,_Missouri#Private_education, but since the title is so vague, a redirect to the saint page seems more appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 04:25, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Studio Sound Ensemble

Is there anything really notable about this group of studio musicians. Nothing substanially sourced, and overall not very successful or noteworthy Wolfer68 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor quality, unsourced article. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:00, 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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. transfers

This page should be deleted because the information present already exists in this list, the article also flls foul of guidelines on transfer articles, which state they should not exist on their own but as part of the statistics and records article of the respective club. NapHit (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't need its own article, Liverpool stats and Recs is sufficient. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, info already exists on existing article. Giant Snowman 17:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list available in existing article. Quentin X (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant info. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burham Marsh

A coatrack of information about a marsh. Seems to be copied from a visitors map of some sort. Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As with most of the articles in Category:Nature reserves in Kent, this is scraped from the Kent Wildlife Trusts website by its own webmaster, who disclosed the conflict of interest and addressed copyright issues in the articles' various talk pages. Some of them may not be particularly notable in themselves, and might best be merged. Others could be expanded by other editors. In any event, they bear watching because Wikipedia is not your organization's web host. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned it up... I don't like it when people deposit stuff that clearly is not an encyclopedia article. But now it should be somewhat readable. --Rividian (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me now it has been tidied. Perhaps an addition of a photograph or image would help. Keep.Tinminer (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verified geographical feature. I don't see how this can be called a "coatrack" when all of the article content, in both the original and current forms of the article, is directly relevant to the article subject. The only problem was with the article format, which is an issue for editing, as has been done, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accessible SSSI, it seems notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 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. Anyone wanting the deleted content for the purpose of merging can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tian-Yau Conflict

This page is little more than a collection of unsubstantiated libelous rumors sourced from Chinese blogs, and is a violation of WP:BLP. It seems to be about some old and obscure academic spat that is best forgotten. R.e.b. (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shing-Tung Yau as it seems to revolve mainly around him and none of the information seems to actually be in the article on him. The editor who nominated didn't seem to consider whether the information could be included elsewhere and jumped right to AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the references are blogs and do not meet WP:BLP standards. Of the others, one at least is now 404, and all but one is in Chinese, hence ~~inappropriate~~ unuseful for the English-language wiki. The nominator would have been entitled to delete the entire contents on sight per BLP, raising an AFD is a reasonable way of salvaging someone from the wreckage. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content is indeed based on unreliable sources and should thus be deleted. I don't think that the remainder is enough to fill an article. However, the central accusation by Yau is sourced reliably (the Xinhua / China View article and the interview on the Zhejiang University website). Wikipedia:Verifiability seems rather clear that Chinese-language sources are permitted. I'm not sure whether this information should be excised completely from Wikipedia. Perhaps one or two sentences in the articles of Tian and Yau appropriate. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." This applies directly: praise/criticism of living people being intrinsically open to challenge. I withdraw inappropriate in favour of unuseful. But I believe my point stands. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merging whatever is sourcable into Manifold Destiny or the article on Yau. This should require either mention in the New Yorker article or other third-party publications, not blog pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit (massively). Most of the details about the spat from all those blog entries probably do no meet the notability criteria WP:N, and go against the policy on reliable sources WP:REF. Even if in this case they are primary sources (of support or condemnation), they may well be considered libelous against one or the other side, so they fall under WP:BLP#Sources. Keep only the parts supported by mainstream media references and delete the rest, which is to say most of it. They way the article is written now is makes it pretty much unreadable. There are other articles on Wikipedia about academic dishonesty controversies, so I don't think this one should simply vanish if it's notable enough, but covering all the minutiae makes it look like court transcript. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not versed in what constitutes a reliable Chinese source, but if only the Xinhua reference remains after the edits, theb the article becomes an just an opinion of Shing-Tung Yau, so it should be merged with his bio. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 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) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang H. Paul

No global, general or independent notability and no reliable sources. Ros0709 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed with the above. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It doesn't seem like the LDS-related sources are independent of the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, No one has demonstrated that any of the sources are related to the subject. None of them are controlled by Paul. Meridian Magazine and Dialogue have absolutely no connection to Paul.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe true, but you ignored the question of notability. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sources appear to lack independence from the subject. The subject exists but lacks notability. notability --Stormbay (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources that are independent of the subject do exist, so I don't think that's a concern. Notability is the real issue, and in this case I would say it's borderline. He's one of about 100 of the highest leaders in a church of about 13 million people and was the first Mormon to head missionary work in East Germany, which sways me to say he's notable enough. The article needs a good clean-up, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a figure of marginal notability. I'm not really sure which side of the fence he belongs on. But the Turkey stuff looks to not be reliably sourced, so it should be cut. GRBerry 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if sufficient notability can be documented. Otherwise a delete or possible merge still seems to be the remedy. --Stormbay (talk) 03:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 North Dakota Fighting Sioux football team

Unnotable details of the 2001 North Dakota Fighting Sioux team. I am requesting a deletion per WP:DIRECTORY which states that Wikipedia is not a place for directories or indiscriminate collections of information, which this clearly is. Tavix (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the only "single season" article for this football team.

Keep WP:DIRECTORY mentions nothing about sports team seasons. The specific items listed are the only things WP:NOT clauses cover, rather than examples. At any rate, while division 2 seasons would probably not usually be notable, this team won their first national championship in this particular season, which is a reasonable argument for notability. --Rividian (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This would cover the 3rd point on WP:DIRECTORY. Also, just because a division 2 team wins a championship doesn't magically make it notable. There are no other division 2 single season articles and I just don't think we should make an exception for this one. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the 3rd point doesn't mention sports seasons either. I'm not sure you're clear what a directory is... it just lists contact information and information about what a business/organization does, that doesn't describe this article at all. Believe me, if WP:NOT was supposed to cover sports seasons articles, it would specifically say so. There have been dozens of such AFDs claiming WP:NOT covers these articles and all the AFDs have been closed as keeps. --Rividian (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article most certainly should be rewritten to have more narrative than it has now, the college's football program is notable, and the 2001 season in which it won the NCAA Division II championship is most certainly notable. The wikitable format used here does not tell the story very well, and has all the drama of an airline timetable. However, this could become a good article. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article doesn't have too much in the way of prose right now, it can certainly be improved - there are a lot of season articles out there, most of which aren't just a schedule and a paragraph. As for the notability, the team did win their first championship that year, and WP:DIRECTORY says nothing about sports seasons. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs work but a championship winning season seems notable enough. Definitely not covered by WP:DIRECTORY. Basement12 (T.C) 21:02, 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 Stuck on the Naughty Step. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's at It

Unreleased single with little to no information released about it. Not enough to form an article until it's released. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to album as a plausible search term. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Even if/when it's released as a single that in of itself won't make it notable enough to have its own article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:17, 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. John254 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Carter

Spammy autobiography; while it has enough of an assertion on notability to just avoid speedying, I can't see anything to indicate any particular notability. – iride scent 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom completely. +WP:AUTOBIO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~I hate to say it, because the creating editor has been so COItastic (it looks like he's even removing AfD templates now), but if we can source that chair claim won't he be meeting WP:PROF?~~ Movingboxes (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No - the criterion you're thinking of is "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research", which doesn't seem to apply. – iride scent 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the clarification. Movingboxes (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violation per wp:bio notable rewords on the page need a citation .Alexnia (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promo fest fails WP:PROF. Movingboxes (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) See this search for more publications. --Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep his UCD website has a Professional Activities and Awards which lists only his 2000 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association fellowship [4] (but that page lists more, but IMHO non-notable awards). As I see it, he doesn't meet WP:PROF criteria 2 through 9, but looks to meet #1. The Biography very much needs to be cleaned up, COI removal, de-puffing etc.Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pete Hurd. A fellow of AAEA (2000) and the AAEA outstanding essay award (2001) seem to be enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF. GoogleBooks results are significant: 227 hits[5]. The article could certainly use clean up for neutrality of language. Nsk92 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above: fellowship, awards, citations, refs added by Eastmain, etcJohn Z (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm striking my "delete" given the recent improvements made to the article. Note that an IP user is still messing with the article and removing the AfD templates. I'm afraid that this article will require monitoring for COI issues since this person obviously doesn't want to work within our policies. He may be notable per WP:PROF, but he's also very happy to use Wikipedia for his own self-aggrandizement. Movingboxes (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep striked mine aswell with the current state of the article I think the article doesn't need to be deleted any-more + Eastmain improved the article occurding wikipedia guidelinesAlexnia (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC) greatly.Alexnia (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It always showed he was notable. Tho chair of a dept isnt a named chair in the sense listed at Wikipedia:prof, but it is sometimes even more notable--first of all he was full prof in Agricultural Economics at Davis, one of the world's top departments. Then he was chair of the dept, one of its most senior faculty among even them. Naturally, this does with many, many other aspects of notability. Many of them, like the awards, were in the article from the beginning. The assumption is sometimes made that people who submit a COI autobio are not notable, or that the articles are too spammy to be fixd--this is nonsense--one has to actually evaluate the article. That an experienced admin thought it was "just enough to avoid speedy"-- with all of that actually present in the article-- is somewhat unsettling... DGG (talk) 02:04, 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 redirect to Sports in Washington, D.C.#Soccer. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer in Washington, D.C.

Page basically a list of non-notable groups, many of which (even if they do exist) aren't even located in Washington, D.C. The article Sports in Washington, D.C. adequately covers all the actual encyclopedic information provided in this "article". epicAdam (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. This is basically a directory of the the Soccer teams in DC and isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sports in Washington, D.C.#Soccer. Punkmorten (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Punkmorten.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as per Punkmorten. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as per Punkmorten. Giant Snowman 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This page does not reference or even state why soccer is significant in Washington, D.C. Sebwite (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as per Punkmorten. Quentin X (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 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) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degausser (song)

Procedural nomination. Article considered at AfD under a different title and subsequently nominated for deletion via PROD. The nominator's argument stated: "non-notable song". This was essentially the outcome of the earlier AfD as well. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album it's on. Not a notable album track. Just because it was going to be a single until the band changed its mind doesn't mean its notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable song. 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per Strange.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No chart, no awards, no cover versions. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan does not warrant an article at this time. RFerreira (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 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 No consensus (default keep). The elephant in the room is that the guideline on notability for this class of subject is currently undergoing heavy debate elsewhere. There are clearly two entrenched sides is stark opposition of eachother's views. Neither makes a compelling argument which is steeped in actual policy or long-standing community consensus. I am confident that if this discussion was relisted, it would look just like it does now in a week, albeit probably longer. The deletion policy is clear in its instructions to default to keep in such a situation, hence my decision hereto. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prelate_Annalina

This is an article on a minor character in a book series and fails to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dividertabs (talk • contribs)

Comment The character isn't minor - they've fairly central to the plot and recur over the course of the whole Sword of Truth seris. That said, I've been unable to find any Reliable Sources to show real world notability - suggest a merge to the seris page - my first sentance is based on primary sources. NullofWest (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the Fantasy Taskforce of this discussion so we can get input from more experienced specialist editors NullofWest (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional character biography. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hint of real world notability. Supporting character in moderately notable series. Redirect to Sword of Truth. RayAYang (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major character in an important series. Appropriate break out page. Weird, that policy is being determined by relative persistence here of the same people. DGG (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Point taken. As one of who might be considered a pest here, I will think about contributing to the Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise discussion in the abstract, and will abide by any conclusive consensus it reaches (except when I ignore it). Meanwhile, I make no apology for participating in practice, and take no offense at rebuttals. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this character is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to real world notability and out of universe detail as well as signigficant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Many Google book hits. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source plz? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the link above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sources were there again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you have already made it clear that 1) you don't personally like me and 2) you will respond to me just to disrupt me. Therefore, I will not play these unconstructive games with you any further and will avoid going back and forth with you as there does not seem any constructive purpose in doing so. I looked in those links and believe the appearances are sufficient enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. There's not much more to say. It is obvious that by now neither of us are going to convince the other and while I try hard to not actually think of anyone here with terms like "dislike", you have made it clear as much about me that you feel that why, so there's just no point here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How I feel is irrelevant to a discussion of this article subject. Now, which of those "sources" in your Google search isn't a work of fiction? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RayAYang. No real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bifecta of WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN. :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters in The Sword of Truth WikiScrubber (talk) 17:02, 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. BJ^Talk 02:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Animal Collective album

Untitled future album. More info can be found at WP:HAMMER. Tavix (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it does seem well sourced, the article provides a bit more speculation than information. It would be better off if re-started after the album is released. But for now, it just doesn't seem good enough. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, don't recreate after the album's release, but when we get a release date, track listing and title. Yes, Pitchfork Media helps as a source, but all it says is that they played some new songs at a concert or two. Not enough to make an article out of. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The album has a tentative release date (Source: MTV), thus I assumed it was worthy of an article. I'll refrain from voting formally one way or the other, but I will say that I think the album is worthy of an article at this point in time, with all that has been said about the new songs they have played live. At any rate, this album will surely have an article in a few months anyway. -DMurphy (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks WP:RS for its own article. Maybe some of the info could be used in the Animal Collective article, but as A Prodigy points out, a little to speculative for its own page, per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Recreate without prejudice once we have a confirmed title, track listing, release date etc. Oh, and don't forget the significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 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. Sources that meet WP:RS simply don't exist on this one. Since he is signed to a major label, there is a better chance than most that he will eventually become notable. So - this is a delete without prejudice against recreation if and when this artist eventually meets the notability guidelines. Smashville^BONK! 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nipsey Hussle

Declined speedy. This artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Speculative claims and coverage by blogspot/wordpress do not apply. JBsupreme (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've reviewed wp:music, and admittedly, he meets none of the criteria for notability. But he is signed to Epic, a major label, and has upwards of 30k google hits. I fail to see why we should delete an article which is better than some existing ones. It is well written (with a couple tone issues here and there), and doesn't seem to be a self-made or zealous fan-made (it isn't overbearingly laudatory). In short, it is well written and the artist seems to have the potential to become notable. And this keep is coming from someone who despises nn content on WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find any reliable independent secondary sources. I suspect the majority of the article stems from original research/personal knowledge. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article doesn't include sources but plenty of sources exist. Here are a few; they seem reliable enough to me to keep the article, especially given the success they describe. [6] [7] [8] [9] (blog of a print magazine) He's signed to Epic records, which is major, and one of these sources says he's got a "radio single", which I take to mean he's in some degree of radio rotation. He also contributed (one track) to Pac's Life, which has many notable artists involved in it, and reached #9 on the charts. WP:NOT#PAPER applies, too. Mango juice^talk 12:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Unfortunately I don't feel that any of the sources provided by Mangojuice meet up to our standards for reliable sources. RFerreira (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This stuff is true; I've followed this guy since day one. He's a good and interesting rapper and he's on his way up fast, so i think people will want to know about him soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.67.130 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources cited. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blog source. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:02, 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. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiles of the Hold

Non notable fiction. 7 Google hits DimaG (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not meet notability guidelines. Tavix (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Sosnin

contested prod, fails WP:BIO, no first team appearances. BanRay 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. BanRay 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO, doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of him in independent reliable secondary sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His Zenit profile doesn't list him in any first team games. Recreate if he gets one. GauchoDude (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player curently fails WP:ATHLETE. - Basement12 (T.C) 18:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Recreate as and when he plays a professional game. Quentin X (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FOOTYN -- Alexf⁴² 17:05, 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. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Tears

Book series, pretty much summed up by this sentence of the second paragraph: "The first novel has yet to be published". Fails WP:BK Amalthea^Talk 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Wikipedia:BK#Not yet published books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much speculation for my liking, and no references given for the information provided otherwise. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:Metropolitan90 BanRay 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK and Prodigy et. all--daniel folsom 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, and seems to be mostly speculation. Let's wait until it actually comes out. Green caterpillar (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per eloquently put nom and the author's own petard. JuJube (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author removed my speed deletion tag. Delete per nominator. StaticGull Talk 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, he was right to remove the A3 no content tag since he also introduced content with the same edit. Amalthea^Talk 12:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator looks to be a WP:CRYSTAL speculation at this point. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 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 withdraw - I located some information. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School of Economic Science

Limited independent coverage. Questionable notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - controversial school that meets WP:ORG by being covered by multiple sources including a significant mention in a television documentary here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - controversial organisation, well known with notable book, press and media coverage. Certainly notable.--Rbreen (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable for its controversy let alone the fact it has institutions all over the UK and apparently overseas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:23, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thomas (mining executive)

non notable person, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~~The article has an unsourced claim the subject recieved a Churchill Scholarship though the WP article says that its for US citizens the subject is Australian.~~ Gnan garra 15:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed the article from Churchill scholarship to Menzies Scholarship to Harvard as per comment on article talk page[10], still unsourced and according to the Menzies Foundation Web site there isnt a listing for the subject[11]. Gnan garra 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 16:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thin resumé for a non-notable CFO with no authoritative external sourcing of notability. Of the four sources that are cited, two are basically directory entries (Newington College Register; Newsweek - not a Newsweek article, an "Executive Profile" directory type entry), one is the site of the company he works for, and one is a paper source (that's fine) that appears to be about his college (Newington Across the Years). He doesn't appear to have published anything, killed anyone, played on the national rugby squad, recorded with a band, or invented anything of note. Solid, absolutely non-notable Aussie. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a CV.Tinminer (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a whole-of-life biography of its subject. It does not focus on any particular notability of the subject. WP:NOTMYSPACE says WP is not a social network and should not be used as an alternative to www.facebook.com or similar. The sponsors of this article should transfer it to one of the many social networks on the internet. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. LinkedIn would be an appropriate destination for this content. Murtoa (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the CFO of a major Australian mining company in the middle of a resources boom. All senior executives of Fortescue should have bios on wikipedia not just the boss who is now Australia's richest man. These people are changing the face of WA and the economy. Castlemate (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thomas's personal impact on WA or the economy is best measured (at least in Wikipedia terms) by the amount of coverage he has attracted in significant, reliable, third party sources. And apart from small news bites when he has changed companies, there is very little in that regard. Google News is a reasonable barometer of coverage, and it appears to turn up next to nothing. He may work for a big company, but in terms of his personal notability, based on verifiable evidence, he appears to fall short. Murtoa (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable.--Lester 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thomas is well known in the Australian resources business while google news may not list many citations , it should not be regarded as any measure of notability. The media spokespeople of large companies are not necessarily the movers and shakers.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.253.176 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Google News should not be relied upon exclusively as a measure of notability, for someone in a business field like Thomas it is a helpful and relevant gauge of coverage in reliable, third party publications such as business pages of metropolitan dailies. By this measure, which I suggest is reasonable, he fails on notability grounds. Murtoa (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 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. No consensus to delete, default to keep. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordreich

This article, and the online organization it describes, lacks 'real-world' notability and relevance. It's only defence is a short burst of news reports about the organization in question, which Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NOTE) explicitly state that is not sufficient evidence of notability. The organization in question remains to be irrelevant to anyone outside the Internet community in which it operates. CarlosPatiño (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge into one or all of Cyber Nations, YouTube, and Minister of Foreign Affairs (Norway). There is a mention of them in UPI NewsTrack and Cyber Nations. I doubt that the creators of Cyber Nations online game thought someone would choose Nazi's as a basis for their fictional nation and this is an interesting topic. However, the information seems to be about the reactions to Nordreich rather than a chronological account of the series of events making up the "life" of the Nordreich organization. The point of the fictional orginazation was to participate in Cyber Nations and the Wikipedia article on Nordreich lacks details on their participation in Cyber Nations. While everyone reacted to Nordreich, the Nordreich organization itself did not do much that could be detailed in an article about Nordreich. The news coverage of Nordreich doesn't seem to go beyond the context of a single event. There might be some source material in German. Suntag (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehwere WikiScrubber (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or (better yet) Merge somewhere. There is enough reporting on this to make it notable per WP:N. Even ignoring that, it's notable in the English sense of the word. But editorially I think it should be part of something larger, not an article by itself. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 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. Sandstein 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questfrp

An almost unheard of game, no real coverage. StaticGull Talk 15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of WP:RS to demonstrate WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BanRay 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:00, 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. — Coren ^(talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)

Rather well-written article, but the subject does not yet meet notability guidelines. The included references are all from blogs or from sources with commercial relationships with the comic. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree that this article is very informative, with multiple links within wikipedia and a good number of external ones as well. But given the fact that the references come from basically the same source, I find it hard pressed to give substantial reasons asking for the topic to be kept. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Nice article, real shame it doesn't meet notability, and not very well-referenced either. Calor (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A card game based on the webcomic has been produced by one independant notable game company and a board game based on the webcomic has been produced by a second notable game company. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per reason given by Edward321. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming Edward321's statement can be substantiated, keep. DS (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321 is right in that there is a card game and a board game. However, in my opinion that still does not convey notability, because it still hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added some external references at the end of the article. But I fear they won't be more notable than the previous ones. I searched on the web and found many links to the UVoD webcomic, mainly in blogs or forums or simple link pages which won't be convenient for Wikipedia's policy. Also added a link to the French Wikipedia Article (not written by me) Bt4242 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 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 Mr.Z-man 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Shadic

Non-notable rarely seen fictional character. StaticGull Talk 15:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Is it not possible to add this guy to a list of Sonic characters? Sure he does not warrant an exclusive article of his own, but it would be a waste to just delete him. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless to try and save. Shadic is a fan character, qualifying this as fancruft. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — More Sonic fancruft. MuZemike (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MuZemike. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third-party sources to verify the article's contents, and thus completely non-notable. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catacombs (band)

Unnotable band that fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Declined speedy with no reason given for the decline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the speedy decliner to comment, and the reply was "It looks like there were sources provided which made me uncomfortable with speedy-ing it."[12]. The references are all to websites, so it seem difficult to determine whether they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the website has a staff that performs similarly to the fact/accuracy checking staff at a newspaper or book publisher (and they have a reputation for that), then that would seem to be a usable source. I don't know how you check the reputation. Does Wikipedia have a list of websites that qualify as a reliable source websites? That would make this much easier. Suntag (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is only ONE reference, to a directory-style listing. ELs are not refs. Of those ELs, almost all of them are directory style listings (like sticking in links to IMDB, AMG, etc on films) and none are WP:RS that could be converted to references. The review site Diabolical Conquest also does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:RS, having no visible history of reliable, neutral reporting, a small seemingly unpaid volunteer staff of fans, etc. (and alone it doesn't constitute significant coverage). There is no single list of websites that qualify as RS, just general guidelines. There are some known ones that are not (IMDB - user edited, any wiki/wikia, etc, blogs with a few noted exceptions, etc). Basically each site is evaluated against WP:RS as it is discovered/used. Maintaining a list would be nearly impossible because of the sheer number of specialist sites that are RS, but unknown to most who don't edit in that field. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look at Diabolical Conquest and thought that they may qualify as a reliable source since the listed a "staff". Your point about "visible history of reliable, neutral reporting" seems interesting. Perhaps the website needs to have at least someone on the ground who physically goes to places to do interviews, write stories, etc. Suntag (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always thought that Encyclopaedia Metallum is quite a reliable source. What about Moribund Records - are they considered reliable? Nameless Undead (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Metallum seems to be put together similarly to how Wikipedia is put together. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Suntag (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, nevermind Encyclopaedia Metallum. But what about Moribund Records? I already asked once... Nameless Undead (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable source, but as it is not a third-party source, but the album producer/seller, it can not be used to establish notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reliable source, but I couldn't find any information on the site's operation to consider it a Wikipedia reliable source. If you think about the steps the New York Time takes (or any print news paper takes) to ultimately publish something and then think about the steps Moribund Records likely takes to post something on their web site, there likely is much missing from the actions of Moribund Records to make that site a Wikipedia reliable source. It also has ties to the topic, so it not a third party source. Suntag (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete since there does not seem to be enough reliable, third-party, published source material for a Wikipedia article on the topic. Please contact me on my talk page if you discover that this is in error. Suntag (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 102 to 104 of this book has some info. Suntag (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Multiple third party sources and reviews. Two releases on a notable label too. Passes WP:MUSIC with ease. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the AfD notice is going to be removed? Nameless Undead (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not until the AfD has been closed. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but savagely trim the external links which take up half the page. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anathallo

Seemingly unnotable band, with no notable members, and no notable label. Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some articles: thestranger.com, baltimoresun.com, Grand Rapids Press, News & Observer, Billboard, Daily Vidette, and New York Times. There also is Anathallo Women's Ministries, which does not seem related. -- Suntag (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there seems to be more at In the news. Probably need someone to add the information and references to the article rather than delete the article. -- Suntag (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they were recently picked up by a medium sized label called Anticon http://imomus.livejournal.com/396567.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidd (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a better source than livejournal. Furthermore I thought the notability criteria was that the band had to have multiple releases on a notable independent label, not just one.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is just one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If for example, an indie band releases only one album but has been widely reported to have toured the U.S., they will satisfy WP:MUSIC. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This band is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; they have been covered in-depth by several reliable, independent sources, including the Baltimore Sun and Billboard magazine. I haven't seen a counterpoint to Suntag's post, so can we close this deletion request? Rm999 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This artist is quite active both in touring and in the studio. They have written and recorded a new album "Canopy Glow" and are currently planning ways to market and release it. As artists creating new art regularly, why would they be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.153.5 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, if there's reliable sources verifying notability then add them. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release has been planned. Anathllo has a blog that they keep updated and they announced today that they will be releasing a new album titled "Canopy Glow" and it will be released on November 18th by said album label Articon. http://yourhappymakesmegooldies.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.20.98 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources identified above by Suntag provide enough significant coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ottre (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Nothing yet confirmed for this month. D.M.N. (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding June 2021 for the same reason. D.M.N. (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding February 2021 and May 2021 too. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Neither contain any information and July cites Wikipedia as a source - although I am not entirely sure what is supposed to be verified - that nothing will happen in July 2021? Anyway, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore not the place to speculate that July 2021 will be dull and boring. Delete without prejudice; can be recreated if something substantial and verifiable comes to light. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for the reasons provided by the two users above. Why may I ask do people create pages for events way into the future, of which they have no clue in what to expect? Such articles are a waste of time to make, and a waste of time to delete. Just wait until July 2021 actually comes around before bothering to start the date's topic. -_- A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Apparently an attempt to see whether people think this would be an appropriate spinoff of 2021. Answer, they don't. I gotta admire the author's honesty, though: "Events:None. Sports:None. Software:None. Deaths:No deaths. Films:No films." Better that you attempt an article called "July 1921". Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or Delete and redirect) both June 2021 and July 2021 to 2021, as they are plausible search terms. I would do the same to February 2021 and May 2021 since they contain virtually no content, and nothing which is not on the 2021 page. -- Jll (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - "No content" speedy delete requirement says "Any article consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." Suntag (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both - WP:CRYSTAL, {{db-nocontent}}. Same with the others mentioned above (February and May 2021?). Calor (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added February 2021 and May 2021 to the deletion debate per a few of the above comments. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well February 2021... that's going to be when Super Bowl LV takes place. The good news is that the Bills are finally going to win. The bad news is that they will be in Toronto by then. Delete those too. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom BanRay 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every month 2021 that exists. Tavix (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it clearly exists, nothing else matters Delete of course, blatant crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All crystal ballery, empty articles. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete all, yet too remote. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I'm surprised this didn't get speedy deleted already. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:14, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Perrin

When the author created this BLP they self-tagged it with {{unreferenced}}, {{wikify}} and {{globalise}} (I found the article because they were future-dated to September) which to me is a clear indication that the author understands Wikipedia's policies but made no effort to comply (instead choosing to tag the article with maintenance tags). This is just my view, and I may be alone in this opinion, however I feel that an article should not be maintenance-tagged by its own author (a more preferable option is to not make the article or to make sure it complies with policy/established criteria before creation). Aside from that, I believe the subject (as the CEO of a company - a position he has only held for seven months) is not notable; the Google News test, while not always sufficient, is usually a good indication. Being CEO of the company is this person's only claim to notability (at least, as far as I can from Google searches and the article itself); and one event does make a living person notable. Note: PROD was removed by administrator Stifle on the grounds of my misconception about the article subject and a belief of notability. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E by the nominator — it refers to an article about a person who has appeared in a single newsworthy event (over a short space of time) but is not otherwise notable in their daily life. SBB Cargo is a division of SBB-CFF-FFS, the national railway line of Switzerland, and the CEO of this company would seem to me to be notable. Thanks to Ameliorate for telling me of the nomination; note that being an admin doesn't give me any extra rights to deprod pages, and that was just a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete pending better sourcing. He's the recently appointed CEO of a company that's been much in the news in Switzerland because of a strike, but he still needs to meet WP:BIO. I can't immedately find any substantial coverage about him that is not a press release. However, given his position, I can well imagine that such coverage exists somewhere. Sandstein 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of a major company is notable. As the prev. ed says, he has major newspaper refs. What more is needed? presumably notability from his position, confirmed by those who insist on the GNC superseding everything else. 7 months as CEO is not oneevent. An author can perfectly reasonable put a tag on an article when he knows he hasn't done a perfect job--WP editing is a cooperative project. Many is the article I've started and put an expand tag on, & I could see someone saying wikify if they didn't know how or even if they hadn't the time--i've often edited an article to rescue it and put on a tag like this for someone else to finish. And certainly globalise. Unsourced is a little odder, but I can see putting it on a stub for someone the author thinks clearly and obviously notable. I'm glad to have the chance to join Stifle on a keep. DGG (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the company has had plenty of press coverage. The CEO personally? Possibly, but I'm not sure. Sandstein 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, that I made some mistakes in the english wikipedia. But english is not my first language, so I hope, the mistakes are excusable. I thought it would be good to have a page about Perrin here, because you also find it in the french, german and italian version of wikipedia. His antecessor Daniel Nordmann has also a page here. And by the way I added the references. So I also join Stifle on a keep. User:Gueterbahnen (User:Gueterbahnen) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.138.131.90 (talk) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 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 keep. Please don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemic theory of miracles

~~Unreferenced and~~ questionable notability Stifle (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely bizaree. I am currently working on the article and will provide references. This is certainly more notable than the article cunt. Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article has removed the AFD tag twice. I have restored it. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put these stupid tags on articles that are under development, and which will be well-referenced, and which are important in relation to the Western philosophical tradition. Stick to garage bands or something. Peter Damian (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless Peter has some ancient 5th century text I rather suspect he must have some secondary sources at hand...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References added so that much is no longer a problem. Notability is still in question, however. I have reported the author for 3RR due to removing the deletion tag 4 times. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, you gave an established editor 15 minutes before placing a PROD tag? Somewhat hasty I would have thought and not conducive to an environment of collaborative editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look the guy is a complete idiot. Spinoza's essay on Miracles is famous, as is Hume's. And note that the Theologico-Political Treatise actually has an article about in its own right, as should have been obvious from the article. Why are we even arguing about this? Go and learn something and come back and help write an encyclopedia, got it? Peter Damian (talk) 12:45, 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 keep, withdrawn. Sorry folks. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia's Meadow

Disputed prod. Does not appear to be a notable location. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this prodded for deletion within 20 minutes of its creation? --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this is a very notable location in Cornwall for rare orchids and other wild flowers. It is designated a SSSI, and has a unique history in that it is an exceptionally rare example of an un-improved meadow. It is a nature reserve of the Cornwall Wildlife Trust. and it is also one of the BBC's Breathing Places. The article contains references and extensive internal and external links.Tinminer (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the BBC and Cornwall Wildlife Trust I think, Stifle, did you google at least before nominating? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's not forget the in-depth entery in the book Wild About Cornwall. It took me three seconds to find this and the BBC article. I imagine it took several times longer and more effort to create this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Groundless nomination since the location is obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per listing as an SSSI and BBC coverage. DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 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 keep. Mr.Z-man 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Jarvis

Contested PROD. Article seems to contain a whole lot of original research, and is mostly not on topic (IE: about 90% of the article is about The Shak, not Drew Jarvis.) Subject may well be notable, but in its current form it would require quite some maintenance to display that Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless fixed par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, AfD is not cleanup. It would appear that he is a somewhat notable children's television presenter. A quick search on Google News turns up content in The Sunday Mail and The Courier Mail newspapers. Given the content of the article, it's likely this was written by a child, and I think it was a bit mean slapping a prod tag on it four minutes after creation without notifying them or making any attempt to clean the article up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Im tagging articles whenever i check them, which means that my tags will mostly be almost real time. I agree that this can be quite fast, but prod tags give the creator 5 days to fix an article before its even considered for removal, which should be enough time to fix the article :) (And this article had nearly a month). I don't mind if i have to clean up articles, but when i feel the article needs a complete rewrite to make something out of it, i generally tag it for removal. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Lankiveil and fix it per nom. Needing work is not a reason for deletion. when i feel the article needs a complete rewrite to make something out of it, i generally tag it for removal. is a lousy reason for deletion. If the topic is notable it often takes less time to fix it then it does to nom and argue about it at AfD. Time spent fixing is a better and more productive use of time in my opinion. TravellingCari 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. I cleaned it up and added the best google news source i could find (The other links were about a war veteran with the same name). Other then that i found the original article to be a direct copyvio of This link. Its still not a great article, but perhaps its an ok stub article for now. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 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. Mr.Z-man 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Sector

Contested prod. Seems to be a non notable band Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of Google news hits would indicate that they have not been the subject of published works, do not have a charted hit, do not have a gold-certified record, have not received coverage in a reliable source, do not contain a notable member, are not prominent representatives of their genre, have not been nominated for an award, has not performed for notable media, have not been placed in a rotation and the appearance on America's Best Dance Crew (as asserted by the article) probably did not constitute 30 minutes of broadcast time. Therefore, this band does not pass the the criteria set forth by the notability guidelines for music. Also, the author has used myspace as reference, and if you have to cite myspace they're usually not notable (there's bots that remove myspace links for a reason). ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 13:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:AmeIiorate BanRay 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defari

I was unable to find sources that would help this article pass WP:MUSIC. Some of the information in the article was added by somebody claiming to be the subject and I can't find any WP:RS. Movingboxes (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the sources is self-published, and the Google books result contains one small paragraph - not enough to meet the "multiple non-trivial published works" requirement. Nothing the article asserts and nothing I can find makes this person notable enough for inclusion. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Defari is a recognised name in underground hip-hop circles. There are reliable sources to be found if you care to look - here's a biography from Allmusic and here's a Los Angeles Times article on the guy. More independent sources are here, here, here, here and here. I didn't even have to look very hard. Sharpen up, brothers and sisters. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 22:05, 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, problem's been taken care of. GlassCobra 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOB (disambiguation)

This supposed disambiguation page doesn't disambiguate anything. There are no links to articles about SOB, because there aren't any. Instead, we have a list of four possible dicdefs. Emeraude (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SOB which already has the useful entries. Richard Pinch (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, hadn't seen that when I nominated. Clearly SOB is a disambiguation page and does what it says. While users may type SOB and need disambiguation, SOB (disambiguation) is something that no one is going to type in, so I would suggest a redirect is not necessary. Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing much in the edit history worth saving and an unlikely search expression. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless dab Tavix (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There already is wiktionary:SOB (weak transwiki there?), and WP:NOT#DICT (which is also true for dab pages). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've redirected per Pinch.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambiguation does not appear to be necessary at this time. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Epidemic

Contested prod (IP editor gave no reason for removing the tag). Band fails WP:MUSIC. Movingboxes (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references to back up claims. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless they come up with some RS's. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:07, 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Gupta

Seems non-notable, no reliable sources, although the first line says she played a main role in the film Purana mandir, the film article itself has no references so I'm unsure whether this is true or not, or whether it's a hoax. D.M.N. (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding Dada Amir Haider as I feel he does not meet the notability criteria. D.M.N. (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are two separate people that don't have that much in common. If you are going to AfD both of them, please use two different discussions. I have split the part about Dada Amir Haider into his own discussion so we can keep this one just about Aarti Gupta. Tavix (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah guess so. D.M.N. (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, there are lots of Bollywood actors/actresses who are just in one or two minor movies and then fade back into obscurity. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:08, 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. Sources have been added to article during AFD to establish notability Davewild (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Amir Haider

Just came across this article, he was a noted revolutionary, during the Indian independence movement. (Ekabhishek (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I feel he does not meet the notability criteria. D.M.N. (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This was split from a bundled discussion. Tavix (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has plenty of references that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag multiple issues. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:09, 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. TravellingCari 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Evans (cyclist)

Non-notable cyclist, all searches for him yield only results for other Lee Evans'. Eventually getting it down to "Lee Evans cyclist New Zealand" fails to bring up any third party coverage and only illustrates that there is a Lee Evans from New Zealand who is a cyclist. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable cyclist. Reads more like PR than an encyclopaedic article. ~ NossB (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation once he gets into a professional team and makes some headlines. dramatic (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. plan 8 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 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. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pearce

Doing some research on this individual it seems they are just a high school cyclist with pretty much no third party coverage of notability. The claims of "national titles" and youngest ever champion are unsupported and I can only find evidence that they are an under 15 cyclist, nothing more. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Neil

User:74.224.206.56 contacted me on my talk page and asked me to help with this AfD (they'd gotten as far as placing a tag, I guess not realizing that was as far as they could go). Their reasoning was "he is NOT a notable person." [13]. This is purely procedural. Movingboxes (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets WP:ATHLETE as a notable college athlete, a player in a professional league (arena football) and the subject of non-trivial media coverage as a pastor after retirement. Movingboxes (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for O'Neil, a college quarterback that never finished a single season in the arena league? How is this a notable person?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.56 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person concerned is of note in the specialist area of American College Football. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC
Keep - easily passes WP:BIO under the whole pro athlete, plus as MVP of the Rose Bowl (the granddady of them all I believe) I think would be a "notable award or honor" along with induction into the game's hall of fame. I would suggest the IP editor read the notability guidelines before nominating every U. of Oregon quarterback. Some likely fail notability, but others easily pass the long established guidelines at WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its notable enough to stay here. Kalivd (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO BanRay 17:20, 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. If anyone wants the content for merge purposes, they can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Works

Lack of enough reliable source information to develop an article. Suntag (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete People need to stop obsessing with Obama. If Obama Works deserves any mention what so ever, then it should fit perfectly in Barack Obama, but it doesn't appear to be notable at all to me. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate existing article, such as Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Mohammed

AfDs for this article:

He's only a curiosity from Guinness Book. He does not receive enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Not notable per WP:BIO. Tosqueira (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless I am misreading WP:BIO this is a clear case of being supported by the policy. Being the shortest human in verified existance may indeed be a curiousity, but it is also notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the subject of non-trivial coverage for his height in not only the Guinness book of world records but also an obituary in the LA times (both of which I added to the article) and a couple of other books, qualifying him for WP:BIO.Olaf Davis | Talk 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable, it just needs references. Also the LA times obituary. --Lord ₪Sunday 12:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand I would have to say I think the shortest human being ever known to exist deserves at least a mention on Wikipedia. I'm surprised that someone of such significance only has a stub here. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:02, 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 speedy deleted as A3 with no substantive content other than external links. TerriersFan (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Book Club

Lack of enough reliable source information to develop an article. Suntag (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is speediable for lack of context. Movingboxes (talk) 07:38, 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 keep Mr.Z-man 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Musters

She's only a curiosity from Guinness Book. She does not receive enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Not notable per WP:BIO. Tosqueira (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info at books.google.com. It might not be enought for a full article. On the other hand, she died over a hundred years ago so perhaps someone wrote more details about her life. Suntag (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pauline Musters, aka "Princess Pauline", would not have been mentioned in the Guinness book at all had it not been for coverage in reliable sources that confirmed her as the smallest adult in history. I'm sure I'm not the only person who recognizes her name. Like Robert Wadlow, or Lucia Zarate, she was celebrated in an era where people were curious about other persons who were extremely tall, light, or in this case, 1'11" tall at the age of 18. Mandsford (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guinness Book is a independent reliable secondary source. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 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 Mr.Z-man 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Rhythm

Contested prod. Creating editor's reason for removing the tag can be found here [14], but I can't say that I follow it. This is a song that apparently did not chart or achieve any other sort of notability and the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. Fails WP:MUSIC. Movingboxes (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 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 per consensus. Smashville^BONK! 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bongolesia

A fictitious African country being promoted by its creator. 39 Google hits suggest that it is non-notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansford, nice comment there. I thought there was a little statement on Wiki about not making personal attacks, slander, or calling people names? Anyhow, I've addressed your issues on the Bongolesia discussion page and have emailed you about it. Mmurphy1963 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)— Mmurphy1963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete There seems to be nothing but in-universe information in this article and nothing especially encyclopedic to report. Movingboxes (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable (quick google search) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via RHaworth --Numyht (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Author is to be congratulated, however, for weaving in every possible stereotype about residents of "Dark Africa"-- let's see, uneducated, gullible, corrupt, want handouts, greedy... I think the Wiki entry "will help explain to people and assist them in understanding" what a dick the author is. Mandsford (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something self-published is seldom notable and there is no indication this is. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. It isn't self-published work, although the copyright owner did create the article, in part for disambiguation over the nature of Bongolesia's reality, or lack thereof, in this case.Jwomack94 (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't for things someone made up one day that aren't notable and lack reliable sources (i.e. the bulk of "references" seem to be blogs). --Craw-daddy | T | 00:17, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Witness

This looks like yet another one of those MySpace musicians. Fails WP:MUSIC as I see no evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Movingboxes (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 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. Smashville^BONK! 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciatism

Contested prod. New "philosophy" that fails WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like it is a recent term[15] created on the internet. Nothing at books.google.com. Suntag (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion of a protologism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:SNOW blah blah blah. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see this not being snowball...--Buridan (talk) 01:42, 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. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tse

No in depth reliable sources. - Icewedge (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks reliable sources. This man doesn't assert notability, anyway. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons already stated. Deb (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 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 speedily deleted (G1) by Philosopher. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ccland

Contested speedy. Pure nonsense. Movingboxes (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This actually isn't contested. I thought an IP editor had removed the tag, but they actually replaced it after the creating editor removed it. Should I withdraw this nomination and retag the article? Movingboxes (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Either as Vandalism or as Not enough context to identify the subject of the article. Jons63 (talk) 06:26, 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 fails WP:NEO Mr.Z-man 23:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurerock

Contested prod (no reason given for removal of the template). Fails WP:NEO. Movingboxes (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no notability asserted. JIP | Talk 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something made up one day, fails WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 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. Mr.Z-man 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superdon

AfDs for this article:

A completely unsourced article about what appears to be a neologism. There was previously an article with this title which was deleted in May 2006, which appears to have been on the same topic, while this one was created June 2006. There is a suggestion that the term may appear in a book of Andrew Marr: I don't have a copy of it so can't verify this, but even if it does there is no evidence that the term is in wider use. RFBailey (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big ole mess of WP:NEO and WP:OR. Movingboxes (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, neologism. JIP | Talk 06:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at dict.org. The article telegraph.co.uk mentions "Johns Hopkins University professor who graduated to Superdon status in 1992". UK's Daily Mail mentions Professor Fernandez-Armesto, once described as "the archetypal superdon". There are some mentions at books.google.com and Wikipedia's superdon article is cited at scholar.google.com. The term could be Super Don. Suntag (talk) 08:31, 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 merge to Ealhmund of Kent. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingild of Wessex

Duplicate of a page just deleted (Ingild Wessex, as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyth Essex) for lack of notoriety. Individual is only known from two pedigrees of his great-great-great-grandson. No verifiable dates, no title, no reason to consider him notable. Agricolae (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated

likewise duplicating article Eoppa de Wessex deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyth Essex for want of notoriety. He is the next generation down the pedigree, no dates, no title.

And:

Not previously nominated, but the same is true for him, the third generation in the pedigree. There is speculation about his marriage, but this is really speculation concerning the maternity of his son Ealhmund of Kent on whose page the issue is adequately described. Even here, Eafa is simply a bystander as the person this speculated mother would then have married. No evidence of him beyond the same pedigree, no title, no dates. All three were PRODs, contested because they were "useful", but there is no there there.

Also, for the sake of full disclosure, I recently edited these articles to remove much unverifiable material. Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Is merely inclusion in such a pedigree enough to convey notability (in this period). Records are scant. Is the fact of being mentioned, even if their own life wasn't notable, sufficiently unusual and thus notable, merely as a matter of interest in the history of histories, more than as a person? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ealhmund of Kent making this an expanded section on ancestry. This could satisfactorily list the whole pedigree as well as the postulated relationship to earlier kings of Kent. Since all are mere names in a pedigree about which we know nothing else, there is no point in having articles on them. The article on Ealhmund of Kent would also be better with citations as to who has expressed the views mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Peterkingiron in everything said, I just don't think there is anything to merge, as opposed to just mentioning that Eafa is made son of Eoppa, son of Ingild, brother of Ine of Wessex, as I just did in Egbert's article. I did find a critical scholarly summary of various Descent from antiquity that specifically addresses the ancestry of Ealhmund, including the issue of whether Ealhmund of Kent is the same Ealhmund in the pedigree, the speculation regarding the mother, and the possibility that the Wessex pedigree is forged to link Egbert to the former royal family - I will try to incorporate it. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I checked PASE and the only information other than simple genealogy that is given is Ingild's date of death, in the ASC s.a. 718. All three can be covered in another article; Ealhmund is a reasonable choice but I suppose is arguable. All three should become redirects to whichever the target is. Mike Christie (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I had overlooked this datum when editing Ingild's page and have added this info back. (Still not notable, just because we know when he died and who his siblings were). I have also laid groundwork on both Ealhmund and Egbert's page for the deletions, should they happen. I am a little hesitant to redirect to Ealhmund due to the possible uncertainties in identification, and because the pedigree naming them is really keyed on Egbert and Æthelwulf. It also wouldn't hurt to mention on Ine's page something like "his brother Ingild is made ancestor of later king Egbert of Wessex". Agricolae (talk) 04:02, 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 delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obnosis

Article is an attempt to expand of what probably can never be more than a dicdef. Major contributing editor has attempted to add numerous sources, but none of the sources actually support the claims made in the article for the widespread usage of the word. Claims that it is in "widespread cultural usage" are doubtful, along with the claims that it is "invoked in reference to open source systems support, systems theory, technical education and cultural Internet sociology." Article is caught in a loop of sources being added, inspected by other editors and found completely lacking, sources being removed. Article comes down to "L. Ron Hubbard used it once or twice," and that isn't encyclopedic. There are also WP:COATRACK issues involved the habitual insertion of obnosis.com into the article. Fails WP:NEO and WP:NOT. Movingboxes (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. There is no real assertion of notability for the topic of Obnosis, though there is evidence of some scattered use of Obnosis as a word - and that mainly as a slang neoglism. The Wiktionary entry for the word seems to cover what is needed to inform readers as to the term. If the article is to remain, it would need a serious clean up to be rewritten as a disambiguation page as that is mainly the direction in which it is headed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a scattered jumble loosely or not at all connected with the word Obnosis. Calling it a coatrack would accord it structure that it doesn't have. Most of the references aren't, and the article is full of original research astounding to a long-time participant of ARS (as a critic) and longer-time Usenet reader. The editor promoting the article doesn't play well with others, and has already created a wiktionary entry for it, which seems be all that's needed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Clean up. Notability is served historically and by the 22 cultural and technical references.

Major contributing editor is new to Wiki, works 60 hours a week, does not use any commercial obnosis.com for any profit, has a brief history with Wikipedia, and it's processes. The widespread cultural use is served by 22 references, which mostly exclude Scientology.

The regular changes to each section to remove items without noting sufficiently the issue in suggestive way on the talk page while waiting a reasonable amount of time equate to vandalism or edit war, rather than cooperative communications. LisaKachold's originating site user profile was edited to state "from obnosis.com" as vandalism.

Obnosis.com is applicable in reference to the technical use of the word obnosis (that is also already served by other references Microsoft. The site obnosis.com meets the requirements from Wiki for a reference.

I don't know where the protection banner went or the history on the talk pages but this obnosis page was temporarily protected by Wiki Administration, until it inexplicably disappeared. I don't even know who SCIBABY is but it was referenced by Administrators for Protection. LisaKachold (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork was requested as Dispute Editor to assist to resolve this dispute before a Deletion Page existed. The Deletion Tag was first placed when NO DELETION PAGE existed and none yet was requested. SilkTork voted for deletion [?? Is this appropriate from a Dispute Editor request??] . SilkTork gave feedback related to notability.

Notability is served just as it for the following: gnosis and other slang internet based words? Wiki is not a dictionary but real live living encyclopedia? Therefore obnosis more than meets the criteria for What Wiki is.

meh is yet another example.

Listing a programmer Randal L. Schwartz and his program Schwartzian_transform meets all tests for "What Wiki is NOT", CoatRack or COI?

Every IP I edit this page from endures dOs packets. MovingBoxes has removed tags and edited the talk pages with things like "commercial site" and Conflict of Interest, when none actually exists on this page related to obnosis.com, which is yet another notable non-commercial example. If this page does not meet What Wiki is Not, then the Anonymous_(group) neither meets the requirements, the online AOL derived chat slangs like LOL or WTF do not meet standards? LisaKachold (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UseNet wars effected literally hundreds of thousands of systems admins, was a good part of discussions at DefCon 6 and 7, and required extensive defenses for flooding and off subject posts as the wars went on alt.religion.scientology creating Anonymous_group recent responses and war on Scientology. We lived through this, it is therefore NOTEWORTHY. The domain obnosis.com was named and came out of this melee. There ARE sufficient qualifying external references for these 3 year pivital internet and legal events to meet Wiki's standards. The terms "Usenet religious wars" until recently actually was referenced on a page related to it here on Wiki, until the misinformation minions of the Church of Scientology began chipping away at it. I could bring in today 10 professions from ISP's to co-sign these facts, but they shiver to think about getting their name and source IP addresses drawn into such silly fights again.

Please just protect this page, that tells the truth for the word, the truth for a period of our lives, and describes and documents (or did before the many edits my MovingBoxes) a new type of non-linear thinking that is an important (and sufficiently referenced) moniker of the information age. This page is only a subject for cleanup; not deletion, by Wiki rules and precedence? 24.251.216.251 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist me to understand how this page differs from those? Also, please silence the liable type personal statements from MovingBoxes related to "doesn't play well with others". 24.251.216.251 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with rescue. There is real assertion of notability for the topic of Obnosis; there is evidence of use of Obnosis as a word - which is both historical and backed up by 22 or so references. No Wiktionary entry for the word obnosis exists that can fully convey the full topic, like this page does. If the article is to remain, it would need clean up and citations (attempted by two Wiki editors). This page is cross referenced from Anonymous_group, Alt.religion.scientology, Cult_of_the_dead_cow and Layer 8 also. 65.218.233.130 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:65.218.233.130 removed the AfD citing Remove tag after Administrator ruling dated 30August RESULT KEEP. Have warned them, noting a long history of similar offenses. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is a mess and there's lots of misbehaviour going on around it. There's a wiktionary entry now which should suffice, though the scientology components seem controversial and it would be a shame to see this 'neutral' platform taken away from them... perhaps it can go somewhere else? WikiScrubber (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rescue. User:65.218.233.130 obviously did not know that the tag saying "RESULT KEEP" was not an administrator ruling. New users to Wiki are often in need of help. This page is a good example of good beginning submission. Assist in cleanup by using the talk page. Please see the complete lack of edits on the Talk Page. Please note the various lack of Wiki procedures from MovingBoxes for coordinated respectful community consensus. Please note that the user LisaKachold's account was also edited vandalously and that the page was once protected. This is not a page for Deletion but a page for cleanup and protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.216.251 (talk) 01:50, 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My country review

Contested prod. Article is simply a review and inherently non-encyclopedic. Movingboxes (talk) 04:43, 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. JIP | Talk 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emortal Earth

I think there's a wiki that's appropriate for this. Not this one though. Mblumber (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the text appears to be a direct copy/paste from a book - possible draft. That should qualify as a copy-vio, but the template is for websites only, isn't it? Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 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 per A7 by Harro5. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mambateknik

CSD A7: Does not establish why subject is notable. Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not even an assertion of notability. Movingboxes (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy via CSD A7 This article oes not establish why the subject is notable--Numyht (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Only one release to date. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:56, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H Stewart

Contested speedy. Failure of WP:BIO. The vast majority of the "sources" are self-created (myspace.com, autobiography on writing community, poems on postpoems.com "I want to tell you/of lovers/two who stood side by side/forever," etc). There is nothing to indicate the "underground following" from Missouri to France to which the article refers. Movingboxes (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot to add, it is also a contested prod. The speedy and prod tags have been removed by SPAs, which may be evidence of the "underground following" the article talks about. Or something. Movingboxes (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find reliable sources for the subject 7 days ago and was unsuccessful so I tagged it with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}}. Nothing to address these concerns has been forthcoming. In fact the tags were removed without addressing these concerns. If the numerous editors of this article can address these concerns in the next few days I may change my position but as is this appears to be an attempt to promote the subject. Accurizer (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to adress the accuracy on this page, while it is abundant with links some information is inncorrect. The subject obviously has a following abroad, and has had success with netlabels, download rates, and reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souffrance (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply linking to places online where the subject's name is mentioned (as you have been doing so far) is not sufficient. You'll have to demonstrate that the subject has received non-trivial coverage from third-party sources per WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how one may clear the air on this matter?

Comment Find sources that are independent of the subject. Please look at WP:BIO for more information. Movingboxes (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources have been edited. I must note that I have found several other sound artist pages that have there personal sites linked. I have taken her's off. I am begining to speculate about the reasons for such harsh editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souffrance (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't the personal sites. The issue is that with this subject, there seems to be nothing else. Movingboxes (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may well be notable in some circles, but the onus is on people to verify this.--Poetlister 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I see no notability of this person asserted. Give more third-party, mainstream sources (my personal preference is for ink-and-paper sources, like a newspaper or magazine) and it has a much better shot. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 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, no assertion of notability for this and related articles, classic walled garden. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Light Fortune: Got No Time

Non-notable film, no external sources, no indication of notability or contribution to genre. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well as the following film articles created by the same editor:
- Angel of Death (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bournemouth Live 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Despair (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draven: Live as a B*stard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draven: Live at the Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Remnants (feature film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Future (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Guitar Man (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Mover (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Piranhas: Playing Some Stuff Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Volitera Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Volitera: The Never Settle for Less than Metal Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- White Room: No Going Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{03:21, 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:ENTERTAINER. Notability guidelines do not differentiate between live action or animated roles. Smashville^BONK! 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Abe

He seems to have voice acted for some notable Anime roles but I don't think just speaking their scripts gives him very much notability, this is reflected by Google News and such; no in depth reliable sources. - Icewedge (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll give this one a closer look in the morning. 阿部敦 yields about 30,000 hits, and the Japanese Wikipedia has an article on him as well. It's a bit of slow wading to get through the Japanese sites for me, so I don't have a good comment yet on how reliable the various sources are. Help from other Japanese-speaking Wikipedians would be greatly appreciated.Kww (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor plays main characters in Shugo Chara, To Aru Majutsu no Index and Xam'd: Lost Memories. The main English source are the reliable Anime News Network. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the Shugo Chara character is listed by the article as a secondary character, but Abe did play the lead protagonist in To Aru Majutsu no Index and Xam'd: Lost Memories. WP:ENTERTAINER only asks that the subject have played significant roles in multiple works -- and the lead in two meets that. If you think that voice acting is just "speaking [the] scripts," you don't know much about what's involved in voice acting. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voice actors are notable if they've acted for notable roles, just like regular actors. 146.201.134.21 (talk) 02:44, 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 Eat. More fun than delete, though it accomplishes the same goal. TravellingCari 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Roper

College football quarterback. Probably not notable despite the accomplishments and references included in the article, based on precedent for other college football and hockey players. An IP, 74.224.206.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), initiated this AfD but couldn't complete it. Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete why a unproven college quarterback is on wikipedia is silly. Remove immediately. I suggest speaking with alextiefling. He will remove this at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.56 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. In addition Oregon Ducks football suggests he is only the 5th string QB. - Basement12 (T.C) 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eat. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 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 Mr.Z-man 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Kritzer

Fails WP:N, WP:V. Wizardman 01:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 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 withdrawn. Wizardman 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grigory Ugryumov

I haven't found anything on this artist other than a couple trivial mentions and his name in a few artist directories. Seems to fail WP:RS. Wizardman 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure to do extra research on him when I saw the birthdate. I still didn't find anything about a good deal of looking. Hence my opposition to having a notability tag at all. Withdrawn. Wizardman 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I found a biography of him through Oxford Art Online. I'll start adding stuf to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because of the new source described above. Ostap 05:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's even no need to say Keep, we should've just deleted the notability tag and told this user "if you never heard of this painter, it doesn't mean he is not notable; do a better research". KNewman (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a whole lot at books.google.com or scholar.google.com. The oxfordartonline.com link didn't show anything. However, give that he died in 1823 and his paintings are floating around digitized, there likely is enough info on the topic. Suntag (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to log in to the Oxford site to actually see anything. (I was able to get in through my public library's website.) Once there, you can browse through a bunch of biographies from the Grove Dictionary of Art. Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. When will people finally learn that if a topic doesn't get (m)any google hits (even if it's a google books/scholar search), it does not mean that the subject is not valid and/or notable? "Do a better research" indeed...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:43, 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 merge to Charlie Munger. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lollapalooza Effect

Delete. Neologism invented by an academic. No indication of widespread use in the broader community. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information, such as it is, to Charlie Munger. If it's notable at all at this point, it probably is because it's "his" term. And I'm pretty sure his notability is established. (Or maybe I should have said, "Lollapamerge?") LaughingVulcan 01:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charlie Munger. Doesn't seem to have independent notability for its own article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Chow-Yiu

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N, and no multiple reliable sources to establish it. Issues from the first AfD were never addressed. Wizardman 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with Nsk92's research. No longer wish the article deleted (wn't withdraw myself as there are other delete voted currently) Wizardman 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- does not meet WP:PROF in my opinion. I can find nothing in Google except who he is, where he works and what he does. That's not enough to establish notability. Reyk _YO! 01:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criterion 5 of WP:PROF: "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." From what I know (at least that is the case in my own area, mathematics), the University of Hong Kong is indeed a major research university with academic standards comparable to the best western universities and I would assume that having an endowed chair appointment there has basically equivalent meaning. He is also the Chief Editor of the "Journal of Oriental Studies" (I have added a reference verifying this to the article) which may qualify under criterion 8 of WP:PROF. I am not sure about the standing of this journal, but it is reasonably widely held by the U.S. academic libraries according to WorldCat data[16]. I admit that I am bothered by the lack of googlescholar/books hits but I am assuming that he publishes in Chinese (could also be due to difference in name spelling). In this case, especially in view of WP:BIAS, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Nsk92 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at the available google results, it appears that his name is spelled in Chinese as 單周堯 (I would really like for someone who knows mandarin to check this!). If that is correct, there are 145 googlebooks hits for that spelling[17]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. The characters are almost certainly right. Looking at a gbooks search with them in author, one gets a result with the transliteration Zhouyao Shan (or Shan Zhou-yao), which seems to be the pinyin for those characters, while Sin Chow-Yiu is the cantonese pronunciation transliteration. Searching on Zhouyao Shan gets this identifying them.John Z (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as even the nominator now says.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 00:38, 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. Mr.Z-man 00:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master game server

No useful info, just a list of services. DimaG (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DimaG. Also, article just doesn't make much sense. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list. JIP | Talk 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to merge to game server after the recent changes to the article. JIP | Talk 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this for obvious reasons. Seems like a list of token information posted as an excuse to tack on an ad at the end. However, this seems like a valid part of internet gaming, so after deletion it should redirect to Online game. --Rividian (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — What is this article supposed to be about? MuZemike (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, I have just edited this article to make it worthy as a beginning article... deleted server list. I may be misunderstanding deifition so please continue to edit, "Master Game Server" is a good thing to have included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.252.162 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 August 2008
Note — article has been flagged for rescue. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 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 Nation (university). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nations in Scottish universities

Article is available under Nation (university). I don't think this article is salvageable- it has five maintenance tags, and needs major rewriting, plus the person who created the article turned out to be a sockpuppet of an abusive user. (Disclaimer: I was in a dispute with said sockpuppeteer, and added the maintenance tags to the article) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a valid reason to delete the article can be cited. "Five maintenance tags" and "needs major rewriting" are not grounds for deletion. Allegations of sockpuppetry are also not grounds.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The maintenance tags are only marginal and the article can be improved. I have improved the lead and removed that tag. Nations are an interesting feature of old universities. The article is sourced. --Bduke (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC) These are interesting, and I never knew they excisted in the UK although I knew of the Swedish use, but I now agree that it can all be and is in Nation (university), so let it go - delete. --Bduke (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, rather, Merge and Redirect) whilst the article can be re-written, I don't think it serves any great purpose other than to echo what could either be said on universities' pages or on the wider page on university nations. --Breadandcheese (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above--duplicative with Nation (university), and "largely their significance has been forgotten" isn't much of a claim of notability. JJL (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - something is wrong here. Nom added 5 maint tags then AFD'd it because there are 5 maint tags ??? _{no insult to nom intended & cudos for the Discaimer} Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, would appear to be a duplicate of information already contained in Nation (university). No indication that this phenomenon in Scotland is different enough from the ones in Sweden and France to justify a breakout article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC). On further thought, a Redirect to the appropriate section of Nation (university) would seem reasonable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nation (university)#Scotland after moving the useful information, but tag R with possibilities in case the latter article expands again. Richard Pinch (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nation (university)#Scotland per Richard Pinch: the aticle's not currently long enough to justify having separate articles for each country. None of the other concerns are grounds for deletion as noted above. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Olaf Davis.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screen peeking

Neologism DimaG (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as completely unreferenced and probably WP:OR WP:NEO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced article on a neologism that would not appear to be in particularly wide use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheating in video games. This jargon is neologism at best. Its meaning is too trivial to merit a separate article. Use of weasel words suggests original research. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:50, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated (album)

Sources don't provide meaningful information. No release date. No tracklist. The title is unsourced: I've dug through the references provided, and can't find any support for titling this article "Undefeated". There are 4 year old sources referenced here discussing Whitney's album that is "in the works". Anything that was in the works 4 years ago doesn't necessarily have any relationship with things coming out 4 months from now. Kww (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:There is a more detailed analysis of how poor the sourcing is at Talk:Undefeated (album).Kww (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the sources, Clive Davis himself says the album is due out in the "holiday season" which is within 4 months from now. You're right the title is just a rumor and thus should be changed back to "Whitney houstons forthcoming album". Shoop85 (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Shoop85[reply]

There is ONLY one 4 years old source, the rest are recent. There's no reason to delete the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.166.85 (talk)
Delete Insufficient sources. This album is probably never going to be released, and almost nothing about it seems to be verifiable at this point. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to back up release date. (The citation is to a random music website which says that someone heard somewhere that the album will be out in November, some year.) Stifle (talk) 11:16, 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. Smashville^BONK! 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Baby Intro

Non-notable song, no references. Possibly merge any useful content into American Baby. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:03, 24 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, Amalthea^Talk 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn song. I don't even see any useful content to merge, just some basic track info and WP:OR. Movingboxes (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not about having an article on every song ever written, only those that reliable 3rd party sources feel are notable. This song isn't. --Ged UK (talk) 10:57, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Players, Birkenhead

AfDs for this article:

Not notable little theater group, article does not show independent third party notability and reads like a press release β^_command 12:15, 24 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, Amalthea^Talk 00:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations from reliable sources are required by the verifiability policy but don't appear to be present. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without WP:RS. Otherwise it reads like an essay anyway so needs tagging. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:13, 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 Mr.Z-man 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and One Classical

Non notable book. It only gives instructions on how to audition for a Shakespeare play. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is useful for any actor who is requested to audition with two monologues, one modern and one classical which is the standard gformat for auditiond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.48.36 (talk • contribs) — 198.168.48.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Amalthea^Talk 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BOOK Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just came out in 2008, so there probably is not much in the way of third party review of the book or analysis of its impact on society. Suntag (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 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 Withdrawn and Redirect. There is not much to merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding (Power Rangers)

I can't find any reliable sources that show the episode's notability. ~~There is no episode list to redirect this to.~~ Schuym1 (talk) 17:51, 23 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, Amalthea^Talk 23:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's common to break out episodes, and it does have some extra info. and indicates why this ep. is significant to the series, and there are other examples of eps. with their own pages at List_of_Power_Rangers_episodes. Looks like this was a three-parter? I've added links to it at a few pages that reference the wedding. JJL (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't. Schuym1 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to [18], [19]. JJL (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I read your post wrong. Schuym1 (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List_of_Power_Rangers_episodes. WP:PLOT says that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance." This episode article does not do that, so per WP:EPISODE a merge is appropriate.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 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 Mr.Z-man 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosamond Street

Not a notable street as far as I can determine. The article as it stands is full of original research and unverified claims to notability. Longhair\^talk 07:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 07:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, had a bit of a look on Google Maps, and it appears to be an unremarkable suburban street. Simply having a few marginally notable buildings on it (which we don't seem to have articles for) doesn't make it notable itself. Note to closing admin, if the consensus is delete, the redirect from Mt Wilga ought to be deleted or pointed at some other article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nothing suggests this street has adequate notability for WP. Having notable buildings, and notable geographic features, and having had notable TV series filmed on site, don't provide notability for the street. The statement "the origin of the name is unsure" is most unencyclopedic. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Move along, nothing to see here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change Name. Can I just add that although the street itself may not be notable, many of the buildings structures and people associated with the area are. THere was a bridge there that was once the longest suspension bridge in the British empire. THe area also has numerous links with the Australian architect Marcus Clark, and the area contribute's to much of Hornsby's (the suburb) history. The name could be changed to Mount Wilga or something, at least. n i m b u s a n i a 02:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I apologize for my unconstructive wisecrack of a "vote" above. More seriously, the article looks like a coatrack for a biography of Marcus Clark with a history of Mt. Wilga Manor and notes on its environs. A name change could make it a stub for the history of the community, if its history is generally notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see what you mean about the article being a coatrack. I mean, the part in the article where it states that the street was 're-tarred' for the road to last longer is a bit too minor for an encyclopedic entry. I understand what you mean. But I still think the article should be moved to another name. perhaps Mt. Wilga? n i m b u s a n i a 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a start, the whole thing is completely unreferenced, so therefore no notability has been demonstrated. Second, it certainly does look like a coatrack, especially with developers now wanting to make money from projects in that street. Delete the article. Don't bother with renaming it.--Lester 08:55, 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 Mr.Z-man 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flinx

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional character biography. It also appears to be original research based on WP:primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject is central character in 14 books of a notable book series by a notable author. Lack of sourcing, etc, are reason for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is one of two lead characters in a best-selling series of more than a dozen novels. Article is in desperate need of a rewrite and wikification but those are issues for cleanup, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and improve, per above, and because there are references to the character in other Science Fiction. htom (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the best known character by a major sci-fi author. Will be looking for references. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 seconds with Google News yields this. Really, people, please do some searching before nominating. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a Flinx book charted in NYT best seller list.
Flinx is a defining character of Foster's, according to SFGate.
And there are six more Google News hits for (Flinx "Alan Dean Foster"), which are pay links.
From Google books, we have mentions in The Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction and What Do I Read Next?... In addition to the multiple books themselves, short story anthologies containing them, and translations of them both. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they appear to be trivial mentions. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 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.