Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 23
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of teen dramas[edit]
- List of teen dramas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- List of teen films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- List of teen magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a pure laundry list. It has no hope of ever being kept up to date, and has no encyclopaedic value. A category may be suitable (I wouldn't be suprised if one already existed - I haven't researched it), but an article definitely isn't. The same goes for List of teen films and List of teen magazines, which I also include in this AfD. TalkIslander 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The categories are Category:Teen dramas, Category:Teen films and Category:Teens' magazines. I don't know how comprehensive they are. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks okay to me. Are you saying there are no sources for teen dramas? Or that this and the other ones are indiscriminate lists? Unless we do away with list articles I don't see the issue here. But I'm happy to consider arguments on why this wouldn't be good to include. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These, in my opinion, are worse than normal list articles. For example, a list of programmes broadcast on Channel X is not a brilliant article, but at least there's some chance that it can be made complete (find an official catalogue of Channel X programmes, and there you go). With these particular lists, there's no chance that they'll ever be complete. Off the top of my head I can think of plenty of teen dramas that by rights should be in that list, but aren't. Of course I could add them - I will if this AfD fails - but then there will always be dramas that I haven't heard of, that others who contribute to Wikipedia haven't heard of, that have been plain forgotten etc. What do lists offer here that categories don't? TalkIslander 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You make some good points. But couldn't you say that none of the articles on living persons or ongoing series are complete? And if some shows aren't notable enough for their own article they can be included here. There's also an opportunity to add additional
categoriesnotation by making the list into a table, that couldn't be done with a category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You make some good points. But couldn't you say that none of the articles on living persons or ongoing series are complete? And if some shows aren't notable enough for their own article they can be included here. There's also an opportunity to add additional
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists are as least a good as categories for this, if people are willing to maintain it, for they can give more information. DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Another Teen List Article! — In all seriousness, however, keep all. I would like to see the teen movie article at least split into smaller articles for ease of accessibility, but otherwise all three lists seems to be fairly discriminate. MuZemike (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the list of dramas (although it needs shortening; for example Eerie Indiana isn't a drama by any stretch of the imagination) and keep the list of films. They both provide content that cannot be included in a directory. Delete the list of magazines since it does nothing a category can't do. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The titles of the lists mean that any additions to them would inherently violate WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is impossible to say that anything is a teen drama... please remove all the examples from teen drama and I'll believe you. Pulsaro (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, fairly discrimate lists. Pulsaro (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The lack of referencing is a turnoff and the list is limited to some English-language countries, which dilutes its encyclopedic value. Nonetheless, it is more comprehensive than most Wikipedia lists and could benefit from further editing. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per WP:NOR, or WP:V, or WP:NPOV.Oroso (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angel of Death (novel)[edit]
- Angel of Death (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The book meets none of the criteria set forth in WP:NB. It has won no awards, was not made into a movie, it isn't taught, and the author, Jack Higgins, can not be said to be so historically significant that his works are automatically notable. As for the first possible criterion, I can not find a single non-trivial mention of the book; all I see are sites that sell or swap used books or provide other non-significant mention. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I suspect people will say it is notable because it's authored by a notable author. I would simply state that if it doesn't deserve an article on its own it should be merged. Either way, deletion doesn't seem to be the way to go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that Midnight Runner, Thunderpoint, The Killing Ground (novel), and Rough Justice (novel) be included in this deletion discussion. All of these are very short articles with zero sources; the relevant info about these books is covered in the main article about this series, Sean Dillon (Jack Higgins character), and none of these books are independently notable. Delete them. Graymornings(talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Graymornings; none of these articles are worth keeping, IMO. Also, there simply isn't anything to merge besides a paragraph with plot--these are dime novels. Therefore:
I am also nominating the following related pages because none of them are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (they have not received significant or any coverage, have won no awards, have not been turned into movies, etc.:
- Thunderpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Midnight Runner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Killing Ground (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rough Justice (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These are certainly not "Dime novels" very notable author. Not his best work but of note regardless. Deserve to built up not knocked down. There are far more worthless articles here for your attentions then these. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you put a lot of work into the articles, but Sean Dillon (Jack Higgins character) already covers the neccessary info. The rest seems to be plot summaries with original analysis ("...a really cool character") and "famous quotes" from Dillon. We could possibly transplant parts of the plot summaries into the main Sean Dillon article to contribute to the character's bio, but there's not much in the novels that makes them stand out independent of the series. Graymornings(talk) 10:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Here are some reliable sources that prove that the novel Angel of Death has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works that allow it to pass WP:BK. The subject is notable the article should be kept, cleaned up and expanded. As it states in WP:DEL, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion., this is a perfect example, sources exists that allow the articles to be improved, they should be kept and the issues resolved through normal editing.
- Guttman, Robert J. "Best sellers." Europe (Apr. 1995): 26. Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel of Death' by Jack Higgins.
- Pendleton, Elsa. "Book reviews: Fiction." Library Journal 120.4 (Mar. 1995): 102. Abstract: Reviews the novel `Angel of Death,' by Jack Higgins.
- Steinberg, Sybil S. "Forecasts: Fiction." Publishers Weekly 242.2 (09 Jan. 1995): 55. Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel of Death,' by Jack Higgins.
- Lukowsky, Wes. "Adult fiction." Booklist 91.10 (15 Jan. 1995): 869. Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel of Death,' by Jack Higgins.
- Here are some reliable sources for Midnight Runner that allow it to pass WP:BK
- "MIDNIGHT RUNNER (Book)." Kirkus Reviews 70.2 (15 Jan. 2002): 65. Abstract: Reviews the book 'Midnight Runner,' by Jack Higgins.
- Gannon, Sean. "Midnight Runner (Book)." People 57.16 (29 Apr. 2002): 47. Abstract: Reviews the book 'Midnight Runner,' by Jack Higgins.
- Zaleski, Jeff. "MIDNIGHT RUNNER (Book)." Publishers Weekly 249.6 (11 Feb. 2002): 162. Abstract: Reviews the book 'Midnight Runner,' by Jack Higgins.
- Harris, Karen. "Midnight Runner (Book)." Booklist 99.5 (Nov. 2002): 515. Abstract: Reviews the audiobook 'Midnight Runner,' by Jack Higgins and read by Patrick MacNee.
- I can provide similar sources for the other novels. Each of them have multiple reliable source reviews that meet the requirements of WP:BK.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Republik of mancunia[edit]
- Republik of mancunia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Somewhat disjointed original research essay, possibly a hoax Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is very little here that isn't original research and/or unsourced. If there's anything verifiable here, then it would be more useful as a sentence or a paragraph in the main Manchester United article.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be a blog/forum [1], A7. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have created the article in the past 10 minutes. Give me a minute to get the sources up. - ScottScottScott7
- Response Yes, you have plenty of time to add the sources you need. So far, none of the sources you've added appear to even mention this term, but I assume the ones that discuss it as their primary subject are still to come. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I think it's a legitimate subject for an article. There appear to be enough sources. The article is a complete mess of original research however. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and the sources don't have anything to do with the subject of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to Manchester United F.C. ordelete. This is basically a slogan used by supporters of a football club and should be merged into the article about the club if the information is to be kept at all. Most of the sources do not even mention this "republik". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - do NOT merge to Manchester United F.C. - there is no evidence this is a significant or widely-used slogan by United fans, in fact the article states only that it appears on one flag displayed by a small section of fans. I know that the principal editors of the Man U page are gunning for FA status at the moment, and merging in unsourced/unsourcable rubbish like this hardly helps their cause..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The phrase is only used by a small section of the crowd, and I hardly think that there will be any third party sources to back up this article. – PeeJay 09:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. It is mostly author's opinion, with a good helping of WP:COATRACK added in (most of the article is complaints, only tangentially related to the "Republik"). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I actually laughed out loud when I saw this AfD. Absolutely non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn BanRay 00:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, obscure marketing slogan of team does not merit inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lane Cove, New South Wales#Education. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lane Cove Public School[edit]
- Lane Cove Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article about a non notable primary school is entirely unreferenced and written as a puff piece (a proud tradition of academic excellence, community participation, sporting achievement and a supportive environment in which to "Play the Game"). The only claim to any notability at all is the (unsupported) claim that Nicole Kidman attended the school. A previous PROD was removed by an uninvolved editor and the content merged and redirected to Lane Cove, New South Wales. This was reverted by the creating editor who continues to add more unsupported and promotional content.
No doubt there will be plenty of comment about the myth of "inherent notability" for schools. If this school is notable, then reliable, independent sources supporting that notability should be able to be found, over and above the usual "The NSW minister for education visited the school on such and such date" Mattinbgn\talk 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the "About The School" section which was lifed word for word from somewhere else (perhaps this site) -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete if we can't find a reliable source for the Kidman claim, weak keep if we can. Other than the Kidman thing, it doesn't generally meet WP:SCHOOL - it's a primary school that doesn't have any claims to notability besides, well, being a primary school. Can't find reliable sources beyond directory info. Graymornings(talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Yeah, on second thought, the Kidman connection still doesn't make it notable, and as it's not a high school, delete. Graymornings(talk) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this connection is easily sourced - for instance and here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me remind you that notability is not inherited. 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- That soundbite was originally created to stop people from creating articles on relatives of famous people. Now it's used to describe pretty much anything related. Notable almni indicate the school has had a lasting effect on the world at large. And bands are also notable if they have a notable member, so the entire career of said notable member can be properly covered. Notability is not inherited is not something absolute. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as primary schools are not notable. Tavix (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this a High School? Primary school means different things in different parts of the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteLooks like a K-6 school. No indication of special notability more than other primary schools. School website:[2]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Lane Cove per sensible suggestion of other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Lane Cove, New South Wales#Education per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything salvageable to Lane Cove, New South Wales. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge to Lane Cove, New South Wales#Education where it can be discussed in context until there is sufficient sourced content to justify an independent article. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 00:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Leparulo[edit]
- Peter Leparulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of this biography may be the CEO of a notable corporation, and may have a Forbes profile, but that does not assert his notability. mynameinc 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Here's a San Diego Tribune "people to watch" article on Leparulo [3]. Here's business wire story: [4]. Those are just the first couple sources I came up with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ChildofMidnight, those articles are both from two years ago and relate to company more than him. mynameinc 00:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People to watch: Peter Leparulo isn't about him? Isn't the article an interview of him? And I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out that the articles are two years old. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but the guy seems to be quite notable, at least for a stub, if not more. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 4-5 questions in the interview were about Novatel, not Peter. By pointing out that these articles are two years old, I am saying that his "15 minutes of notability" is over. Other than becoming the CEO of Novatel Wireless, Mr. Leparulo has done nothing notable, anyway. mynameinc 02:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People to watch: Peter Leparulo isn't about him? Isn't the article an interview of him? And I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out that the articles are two years old. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but the guy seems to be quite notable, at least for a stub, if not more. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very weak keep... since he's probably lasting longer than 15 minutes, but then, I couldn't find anything on the man that's significant or in-depth. In CoM's defense, esp. the first article is, IMO, strong enough; but if it weren't for that one, I'd vote for delete. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any potential of a Peter Leparulo article ever being better than a stub. From the information that has been gathered so far, the article will be almost like a dictionary entry, because there is no material to right a biography from, and in the first source, the only thing about him personally was the last question. The article is going to be something like "Peter Leparulo (year of birth) is the CEO and Chairman of Novatel, and practiced corporate law for many years before joining Novatel as a high ranking executive in 2000." with a a little bit more content. A History of Novatel could be included, but I don't see it as appropriate considering he didn't found the company. mynameinc 14:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I expanded the article. There are ample sources. He's CEO of a major corporation and is credited with turning it around. He returned to being CEO in 2008. Just because an article is short doesn't mean it should be deleted. Instead of AfDing you're free to expand. Happy Holidays. There is a whole Forbes profile of the guy talking about his history at the company and his pay package. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw AfD. The article is much better and has infinetly more potential now that CoM expanded it. mynameinc 20:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretical Parallel Universes[edit]
- Theoretical Parallel Universes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A pleasant essay but pure original research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR and WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although in a parallel universe on Editpedia, the "encyclopedia that anyone can wiki", all of our counterparts are voting keep. drofsdnaM (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sourced or written as an encyclopedia article. Redddogg (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essay? Tavix (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--whoa, this is a pleasant read how? OR, and not well done. And Mandsford, there is a parallel universe in which all parallel universes contain voting blocs which shout no, no, no! Drmies (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR Salih (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looks like a badly worded interpretation of the Many Worlds Interpretation 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Essays don't belong on WP.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its an essay. Doesn't state what theories predict them. Doesn't provide any real information about them--Wadeperson (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Main article: Sora[edit]
- Main article: Sora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original page was merged into Characters of Kingdom Hearts (See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sora_(Kingdom_Hearts)). Garyzx (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Was a bold merge tried in light of the previous AfD outcome? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly Sora is the hero and main protagonist of Kingdom Hearts and is therefore important within the fictional work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the WP:POINT crap elsewhere. You know you're being deliberately disruptive in light of the current discussions at WT:FICT. Guess that RfC did nothing to change your behavior. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lets agree to disagree and stick to the topic under discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's also agree to remain civil. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – don't see any notability asserted in the various Kingdom Hearts game reviews. No content to merge otherwise. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is mistitled duplicate of existing coverage of Sora (complete with unneccesary plot detail). - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faculty of Medicine - Université de Montréal[edit]
- Faculty of Medicine - Université de Montréal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
College is not independently notable from main university. 16x9 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? The article says it is one of four medical schools in Quebec. Are you suggesting there aren't adequate sources that discuss this subject to write an article? Or are you recommending a merge? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - medical schools, as with law schools, usually get their own page. AfD is not the place to propose merges. TerriersFan (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as for all distinctively organized medical and law schools.,at least, and probably other professional schools as well that aare primary divisions of a university. There's always enough sources. DGG (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faculty of Engineering at the Université de Sherbrooke[edit]
- Faculty of Engineering at the Université de Sherbrooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is not independently notable 16x9 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see there are several of this type of nomination. I'm not clear on why a merge discussion wouldn't be preferable to deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - AfD is not the place to propose merges. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Academic departments are usually not considered individually notable here unless they are particularly highly distinguished, but this does not apply to the colleges of a university. A "faculty" can be either, but in this case it indicates a first-order division of a major university, similar to a medical school. It is itself divided into several departments. It needs external refrences, but I think it can stand. If not, it can certainly be merged. DGG (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Sina National College for Medical Studies[edit]
- Ibn Sina National College for Medical Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This college is not independently WP:N . 16x9 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Any post-secondary institution in any part of the world is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notble graduate institution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - medical schools, as with law schools, usually get their own page. AfD is not the place to propose merges. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being affiliated to a university does not mean being part of a university. It is clear from the source that this college is not part of the university to which it is affiliated, so is independently notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like we're going to have a White Christmas after all Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Graduate School of Design[edit]
- Harvard Graduate School of Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This school is not WP:N on its own with any third party sources. 16x9 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Where to start? Notable graduates and faculty: Shaun Donovan is Obama's choice to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development 1. I found news coverage from 1938 in a google news search 1,and 2. Lastly, the school profound influence in American academics is documented in google scholar. --Jmundo (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Harvard itself is so important in American history and culture that we should let this one slide by without secondary sources. (I know WP policies "notability is not inherited", etc.) Redddogg (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Come on! It's Harvard, no need to delete it. Keep per above. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - AfD is not the place to propose merges. TerriersFan (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--notability is usually not inherited, but in some cases, well, this is one of those cases. What was this nominator thinking? Drmies (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- It has an endowment of over $400 million, that's definitely notable, and like others have said, "Come on! It's Harvard."Joeycfc (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per common sense. Deletion is for unsourceable, not unsourced. Is it really necessary to say anything to prove that sources are out there to support keeping the article even under the most stringent interpretation of the guidelines, even if the sources are not in the article? A case where the sources are so numerous it is hard for a non-expert to find the most appropriate.John Z (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hour of the star[edit]
- Hour of the star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article on a book has no references, no information on notability, and the summary reads like an advertisement. See Wikipedia:Notability_(books). --smurdah (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Clarice Lispector. On one hand, the original contributor works for the book's publisher [5] and the text is promo blurb to be removed. On the other hand, this is a notable author and I'll be flabbergasted if there isn't significant coverage out there. Until someone cares to cite such sources, this title can be briefly mentioned in the author's article. Marasmusine (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The author appears to be quite notable and so does this book. Anyone is welcome to clean out the promotional content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here are some reliable sources to allow the article to pass the requirements of WP:BK, I have access to several of the full reviews and will try and get some of them into the article over the next few days:
- Bricklebank, Peter. "The Hour of the Star (Book)." Library Journal 111.7 (15 Apr. 1986): 96. Abstract: Reviews the book 'The Hour of the Star,' by Clarice Lispector and translated and afterword by Giovanni Pontiero.
- Mujica, B. "Books." Americas 44.1 (Jan. 1992): 61. Abstract: Reviews the book `The Hour of the Star,' by Clarice Lispector.
- Villares, Lucia. "Racism and the performance of whiteness in A hora da estrela." Journal of Iberian & Latin American Studies 14.2/3 (Aug. 2008): 77-85. Abstract: The article examines the presence of racism and the need to perform whiteness in the novel "The Hour of the Star," by Clarice Lispector.
- Gledson, John. "Reviews." Journal of Gender Studies 1.4 (Nov. 1992): 540. Abstract: Reviews the books `Discovering the World,' by Clarice Lispector and translated by Giovanni Pontiero and `The Hour of the Star,' by Clarice Lispector and translated by Giovanni Pontiero.
- Alfred J. Mac Adam: Alfred J. Mac Adam teaches Latin American Literature at Barnard College, and Review. edits the Center for Inter-American Relations' magazine.. "FALLING DOWN IN RIO." New York Times Book Review (18 May 1986): 27.--Captain-tucker (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Judith Kerr. — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mog & The Baby[edit]
- Mog & The Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails review per Wikipedia:Notability_(books) --smurdah (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The author's article could be expanded with this information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but not too much. Pulsaro (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per ChildofMidnight. I'm a fan of Mog: a successful and popular UK children's book series following events in a family's life through the eyes of their titular cat (and ending with her 'ghost' looking out for the family's new kitten). Although published over several years, the dozen or so titles belong together and the author's article would be the best place. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of website text marked "© Copyright 2008 BID2WIN Software Inc."
BID2WIN Software Inc.[edit]
- BID2WIN Software Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Smells a lot like WP:SPAM to me. Executive bio section is taken straight from their website ([6]) and I suspect much of the rest is canned as well. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely spam. Marked it for speedy delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also contains major amount of copyvio's lifted directly from their website. That alone qualifies it for speedy deletion. Exxolon (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mary DeMoss[edit]
- Mary DeMoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I hope Phil doesn't block me for this one... anyway, I've reviewed Mary DeMoss and concluded that it doesn't come close to meeting our verifiability requirements. There is not a single reliable, third-party source that could in any way be conceived to be primarily about this person. Google Books discusses several DeMoss families, but not a single mention of this particular individual. Google Scholar has exactly 1 hit, which appears to be a false match for someone else (it's related to United Methodism, not Scientology). There are some hits on the Google News archives but most of them aren't about this person, but about other people with the same name. You have to go down to about the 9th hit for even a passing mention. Mary DeMoss plus Scientology registers only 3 Google News hits, all passing mentions.
If you believe that this article should be kept, please either provide further third-party reliable sources that I was unable to find, or explain why 3 passing mentions in a local newspaper is sufficient for someone to have a Wikipedia article about them. *** Crotalus *** 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I found some reliable sources right in the current article. Some of those citations are from reliable newspapers and appear to be from the news (not opinion) pages. And she's been involved in notable stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable, first nomination near-unanimous keep, no significant change since then - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't understand this new fascination for some editors of using "proof by Google" to prove anything since none of those are cited in the article. The FA seems to have more than enough references. AndroidCat (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references are there to prove verifiability. The notability is proven by the verifiable statements in the article. She's a founding member of a notable organization. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K-mac Day[edit]
- K-mac Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable local celebration; falls under WP:MADEUP WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Loved it. We got to get this writer or writers to put that energy into some of the bigger projects here. Happy Holidays. ShoesssS Talk 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I don't think so." Since this will soon be gone, the joke was that there's this town in Pennsylvania that reveres the film Home Alone and its lead character, "Kevin McAllister" who was portrayed by Macauley Culkin, hence "K-Mac Day". Mildly amusing. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' = Let me be clear, my comment was not a keep or delete opinion, only a comment :-). Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry! I didn't mean "I don't think so" as a response to your comment. It was a line from the film, where Kevin was talking to the cashier, and she asked "are you here by yourself" and he tells her how unlikely it would be for him to be left home alone and he says "I don't think so", so when people are in that town that is filled with Home Alone fans, they're required to answer all questions that way... but I digress. I agree with you, the author's talents are wasted on making something up instead of writing about something real. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment': LOL-Thank you. Chalk it up to Generation Gap ShoesssS Talk 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry! I didn't mean "I don't think so" as a response to your comment. It was a line from the film, where Kevin was talking to the cashier, and she asked "are you here by yourself" and he tells her how unlikely it would be for him to be left home alone and he says "I don't think so", so when people are in that town that is filled with Home Alone fans, they're required to answer all questions that way... but I digress. I agree with you, the author's talents are wasted on making something up instead of writing about something real. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I didn't get it. Didn't even cause me to smirk. Go ahead and call me Scrooge, I'm sticking with Festivus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Get the hook WP:MADEUP stuff. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Ruth[edit]
- Ted Ruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Player does not play professionally, has not played at the highest level of amateur hockey (Olympics or World Championships) and does not appear to have won ony major awards. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Ted Ruth currently plays NCAA hockey, which is considered by many to be the highest league in amateur hockey. From the text on Wikipedia regarding notability of hockey player articles:
- "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant"
- Therefore, this article follows the guidelines for a hockey player article. Savvy10 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect, as there indeed exists a professional league, the National Hockey League. Therefore, there is not a lack of a professional league. Time and time again have NCAA and junior hockey bio articles been deleted. This is no different. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Through lack of a professional hockey league" could be interpreted in different ways: one way is that no professional league exists; the other way is that the player is unable or choosing not to play in a professional league. This would also be a lack of a pro league. Therefore, this still follows the condition stated above. Savvy10 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote Smashville from a previous AfD, "We have established various times that non-major award winning college/major junior players are not notable. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There is nothing that makes this article any different than the other 34 non-notable articles I just linked." Choosing not to compete in a professional hockey league cannot be interpreted as a lack of a professional league. Am I notable because I choose not to play in the NHL? By your standard every single junior or NCAA hockey player is notable, something that as linked above, has clearly been proved to not be the case. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Through lack of a professional hockey league" could be interpreted in different ways: one way is that no professional league exists; the other way is that the player is unable or choosing not to play in a professional league. This would also be a lack of a pro league. Therefore, this still follows the condition stated above. Savvy10 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect, as there indeed exists a professional league, the National Hockey League. Therefore, there is not a lack of a professional league. Time and time again have NCAA and junior hockey bio articles been deleted. This is no different. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are not notable because as far as we know, you don't play junior hockey. And many of the articles for deletion you listed are errors for various reasons, i.e. they are first round picks, they have won awards. Besides, Ted Ruth was on the Notre Dame hockey team that won the CCHA championship. Also, something not listed in the notability article but still a notable fact is that Ted Ruth was traded for arguably one of the best players. There is an article mentioning Ted Ruth used as a source, something that some of the articles you listed above lacked. Savvy10 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (NHL) Tavix (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, he has played at the highest amateur level - not a competition, but a league. Playing at an amateur level goes with WP:ATHLETE.Savvy10 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It abides by WP:ATHLETE as he has played at the highest amateur league and also follows WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE for this reason. Savvy10 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the highest level of amateur hockey is the Olympics or World Championships, as has been established time and time again. He has yet to play pro, thus fails WP:ATHLETE. Many pro hockey leagues exist, and so, the "lack of a professional league" clause becomes obsolete for hockey. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Level" can be interpreted as competition or league. "Lack of professional league" can be interpreted as pro leagues being nonexistent or pro leagues simply not an option. And several of the deletions for NCAA and junior hockey bio articles were erroneous and should not have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvy10 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pageau, Legein, and Rai are the three that come to me first. Pageau seems to be the most obvious error. There are others as well as those three. Savvy10 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting choices. I don't see why you feel they should have articles. Rai has never played professionaly, wasn't drafted in the first round, and hasn't won any major awards. Legin's article was deleted on December 29, 2007; at that point he hadn't played professionally, hadn't been drafted in the first round, and hadn't won any major awards. He has since played pro and that article would easily pass an AfD if it were recreated. As for Pageau, he's the same reason as Rai. Why did you feel these should not have been deleted? They clearly all fail notability (or at least did at the time of deletion, and still do aside from Legin). – Nurmsook! talk... 23:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pageau, Legein, and Rai are the three that come to me first. Pageau seems to be the most obvious error. There are others as well as those three. Savvy10 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Pageau won two silver medals at the Ontario Minor Hockey League championships. Those are pre-eminent honors, and people falling under that category can have articles under WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Savvy10 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you read that? It clearly states "in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League or in a major collegiate hockey league". Those are semi-pro, collegiate, and junior leagues, not a minor hockey league. You do realize that the Ontario Minor Hockey League is the league in which kids play, right? Suddenly you're including youth as notable in your argument, and there are about half a million youth playing hockey in Canada alone. Suddenly you're arguing that simply winning a medal in minor hockey makes one notable. I don't think so. If this is the case, a whole lot of 6 to 18-year old hockey players are going to be getting articles. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of youth athlete articles that are on Wikipedia, and some of those kids haven't even won anything. The fact that Pageau has played in a top youth league and has won pre-eminent honors should make him more notable than these kids and therefore should have been kept. Savvy10 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HOCKEY/PPF clearly indicates the level required to fulfil pre-eminent honors. Minor hockey awards do not meet that by a ten foot pole. I offer you a challenge. Find me an article of a hockey player that is under 17 years old. I can most definately count the amount on one hand, and the only reason those will have one is because they one a major junior hockey award. Regardless, I can see you won't be changing your view, which is fair. You are titled to an opinion. I just want to point out that Wikipedia is like the British judicial system. It's simply a series of precident that evolves. And as can be seen in the 34 articles above (and there are a LOT more), this article does not pass WP:N. It's simple. He has not played pro, and he hasn't played at the highest amateur level. He fails WP:N. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Pageau won two silver medals at the Ontario Minor Hockey League championships. Those are pre-eminent honors, and people falling under that category can have articles under WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Savvy10 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's a long article about the kid and the trade from the Columbus dispatch. [7] I still lean towards weak delete as he doesn't seem notable enough yet. Are there articles about his college career? Half way down in this article is a discussion of the trade [8]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per what Nurmsook has stated. He's not playing in the highest level of competition, pro or not. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Has not played professionally or at an international amateur competition. Fails WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:RS on top of that. Grsz11 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the NCAA is inferior to the OHL. Grsz11 05:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a matter of opinion. In organization, the NCAA is not actually beneath the OHL because it's not involved with OHL, or any part of the CHL. Therefore, either one of these could be considered the top league and there would be no way to distinguish which one is because the CHL and the NCAA do not involve each other at all. Savvy10 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one could take the number of Canadian trained vs US trained players in the NHL into consideration, noting that a decent number of US players played amateur in Canada. But that's besides the point. The point is WP:ATHLETE applies to the highest amateur competition no matter what country the individual is from. For ice hockey, this is a world competition or the Olympics. For college football, NCAA is the highest amateur competition, but it varies from sport to sport. Ice hockey, no. Grsz11 16:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a matter of opinion. In organization, the NCAA is not actually beneath the OHL because it's not involved with OHL, or any part of the CHL. Therefore, either one of these could be considered the top league and there would be no way to distinguish which one is because the CHL and the NCAA do not involve each other at all. Savvy10 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the NCAA is inferior to the OHL. Grsz11 05:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE in that he neither has played professionally or at the highest level of amateur competition the world championships or the olympics. The usually refers to sports like football that don't have a world championship or olympic involvement. -Djsasso (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Highest amateur level is usually considered to be the Olympics. However, it could also be considered the CHL or NCAA hockey. Savvy10 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And in the case of hockey, huge amounts of precedence indicates this is not one of those cases. In fact hockey was one of the sports which caused the wording to be changed to make it clear it was the world championships and olympics. The usually refers to sports like football that don't have a world championship or olympic involvement. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject fails all three - WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and Hockey notability standards. NCAA is not considered one of the highest form of Hockey as an Amateur. The Olympics or World Championships would be the highest level. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject has yet to win a major amateur award, wasn't drafted in the 1st round of the NHL entry draft, and hasn't played professionally or at the Olympics. If he goes on to win the Hobey Baker Award or plays professionally, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since he does not meet the criteria for ice hockey players (ie played professionally or competed at highest level of amateur sport) —Krm500 (Communicate!) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as duplicate, by the same nominator, of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redencion 911 (2nd nomination). Please note that new AFD nominations go at the top of the per-day discussion pages, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redencion 911[edit]
- Redencion 911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication of notability. smurdah (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Is Me (Camp Rock song)[edit]
- This Is Me (Camp Rock song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The artist may be notable, but this single is not notable enough for its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability_(music). --smurdah (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect – To Camp Rock as the guideline points out, and you linked too, in situations like this. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say Delete. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: By charting, it meets the normal standard for getting an article. I hate these short single articles, and wish that people would merge them into larger ones, but number 9 on the Billboard Hot 100 is enough to pass notability guidelines.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Peaked at number 9 on the Billboard Hot 100, and peaked higher than 50 on at least 3 other charts. Seems to pass notability to me. AcroX 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Very) Weak Delete Quoting from the Notability guideline referenced above: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." At the risk of being battered by WP:DEMOLISH I'm not sure there is enough information out there to make a good-sized article. Perhaps this is the get out clause Kww would like as a means of merging/redirecting/deleting these stub song articles? No aarcasm intended btw, I feel the same way you do! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that part of the guideline, and I've tried to use it. Ultimately, all of Vanessa Hudgens's singles came back, and a lot of Cheetah Girls singles came back. Without a nice, crystal-clear violation of the notability guidelines, it's nearly impossible to merge these things and keep them merged.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get Back (Demi Lovato song)[edit]
- Get Back (Demi Lovato song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The artist may be notable, but this single is not notable enough for its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability_(music). --smurdah (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect - To Don't Forget. See reasoning used for This Is Me (Camp Rock song) above also applies. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: By charting, it meets the normal standard for getting an article. I hate these short single articles, and wish that people would merge them into larger ones, but number 43 on the Billboard Hot 100 is enough to pass notability guidelines.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's charted, it's referenced, and there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It's notable enough for inclusion, but not doesn't need an article of its own, as Esradekan notes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Esradekan : a charting single and enough content to warrant an article. Europe22 (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is a moderately successful single from a notable artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.96.235 (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Don't Forget: not notable to stand on its own. JamesBurns (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No chart = lack of notability. Converted to dab page per Esradekan. Black Kite 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
La La Land[edit]
- La La Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The artist may be notable, but this single is not notable enough for its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability_(music). --smurdah (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merege/Redirect - See above arguments. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Uncharted, uncovered, unawarded. Fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Don't Forget: nothing to make the song notable. --JD554 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate "La La Land" songs to Don't Forget & Shihad (album). Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a single from a notable artist. See Google News results. Everyking (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the single has so far not been successful. 71.14.96.235 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability of single not established WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JLS (X Factor Group)[edit]
- JLS (X Factor Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Creation of a standalone article for JLS is both premature and unneccessary: premature because they are currently only known for their involvement in the X Factor and WP:BIO1E applies, and unneccessary because a bio already exists at List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#JLS. If they gain independent notability then an article would be appropriate but to assume they will before the event violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5)#JLS. Not yet notable enough for their own article! JS (chat) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as they pass WP:MUSIC. Note - This article needs to be moved to JLS (Jack the Lad Swing) or JLS (Group) as JLS (X Factor Group) is an improper name (they were a group before they entered the X Factor). JS (chat) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Let's keep the Reality TV cruft together. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this AFD was previosuly closed early in what was determined at DRV to be a good faith, but nonetheless an improper WP:NAC. The discussion has been reopened. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - JLS have won an Urban Music Award, are notable under Criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO and are about to be signed to record deal with Simon Cowell [9]. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (per my original nomination). The AfD for Eoghan Quigg noted that WP:MUSICBIO attributes notability to acts "placed" in a music contest. At the time I commented that this probably blew away the deletion rationale (which was the same as this one). But there is certainly plenty of room for doubt. What exactly does "placed" mean? Is this policy supposed to override WP:BIO1E or is it itself overridden? And although in the final week of the contest JLS finished higher than E.Q., over the course of the contest, E.Q. generally finished ahead of JLS so you could argue that E.Q. "placed" more highly. And, of course, the AfD for E.Q. was far from clear-cut and the closing admin had a tough call to make - another admin may not have made the same decision. So whereas I agree this AfD was rightly re-opened, I don't think the fact that the AfD for E.Q. closed as keep is, in itself, any reason why this one should. Right now, everything notable about JLS is attributable to the X Factor and IMO a separate article is not warranted. Any non-keep closure should, of course, be without prejudice to recreation if that changes - it probably will in future, but that is irrelevant now. Ros0709 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ros, no one here has !voted keep because of Eoghan Quigg. We have !voted keep because JLS are an award winning group that were placed in a TV talent show. They clearly pass WP:MUSIC. Also, since this AfD nomination was made, the article has been massively improved and sourced. JS (chat) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. The DRV which resulted in this reopening did follow on from, and make heavy reference, to the E.Q. AfD (see Talk:Eoghan Quigg) - but I agree this immediate discussion has not done so - and should stand or fall on its own. I maintain that - at present - JLS and X Factor are too closely connected to separate, and the article itself makes this quite clear. Ros0709 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ros, no one here has !voted keep because of Eoghan Quigg. We have !voted keep because JLS are an award winning group that were placed in a TV talent show. They clearly pass WP:MUSIC. Also, since this AfD nomination was made, the article has been massively improved and sourced. JS (chat) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as this article meets the criteria of having placed in a music competition. That should be enough, but as someone has pointed out, the band have also won an award, and some members have done things outside of the band. Sky83 (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Winning an Urban Music Award clearly qualifies this article for inclusion under the WP:MUSIC criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that an Urban Music Award is not a "major" award on a par with the Grammys, as WP:MUSIC requires. 212.56.100.48 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - I don't know much about this group and have somewhat stumbled upon this but if what the above says is true, and they have placed in a TV talent show and won an award, policy says this definitely has to stay. If it helps any further see ChildLine Concert - they apparently performed here too, even though the article says not due to lack of update on clear referencing (yet if you check the venue it will tell you otherwise.) --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep- Eoghan Quiggs article was kept due to his place in the competition and as JLS reached a higher position, there article should also be kept. And 3 of the members of the band have been famous before. They have also won an Award (the band together) for their music. 86.161.253.214 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - But re-evaluate at a later date. - On one hand, it could be argued that a great many acts who don't win in an X factor final drop out of the public eye relatively quickly. On the other hand, if memory serves me correctly, the terms the X factor live show performers agree to state that second and third place are given lesser contracts with Syco Music (was revealed when the terms were leaked this year). If I'm right about that, I would argue that the record deal plus the recognition they receive through the show should result on the article being kept. we can only determine Notability in the present tense, since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's better to let a situation like this - which, lest we forget, is not even 2 weeks old - develop before re-evaluating it where the question of notability is concerned, as opposed to deleting it before notability can really establish or in this case, diminish itself. as an aside, if this doesn't meet notability standard, surely it should be taken into consideration that even those who win it: e.g., Steve Brookstein and , to perhaps a lesser degree, Shayne Ward, are no longer notable in the musical field?
78.148.31.81 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars Expanded Universe. — Aitias // discussion 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holocron[edit]
- Holocron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A collection of snippets of plot summary from disparate Star Wars Expanded Universe sources -- but no overall assertion or substantiation that the items are themselves notable. References are to primary sources or in-universe encyclopedias/references that themselves offer just plot; no indication that the topic has been subject of any third-party coverage. Prose itself contains snippets of original research (e.g. "holocrons seem to indicate"). First two pages of Google Books search yields mostly the same in-universe texts as the article calls on; first out-of-universe use of the term is for a similarly-named mountain; another, a single parenthetical use of the word in a 310-page book. All together, the article fails WP:OR, WP:N. --EEMIV (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Star Wars Expanded Universe. Vanishingly little coverage. None (that I can see) independent from lucasfilm and friends. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a redirect to the EU article is appropriate. The article I think doesn't mention "holocrons," and I'm not sure it's the best course to redirect EU-only ideas to the EU article, lest someone misinterpret such redirects as suggesting the idea that the article needs a crufty, "List of Star Wars concepts that appear only in the EU". --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/RedirectYet another non-notable fiction topic. Article's can't and shouldn't be based solely on primary sources.--Crossmr (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Should be included in that article and redirected to appropriate section so people searching for this information can find it. Not notable enough for independent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Enough For You[edit]
- Good Enough For You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has not established notability as per Wikipedia:Notability_(music) smurdah (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: fails to assert importance in any way. --JD554 (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've declined the speedy deletion as the article says that they have released two CDs, which seems to be a sufficient assertion of importance. However, delete as seems to fail WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vulvathrone[edit]
- Vulvathrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability established beyond a Myspace and a Youtube page. smurdah (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There's nothing to establish notability, aside from the fact that they've gotten a record label to sign them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, no evidence of notability. Claims to be signed by BMG, but a cursory Googling brings up little but MySpace. (So, basically, that's a lie.) Also, their website is a .tk (which is NSFW) and thus leads me to think this is just another myspace band reaching for buoyancy aids in the shape of Wikipedia in the endless sea of the internet. Garden. 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ronzilla[edit]
- Ronzilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Local musician of barely asserted notability who doesn't appear to have any RS coverage. Author believes MUSICBIO should be altered to allow for inclusion. A7 declined by another admin. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO in every way. The article's subject itself isn't mentioned in either ref, none of his songs have charted, no certifications, awards, or anything. AcroX 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. This artist (and his debut recording) represents a fusion of two genres of experimental music that is novel and noteworthy. Experimental artists and art forms (including music) are not well represented in notability guidelines such as WP:MUSICBIO, because they are designed for popular media. The "Other" section of WP:MUSICBIO is insufficient, and I plan to start a dialogue on this subject. However, that will require more time and thought. In the meantime, I ask that the Ronzilla page remain intact. The "rules of engagement" for experimental artists/media are significantly different from popular artists/media, and I recommend leniency on this notability issue. - Shichikokuyama (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Fails the basic tenets that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable through independent reliable sources and that notability is established by having this coverage. Nuttah (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, perhaps Delete. I'm new to Wikipedia, so bare with me. I just discovered Wikipedia:No original research, which clarifies my misunderstanding about the role of Wikipedia. My point with the Ronzilla article was to raise attention about a subject that is not well documented elsewhere. - Shichikokuyama (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've spent quite a while perusing Special:Contributions/Anhydrobiosis, and have come to the conclusion that this was not a good faith nomination, despite the appearance of the text below. More to come on the administrator's noticeboard. I've removed the merger proposal as well. Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S[edit]
This article on a letter in the English language is unremarkable as just one of many letters in the alphabet. It has no inline citations, is confusing, has a non adequate beginning, and is written like an essay. Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep — Sure, it is remarkable. Letter is reliably sourced (look at any Oxford Dictionary or World Book Encyclopedia) as well as encyclopedic and not written like an essay. There is no problem, here. MuZemike (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssssssssssssssso voting keep on this one- I'm not sure it really needs an argument why. Although I suppose I could ask... What about "X"? ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perfectly appropriate and informative article about the letter-- history, significance, -- just like in paper encyclopedias. Not being paper, perhaps we can expand it. DGG (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a better idea: perhaps we should merge the individual articles on letters into sections of the broader Latin Alphabet article.Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as the subject easily clears the notability and verifiability. Nominator placed a number of tags on this article in apparent bad faith. - Dravecky (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Time to snowball keep. Why would anyone single out S and keep the rest? NVO (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WIX.com[edit]
- WIX.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable web site; despite a single external reference. Blowdart | talk 18:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notability easily established [10] and [11]. MuZemike (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - See the above references and Blowdart's comment for my reason. --smurdah (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to delete per lack of notability established through multiple reliable sources. I was not aware of the subtle differences in the second reference I have cited. MuZemike (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will edit this article today, and will add more refernce
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avatar: The Last Airbender. History retained if an editor wants to merge some material. Cirt (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Airbender[edit]
- The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:NFF, this article should not exist until filming begins. Many films have been cancelled in pre-production. Suitable coverage about the planned film trilogy is already avaliable at Avatar: The Last Airbender. Alientraveller (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly reverting back to the older edit that was a redirect to the coverage in the parent article. No need for an AFD when a simple redirect will do.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Dylan0513 (talk · contribs) wants an article although I've linked the guideline to him twice now so let's see some justification and consensus. As explained to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln (film), we'll have to see this through. I myself personally concur to a merge. Alientraveller (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Apologies if I acted with a bit too much haste. In that case, I vote to merge into parent article.. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur that to merge seems to be the best course of action. Ngorongoro (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Apologies if I acted with a bit too much haste. In that case, I vote to merge into parent article.. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, Alientraveler, you think this is hurting me somehow? I don't really care what happens to the article. There's no point in deleting it, it will just be made again in 3 months when production starts. This article should not be up for deletion and you are taking a person grudge, which I don't even know why you have, into the Wikipedia process. Discuss this matter on the Avatar: The Last Airbender talk page, "The Last Airbender" has no reason to be up for deletion. It should be a redirect. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. And it's good to hear you concur to a merge too. Alientraveller (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender#Feature film per the notability guidelines for future films; the section is completely appropriate to host such information about a possible film. There is no guarantee that production will begin. No prejudice against a stand-alone article if it is verified that filming of this project, announced nearly two years ago, has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can't we wait until March and see if it has been delayed or not? I think that that usually signifies if the movie is headed for director's hell. All that is going to happen is that someone will click the undo button in March sometime. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we tend to err on the side of caution. Even if a project is based on a high-profile franchise, the project is not guaranteed to begin production right away, if at all. Examples include Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4, Justice League of America, etc. WP:NFF works because if a planned film is in a section of the broader article, then it shows that the film is not quite guaranteed. When there is a stand-alone article, editors may believe that the film will happen. I've seen AFDs where editors reference the presence of the article itself to say, "This film is going to happen." Redirecting downplays the topic... a film being planned is not at all like a film that has a Plot section, Cast section, Production section, Themes section, Reception section, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep as there seems to be more than enough significant coverage over the last couple years per the general notability guidelines to qualify under WP:NFF: Slash Film, First Showing, Film School Rejects, Mania.com, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, All Headline News, Movie Web, Empire Online, Ain't It Cool, Collider, io9.com, M. Night fans, Coming Soon, et al. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't started filming, though, so it does not qualify under WP:NFF. Look at something like The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Future film adaptation -- Disney jumping ship casts a very pessimistic outlook on that particular project ever becoming a film, even though I'm sure you can find a lot of coverage like you did above due to the fan base. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to parent article. Even films that seem a lock for going ahead fall apart before filming begins. Budget issues, scripting issues, casting issues and scheduling issues often get in the way. Just look at those that Erik cites; Jurassic Park IV was originally intended for release in 2005. Early reports for The Last Airbender suggested a 2009 release; there's nothing to stop its being put back again, or cancelled altogether. In addition, there isn't a great deal of information available for this film yet, so surely it's better off for the readers if it gets put in the parent article, where it can be taken in the correct context. Steve T • C 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to source material's article until filming begins. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mangle Time[edit]
- Mangle Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A drinking-related neologism that doesn't stand up to a sober Google search. I believe we can pour this one out. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, neologism, perhaps WP:HOAX. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those are criteria for speedy deletion. Please familiarize yourself with our speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G1 (patent nonsense). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article written in comprehensible coherent English is not patent nonsense. Please familiarize yourself with our speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete It's snowing! wait, it's not. Snow isn't real, I swear. --Numyht (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete — pretty much a madeup neologism. MuZemike (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX. And with respects to Uncle G, Something made up might well be written in "comprehensible coherent English" And still be unsourcable as patent nonsense without being incomprehensible. Nonsense is nonsense. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I was unable to verify this article's content through searches on Google News, Google Books, and Amazon.com. Also, the only contributor to the article is the article's creator who has made no additional edits beyond creating this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diane O'Brien[edit]
- Diane O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A contested prod. A tragic event, but an event all the same. Wikipedia is not the news and there is no evidence of enduring coverage of this, leaving it as a news story. Based on that the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT Nuttah (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – The only item I was able to find was the same one that is linked to on the articles page. Sorry to say, this is just one more tragic incident that happens so often in cities today, that it has become non-notable. My condolences to the family. ShoesssS Talk 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Whatever isn't in the main article (Is there a main article?) should be merged there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:Notability & Shoesss. It was a tragedy indeed, especially this time of a year and I really feel bad for her family. However, I do want to argue that a many young girls die or gone missing around the world daily. And if this Canadian girl has gone missing in Canada / the US or in the Europe, the coverage will be minimum or none. While every young girl got murdered is a tragedy and I hope justice is severed, Wikipedia is simply NOT a place for this kind of collective stories. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic morality[edit]
- Catholic morality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested Prod - author deleted prod without explanation. Personal opinion essay on one specific topic (abortion), material is covered elswhere Dawn Bard (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonsensical WP:FORK Mayalld (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as noted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to User:Rcatholic/Catholic morality. Article is a bold, good faith effort by a new user, who (according to Talk:Catholic morality) may even have sources. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the material should be included, with sources of course, in other articles on the Catholic Church and especially in those on the Catholic view of abortion. Redddogg (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 08:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Nothing (band)[edit]
- Out of Nothing (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This band amounts to a few self produced CDs and a review or two in the local paper. To date, there's not enough to satisfy WP:BAND so the band fails notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, self-publishing. WP:MUSIC, Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen several bands with less achievements than this one on wikipedia; I'm yet to understand the criteria for retention of articles or screening process. As stated before this band has become the biggest representative of ska-punk in Pensacola, FL and it's a well known act on the Panhandle area. The reason for self publishing has been more of a personal decision than lack of offers. I'd like to get some advice on what can be done to retain this entry Oskar81 (Oskar81) 03:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Couldn't find any Google hits either; while not a definitive barometer, it underscores the present limited area of notability. Try again when broader coverage merits. JNW (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why everyone is up in arms over this. They're a band, and they're legit. I've seen them play at various music venues in Pensacola. As for the comment above me... I doubt they're paying for ad words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halopwny (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how there’s not enough information to meet the WP:BAND requirements.
Listed in Sources are: - 3 newspaper articles - 1 magazine article - proof that they have performed music for a compilation (entry #9).
Furthermore, the article says that they won a major music competition – playing warped tour via the ernie ball contest. You can’t refute that. There’s a newspaper article (sources entry #4) and picture (sources entry #3) backing it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecto12 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. Sandstein 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Humanity[edit]
- Kingdom of Humanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to be a notable micronation. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Spratly Islands. A few passing mentions in reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. I just expanded that article; it has some significance, but the KoH separately does not. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to RMSM article on the basis of its recent expansion by JeremyMcCracken, well done. dougweller (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. A place that existed. More noteworthy than Narnia and Hogwarts and such places. All nations are notable. --Balloholic (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to RMSM article. Snappy (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SS Timothy Bloodworth[edit]
- SS Timothy Bloodworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This doesn't appear to be a notable ship. There's little more to say about it that it exists and provide its service history. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was a WWII era Liberty ship, part of the US Navy. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion. Also note that there are quite a few Liberty ship articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only refs are directory listings. "Other liberty ship articles exist" is not a compelling argument for notability. Fails WP:N. Not everything owned by a military force during World War 2 is inherently notable. Edison (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- the references prove notability. Even if it hasn't been expanded beyond a stub, its still notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All ships are considered notable here. There are normally refs when a search is made adequately.DGG (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ship meets WP:N and WP:V. Ships generally are all notable enough for articles. Liberty ships are an important class of merchant ships. WP:SHIPS informed. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Mjroots' argument on WP:N and WP:V. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Mjroots. --rogerd (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that Liberty ships are, collectively, an important class, so it could be redirected to a list of Liberty ships. Membership in an important class does not confer inherent notability on every member of the class. Edison (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. SS Timothy Bloodworth was the first ship to be hit by a V-2 rocket, which is now noted in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nom's rationale is a bit weak; if we boil down every article on every ship ever built, there would be little to fill an article other than that "it exists and provide its service history." Parsecboy (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough has been said. --Brad (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Per Mjroots. Manxruler (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beta Upsilon Chi[edit]
- Beta Upsilon Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is (still) nothing in this article to suggest that this fraternity is any more notable than the tens of thousands of others in the USA. Most of the opinions at the previous AFD amounted to WP:WAX-type arguments. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the same good reasons for keeping it apply. 24 chapters in several states is enough. I generally say to delete if its single college or just a little more, but regional significance like this is sufficient. There is additionally general interest because of the court case about recognition, which they won. DGG (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasons in previous nomination. The fraternity in question has not suddenly become less notable. tylerwillis | talk to me 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Svidersky[edit]
- Anna Svidersky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Very sad case, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- WP might not be a memorial, but it is a place for articles on notable people, and the worldwide attention her death garnered makes her notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mourning sickness#Anna Svidersky, which already contains all relevant information about the reaction of strangers to her tragic death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--This article is more than a memorial. Her death had worldwide coverage, "tragic as it was, this story was never destined to attract worldwide attention. Until, that is, Anna's friends posted the news of her murder on MySpace"..."The story looks unlikely to stop here. Condolences from all over the world continue to flood in, with 29 video tributes currently hosted on You Tube alone." (The Guardian). The fact that the article has survived 3 AfDs, highlights her "notability". --Jmundo (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It survived AFD in one form or another 3 times already. Nothing changed. (I would have voted to merge/redirect, if doing so wouldn't put undue weight into the target article. She might be notable, but not more notable than Diana.) - Mgm|(talk) 19:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, and people remembered for one event only are better integrated in to articles about that event. Thus, due to failed attempts to merge this with Mourning sickness like it should be, we should delete this article. Steven Walling (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it "should be" merged with Mourning Sickness. Deletion is not the proper solution then. Ty 10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my whole comment. A merge has been suggeted and attempted multiple times to no avail. If the article doesn't meet notability criteria for people, and there is opposition to merging it with a notable topic to which it is related, then it should be deleted. Steven Walling (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read your whole comment. You are saying that merge is the correct course of action. If the consensus of the AfD agrees with that, then it will be merged. It does meet WP:N. Ty 00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines in the least. Every murder, even if it's a young girl, isn't notable. What is notable about the case is its use in media studies and other academics as an example of mourning sickness. Svidersky herself is famous only for the circumstances of her death, and thus clearly violates both our consensus-created guidelines for biographies of people famous for one thing, and the fact that we are not a memorial. Steven Walling (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia is not a memorial: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." The article has been written by editors in good standing per normal policy requirements, meeting WP:N, with intense scrutinty, and any attempts by users to place tributes have been reverted. The fact that this article is viewed around 4,500 times per month[12] is more indication of widespread and lasting notability beyond any immediate circle. To not have this article would be a disservice to readers. Ty 10:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ty above, and per numerous prior discussions in the previous AfDs, this article does not violate Wikipedia is not a memorial. It is well sourced, not written by involved parties, and notability is clearly established on local, national and international levels. Crum375 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Norwegian photographers[edit]
- List of Norwegian photographers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As per the previous AFD, this dead-end list consisting mostly of redlinks would be better as a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As red-links can't be kept in the category. From the time between the first and second nomination, the blue links have gone up from one to eleven. Lugnuts (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ill-fitted for main namespace. Lists of redlinks can go in WikiProject space. Punkmorten (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list provides information that cannot be put into a category (redlinks, dates, location). If there is a concensus it shouldn't be in the mainspace, then just move it to a relevant wikiproject until it's fully bluelinked. I see no reason to delete this. - Mgm|(talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and unless you can refer me to a policy or guideline that says lists are not notable unless there are enough bluelinks, this is a frivolous nomination. Not sure what is "dead end" about a list of Norwegian photographers unless you have something against Norway or photographers. --Leifern (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment If the result is keep maybe the red links should be included on some norway related project page and someone might create articles and make the list more relevant. Jenafalt (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but delete the redlinked entries The sortable birth/death info. makes this complimentary to the category. However, the redlinks should be deleted; the WP:SAL guideline states "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles; instead consider listing them in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject." UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the article you're linking to, it says quite clearly: "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." - by definition, the photographers in this list are supposed to be notable. If you don't think they are notable (which is entirely possible), delete the entry. --Leifern (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Available for national and international assignments"?? Who's looking after this? Pulsaro (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:Lists: "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic" and WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Lists can include items that are not linked...or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)" and "Categories do not support other forms of tracking, such as adding red links. (Red links are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles)" Scapler (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma Phi Lambda[edit]
- Sigma Phi Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No third-party references or serious evidence of meeting WP:ORG. Hasn't improved since the last AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The piece is now referenced with 3rd party – creditable – verifiable sources. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Per WP:ORG, national sorority with 25 chapters and verifiable sources.--Jmundo (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sustainable tourism. — Aitias // discussion 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humane travel[edit]
- Humane travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"Humane Travel" seems to be more associated with transportation of animals rather than any form of tourism. I've tried and not been particularly successful, to find anything to assert the notability of the term. The article appears to be an essay rather than an article. The concept is a perfectly reasonable concept, but is not ready yet as an encyclopaedic concept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sustainable tourism, also referred to in travel guides as "responsible tourism" (which redirects there). I've never heard it called "humane travel", but perhaps some people refer to it as that. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roland Muller[edit]
- Roland Muller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While he has a few published books to his name, I haven't been able to find any secondary sources, or press coverage on him using the Google news archive. That would make me think this person is not notable via WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, plus WP:COI--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if sources don't appear. I haven't been able to find independent and reliable sources - particularly reviews. It feels to me like they ought to exist, and the books certainly look interesting, but I can't find the reviews to indicate that the Christian world has noticed this author. Without such independent notice and discussion, we can't sustain an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 15:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Long[edit]
- Robin Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete per WP:BLP1E Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Being the first US soldier deported from Canada makes him pretty damn notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. Any other issues can be fixed with cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It makes him notable for a single event, and Wikipedia doesn't have articles about people notable for a single event. Mayalld (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- Firstly, I dispute that the article is about just one event. Its actually an ongoing series of events. The starting with his desertion, then moving on to his subsequent trial and deportation. Secondly, the fact that this situation has never happened before lends it a uniqueness that overrides any concerns about WP:BLP1E. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--More than "routine news coverage"(WP:NOT#NEWS). This individual had a major role in a court case that had a significant policy change in Canada 1.--Jmundo (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so add that to the article. if you can't be bothered to do that, why should wikipedia be bothered to keep the article? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The news coverage of this person seems to be reasonably persistent. The fact that he continues to issue statements against the Iraq war from in prison tends to remove the one event concern; this is not a person who has shunned publicity for his cause. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the usual misinterpretation of BLP1E, which says think about merging and redirecting, (to which article?) not deleting. This is a clearly notable first, and therefore has sufficient coverage. And of course, Wikipedia has thousands of articles about people notable for only one event.John Z (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. if the only way the nominator, in your opinion, can get this article deleted is to simultaneously nominate what is, by your own estimate, "thousands of articles", you're insane. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what I am saying is that this is not really what BLP1E is for, which again does not use the word "delete." It is more for people who have just played a small, incidental part in a big event (most often one with an article here). Not someone whose life is largely defined by a clearly notable event, which in turn is not (much) bigger than the person himself. Here because he was the first, the one whose case will set precedents. And because he was the first, and continues to issue statements and attract coverage, the "one event" claim is weak, as others point out above. As often, the other crap is here for a reason - that it is encyclopedic content allowed under our policies, or any sensible encyclopedia's. Gavrilo Princip is notable for only one event, but will not be deleted.John Z (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. if the only way the nominator, in your opinion, can get this article deleted is to simultaneously nominate what is, by your own estimate, "thousands of articles", you're insane. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a) not exactly clear what event to merge with and b) notability is clear per the Gavrilo Princip comparison. Orpheus (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
November 2008 ceasefire violation[edit]
- November 2008 ceasefire violation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete unredeemably POV screed, poorly titled, so as to offer no context as to which ceasefire was being violated Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. This can be mentioned in a couple of sentences in one of the Nagorno-Karbakh articles, where the context can be found. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mandsford --Numyht (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I moved the article to Nagorno-Karabakh November 2008 ceasefire violation to define which ceasefire was being violated and wikified the article. Considering the number of Azeri stalkers that I have, the article will soon have the Azeri side of the story, or voted for deletion. VartanM (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of us here are from Azerbaijan, but even if so, that's not the reason we're saying "delete". Regardless of whether this incident is told from the Nagorno side or the Azeri side, it's part of an ongoing conflict. Ceasefire violations hapen all the time during ceasefires, and articles can't be written about each incident. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS as this appears to have been a minor incident Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mayalld and Nick-D above. --Friejose (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS --rogerd (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, one external link at least is manifestly partisan. --Brandспойт 21:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bomma Borusa[edit]
- Bomma Borusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nn film, fails WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is expected from the article? Its a 1971 Telugu language film stub and its created half an hour ago and I am working on related articles. By this article being nominated for deletion, I am assuming that either you guys have more informatin on this article or I am adding vandalism into my articles for it is being nomiated for deletion. Bharathprime (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Verifiable Reliable Sources is what is needed. Nobody is accusing you of vandalism. What is being said is that there is a Notability hurdle to pass for an article to be retained. You need to show that the film passes the hurdle. If sources are hard to find, you need to find the sources FIRST, rather than expecting the article to sit around waiting for sources to be found. Mayalld (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations and references have been added to the article. Please let me know, if additional data is required. Thanks for your time. Bharathprime (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reliable Sources are required. Sourcing from IMDB and similar sites just doesn't count (indeed WP:NOTFILM is explicit that inclusion in IMDB doesn't confer notability. SOrry, but this looks like a quantity over quality attempt to make the article look notable by adding lots of sources that don't actually count Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree partially to your comment. I believe one citation for each reference is enough as long as all the data included can be verified (and the citations are not blogs, which are not considered reliable source of info). Initially that is what the article contained (citations for all data included to be verified and not disputed). "Do we have enough data?" is another question and so is rightly categorized as stub. Additional citations were included only on the initiation of this discussion, to prove that such a film exist. If these sources are not reliable then I can argue that almost all Indian film articles do not have reliable sources of reference.
- Referring to IMDb, it is the only source with respectable count of Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Hindi,.... movies listed in it. Other sources which english movies use like Metacritic, All Movie, Box Office Mojo, TCM, Rotten Tomatoes is of no use.
- I am against deleting this article. Wikipedia now has all the information available on the net about this film. This would be a good start and would save hours of work for somebody else like me who would initially spend hours collating existing data. Based on this, contributors can expand, and might add additional info, which is currently not available to common users. Bharathprime (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, the sum total of your opinion is that because there are no sources available other than IMDB, and similar sites, we should just toss the long-standing convention that being mentioned in IMDB isn't enough out of the window, because you say so? Nobody doubts that the film exists. The critical point is that unless it gets mentioned more widely than IMDB, it simply isn't notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am asking the subject to be analyzed with logic. When dealing with a different category of films it is important not to paint everything with the same brush. It is not wise to search for Telugu films in the sites mentioned before which mainly cover english films. Bharathprime(talk) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, the sum total of your opinion is that because there are no sources available other than IMDB, and similar sites, we should just toss the long-standing convention that being mentioned in IMDB isn't enough out of the window, because you say so? Nobody doubts that the film exists. The critical point is that unless it gets mentioned more widely than IMDB, it simply isn't notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a new article still undergoing improvement. Has a number of Telugu notables. Informations to expand and source the article are quite likley available. Noming when it was 30 minutes old seems a bit harsh. WP:AfD is not the shortcut to WP:Cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The age of the article isn't really relevant. There is no evidence whatsoever that the film is notable, and leaving it for a couple of weeks wouldn't change that. Mayalld (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, there is no WP:DEADLINE to improve an article. While you are entitled to your opinion that this Telug film article cannot and will not ever be improved, that opinion is not supported by guideline or policy, and your rushing it AFD within minutes of its creation has a slight feeling of WP:UGH, though I hope I am wrong. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please check if this is a reliable source or not. Bharathprime (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a usable per WP:V to confirm the film's existance. But simply being listed does not show a notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No. Film directories, which include all films regardless of merit are never reliable sources to establish notability. Mayalld (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have any sugessions for improving notability of this film? How can I make this article stay? Bharathprime (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just completed some cleanup and sourcing per film MOS. However, I will not judge this 37-year-old film by an award-winning K. Balachander as non-notable simply because I cannot read Telugu and am unable to discern the content of the non-English sources. That it was made by a man who has won numerous awards, and has numerous Telugu notables in it would seem to indicate in assuming good faith that the sources are out there... just not in English. Cultural bias is a tough trap to fall into... so I won't. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Is the film non-notable because the notable writer/director has won multiple awards? Or is it non-notable because the cast is full of notable Telugu actors? Is it non-notable only because finding English coverage for a 37-year-old Telugu film would be difficult? In considering the notable director and the notable actors, doesn't WP:AGF allow you to believe that the non-English sources exist? Or does WP:DEADLINE demand they be brought forth immediately? The fact that it was nominated even as its author was still writing it, seems just a tad harsh. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly, you believe that notability is inherited, whilst I believe (and policy states) that it is not. If you believe that WP:AGF is some kind of "get out of jail free" card that trumps WP:N and WP:V, and allows any article to be retained, even if it cannot prove notability, merely by claiming that this article is difficult to source properly, then there is little point in dicussion. Mayalld (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gratified that WP:AGF allows you to read my mind. How many fingers am I holding up now? Well... and despite your telepathic abilities, I do not believe notability is inherited, and am saddened that that is all you were able to discern from my response. Am also saddened that you seem to interpret WP:AGF in a manner that benefits only yours and no other's opinions. Conversely, you now underscore my own concern in your belief that because the article is difficult to source then it ipso-facto non-notable. I note that each guideline begins with the caveat that they should be "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I am voicing my belief that because of the notable and award-winning director who created the project AND and because of the number of Telugu notables involved in the project, that non-English sources are likely to exist. I am not saying that their being notable makes the project also notable, only that because of their participation, non-English sources quite likely exist. Further, the involvement of these notables allows me the presumption that 37 years ago (PRE-INTERNET / PRE-WIKIPEDIA) there were likely innumerable Telugu reliable HARDCOPY sources speaking toward notability. That these hardcopy sources have not found themselves in English film or news archives does not mean they did not then exist. Since notability is not temporary, I will accept an aged notability as having then existed. WP:NF does not mandate the sources be used... only that a logical presumption of their existance be made. Allowing a little leeway for a Telegu film because of the lack of English sources is "common sense" and is the "occasional exception" to which guidelines refer. I do not expect you to agree in the slightest. I fully expect you to once again attack my reasoning. That incivility is yours and not mine. Thank you and Merry Christmas. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well, Telugu-language films are not my area of expertise, but the article has references and the film has plenty of notable artists attached to it. I see no harm in trying to grow the article rather than cutting it down so quickly. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What Eco said. There is enough going for it (director, cast, some refs) to be given a chance. Any existing refs that satisfy notability would be in print and the editor(s) ought to be given time to seek them out - access to university/media libraries probably not being feasible until after the new year... Plutonium27 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samad khurram[edit]
- Samad khurram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete per WP:BLP1E Mayalld (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cos of that one event thing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, wp:oneevent or whatever StonerDude420 (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FK Borec[edit]
- FK Borec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Don't want to start a campaign against Macedonian sports teams, but I cannot see what makes this club notable, and the article's shortness doesn't help either. Although the arcticle about the Macedonian Treta Liga claims this division to be professional, it's quite obvious that it's not: It's a country of just 2 million people, its national team has never qualified for a European championship, yet still its best players prefer to play elsewhere. Therefore, including clubs from the first and second division seems sufficient to me. This would affect the other clubs listed in Macedonian Treta Liga, too, but some of them might have once played in the second devision, which is why I didn't nominate multiple articles. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is the club eligible for Macedonia's national cup competition? If so, then I don't see any reason to delete the article. – PeeJay 13:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this club has played seven seasons in the Macedonian top-flight per RSSSF: ([13]). The article needs a lot of work, but the club is notable. Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm withdrawing the nomination. Hope to find someone to add this information to the stubs listed in the division's aticle, though... --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew D. Parvensky[edit]
- Andrew D. Parvensky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only significant coverage found is an obituary in a local newspaper. Epbr123 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, A7: no assertion of notability. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedied this as an A7 but failed to notice that the nominator here had declined a speedy deletion previously. As such, it probably isn't appropriate to speedy the article and I have restored it. However, delete as failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for having received full length staff written obituaries in both the Pittsburgh Post Gazette ([14]) and a subsidiary of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ([15]) and then another 40+ hits in Google News ([16]). Icewedge (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a memorial site and having had an obituary written about you doesn't convey notability in it's own right - only if the life described was encyclopaedic in its own right. Further, news.google.com searches for "Andrew D. Parvensky" and "Andrew Parvensky" (with quote marks) each gave 26 ([17]) and 12 ([18]) hits respectively, the vast majority of which were from "The Valley Independent", a local Newspaper itself not currently on wikipedia. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#MEMORIAL really has nothing to do with the issue at hand Usrnme h8er, all it says really is that people don't get instant notability because they are dead, a claim I am not perpetuating.
- Regular obituaries (where a friend or family member writes it and sends it to the newspaper) don't count much for notability, but if two separate newspapers assigned staff writers to cover his death then he just might be notable. Icewedge (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly - it could indicate that was notable. But for the number of staff written obituaries to be notable in and of themselves, imo, there would need to be more than 2 - the obituaries, the writing thereof, or the subject of the obituaries would need to be encyclopaedic. I still havn't been presented with anything other than the two obits as indication of notability and as far as I'm concerned there is no notability in recieving obituaries in local news. The cause of the obituaries might be notable - but where is it? Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a memorial site and having had an obituary written about you doesn't convey notability in it's own right - only if the life described was encyclopaedic in its own right. Further, news.google.com searches for "Andrew D. Parvensky" and "Andrew Parvensky" (with quote marks) each gave 26 ([17]) and 12 ([18]) hits respectively, the vast majority of which were from "The Valley Independent", a local Newspaper itself not currently on wikipedia. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Local newspapers tend to write obits for local people. The article doesn't tell me anything. He was a pastor. Might be important for the local community, but unless he's done something I don't see how he's encyclopedic material. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Local religious leader with local obituaries. No evidence of wider interest or significance. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a major city newspaper with its own Wikipedia article, and no-one has presented evidence that either the paper or the reporter might not be independent of the subject. Nor is there anything in the notability policy indicating that obituaries should count less than other coverage. So if we are to delete this, we need some compelling reason to override prevailing guidelines. Hqb (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - in this case the presumption of notability, which two obituaries raises, is not sustained when the sources are looked at. He was there a long time, and he inaugurated a church building project. Thus he is locally a well known figure and gets the obituaries, but he is not notable in the Wiki sense. Springnuts (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The obit in the Valley Independent clinches it for me. It explicitly says that the paper ran "countless features" about him and his work, beginning in 1968 when he was leading efforts to build a chapel in Venezuela. The sources already linked above thus refute the "local" figure issue and the lack of sources issue. They do tell us that a good article will require an editor to dead tree research. GRBerry 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article makes no assertion to notability and the references cited do not support notability. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no assertion of notability in this article. If the obits contained an assertion of notability then this should be included in the article and deletion would not be an option but all the obituaries say is that he did the normal priestly things and talked to his nephews about footballPorturology (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Portuguese supercentenarians. Sandstein 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catarina Carreiro-Pascoal[edit]
- Catarina Carreiro-Pascoal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Centenarian with no significant independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a memorial service, (added) or Merge per: Ryoung122 --OliverTwisted (Talk) 11:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I find it reprehensible that, rather than try to give a good-faith period to fix this article, instead this editor nominated this for deletion less than an hour later. The original article creator is probably still in bed. This type of stealth-article killing in the middle of the night is not respectable.
But I digress. Let's start with the nominator's rationale:"centenarian." Actually, this person is a supercentenarian, and only about 1 in 1,000 centenarians will reach super status, so try to get your vocabulary straight. Second, it's far, far more rare to live to 113 (less than 200 verified cases, all-time) than it is to be a college football player, yet we see scores of gratuitous articles on such recentist claptrap.
By the way, I suggest this article could be merged into the list of Portuguese supercentenarians article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_supercentenarians
Ryoung122 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the middle of the night everywhere. Also, all new pages are patrolled to make sure articles meet: WP:NOTE. This article was not singled out unduly. Also, technically it is the burden of the editor who introduces the material to prove notability. I have absolutely no issue with merging this information into List of Portuguese supercentenarians, as this addresses the notability issue of a separate article. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, whoever created the article was an amateur...I originally tracked this down because I thought he was vandalizing the Maria Capovilla article. But an outright deletion makes it more difficult in the future, should someone want to fill in this story here. Note, for example, an article in Portuguese:
Inicio :: Sucesos 11 de ene, 2004
Segunda más longeva cumplió 113 años
Lisboa, (Notimex).- La segunda mujer más longeva del mundo, Catarina Carreiro, residente en Idanha a Nova, nordeste de Portugal, celebra su cumpleaños 113 en compañía de sus seis hijos, 26 nietos, 39 bisnietos y siete tataranietos.
TIENDA VIRTUAL
Charola de canapés $400.00
Pasteles y Galletas
Catarina Carreiro, conocida también como "Ti Catrina dAvo", quien nació en 1891, tenia 19 años cuando la República fue implantada en Portugal en 1910, y sólo le faltaban dos años para cumplir los cincuenta cuando empezó la II Guerra mundial, en 1939.
Según el libro Guiness Book of Records, la mujer más longeva del mundo es la norteamericana Charlotte Benker, quien nació el 16 de noviembre de 1889, un año y 54 días antes de "Ti Catrina dAvo".
Ambas están todavía lejos del récord de la francesa Jeanne Luise Calment, fallecida en agosto de 1997 con 122 años, pero superaron con mucho la actual esperanza media de vida de la población mundial que es inferior a los 70 años.
Entre los hombre, el récord pertenece al español Joan Riudavets Moll, quien en diciembre pasado cumpió 114 años, según el libro Guiness. La longevidad de Catarina Carreiro no es un fenómeno inédito en su familia: su padre, albañil de profesión, vivió hasta los 105 anos.
El hijo menor de Catarina Carreiro tiene 69 años y el más grande 84.
"Ti Catrina dAvo", según dijo a la prensa una de sus nueras, celebrara su cumpleaños 113 sin grandes festejos porque se encuentra debilitada y sólo se levanta por la tarde.
The point is, there actually are reliable sources about this person.Ryoung122 12:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just to be clear, that article is in Spanish. But it's a reliable source. The article is verifiable, the subject notable. Ntsimp (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Portuguese supercentenarians. There is not enough material here to create a full, neutral article on this individual. WP:N requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources. References #2 and #3 are just her entries on a list, which is trivial. #1 and #4 are decent, but they are not enough to give this individual their own article. An entry on the list? Sure, absolutely. But there are guidelines to determine a threshold that is to be met in terms of notability, and it has not yet happened. Cheers, CP 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Portuguese supercentenarians per WP:NOTINHERITED (she was only notable is because she was old). Descíclope (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dancing on Ice (series 3) weekly scores[edit]
- Dancing on Ice (series 3) weekly scores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notable enough, delete per this precedent. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a DOI fansite. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's duplicate information from Dancing_on_Ice#Judges.27_scoring_summary_2 (and the article up for deletion doesn't even say the scores are from the UK edition). - Mgm|(talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington International Ukulele Orchestra[edit]
- Wellington International Ukulele Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Multiple editors have tagged this for A7. Article was cleaned, then spamified. Probably time for an official discussion. OliverTwisted (Talk) 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C4 for shows in Nelson [19], the Hawkes Bay, Gisborne, Auckland, and for their WOMAD appearance, [20]. Passes WP:MUSIC#C6 for having Bret McKenzie from Flight of the Conchords as a founding member. Passes WP:MUSIC#C7 [21], [22]. WP:MUSIC#C2 for their song reaching #32 in the NZ charts. Passes WP:MUSIC#C12, [23]. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Esradekan. I wonder how this ever got tagged. - Mgm|(talk) 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with proviso of Cleanup - I looked at this yesterday in its earlier stages and considered tagging for CSD. I decided not to do so as I could see the notability. However, in its current state the article has only minor value and it desperately needs cleaning up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and had the same thoughts. It was only the fact I was road crew for one of their Auckland gigs that I thought they may pass the touring criteria of wikimusic. Adding in those ref's will give me something to do over the holidays. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article was listed due to the history of CSD tagging. I agree with Esradekan Gibb on the notability of the sources. Please view article page history for a synopsis of the process leading up to nomination. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and Keep I believe consensus was achieved after sources were added. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and restart or Keep and purge history. Some content in history looks suspiciously like copyvio. Better if neutral editors recreate from scratch. (I agree that the group is notable, my CSD nom was as blatant advertising). dramatic (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Purging the history would violate the GFDL as it would no longer be obvious who added what. I also haven't seen any guidelines or policies that state suspected copyright violations should be removed. They should only be removed if the violation is proven. What looks like a suspected violation to you might just look like it's copied (or may be copied from a free source) - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted as a combination of a7-group and G10. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yarnall house[edit]
- Yarnall house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's a halls of residence. No need for a breakdown of floor-by-floor summary of such a location on wikipedia, e.g. "on first floor there is the poop bathroom". Oscarthecat (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since it fails to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a frat house tour guide. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as attack page against certain residents of a college residence hall. As a second choice, delete as non-notable residence hall. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli British[edit]
- Israeli British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it doesn't establish why this intersection is notable. Also seems to confuse Israelis for a single ethnic group when they constitute a nationality. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am currently trying to improve this article, I believe it should definitely be kept for several reasons:
- Over 10,000 members makes it a fairly large and notable group
- The UK is one of the most popular destinations for Israeli emmigrants
- There are the same number of Israelis and UK born people on Britain's 50 Richest list
- Along with the above, there are more famous Britons of Israeli ancestry
- I have managed to find surveys etc. on Isreali opinions of being in the UK and about the UK
Stevvvv4444 (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the contribution, Stevvvv4444. I'm still not convinced of notability though. Here's why:
- Over 10,000 members doesn't make a group notable on its own. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the size of the group in the nomination, but I feel notability doesn't just rely on size. There are more than 10,000 brown-haired British people, but there's not an article on that. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the article needs to establish why this intersection is a notable phenomenon;
- Israeli migation to the UK isn't a major phenomenon (especially in comparison to the US - see Yerida);
- The fact that there are six Israelis on the Sunday Times Rich List undoubtedly makes those six individuals notable, but I don't see how it makes Israelis in the UK notable as a group and ditto the famous Brits with Israeli parents (following the same logic, Clare Balding is a famous British lesbian, but we don't have an article on British lesbians);
- The surveys, while interesting, don't all directly relate to Israelis in the UK. One is about the attitudes of Israelis in Israel to the UK, which I don't see how is related at all. Even when they do relate to Israelis overseas, they don't really establish notability. They just describe how Israeli expats feel about the countries (not solely the UK) they live in. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the contribution, Stevvvv4444. I'm still not convinced of notability though. Here's why:
- Delete No evidence this is a notable intersection of of nationality and residence. Edison (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note for reference that the article has been moved to Israelis in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Notability can be established in a extensive collection of sources in article about "Israeli women living in the UK: challenges to identity and psychological implication." --~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmundo (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't see how that establishes notability. The sources in the conference paper (I presume you're referring to the footnote references) aren't specifically about Israelis in the UK. Futhermore, the paper itself hasn't been published in an academic journal. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible keep (notable ethnic group) and block proposing editor for continued disruption of our project; constantly proposing articles about ethnic groups for deletion rather than improving or merging; editor has been asked numerous times to stop this behavior. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state your reasons for keeping the article, rather than just saying keep and launching a personal attack on me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the fourth time, now. Stop calling for the banhammer on other users! Your blatant and gross incivility are digging your hole even deeper. MuZemike (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If we are judging whether or not the subject matter of the article is worthy of Wiki space, then certainly I feel it should stay. However, I also feel that there are many supposed facts which are not backed by refs or verified in any way. The article is in a 'rough draft' state and needs fleshing out, verifying, and smoothing. But once that is done, the subject itself is not inappropriate in my view. --Gurumaister (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator has not made a cogent case for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's not cogent about the argument that the intersection isn't notable? Cordless Larry (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:DIRECTORY StonerDude420 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nominator states, Israelis are not an ethnic group (Jews, Arabs and Druze are), and so cannot be classed as an ethnic group in the UK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be substantial coverage of Israelis in the UK. If it's not enough for a stand-alone article, it's been suggested that this type of article could be merged. Larry, thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest merging it with? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. But if there's news coverage of Israeli British, it should go somethwere. In this case I think there's enough coverage for a stand alone article. Even in cases where there's not, can't the statistics be combined in some kind of list or demographics article? Surely that is encyclopedic. I often see that kind of thing in Atlases, which are a kind of geographic encyclopedia, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The stats are already included in Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. But if there's news coverage of Israeli British, it should go somethwere. In this case I think there's enough coverage for a stand alone article. Even in cases where there's not, can't the statistics be combined in some kind of list or demographics article? Surely that is encyclopedic. I often see that kind of thing in Atlases, which are a kind of geographic encyclopedia, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Israelis are not an ethnic group. Just like having Argentine Brazillian or a Bolivian Columbian, it simply does not make sense. STOPkillingMuslims Talk Contribs 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
and move to Israelis in the United Kingdom.The article is sufficiently referenced to prove that migration of Israeli citizens to the United Kingdom is a notable phenomenon; the fact that those migrants may belong to multiple ethnic groups is irrelevant. cab (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The article has already been moved to Israelis in the United Kingdom; this title does not imply that "Israelis" are an ethnic group, so again, I fail to see the relevance of the objections by LOTRrules and Number57. cab (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keyboard Warrior[edit]
- Keyboard Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary does not a meme make. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. JuJube (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a nonnotable neologism. It also does not bode well when the first hit is from UrbanDictionary. MuZemike (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is virtually nothing in the article for this unsourced neologism. Not one reliable source is cited. Thus it is not even worth saving in Wiktionary. B.Wind (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vp-asp[edit]
- Vp-asp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advert for non-notable software package. My Google search suggests about 100 installations rather than the 29,000 claimed in the article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No secondary sources or indication of notability. Borock (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete p.n. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam and Steve[edit]
- Adam and Steve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. The information on the expression is not cited, although it sounds reasonable. None of the sources explain anything about it. They just use the expression in one way or another. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There is no evidence given in the article that this expression was ever used except as a joke.Borock (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep So let's find some citations. The nominator says there are none in the article, isn't that a reason to attempt to find some rather than to delete? Certainly it is a "joke" or rather better a parody, parody used both by proponents of, and those disparaging, Biblical arguments on homosexually. But so what? If it is notable, and I'd say there's plenty of evidence it is, then we can narrate political humour.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC) See urban dictionary Google tells me the phrase was used in the listed media 13 times just in the last month [24]--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I basically agree with the preceding comment: The phrase itself sees a fair amount of use, and has given rise to several spin offs and parodies. It could be better coordinated with Anti-LGBT slogans, though... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: as per Scott Mac (Doc). This phrase is pervasive, and not exclusive to religious sources. There have to be sources in the news coverage of this topic. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 10:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Scott Mac., AnonMoos and OliverTwisted. Whilst missing citations can indeed be a problem, they themselves (or the lack of them thereof) are not a reason to delete an article.. — neuro(talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in line with the above. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThis phrase from a slogan might deserve inclusion in an article about contemporary U.S. gay rights or the evangelical opposition to same, but does not appear to have sufficient in depth coverage (other than use) in reliable and independent references to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Gnews provides plenty of coverage for notability of this slogan. MuZemike (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Because Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, right? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 09:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I see that this article now has a couple more citations than it did at the time of nomination. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (G3) by Efe. Non-admin closure, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Flores[edit]
- Mark Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
IMDB does not show a Mark Flores with these credits. WP:HOAX. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Also, author of page has been adding Mark Flores to other movies, such as Robot Chicken, The Air I Breathe, and general vandalism to movie pages: [25]. This trail is going to need some serious attention. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Looks like a hoax. I second the IMDB research. Also, if the quality of the writing is any indication, it looks like typical vandalism. LH (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator was reported for vandalism and blocked. I think most of his changes have been reverted. Move to speedy delete this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted under WP:CSD #G3. Please close this. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator was reported for vandalism and blocked. I think most of his changes have been reverted. Move to speedy delete this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. Mgm|(talk) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
King power[edit]
- King power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
May be a Neologism WP:NEO. This terms seems to have been coined in the book: King Power In Chess by Edmar Mednis. [26]. I can't find a single other reference to this phrase in any other book on Chess or Games on Google, Google Book Search, Amazon, or Yahoo. OliverTwisted (Talk) 06:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have never heard of such a thing. Is this a hoax? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no such rule in the game of chess. No, you cannot change the rules of the game by making up new rules and posting them on Wikipedia. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article describes your king in checkmate by opponent's queen and rook. You can not say "king power!" and remove both enemy pieces. That is not how chess works. You might as well not charge interest on Monopoly mortgages. Borock (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources are in the article to indicate that this is real, nor could I find any sources for this on the web. Seems to be a neologism or a hoax. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Hoax/vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Is there anything more nerdy then a hoax about a chess move? Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, Speedy per WP:SNOW Hoax, not a real rule, borderline vandalism. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax and nonsense. Edison (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete — A made-up chess move. Goes directly to the bin — do not pass Go, do not collect $200. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Simply disinformation. I don't know why this was brought to AfD in the first place. -- Jao (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GCGC[edit]
- GCGC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
omg, srsly azimsultan (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At best an item in a dictionary of Indian slang. It will probably not survive long enough for that to happen however. IOW NLN. Borock (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-bollywood neologism, OR. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil (rapper)[edit]
- Phil (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Phil (rapper) and Phil created by the same editor seem to fail: WP:BIO. Open to discussion. OliverTwisted (Talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing remotely indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Declined speedy a second time to let this AfD run. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree 100%. There were actually two articles on the same topic: Phil and Phil (rapper). A redirect was created as I was tagging articles. My intent was to speedy Phil, and AfD Phil (rapper). Sorry about the error. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 07:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Phil (rapper) for failing to meet WP:MUSIC. Redirect Phil back to Philip where it originally was. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as blatant vandalism. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahwrlaf Topkapi[edit]
- Ahwrlaf Topkapi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It is disgusting that another piece of nonsense from The biggest jimmy has survived for three days. The Topkapi kebab shop is no different from hundreds of similar shops in London alone and its proprietor no more notable than hundreds of others. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly a joke article to make fun of a neighbor. No place in serious encyclopedia. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete junk, block creator. JuJube (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly a joke article: Man from Del Monte, griller of goats, kebab on knitting needle. Mick gold (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave as be Since when did wikipedia become the biggest online high horse for people to climb on?
Block creator! Ha, if you were to read through my contributions you'd see some well researched and well written complete articles, why not write your own exclusive encyclopedia purely for your own reference then?
I assume that this must be what the warning about grumpy users that's in the standard user talk page refers to? And that I shouldn't be scared off regardless. I do find it quite a revelation that anyone could be "disgusted" though at an article remaining in place for 3 days? Personally I reserve words like 'disgust' (or equally 'passion') for real world events that are worthy of, and stir genuine human emotion like say violent crime, corruption, love ..etc, maybe it's time to evaluate what percentage of the real world over zealous "policing" of wikipedia is for you. The biggest jimmy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Another note I think it's genuinely worrying (read 'distressing'/'appauling'), the idea that Wikipedia will become the preserve of a select few who enjoy nothing more than slapping each other on the back and cross congratulating each other on their jolly good articles. For me, the whole appeal of the site is that it lets anyone from any walk of life contribute, and if they so choose; also financially contribute to the future preservation and availability of knowledge. Having contributed to the site in both of these regards, I think you should either decide to open up the site to knowledge or continue to shape the site as an old exclusive gentleman's club. The biggest jimmy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete as per everyone but article creator. Could have been speedied as an attack page. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The New Get Smart[edit]
- The New Get Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Also listing this List of The New Get Smart episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can't find RS. Could be a hoax, or I could have just missed something. Can't decide on notability either way if real. Dlohcierekim 05:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be real.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Seems to be hoax, although a strange thing to hoax about, or maybe wishful thinking by fan of old show. The article says it will be produced by Scholastic and shown on CNN neither one makes sense and not mentioned on either website. Scholastic does not mention producing TV shows or movies at all and CNN shows news. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like someone in El Paso is bored during vacation. Don't worry, school starts again on January 5th. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Zis is WIKIPEDIA! We don't create hoaxes here! --Siegfried disguised as MuZemike (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable, an apparent hoax. Looks like a modified copy from the original series article. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lil Stress[edit]
- Lil Stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable music autobiographical article that apparently was deleted in the past (see User talk:Stressdadon) and has since been re-created. Wavehunter (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Asserting this artist is notable is not sufficient. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 05:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence artist meets WP:MUSIC, despite protests. Nuttah (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A search on Google for "Frank Hollard" "Lil Stress" provided nothing but Myspace and music video hits. Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Killiondude (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94th Glasgow (1st Shettleston) Company, The Boys' Brigade[edit]
- 94th Glasgow (1st Shettleston) Company, The Boys' Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Individual companies of the Boys' Brigade (or the Scouts) are not notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a long-standing convention that individual branches of scouting, cadet, etc, organisations normally aren't individually notable, and this doesn't seem to be an exception. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wyatt Elrod[edit]
- Wyatt Elrod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A mixed martial artist: I can not establish competition at a notable level. Contested prod. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn fighter RogueNinjatalk 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nonsense Elonka 05:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical erectile thrust press[edit]
- Vertical erectile thrust press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a neologism. Was previously deleted as Cock pushup. Tone of article tries to imply this is valid, medical advice. OliverTwisted (Talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism apparently based on one song and a lack of knowledge of physiology.Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Previous VfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock pushup. --Elonka 05:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel Rojas Hruska[edit]
- Gabriel Rojas Hruska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a hoax. Could be A7 but claims to have "invented surround sound" so I'm taking to AFD Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsourced, and you're right, likely a hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax unless WP:RS are provided. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pima Effect[edit]
- Pima Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only one ghit, on another Wikipedia page, Efrain Escudero. WP:MADEUP or WP:HOAX. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid Article
Well, its not a hoax, or made up. The term is used quite frequently within the MMA community. Most of the time it is used by MMA sports journalists, and was even mentioned by Mike Goldberg on Spike TV during The Ultimate Fighter finale.
In fact, since that very night there have been many fans wanting to know what The Pima Effect is. Message boards get flooded with this question. So I decided to create an article. Thought I was helping out.
I'm not very good at making articles, sorry if it does not look very good. I'm still editing it to make it look more professional. But you marked it for deletion within the first couple minutes of its creation. So I hadn't had a chance to perfect it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IcyB (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is only ONE ghit for "pima effect"; I'd think there would be more if message boards were being "flooded" with the question. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only 8 ghits for the term gives a clue that it is not a well known term, it is a possible hoax or WP:NEOLOGISM. If it does become well known, I think a sentance on the Pima school or on Efrain Escudero. Tavix (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was Escudero's wikipedia that popularized the term. No they were being flooded because it was Efrain Escudero who was being featured on Spike TV. Up until that point the term was rarely used. But ever since Escudero got the term mentioned on Live Television people have been asking about the term, and as such it has been used much more frequently. Escudero popularized the term, perhaps because of his wikipedia. I think once the term is actually properly defined, it will be linked to the other fighters.
I don't think a term can be properly added to other MMA fighters wikipedia's until it has one itself. Now that there is a wikipedia for the term, I think it justifies adding the term to the Varner, Fickett, Forbes, Martinez, Roop, Hightower, Pima, and RITC articles.
I am still making the article, I'll add a referance section. Just give me time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IcyB (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pima Community College. This is nothing more than a trivia item. There is no real "effect" to explain, only some coincidences. I'm sure this is understood by the people using the expression and they are just joking around. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable, probably not even real RogueNinjatalk 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non notable neologism. Wikipedia is not the place for things made up one day at school - not even if they're merged into valid articles. Nuttah (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn neologism. JJL (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blue bruise[edit]
- Blue bruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mixed drink "invented" in 2008; meets WP:MADEUP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable, no coverage, who cares. Nuttah (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just not notable or encyclopedic. HeureusementIci (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snowball keep, withdrawn by nominator. I was not reasing the text carefully, sorry. `'Míkka>t 15:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleft chin murder[edit]
- Cleft chin murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A murder case without particular notability explained. `'Míkka>t 02:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you mean besides the essay by George Orwell that is mentioned in the first sentence of the article, or the novel Night Darkens the Street by Arthur La Bern that it inspired? ☺ Whether this is best dealt with standalone or in Decline of the English Murder , is simply a matter of refactoring, not deletion. But there's verifiable information to be had on both, as well as analysis of Orwell's essay. You can look up the 1944-10-24 reports of the culprits' arrests on Google News, now, by the way. And the 1945-01-19 reportage on the trial by the New York Times is accessible via the NYT's archives. You can find it still being discussed in the newspapers some 59 years later here, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The notability seems clear. A crime used as the basis for subsequent notable works is notable, and there are good refs for the article.DGG (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Crimes that are the inspiration for regulation changes and significant works of fiction (like those of Orwell) are notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angolan Brazilian[edit]
- Angolan Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
40,000 of 190,000,000 people in Brazil - insignificant. Punkmorten (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet another article from a sentence in a Brazilian government document. I'm kind of surprised that there are so few (relatively) people from Angola in Brazil, since both places were former colonies of Portugal. A good article might be made, since slaves were brought from Portugal's African colonies to Brazil Afro-Brazilian #Origins, but this is one of a series of ______ian Brazilian stubs being created to take up space. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For Real - This is interesting, someone should add information about angolans in brazil. Angola was once a former colony of Portugal at one time, so i think it's good to add some source to this article.Cup22 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep Keep - Brazil has received a small number of immigrants from Angola over the past decade. Give this article some time to build up information.Unknown789 (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge into Afro-Brazilian.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence can be found that suggests that this intersection is notable. The former colonial links might throw up some evidence, but unless it is found, there's no assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Valid stub. The article needs improving, not deletion. --Troy86-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect - It need either improvements or redirect it to a certain page regarding or related to foreigners in Brazil. Blackable2323 - 10:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Based on trivial primary source. Not Notable. Descíclope (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. It is hard to trace the roots of Afro-Brazilians b/c of slavery, so I doubt they are talking about them. Angolan Brazilians probably means Angolans who settled in Brazil around the 20th and 21st century. They're are not notable b/c Angolan Brazilians have not influenced Brazilians society. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One more unecessary something-Brazilian article created by Skanter, or Skanter2 or whatever this person is. By the way, this user has several different accounts and also used many sockpuppets. Many people already told him to stop creating articles about there minor ethnic groups of Brazil, but he just does not pay attention to us. He recently created the Cubans in Brazil article, claiming there are 700 Cubans in Brazil! Why do they deserve an article? This is insane. Opinoso (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All Monsters Attack. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 07:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gabara[edit]
- Gabara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of All Monsters Attack through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: To All Monsters Attack, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here. Cheers, CP 04:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to All Monsters Attack. There probably is some real-world information available in magazines like G-Fan and Japanese Giants, along with the many Japanese-language Godzilla publications. However, Gabara only appears in one film, so a spinout probably isn't necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 03:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there is real world information, an article can always be justified. It doesn't have to be "necessary," --that's not the standard. In this case, the advisability of merging can be discussed where it ought to be, which is not here. If we need a "List of ... " article, we can make one. DGG (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To All Monsters Attack. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New South Wales Centre for the Advancement of Adolescent Health[edit]
- New South Wales Centre for the Advancement of Adolescent Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ORG lacks evidence to prove notability including significant third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:ORG. --OliverTwisted 10:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article has been here for over a year and still doesn't have any reliable sources, which would tend to suggest that there aren't any. Cynical (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This is a poor article and only has internal references. However that is grounds for cleaning up and improving it, not deletion. However no vote as I know noting of the suject. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was previously deleted in November because it cannot be verified this season is actually in production. Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas and Friends - Season 14[edit]
- Thomas and Friends - Season 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pure speculation (it's even said in the article). Violates what Wikipedia is not. DavidWS (contribs) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL, no confirmation that the season is going to happen. Tavix (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rock Island, Illinois. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quad City Hindu Temple[edit]
- Quad City Hindu Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about a non-notable religous structure. It may become notable in the future, but at present it is not notable. Also, there are no reliable sources to verify claims in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are reliable references in local newspaper. [27] [28]--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The first news story states that the temple might be built and does so in the context of a larger article. The second article is a local news story that reports that the temple did open. While these two articles demonstrate that the temple has been built, they fail to demonstrate how this subject is notable. Also, there is a lack of substantial media coverage. At present, this article is about a non-notable subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While this temple may exist, its notability has not been established. It may become notable in the future, but at present it is a local religious structure that has been documented for having been constructed. This article can be recreated in the future when/if it recieves notability and has multiple reliable sources to verify whatever reasons are provided for notability. As is, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Rock Island, Illinois. It's true that a Hindu temple might attract some local coverage in the USA, just because it is slightly more unusual, and therefore more interesting, than a Christian church. But it seems that this temple is no more particularly notable than any other local place of worship. Cover it in the Rock Island article, just as the article about Perrysburg, Ohio contains information about the famous mosque that you pass while driving towards Detroit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Smerdis of Tlön. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a brief mention in the locality article as notability in itself is not established. Delete the OR and opinion. Nuttah (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added a couple sentences about the temple, and the picture, to the Rock Island, Illinois article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pearly Gatecrashers[edit]
- Pearly Gatecrashers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No Assertion of Notability, can't find any mentions in news sources/notable music sites. \ / (⁂) 21:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7. Absolutely no assertion of notability or significance, no external sources, no verifiability. Luinfana (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, missing reliable sources. — neuro(talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – I found two mentions in Billboard (now added to the article) that say that this band achieved success in Japan, and were signed to Shock Records. It's conceivable that most of this band's press coverage is in Japan, which would explain the difficulty so far in locating sources with more extensive coverage. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep per Paul Erik. Although searching for the band on notable English-language music sites and news sources may not give you many results, perhaps this band's popularity in Japan in substantial enough to warrant an article. We would need someone who is fluent in Japanese to try to establish notability by searching notable Japanese music websites and news sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the logic of Paul Erik and A Stop at Willoughby. 71.255.81.181 (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brain Slaves[edit]
- Brain Slaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable unsigned band - fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. dramatic (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions.
Deletefor failing WP:MUSIC. HeureusementIci (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm of two minds on the external sources. The fourth is clearly trivial as a list of tour dates. The others will need to be evaluated based on issues of reputation that I don't feel comfortable doing myself. HeureusementIci (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAgree fails WP:MUSIC. Paste Talk 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- In the light of new information below, I think that I'm happy with a change to Keep. Paste Talk 09:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: band fails WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Info: Band was formerly known as The Coshercot honeys, with moderate notability with a g-search. Also referenced in: The Electric Confectionaires. I originally placed a CSD tag on this article, but have since conceded notability. --OliverTwisted 09:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: for above reason. --OliverTwisted 09:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I browsed a google search for "coshercot honeys" and wasn't immediately able to see a notability criterion fulfilled. Is there a specific one that they meet, and if so, can you help me see which? Thanks! HeureusementIci (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the lack of a rock 'em sock 'em source, but this is a New Zealand band, and seems to be mentioned fairly prominently in high traffic NZ websites, such as: The New Zealand Herald: [29], and others: [30], [31], [32]. A number 1 song on BFM's Top 10 chart isn't too bad either: [33]. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 11:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: As Brain Slaves, the band is firmly scheduled to play a major venue: [34]--OliverTwisted (Talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References added to article now - may meet criteria of "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Nurg (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article has been rescued by Nurg.-gadfium 18:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 07:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Life Would Suck Without You[edit]
- My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NSONGS. Hasn't charted, hasn't won any awards, and hasn't been covered by multiple artists. From an unreleased and as-of-yet untitled album, so I originally redirect to artist. Editors have been edit-warring the redirect, so deletion seems to be the appropriate answer. —Kww(talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I haven't been involved in the edit warring, and the User:Lzki account that has been making crude personal attacks on User:Kww is an obvious sock and should be blocked. But all that said, deleting or renaming this article is taking the songs notability criteria too far. First singles released in advance of an album by a major artist often get articles early and before they chart; the "future single" template was obviously created for this case, and is in use in a bunch of cases. This Clarkson single has already received mainstream press attention. In all likelihood, it will chart, and deleting it now only to recreate it later is just pointless churn. If for some reason the single and song turn out to be completely unnotable, it can always be brought to AfD at that time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rolling Stone, a reliable source, confirms the release date for the single and contains a review of the song. (Side note: I would have brought it here after
the first reversion of the redirectLzki's reversion since WIKI-GUY-16 is the creator of the article, instead of edit warring, since the redirect could have been seen as a prod and the subsequent reversion as contesting the prod.) Aspects (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kelly Clarkson#Kelly Clarkson's fourth studio album. WP:MUSIC#Songs is crystal clear about this: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."
This song hasn't charted, has won no awards, and hasn't been covered, so none of the indications apply. Furthermore, there is quite certainly no significant coverage of the song to be found anywhere. The only thing that we have is a release date, the names of the producers, and a two-word critique of the album that is being misapplied to the song. To say it with WP:MUSIC#Songs, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article."
This in no way warrants an article at this point, all the verifiable material can easily be incorporated into the artist's article (and most of it already is).
That being said: the future single template is for future singles that are notable, the existance of it can of course not imply notability for all future singles, Lzki is an obvious sock, and it should have been brought here once WIKI-GUY undid the redirect for the second time. --Amalthea 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Under your strict definition, how could any use of the future single template ever be justified? Shouldn't the template be deleted? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly think it should be. I've been redirecting unreleased singles for a long time, and have rarely had to bring the things to AFD. Every time I have had to bring one to AFD, it's been deleted solely on the basis of being unreleased. I noticed during this little spat that Moonriddengirl added futures singles on Oct 6, 2008, with no previous discussion or real justification. Discussion at a discussion of this exact question shows other editors coming to the conclusion that was always in place before that date, with Moonriddengirl seemingly being the only objector. Since future singles can never have articles created about them, there should be no {{future single}} template.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it should be done. The existence of the template will definitely mislead editors into thinking articles about future singles will survive. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Circus" (song) for example certainly had significant coverage in multiple RS prior to release, and enough verifiable material to build an article, so e.g. this use seems OK to me. --Amalthea 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at that article's history, you let it live as of this 1 November 2008 version before it was released, before it had charted, before it won any awards, and before anyone else recorded it. So you are establishing a new, addition class of notability that isn't in WP:NSONGS, right? Before you said NSONGS was "crystal clear", now it seems not so much. Note I agree with your decision on "Circus", as it showed common sense, which is what I think needs to be applied here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't remember what I was thinking back then, but it was certainly the sane choice considering the amount of edits Circus (Britney Spears album) was getting at the time. Per the letter of our guidelines it should have been developed in the album article.
There was more information available about the song at the time than we have for "My Life Would Suck Without You", but it didn't have the coverage to get it past WP:NOTE. --Amalthea 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't remember what I was thinking back then, but it was certainly the sane choice considering the amount of edits Circus (Britney Spears album) was getting at the time. Per the letter of our guidelines it should have been developed in the album article.
- Future single tempalte is used on alot of pages about artists who have a single coming up that has been confirmed by the label, artist, or management. I rarely see it used on a page about the song itself. That's a jsutified use of the template. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it can be created once it actually is a released single and gets on the charts. Assuming it will be before it happens falls under crystal ball. The article itself has a fake album cover art that a FAN created on a fan message board, there is no information officially released other than a drop date for the single, meaning, not enough to make a page with yet anyway. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The song is confirmed as the lead single, so it is already notable. It will start having an impact very shortly, so what's the point of deleting or redirecting the page when we all know it's just going to be re-created very soon? There's nothing on the page that falls under wiki's crystal ball rules, there are no un sourced facts or predictions. So I say keep. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established yet, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JamesBurns, we don't make assumptions like "will be notable soon". Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: What is the point of deleting an article when it will probably be recreated in less than a month? It already has reliable sources saying that this is an official single with a release date in the very near future. BambooBanga (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is it shouldn't have been created in the first place, and no one can tell the future. the song may not chart at all. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's going to be released in less than a month. 71.251.99.54 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- do you even read things when you use a site or comment? Articles for singles are ok if the single is notible and has charted. No one knows if this single will cahrt because it hasn't been released yet. People are assuming it will be a success, but no one knows for sure. Everyone wants to edit on wikipedia like it's their own personal webpage, it's amazing. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Williams[edit]
- Dylan Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This individual may or may not be notable enough for an article. I declined the speedy delete request because there is an assertion of notability here. Perhaps the UK editors know more about him than I. JodyB talk 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possible a hoax. The article says that his famous role was playing 'Uriah Heap' in the 1999 version of David Copperfield, however in that film the role was played by Nicholas Lyndhurst. The article also claims that he played Aslan in the 2005 film The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, however there was no 2005 production of TLTW&TW and in the 2006 production Aslan was voiced by Liam Neeson. Icewedge (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, he's not even mentioned in IMDB for any of those credits. Definite hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non notable am dram player. Nuttah (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blackjack Parsons[edit]
- Blackjack Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Claim of notability is apparently a championship with a nonnotable wrestling organization. Orphaned; dead-end; unsourced; very little information available on google. Speedy declined. HeureusementIci (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability per the WP:GNG. None of the wrestling leagues he has worked with (Mississippi Valley Wrestling Alliance,International Pro Wrestling,IPW Home Video,Michiana Championship Wrestling,NWA Underground) have articles which suggests that they are relative minor and so he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Icewedge (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, ok, International Pro Wrestling is blue linked, however they are not the same organization. The one with the article is based in Japan, the one he worked for was based in Indiana (according to the article). Icewedge (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article seems to lack notability per ATHLETE, as above. ThuranX (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:N and [[WP:ATHLETE].--SRX 16:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The incoming links are indicative of editor collaboration and are the result of this article being listed in a maintenance category. Potential COI by an author of an article alone is not cause for deletion, as long as the article is neutral. Since COI can influence ones editing, it is discouraged, but not disallowed to edit such articles. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Practising Law Institute[edit]
- Practising Law Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advert. A look at the incoming links show over 85% from user pages, most interesting. Primary author appears to have a direct connection with this institution, a clear conflict of interest. B.Wind (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The linking from user talk pages is legitimate - not spam-related as you suggest. Rather, the article was recently listed on {{opentask}} as an article needing to be wikified - this template is on a number of User: and User talk: pages and Special:Whatlinkshere simply hasn't updated the listings now that the article is no longer in the template. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a relatively minor trade organization with no showing of general notability. The fact that continuing legal education is an obnoxious boondoggle had no influence on my opinion. Really. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've taken PLI courses but I have no connection with the organization. Many lawyers in New York are acquainted with PLI and might want to know more about it. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Call me google addict, but a news search for "Practising Law Institute" highlights notability meting WP:org. --Jmundo (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VFW Post 1114[edit]
- VFW Post 1114 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Claims to be the largest VFW in the world. While I have found sources that mention this, they only do so in passing, and I can find no substantial coverage in reliable sources. A claim to notability is worthless if you can't back it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that being the largest entity of its type in fact makes it noted or notable, beyond directory listings. Edison (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I hate !voting "delete" on real things, if anyone adds refs, I change to "keep". Ryan4314 (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Cat, Bad Cat[edit]
- Good Cat, Bad Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prodded this as a non-notable ep without realizing it had already been prodded. All other episodes from this show's first season have been deleted, and I don't want to see 100-some eps all redirected to List of Garfield and Friends episodes as it would be pure chaos. I see absoutely nothing that makes this a notable episode; it's an overly detailed plot summary devoid of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or weak redirect if someone considers this a keep-worthy search term. Nothing on Google News/Books/Scholoar to indicate this episode is notable. – sgeureka t•c 14:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with the titles of 100 sub-topics being redirects to the page on which those sub-topics are collectively discussed. Redirects are, as the maxim goes, cheap. And as can be seen, many of the other episode titles already redirect to the page that discusses the episodes. This is one of the uses of redirects. Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable outside of show context and any reasonable article would be a permanent stub. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 18:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Anibueze[edit]
- Rebecca Anibueze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - no reliable sources indicate that this person passes our notability guidelines. Speedy deletion tag improperly removed by the article's creator. Otto4711 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the only secondary source I've found is a brief article in the University of Arizona school newspaper. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and as such may also be a violation of Ms Anibueze's right to privacy under WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manthravadham[edit]
- Manthravadham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Initiating this AfD on behalf of Largoplazo (talk · contribs). Apparently, because of technical difficulties, this AfD was only partially completed, and the deletion rationale lost. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks—Twinkle's been doing that to me frequently. I'd said that evidently the topic is a real thing, because despite few matches on Google, a couple of them show a number of books on the subject. I figure the literature on it is mostly in non-Roman script. But even so, this article really tells us nothing; it says contradictory things (first, it says the topic is a distortion of the senses, and then it says that it's a method); and it explains the subject as though it were explaining a scientific phenomenon as opposed to a construct from within a particular philosophy or belief system. Unless someone can provide a useful rewrite quickly, it might be better not to have the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Subject is apparently notable, but this is a really poor place to start an article on it from. If kept, article should probably be at Manthravadam as that seems to be the more common transliteration. People searching for sources (of which there are plenty) will probably want to use that spelling. JulesH (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like JulesH (talk) --Tamás Kádár (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not useful to include in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can determine from sources, the title is just a non-English word for sorcery — not any specific type of sorcery, just sorcery of whatever type. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) titles in the English Wikipedia are in English. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status Magazine[edit]
- Status Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Magazine with no assertion of notability. The article's creator has been reported by a bot at WP:UAA. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only solid refs I find are to the old Curtis Status magazine, now defunct. Collect (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete wp:n StonerDude420 (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete New free weekly that is not well established or notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faraquet[edit]
- Faraquet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
One EP on a possibly notable label, plus an LP on another possibly notable lael. Nothing significant in News, no other reliable sources found. Only sources are unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: could not find anything of verifiable significance, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I've just completed the article with reliable references. A Washington Post editorial review and an Allmusic entry with review is enough to pass WP:BAND C#1. Please, always google bandname+review and bandname+interview before claiming there are no reliable sources available, otherwise you'll end up deleting articles on clearly notable bands. I hope this one's saved now. Strummer25 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, important band cageybee(toccyx) 15:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – In addition to what's already noted, I found a review in The Washington Post of their album The View From This Tower: Jenkins, Mark (2001-01-05). "The hardcore-punk style patented two decades ago", The Washington Post, p. T14. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic averaging[edit]
- Genetic averaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research, no topic exists google scholar search Wapondaponda (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article is a semi-coherent rehash of this theory - although it's a little hard to tell. Trash this and start again, preferably with an editor who understands the subject. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics could help. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, the information in genetic averaging is already covered in articles such as Race, Cline (biology) or race and genetics. The trouble is nobody in scholarly circles seems to have ever used the term "genetic averaging". It seems like a made up name.Wapondaponda (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - however I believe a name change is in order. A page which explains the theory of Caucasoids fitting between Mongoloids and Negroids on a continuum is certainly notable and relevant enough, but the name needs to be something more fitting. Mingeyqla (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. There are already articles that deal with the subject. see Race_and_genetics#Models_of_genetic_variation, for example. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - It is said that when a section on a page grows too big, it should be expanded into a new article. I believe that this is the case for the "Models of genetic variation" section you just linked. A new page should be created dealing with these models, and the "genetic averaging" page should thus be merged into it. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the article is more of a CFORK of that particular article, there is also Human genetic variation in addition to the others I have listed above. Basically the article does a bad job, firstly because nobody in academia uses the term "genetic averaging". Secondly, the article cites only one external source, which is a commercial site and does not use the term "genetic averaging". The other citation is internal and points to Cavalli-Sforza. Some of the information in the article is marginally correct, but it is duplicated in other articles that have more detailed information and accurate citations. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - It is said that when a section on a page grows too big, it should be expanded into a new article. I believe that this is the case for the "Models of genetic variation" section you just linked. A new page should be created dealing with these models, and the "genetic averaging" page should thus be merged into it. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. There are already articles that deal with the subject. see Race_and_genetics#Models_of_genetic_variation, for example. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hopelessly incoherent, and inadequately sourced. The Rushton article proposed above as a source has no visible relationship to the hypothesis in the first paragraph. I do not even see evidence here that Rushton actually held that theory. It is a long, long , way, from theories of group selection to the proposition that europeans literally are a hybrid of Asiatics and Africans. DGG (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that was the closest thing i could find, bearing in mind that the article is badly written and difficult to get the sense of. If the source I gave doesn't relate to the article, then this looks even more like original research. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell? Totally incoherent. Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shelby TV[edit]
- Shelby TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unref'd article about a NN local tv station fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Good article but needs major improvements. Newport Beach (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I highly doubt that it is a WP:GOODARTICLE. Tavix (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NN. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, just a local news station for a small township. Malinaccier (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. [35] (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mañuel Bonnet[edit]
- Mañuel Bonnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about someone who appears to be a rather minor actor and is filled with disinformation. His most notable claim to fame is as a director of the film "Highlander II: The Unholy Alliance" and that he made a cameo in Highlander: The Series as a cavalry captain. In reality all he did was appear in Highlander: The Series as a cavalry captain in the episode "The Unholy Alliance, pt 2". Perhaps he is more notable than I thought and he does have several French language credits, but since I don't speak French I cannot attest to how notable any of them are. AniMate 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you're objections seem srreasonable however it must be oipointed out that i am working with a french person to triy and discern the notablity of his french films and to correct any appearnaces. My sources are difficult to interpret sinc eeom eof them are found through Google and i am chasing the tails of several other source sin an attept to achieve the standards of ntoabbility and to correct any mistakes found in this article. I understand that the article its not perfect but I am pleading for forebarance and patience to help me with working with this article. of ocurse if you choose to delete i understand that al swell and I am sory Smith Jones (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and if you check the article itself, i see that the original atuhor included articles from the New York Times which to me esatibhseds notability. Smith Jones (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb does show quite a few titles, but 40 roles over a 30 year career isn't necessarily a notable career. Also, a number of his roles appear to be one shot guest starring roles. I'm not denying he's been on screen, but still unsure if he's notable.
- To Smith Jones, you are the original author, and the NY Times doesn't actually have any articles on him. He's included in their database the same way he's included in IMDb. Neither establishes notability, just the existence of their work. AniMate 02:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i am well aware tha ti am the Original Author of the work; anyway i dont understand how so many credits on imdB can be considered proof of unnotablity. By that metric, any actor less famosu than Tom Cruise should be deleted just because of a dearth of English sources. It is clear that he is of slight promenade in Francophone language-speaking countries. again, this afd seems premarute to me. I am still working with French-speaking collabos in order to to find French-language sources to shore up my case for WP:N and wp:V Smith Jones (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The French wikipedia lists his theatre, Tv and films (95% french work) and the following :(my translation)
In recognition of his study of Minister Paul Barbe (1836-1890), as part of his contribution to the biography of Alfred Nobel by Swedish filmmaker Vilgot Sjömann, Hjärtebarn (Stockholm, 1995), he was rewarded by the creation of a Manuel Bonnet dossier at the Nobel Archives in Stockholm. He worked for Max Lavigne and participated in his latest book: 'Chantecoq'. Royal de la Cité to the Republican Commune (Paris 1996). He is also an author of documentary films. Directed by M. Kapture, ‘Two gendarmes in the Pacific’ (RFO / CINETEVE 2000), which won the Lucien Kimitété award at the Groix Film Festival in 2002. He studied at the prestigious Conservatoire national supérieur d'art dramatique in Paris from 1973. The 'jewelry' entry is completely unproven. imo. Personally, I reckon he's notable enough, but then I am francophile and this is en:wiki Dickie (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree with you, Dickie, though it looks like a lot of original research went into the first draft of our article. AniMate 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn Dickie has clearly established notability, thanks to his knowledge of French. AniMate 12:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vitaliy Versace[edit]
- Vitaliy Versace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a nonnotable actor who never has moved beyond being an extra and playing minor characters. The article also appears to have been created with a conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails WP:ENTERTAINER.(LAmusic3 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Article does not assert any notability. Clearly fails all three criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. Chamal talk 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only played minor roles as far as I can see. Malinaccier (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.