Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 24

< July 23	July 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Floorball since no one else wants to do it (just kidding). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floorball ball[edit]

Delete or Merge to Floorball Information about the equipment used for a sport should be added to the article about the sport unless that article is of excessive size. Mayalld (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per WP:BOLD, I've change this to a redirect to Floorball#The_game. All the relevant info was already there. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Floorball. for the most part this is just a ball --T-rex 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to floorball, as there is little point in having a separate article. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floorball, obviously. Reyk _YO! 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 though editors can merge to New Glasgow in the normal way - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priestville, Nova Scotia[edit]

Lacks "why it's notable" per WP:N. The only thing I see that could make it notable is unsourced. Also, article has no sources. (Per WP:RS & WP:V)Cavenba (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little proof that it even exists. It doesn't even seem to be an actual town, just a name applied to a neighborhood/region. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, I guess it does exist after all, and its existence is verified now if only barely. And if it's even a four corners, it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Glasgow per below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All settlements are notable, whether or not they have a municipal charter. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small community but still of note. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All verified communities are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Delete~~: The community is barely distinguishable from New Glasgow. In fact, there aren't any highway signs telling you that you're entering a community (as with many other small communities in the area), the only sign is for "Priestville Loop" which is a road with the same name. A Google search brings up two results (excluding two from Wikipedia itself, a link to a mirror site, one comment on Canadian Geographic, and one MySpace profile). It would have a better standing in the Pictou County, Nova Scotia article or something similar. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All verified locations are notable, regardless of size. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In fact, quite a chunk of this article is a direct copy from [1], so it's a copyvio. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There removed. Also, as a note, [2] also claims Priestville is located within the borders of New Glasgow, making it a neighbourhood in New Glasgow. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec * 2) Merge to New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and paraphrase to avoid copyright violations. —Animum (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again: the proposal WP:NPT says "[a] human settlement such as a city, town or village is considered notable only if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that'swhy its just a proposal, it is unlikely to win wide acceptance. DGG (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New Glasgow, Nova Scotia as it can be best discussed in context as a neighbourhood in the town until there are enough reliable sources to justify a break-out article. Though unreliable, I also note the interesting fact that GoogleMaps search brings up results as "Priestville, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia". DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be an indpendent settlement, not a neighborhood.(and all such are notable) DGG (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone even found any reliable sources for Priestville? All I see in the article are government resources (primary sources), if there aren't any third-party resources (secondary sources) then why keep the article anyway? Cavenba (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The community was historically separate from New Glasgow, and was notable as a settlement. Municipal annexations and amalgamations do not make notable communities less notable. --Eastmain (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three links you added, two aren't valid as references and the article itself is only just barely removed from being a straight copyvio of the third. An atlas and a gazetteer entry are helpful links, certainly — but they're not references for an encyclopedia article about a community, because they don't support anything except the community's geographic location. You're right that municipal annexations and amalgamations do not make notable communities less notable, but lack of suitable references does make Wikipedia less able to properly determine the notability of a community. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this is listed as a designated place (DPL) by Census Canada. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible speedy keep?~~ Geographical locations are an automatic WP entry, I believe. A poorly written article is not a valid reason for deletion unless it fails by other reasons, such as poorly written because of BLP violations. Chergles (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Someone wrote to me saying it does not meet speedily keep criteria. I won't argue. However, if it is a real town, it should not be deleted. People are different. Just because you are living or once lived, an article on you may or may not qualify. Chergles (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this place is so I will not comment on keep or delete. Chergles (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neighbourhood within a real town, not a town in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Glasgow, Nova Scotia for lack of references. Named places are always potentially notable, regardless of size, but the concept of "inherent notability" is not an exemption from the requirement to provide proper sources. Neighbourhoods within municipalities (especially small municipalities for which there isn't really that much to say about each individual neighbourhood) should exist only as redirects to their parent municipality until properly referenced articles can be written which adequately explain why they're notable enough for their own separate articles independently of their parent municipalities. Even cities 20 or 30 or even 100 times the size of New Glasgow aren't automatically entitled to separate articles for each individual neighbourhood within their boundaries until such articles can be adequately referenced. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat and per source provided by Cavenba showing it is within another municipality. DigitalC (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We all make mistakes :) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Blair Scribner[edit]

No reason given as to why this person is notable. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep president of the most important 19th century american publisher 1871-1879. Full obit in Nw York Times. There will be other sources, such as the published histories of the company. Incomprehensible nomination. DGG (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, very important American publisher. And this particular president of the company is notable ... why? Clearly, not every President of a notable company is notable themselves. I'm not a deletionist - give me a good reason why Scribner is notable and I'll absolutely withdraw this straight away. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, if the company is important enough, the present pretty nearly always is notable--and see what RAN said below: DGG (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you are confusing Wikipedia notability with the Guinness World Record notability. You don't have to be the biggest, fastest or smartest. The media just needs to take notice of you. When the NYT publishes your obit, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a major publishing form AND major college, all backed by an obit in the nation's paper of record. The notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic United States businessman, publisher, etc. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia exists. No question, keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. The publishing house is important and (more importantly) he's been covered by a reliable source in significant detail. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bootleg Series[edit]

Non-notable bootleg/demo albums per WP:MUSIC; bootlegs are almost never notable. There are no sources for these at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't we already do this? I gotta research this. Tan ǀ 39 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3], related. Same author, result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 23:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 06:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing much to say here; it's clear enough. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bennese[edit]

Non-notable athletic trainer in the low minors. Only 37 hits, almost no reliable sources even to give trivial mentions of him being on the club's staff. The article asserts that he has won a "Trainer of the Year" award several times from the low minor league in which he's worked, but professional baseball has several dozen such leagues, and this fellow fulfills the criteria of neither WP:BIO nor WP:ATHLETE. Prod was removed by the article's creator with the assertion that he's writing articles for everyone on the team's staff. RGTraynor 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Larry's Wikipedia entry. I've been going through the entire Miracle roster and doing entries. I don't see what the big deal is if I include an entry of the team trainer as well. By the way, I've searched a couple of former Miracle who are no longer in baseball. If you want something to delete, I would delete them.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be a Wikipedia template for minor league baseball teams that has a spot for coaches if we were then going to delete the coaches?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible and reasonable to name the coaching staff in an article without those staff members being themselves notable enough to pass WP:BIO's requirements for articles on their own. If you think he does meet those requirements, feel free to present the evidence. That being said, per WP:ATHLETE, anyone who has played in a "fully professional" league is prima facie notable, whether or not they have retired, and are not eligible for deletion. RGTraynor 08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Trainer isn't really part of a teams coaching staff. If he were a coach he'd be notable.. being part of the training staff doesn't make him notable. Spanneraol (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands[edit]

Do we actually need this article? It has no information in it not already stated in the Falklands article. It appears to have been abandoned by it's author with no one else showing interest in it, in the past year the only edits made to it have been grammatical and wikilinking. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the existing Falklands article, not even worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign Relations of the United Kingdom Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might have been relevant had it been expanded, it merely duplicates information found elsewhere. Justin talk 10:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as anyone educated knows, the Falklands are technically not part of the UK. The islands have foreign relations in stuff like fishing rights etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is certainly true (they are a UK Overseas Territory) but there is a Falklands article and this article is redundant to it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content easily accomodated in the main article, relations with the UK has nothing to do with it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as Comment: I think this has potential. I can see why people want to delete. As it is, this is a placeholder article with nothing but duplicate information - and it doesn't look like it's going to move on from that any time soon. Plus the fact that the Falklands have no formal foreign relations as that's the responsibility of the UK. But this article still has a use, I think, in discussing treaties as they apply to the Falklands (EU treaties, landmines, natural resources, fishing rights and so on), and in discussing cultural relations (sport, language teaching and so on). Our deadline's a long way off, so this can come in time. Pfainuk talk 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Know what your saying mate, I was quite keen on reading this article when I first saw it's name, I expected it to be similar to what you just described. Lets boot it for now (as it brings the whole project down) and when someone's willing to make it then we can start it again. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has added any such information yet, and this being merged with FI wouldn't stop them from doing so either. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "interested neutral". Given that I have neither the time nor the sources to do the needed improvements during this AFD, here's what I mean my this:

On principle, articles on encycolpaedic subjects - and I think this is one - should not be deleted but rather improved. But this particular article is of no net benefit to the encyclopaedia and has not been significantly edited in the 14 months since it was created. I wonder if, if it became a redlink (so, not a redirect), it might be a spur for people to create the page, given that it's included on a template and there'll be a link to this discussion on the edit window. A sort of "tough love" strategy.

Merging is a non-issue as there's nothing to merge. Redirecting I oppose as it wouldn't create the redlink needed for this strategy to work. Pfainuk talk 13:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I too agree that if it's a red link it may garner more attention. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be part of Falkland Islands --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Black ngold29 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Amalina Che Bakri[edit]

Vanity article, has already been deleted twice. Annie D (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough references in the article to show notability, but if you want to see more you can find plenty with Google News]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again Madman (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete. No encyclopedic value, little information or context, poorly written tidbit of non notable information. You said it Dad (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I originally closed this as delete but am letting it run some more in hopes of getting more input. Wizardman 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has BLP1E written all over it. Besides, good scores on a Malaysian high-school test probably wouldn't even make the Guinness book, and certainly not a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no encyclopedia value at all here. WP:BLP1E and WP:N both apply. Someone being in the news does not make them auto-notable. Wizardman 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. This person set an impressive record, but that lone record is their only claim to fame. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Skomorokh, good detective work. I'm convinced enough that this isn't BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As usual, the delete !votes appear irresponsibly under-researched. It is true that if the only non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources is purely in the context of a single news event (i.e. the 17 A1's win), the subject fails WP:BLP1E. However, the Google News results Phil Bridger alluded to—which no-one subsequently seems to have bothered to check—reveal that coverage of Nur Amalina has extended beyond her 17 A1 feat: "Nor Amalina appointed education ambassador.", Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, 18-MAR-05; "Top scorer keeps `A' streak in England", New Straits Times, 03-18-2005; "Information Department Holds Patriotism Exhibition", Malaysian National News Agency, August 30, 2007;"Top scorer Nur Amalina meets her idol" New Straits Times, 04-14-2005; "Getting the best of a British education", New Straits Times, 10-02-2005. Skomorokh 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources adduced do not demonstrate sufficient notability to suggest this is not a BLP1E case. As such it should go. Eusebeus (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of the subject is not in issue; the issue is whether the individual has received non-trivial coverage independent of the event, or whether the article should be moved and re-written to focus on the event. In neither case is deletion is an option consistent with our policies. Regards, Skomorokh 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of a deleted page. This is a WP:BIO vanity article. Many students may receive offers to study at Edinburgh University but that doesn't establish notability for them. Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Recreation of a deleted page and vanity are WP:PROBLEMS irrelevant to the notability of the subject. No-one is claiming that she is notable due to being offered to study at a university; she is notable because of the multiple instances - before and after her initial 17 A1 achievement - of non-trivial coverage. Could you please address your arguments to why this coverage is insufficient to establishing notability? Thanks, Skomorokh 14:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are certainly multiple reliable sources writing about her, so the key issue for notability is whether she is notable only for a single event. Note that the WP:BLP1E guidelines state Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. There is no larger subject here. She is the event. And furthermore, a review of the dates on the news articles are spread from 2005 through 2007 indicating sustained coverage that certainly rises above a one shot news item. Any other issues with the article can be dealth with through editting and are not grounds for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software Engineering Ethics in British Columbia[edit]

Minutiae about a non-notable association. Cut and paste in great detail on an unremarkable subject. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the organisation itself may or may not be notable (there's a microstub at Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia), but either way I don't see any reason to keep a word-for-word copy of their documents around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is misleading. We already have an article on Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (which could be improved). We possibly need an article on software engineering ethics (with no capitals). But we do not need an article that attempts to combine the two. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. TravellingCari 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites named after Wikipedia[edit]

Valueless original research that assumes any web project containing the suffix "-pedia" or prefix "wiki-" is a namesake for Wikipedia. -Sade 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The suffix "-pedia" and prefix "wiki-" are so commonplace that it's definitely original research to make claims like this. Is Uncyclopedia named for Wikipedia? Maybe. What about Conservapedia? Liberapedia? Wikinfo? WikiFur? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with the understanding that List of wikis (which I believe already exists) and List of online encyclopedias both may have value and would not be OR. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whadyaknow, they both are bluelinks! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O rly? They look like red links to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very premise here, that most/all wiki* and *pedia sites are named after Wikipedia to "attempting to tap into the interest in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia". This is essentially a duplication of our other lists of wikis, and what inspired/motivated the names they chose is essentially trivia, if indeed it can be substaniated at all. Note also that at least two of these (The Rocklopedia Fakebandica and Toonopedia) started before WP and any such accusations are thus certainly false. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I named WikiFur after wikis and furries. The mark's registration makes no mention of Wikipedia, just "an interactive encyclopedia in the field of anthropomorphic animals". GreenReaper (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jaysweet as it adds no value with respect to the two existing ones and rather crates problems of verfication.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, as mentioned above it would be better covered elsewhere. Hut 8.5 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs sources if it's to survive. If these websites named themselves after Wikipedia, have they stated as such? If so, refer to that statement! Otherwise, well, let's just remember that Wikipedia is not Wiki (and isn't Encyclopaedia Brittanica either). :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The suffix "-pedia" existed centuries before Wikipedia. And the two mentioned by Starblind - The Toonpedia and Rocklopedia Fakebandica - are named in parody of the Encyclopædia Britannica and existed before Wikipedia (or even Nupedia) did. and sites with the word "wiki-" prefixing it can be listed in List of Wikis. This is OR mostly. Do we have references that these were named after Wikipedia or just were using the terms "wiki" and/or "pedia"? most information is duplicate of that in List of online encyclopedias and List of wikis. "to tap into the interest in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia."? No, those are the sites listed in WP:FORK. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having the same prefix or suffix as something isn't the same as being named after it. Angela . 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the concept of this article demonstrates an ignorance of the history of Wikipedia. Just get rid of it. JuJube (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki-pedia is named after wikis and encyclopedias. It would be hard to prove any of those in the list were named after Wikipedia itself. Even if they were, I don't think it's worth a list. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other editors said it best -- and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oddly enough, doesn't list the websites clearly named after Wikipedia - Wikipedia Watch and Wikipedia Review, but lists only those probably not named after Wikipedia. WilyD 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, how ironic. -Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, thus demonstrating notability. (non-admin close) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cavlan[edit]

Local activist. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a candidate for U.S. Senate he was profiled by Minnesota Public Radio. That fact establishes notability as coverage by an independent, mainstream news agency. Since the two-party system seeks to diminish any attention given to third-party candidates, I think we at Wikipedia ought to counter that force by giving due attention to alternative candidates.--Appraiser (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every candidate is notable. Exactly where the threshhold for notability lies is unclear, but I think its fair to say that someone whose sole claim to fame is getting 0.5% of the vote falls well beneath it. --IdiotSavant (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The threshold for notability is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, something which Appraiser has addressed and you have not. Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I am not seeing evidence of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep in light of publications located by Skomorokh. JBsupreme (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Note that I originally closed this as delete but am letting it run due to questions regarding the close. Wizardman 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Minnesota Public Radio interview is one third-party source, but I see virtually nothing else. Like JBsupreme, I don't see multiple reliable publications. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Skomorokh's sources. I'm not too certain about the actual depth of coverage in said sources, but there are just enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be more convinced that his Minnesota public radio "profile" is something special if he managed more than 0.5% of the vote! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added 5 references from reliable sources to the previously unreferenced article. At least two of them are solely devoted to the subject, and all contain non-trivial coverage. This ought to be an open and shut case. Regards, Skomorokh 23:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Skomorokh's assessment on this -- and I reject the suggestion that a receiving a low percentage of the vote should be considered prima facie evidence of non-notability. Cgingold (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into article on election. All of this guy's notability seems to stem from having been a candidate for office, and focus exclusively on his role as a candidate. That makes him, as a failed candidate, suspect under WP:ONEVENT. RayAYang (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lifetime of political activism and participation in several elections is so far from one event it's not even funny. Please address why the non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is insufficient to establish notability. Skomorokh 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a perennial failed candidate doesn't help your case, you know. As for your "non-trivial" coverage, let us go down the list of current references.

Article entitled "US Senate" in local newspaper.
Article entiteld "Senate hopeful calls for probe of Wellstone crash," in another local paper.
"Voter's Guide," in one of the aforementioned local newspapers.
"Green party member to seek Senate seat"
"'Somebody had to stand up': Greens' candidate wants U.S. to shift course."
Statewide election results for US Senate.

All of these articles are dated prior to the 2006 election. I repeat, for the disinterested reader's consideration, my assertion that this guy's "notability" springs solely from having been a failed candidate for office, which, as a matter of more or less settled consensus (see, WP:ONEVENT and WP:POLITICIAN) is insufficient to merit inclusion. Stick his data in an article on the Green Party in Minnesota, or an article concerning the 2006 election, and have done. RayAYang (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skomorokh. The subject's notability goes beyond one event. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A LexisNexis search of Minnesota news sources turns up 48 results, including a 600 word profile of Cavlan in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. About half of the articles are related to his 2006 campaign. I'm pretty sure this qualifies as non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Benjaminx (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Notability does not appear to be in doubt. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources cited in Michael_Cavlan#References indicate sufficient coverage of Michael Cavlan in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline, per the comment by Benjaminx, and per the other cogent arguments for retention presented above. John254 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Nominator isn't seeking deletion. A merge & redirect is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Elden[edit]

The subject is "notable" for one reason and one reason only; his Dad took him to a pool when he was a toddler and they took his picture that ended up on Nirvana's Nevermind album. Other than that, this guy has done nothing. He's in high school. He's not otherwise famous. He lives the life of a regular teenage kid. All of the content for this article can be merged into the Nevermind article with no problems; half of it is already there to begin with. Recommend merge & redirect to Nevermind. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close If you want a merge, AfD isn't the place to go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iutrhbuf

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V-Tetris[edit]

Unnotable video game. Failed PROD (removed by article creator). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't feel notability criteria for video games has been well-established, so it is hard to judge. While I recognize that notability is not inherited, my gut feeling is that an officially licensed game for a highly notable game platform is inherently notable. Maybe. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, generally games are assumed notable because there's a specialist press devoted to covering releases from major publishers, no matter how minor, so pretty much every game passes WP:GNG with flying colors if someone can be arsed to source them. The fact that they aren't sourced is more of a WP:SOFIXIT issue than a WP:N one. That said, anyone who makes a half-decent case that a game wasn't covered by the specialist press can get an article deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GNG notes specifically that directory listings don't count. Every video game ever released a not received "significant" coverage, not even from the specialist pubs. So no, it isn't an issue of "so fix it", its an issue of the need to actually prove this claimed coverage exists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about directory listings. I'm talking about reviews and previews. As to the specific, I cannot prove that reviews exist for this specific game, as I do not speak Japanese nor do I have access to back issues of Japanese game magazines. It was, however, one of the early releases from before the press backlash against the Virtual Boy and launched at a time that Nintendo was promoting the hell out of the VB and all its games.
This article is trivially easily improved by a rare person. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AMiB, I think we are pretty much saying the same thing. I made the qualifications of "officially licenses" and "notable platform" because I think the assumptions regarding the "specialist press" fall apart without those criteria. Certainly, some non-licensed games are notable (e.g. Bible Adventures) but many are probably not. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tetris variants along with the hundreds of other Tetris games out there. MuZemike (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, inherently notable. Andre (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? -- saberwyn 02:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Commercial video games have a specialist press covering pretty much anything and everything that comes out. Sources will likely not be quickly forthcoming for this game (as it is a 13-year-old game released only in Japan), but I am reasonably sure they exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Same as Jaysweet I don't feel video games notability has been established, which means this should not have been set for AfD. Yama88 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I share the same sentiment as AMIB.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tetris variants as suggested by MuZemike. I don't think it does meet the requirement of WP:N, but then, I think it would fit peachily in with the list. --Izno (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The virtual boy only had a small number of games released for it. The uniqueness of the console makes every game released for it notable.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) --Chenzw Talk 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golf (Virtual Boy)[edit]

Unnotable video game with a one sentence article. Failed PROD (removed by article creator). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No proof of notability, i.e. verifiable, third-party sources establishing that. MuZemike (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all releases like this are inherently notable and will have sources in the gaming press. Andre (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "inherent notability." There needs to be proof. Read WP:GNG and the following section, WP:NOBJ. MuZemike (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: To paraphrase AMiB on this AfD: Commercial video games have a specialist press covering pretty much anything and everything that comes out. I am reasonably sure sources exist. Nifboy (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Most games released for major consoles are notable. Even in the absence of reliable third-party sources, there's decent reason to believe these sources exist. Randomran (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is of poor quality, but the game is notable and will have sources in the gaming press. Multiple mentions of it have been made in Nintendo Power. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep No sources but has release date information. Wiki131wiki (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and merge - List of Virtual Boy games shows it is a real game, and is not a hoax. It should therefore be merged and redirected to this list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The virtual boy only had a small number of games released for it. The uniqueness of the console makes every game released for it notable.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Woollat[edit]

Notability is not established DimaG (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered sufficiently in Jedediah Strutt. If the thing about the "badly needed loan" is notable, it should go in that article, but I'm not so sure it's notable. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Might be an okay redirect though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gsearch coming up with lots of passing mentions, but all in connection with Jedediah Strutt. (Merge/redirect to Jedediah Strutt would be fine, too.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirected to Vodacom Challenge as a plausible search term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vodacom Challenge 2008[edit]

Non-notable challenge that does not cite any references to prove that is true. doña macy [talk] 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. Doesn't show any relevant information. The article is just a few pictures. - 天使 BlackBeast Do you need someting? 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vodacom Challenge - no need for a separate article on such a short tournament. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Hossein Mansouri[edit]

Non-notable professor. Only one of the refs cited in the article even mentions the subject. I can't find anything on the internet indicating that this individual merits his own Wikipedia biography, which was likely written by the subject as well. I put this up for PROD but it was removed by an IP, so listing it here. Khoi khoi 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See this Google scholar search and http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jtst/3/2/3_179/_article --Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar search only yielded one hit that mentioned Mansouri (the one that you mentioned). Aside from this, I couldn't find any articles that he has written or co-written. In fact, you will notice that "Seyed Hossein Mansouri" -wikipedia gives a total of 10 hits. Khoi khoi 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Only 3 hits on Google scholar if quotes used. Nothing on mathscinet, despite being listed on the math genealogy project. RayAYang (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Google scholar search finds a larger number of papers seemingly by him, but they're not cited enough to establish notability that way, and there isn't anything else in the article to use instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. The GoogleScholar results are not impressive, especially for an active exprimental field and given the fact that his PhD is from 1982.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs)
Delete per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Shah II[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Unreferenced and unwikified since September. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources given. Black ngold29 06:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gizza[edit]

Article appears to be merely a dictionary definition in addition to a newly coined neologism, and as such does not meet the criteria of WP:N BigHairRef | Talk 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has been, speedily, twice. Also investigate the talkpage for sockpuppetism? TrulyBlue (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khan Dhurnali[edit]

Non-notable person. I can't find any sources even identifying him, nevermind asserting notability. It's actually the first article i've ever encountered where the title brings up 0 google hits. Ironho lds 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A 'renowned robber' with only 4 hits on google--2 of which are from this Wiki site and the other two on someone else. Artene50 (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzag code[edit]

Looks like original research DimaG (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not pure WP:OR, the paper it cites is from 1999 and at least one other research paper (with no authors in common) was written on the subject in 2005 [4]. I cite that one because it is definitely the same meaning of the phrase "zigzag code"; I see a number of other papers which I think are related but I am not yet sure. No !vote yet because I am not convinced either way of notability, but it definitely ain't OR. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar finds 138 articles mentioning zigzag codes, 38 of them with the phrase in the title. The paper cited by the stub here has 50 citations. I think this is more than sufficient to provide the multiple reliable sources needed for a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amplifying to keep or merge and redirect to appropriate article on error-coding, per David Eppstein. I had a feeling based on some initial Googling that it was a notable (though highly specialized) topic, but I didn't feel I'd done enough research to verify either way. Thanks for doing the legwork! I'm convinced now that it's notable. Not sure it needs its own article (would need a subject matter expert to tell us that) but the content should not be deleted. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very short article to error-correcting code. Notable engineering topic. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not WP:NOR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In haste to create a string of AFD nominations, the nominator seems to have overlooked that the topic was referenced to an IEEE journal. I wonder what about it "looks like original research." --C S (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps merge. Paul August ☎ 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertising by User:Toddst1. Non-admin close. Onorem ♠Dil 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACCOMPLISHMENTS[edit]

Fails every guideline ever made. The references and external links don't resolve anywhere, the artist isn't even notable enough for his own WP page and it seems to have been created by the person himself. Unfortunately, due to a teensy oversight when laying out CSD criteria there isn't a "non-notable album" thing, so i'm putting it through this. Ironho lds 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Non notable album by non notable artist. Created by fairly obvious sock of currently blocked User:Troyrodriguez361. Uncapitalized version was protected from creation yesterday. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Zero relevant hits on Google for this album or the concert that's supposedly coming up. That suggests a hoax to me, or at least a very non-notable article. Rnb (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 A search for this artist on Hollywood Records turned up nothing, which has me convinced that it's indeed a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This outcome does not preclude the merger of content and/or conversion into a disambiguation page. John254 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowel management[edit]

The article discusses a bowel management program at a Cincinnati clinic. Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, original research, not verifiable, probably conflict of interest, advertisement, ... Don't even know if it really needs discussion, doubted to propose deletion but would prefer other opinions. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a rewording of the three sources, not to the point of copyvio however. This whole page is mostly a how-to with original research and advertisement thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Tim Vickers. There is a useful subject here, but this isn't the article for that subject. Perhaps stubify and tag for expert attention? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Blatant rewrite. Still close enough that I wondered whether it still might be violative. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possibly speedy per G11 (that's the spam one, right?). Also, ew! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak keep or merge, per TimVickers. Still, what a depressing way to start my morning... --Jaysweet (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notable topic and verifiable material. Needs reducing to a stub and a total rewrite, but AfD isn't cleanup. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, after working on the article for a while I see not much that isn't a copyright violation will remain. Therefore I'd recommend a merge of a summary of this article and its references as a sub-section in Fecal_incontinence#Treatment. However, as PMID 11137690, PMID 9473119, PMID 17651510 and PMID 9368274 show, this is a topic that could have a good article written about it in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support M & R per Tim Vickers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly as a disambiguation page. The text and references should be merged into the "Fecal incontinence" and "Constipation" articles. Axl (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill jazz[edit]

Ostensible music genre; possibly a neologism. Orphaned and unreferenced article. Surely a genre of music would have some artists or recordings associated with it, but only one (José Padilla (musician)) is mentioned, and his article makes no mention of this genre. Delete Gyrofrog (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism with no sources to back it up. The fact that Padilla's article makes no mention of this has me convinced that this is more musical hair-splitting with a dash of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism related to existing smooth jazz or Chill out music. Term has no sources to demonstrate that it even exists. --tgheretford (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BGM (slang)[edit]

Personals abbreviation for Black Gay Male - better suited for dictionary than encyclopedia User0529 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As with "SWM" (single white male), which has a mention on the disambiguation page SWM but not an article of its own, this could be mentioned on BGM. The rest of the article is homoriginal research, with some unsourced observations about what the "typical" black gay male is. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Similar to LGBT this is an acronym and initialism that has widespread use and can be given an encyclopedic treatment beyond a dictionary definition. Banjeboi 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above. Is not a notable acronym - there are dozens of such in personal ads, like OLO (One lady owner ). The article makes many claims of notability and what sounds like a lot of OR to define it, but has no supporting citations, hence fails verifiability also.Yobmod (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator) Comment If sourcing can be provided for the OR-sounding qualities/attributes of BGM's (especially sources other than just Boykin's blog), I withdraw my nomination. User529 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take out the unsourced guff and it's just a dictionary definition. Not sure whether it would even merit inclusion in a dictionary.--Michig (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to be a dictionary-type definition of an initialism as it is used by one particular author. Aleta ^Sing 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, no notability, smells like WP:OR. Black ngold29 06:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paul Reubens#Pee-wee's Playhouse: The Movie (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pee-wee's Playhouse: The Movie[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when reliable sources can be found to confirm that shooting has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Reubens#Pee-wee's Playhouse: The Movie. Content already exists there, not an entirely unreasonable search term at this time. -Verdatum (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing to merge. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect if there is nothing to merge. Explicitly fails WP:NFF. The article is even inaccurate: the cited sources make no mention of the film being greenlighted, and a more recent article (Dec '07) makes it clear that the film hasn't been greenlighted at all [5]. PC78 (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the existing section at the article for Paul Reubens. Only recreate article if filming does begin for this planned film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, or merge what little is there. Information already covered and sourced at Paul Rubens. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC) keep. Overturned at DRV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Underground[edit]

No coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS "...albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources exist for this album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can relax because the album was released. Leopold Stotch (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Impact[edit]

"Jebun Ara Geeti, the honorable Lecturer of World University of Bangladesh has offered her students in B.Sc. Engineering to conduct an assignment." This is self-confessedly a college essay. It is a good essay, but it is not an encyclopedia article, being original research and synthesis. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, it's an essay. (WP:NOT#OR) --neon white talk 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much too much OR - it even has conclusion for Gs sake. --triwbe (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR- Toon⁰⁵ 20:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author even admits that it's OR. andy (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the risk of piling on...strictly WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although with this sort of consensus it's kind of a moot vote. Ironho lds 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, allowing recreation if the subject achieves notability per WP:ATHLETE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thomas (footballer)[edit]

Although this player currently plays at a notable level, he has not made any senior appearances for Crystal Palace, and his former club did not play at a notable level. – Pee Jay 19:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league/tournament. --Jimbo^[online] 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why on earth was this deprodded??? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it is to be deleted then whoever deletes it shall put it back when he makes his Palace debut in a couple of weeks.Londo 06 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Londo06 - who's to say his Palace debut will be next month? He may get injured or fall out of favour...WP:CRYSTAL to say he'll be notable soon, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 16:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did think about that, but thought against adding to my statement at the time. Not saying keep it, just saying that there is a likelihood that the article will return with no issues when he has played. Were it to be a full article than I would implore someone to sandbox the article, however in its limited state it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to create the article, were he to make a first team appearance.Londo 06 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will never understand our obsession with following policies to the letter - oh, wait, sorry, I meant guidelines to the letter. It's true, one can point at him and say "well, he has only played for Boreham Wood, a non-league side; therefore, he is not notable according to WP:ATHLETE". That statement is, of course, factually true. But what are the circumstances? This player, who is 24 years old, was signed and given a squad number on a Championship team. Is this a vanity article? No. Is this an article about some footballer nobody has ever heard of, except the other members on his pub team? No. Is this some youngster who is going to make 10 appearances for the academy team and then disappear into oblivion, never to be seen again? Well, 24 might be young to many of you but the answer is again no. So this player is not completely non-notable. But really, why should we keep this article? What is the point? It's quite easy to robotically cite WP:ATHLETE and prod this article, then express dismay when someone should dare to delete the prod notice (do any of you remember the long, drawn-out debates about whether some process like this should ever be implemented? whether it was too easy to abuse? there is a reason why it's so easy to contest a prod you know). Who cares about "circumstances" and "common sense" when we have rules to enforce? If we allow this article to exist, then people will create millions of articles about non-notable footballers due to our unwisely set precedent. We are doing this for the good of Wikipedia!

But seriously, where is our common sense? I think we all know the presence of this article does not harm Wikipedia in any way. It's easy to find enough information (birth date, position, previous clubs + appearances, birth place) to make a stub with verifiable content. The whole idea behind notability guidelines is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (sorry if I got the phrase a bit wrong, I'm going off memory here) but we also have to remember that Wikipedia is not paper. It's true, we can delete all these articles about footballers who have squad numbers on notable clubs but haven't made first team appearances for them yet, but what is the point? Wikipedia has nearly 2.5 million articles (maybe we've passed that number since the last time I checked, a few days ago). Don't we strive for completeness? Crystal Palace are not some trivial club that barely satisfies the notability guidelines. In fact they were in the Premier League about 5 years ago or so (when Andrew Johnson scored over 20 goals but came in 2nd to Thierry Henry on the goal charts). It's like this - consider Crystal Palace as the legislative body for some middling country (say, Slovenia). This is like deleting an article for a politician who has been newly elected to the Slovenian national legislature, on the grounds that "well, what if he suffers a heart attack and dies before entering office? he isn't notable yet you know... WP:CRYSTAL".

And yet, for all these words, everyone will look at them and say "what is this guy going on about?", and look at the policy, and vote "delete" because of it. You know, I really couldn't care less about whether or not these footballers have articles or not. I'm not on a crusade to keep as many articles about professional footballers on Wikipedia as I can. The crusade, rather, is about the principle of it. Wikipedia is trying to bring knowledge to people. What's the point of deleting this article, and the hundreds of others like it? What harm does it do? None. What benefit does it bring? Well, as I will readily admit, not that much, but at least it's not "none". There is a reason why I rarely vote on these AfDs - because usually, I actually agree with you guys - if we wrote articles about every academy and reserve team player for every professional club in the world, it would certainly get out of hand. But 24 year old Crystal Palace first-teamers - a different story. According to policy, there is no difference between Simon Thomas and a 17 year old Huddersfield Town academy player, but that's what the point of common sense is - if every single Wikipedian had to follow all the policies and guidelines to the letter, this site would become very worthless indeed. ugen64 (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone who has achieved nothing noteworthy as a player. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish you lot would spend half as much time referencing articles to get them past BIO as you do wittering on about WP:ATHLETE. Whether or not he's played a professional game, he's had a few news stories written about him (as a quick google shows) which whacks him straight past "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". 86.21.74.40 (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't see the point of deleting articles of players who are clearly part of the first team of Championship level teams a fortnight before the season starts. We'll simply be doing a DRV on it in a fortnight. It's a waste of resources for everyone to expend this energy on this, rather than spending the next couple of weeks cleaning up articles, and then tackling the removal of articles that shouldn't have been created. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and groups in Bionicle[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the various Bionicle articles combined with trivia. As such, this is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not cite independent secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. this is an important point to make for Bionicle articles because some of the "reference" material is published by Scholastic Inc. While Scholastic is technically an independent publisher, they have a bad habit of making works for hire for anyone who pays (game makers, etc), so we need to make a gut check on whether or not independent editorial control exists. Other sources likely to be used for an article like this are largely primary--manuals and guides are almost all published by LEGO or subsidiaries. I would be inclined to support a merger but at present no verified claims exist in the article and the probable target (Bionicle) doesn't need more in universe information. As always, this article has multiple editorial concerns: WP:WAF and WP:NOR spring directly to mind. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an update. I've read the slightly modified article and the new sources. References to the "characters and groups" in bionicle range from trivial to non-existent. the references don't belong in this article, they belong in the Bionicle article in general. Protonk (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you keep deleting every Bionicle article, then eventually there won't be any Bionicle articles left apart from the main article. People who don't like Bionicle just keep randomly deleting the articles which is hardly encyclopedic. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the sort of article that should be encouraged on fictional subjects. JOM is quite correct, that in deleting articles on over-narrow unimportant aspects, there should be something suitable to merge to. Spinoff articles like this do not need to show independent notability, for they are justified in order to organise the material. Recapitulating plot sections according to characters in a work of this sort can be extremely helpful to ordinary readers=non-fans. Much clearer and better than trying to figure something like this out from the plots, . DGG (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles must demonstrate notability, since notability is not inherited. Just like Johnny Depp feet do not warrant an article, but he does, so this article is unnecessary and shows no notability, but Bionicle does. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- If this article needed to be split from the main Bionicle one, an article that itself is bogged down with vast amounts of sprawling in-universe ramblings and minutiae, on the grounds that doing so would make it cleaner and more organized, then that's a sure sign that the spinoff article is an indiscriminate collection of information. The goal of Wikipedia is to collect and present information, of course, but you have to draw the line somewhere. And this article, in my opinion, hasn't just crossed that line, it raced across it long ago and is still accelerating. The total absence of reliable secondary sources makes this not an encyclopedia article but a game guide, and that's simply not what Wikipedia is for. Time to scrape away this cruft. Reyk _YO! 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was spun off to get garbage out of the main article. That's admirable, I guess, but it's time to take out the trash. This is indiscriminate and unreferenced and unreferenceable and just generally a grab-bag of disorganized junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, discriminate, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia”--not all works of fiction have their own published encyclopedia produced--concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Google scholar includes out of universe information on the origins of the names of characters, i.e. Polynesian influence, Google books includes out of universe comment on who the characters are marketed for, etc. Even typing in individual character names (see also here) gets some hits and so while I believe the article can and should be better referenced, I think that is entirely possible and that the article also serves a navigational purpose to other articles. Finally, the article concerns notable characters as they appear in toys, movies, and games, i.e. not all fictional characters appear in multiple media. Article passes the general notability guideline as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are broadly-worded Google searches, and the hits are mentioning the characters exceedingly briefly as part of a discussion of the franchise or are themselves Bioncle fictional works or licensed works. Vague hints about how other people might do the research for you don't amount to a claim that there are sources; spend some time actually reading what you find in Google sources, and critically analyze it to see if it might be useful for writing an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is sufficient information in those sources for an article as critically analyzed above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have replied to some other comment, since you don't address what I actually said. "Exceedingly brief mentions of a topic in the context of something else or a broader subject" is about as trivial as "trivial mention" gets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of those mentions are "exceedingly brief," especially when spread across multiple sources the information adds up. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've taken a bunch of offhand statements that would be better placed in other articles and sprinkled them here to keep an article that is 99% plot summary. These references refer to the characters as a minor part of a larger whole, or refer only to single works, or refer to the general style of naming of all characters/groups/objects/places in Bionicle. Rather than improving Bionicle, you're putting these references in about the worst possible place to make a point that no plot summary should be deleted ever. Where's your effort to improve the parent article with these references? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean merge and redirect without deletion at worst. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could delete this article and you could use those sources where they belong. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use the references I added to this article eslewhere, I am certainly not stopping you; however, per the GFDL, you need to keep my contribution to this article in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You're adding irrelevant sources to this article so you can make the point that we can't delete this without destroying your work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't know what point you're trying to make, I am adding relevant sources to the article, because I believe the article should be kept and that it can in fact be improved by presenting both in and out of universe material. I devoted my volunteer time today doing that in order to improve our coverage on a notable topic and help make this article, which I think should be kept as is, but continued to be improved. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed references which are not talking about the characters and groups specifically. If you'd like to devote your volunteer time to reading references and placing them in relevant articles, you are free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You removed references that specifically talk about the characters in an out of universe context that make the article an acceptable spinout or sub-article. Instead of telling others what to do, why not devote your volunteer time to adding the references to whatever article you think relevant? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you put them somewhere relevant? They weren't relevant here, because they did not deal with the characters. One was about all names for everything in the series, one was about the land Bionicle is set in, one is about the character designs in one single DVD, and one is about Bionicle as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because as far as I am concerned this article was a relevant place to put it. And while I'm not interested in edit-warring, consider your edit summary here, concerning content that is not about a location, but about the character names associated with that location. As I wrote "several of the names above" based on a reference that mentions in out of universe manner who Toa, Turaga, etc. are names used by those fighting for the locations independence. Thus, the content and reference as used is indeed about the character names rather than the location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic is notable as noted above. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sheer cruft that cannot aspire to notability per WP:GNG and per our first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive collection of excessively detailed plot information, trivia, and OR about non-notable topics that have not been covered in depth in reliable sources independent of the subject. As A Man In Black puts it, "it's time to take out the trash". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:NOTE. Whole article is completely unreferenced (WP:NOR), and consists completely of plot details (WP:NOT#PLOT). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. This is a legitmante spinoff article fromthe main Bionicle article to help the length of the main article form becoming excessive. Edward321 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the material from the main article would also have solved the same problem. Excessive plot detail doesn't become less excessive because it is in a standalone article; Bionicle's editorial issues were simply pawned off on this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting articles is a smart way to organize content. There're at least 6 editors (as of now) on this AfD who support this type of spin-off article. It is your opinion that this is "excessive plot detail"; not everyone must agree. I think the information here is just detailed enough to provide basic information for an average reader (i.e. non-fan, as said above). --PeaceNT (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barring a merge. This form of spinoff is good for organizing fiction materials. While I get the point of the AfD nom that "article asserts zero notability through reliable sources", it should be a good idea to try looking for sources outside the article. Per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, such refs appear to exist, so the potential for improvement is there. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Grand Roi has done a superb job of presenting insubstantial fluff to us as concrete sources. They're little more than a verification that the word "Bionicle" occurs several times in different places. At best they might tell you a little bit about Bionicle in general. They do nothing to illuminate anything in the article under discussion. Reyk _YO! 11:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have thus far presented no actually valid reasons for deletion. Please do not refer misleadingly to the coverage in these sources. After all, such ones as this address the character names in the context of actual real world issues with regards to Polynesia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have provided excellent reasons for deletion- WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:N, WP:CITE. These are Wikipedia policy, and far more relevant to this discussion than the feeble non-sources you've dug up. Most of which only mention Bionicle in passing, few of which could be used to substantiate any claim about Bionicle whatsoever, and none of which apply specifically to the various teams and factions in the franchise. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of which are not accurate, as it is discrminate article with clear inclusion criteria, provides out of universe sections and is therefore not a guide, concerns a notable topic, and is cited in reliable sources, i.e. it successfully meets all Wikipedia policies. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's discuss all your claims one-by-one.

1) discriminate article with clear inclusion criteria- I would have thought merely writing down each and every bit of information about something, without any regard for relevance, notability or encyclopedicness, to be rather indiscriminate. Clear inclusion criteria are irrelevant without a strong and justifiable claim to notability, which this hasn't got. A list of people with two feet has a clear inclusion criterion but such a list would still be indiscriminate and non-notable.

2)provides out of universe sections and is therefore not a guide- All the out-of-universe sections I can find are the opening paragraph and a few one-liners about the origin of the names, the target audience and some Polynesians being upset at having their culture pillaged for the franchise. All this stuff concerns Bionicle as a whole, and not the characters and groups in it. The rest of the article is in-universe and fails WP:PLOT.

3)concerns a notable topic- again, Bionicle generally is notable. A collection of every single scrap of in-world information is not.

4)cited in reliable sources- no, no it isn't. Google books and Google scholar searches that turn up a few titles because they've got the word "bionicle" in the body of the text just DO NOT CUT IT.

So no, it does not meet Wikipedia's policies. It does fail quite a few though. Reyk _YO! 03:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is discrminate in that it only focuses on characters and groups from one particularly notable franchise. How it covers the material and to what detail can be easily fixed by being bold and making wording more concise. Out of universe coverage is found in the sections on creation, reception, and controversy. Characters that appear in multiple works of fiction are notable. The sources that turn up are sufficient enough for our purposes. For these reasons it meets Wikipedia's policies successfully. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on creation, reception and controversy belong in the Bionicle article, not this one. And once they're moved to the right place, all that will be left is the lengthy in-universe cruft I've been arguing against. And no, for the last time, those sources are just NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Man in Black and I have explained over and over again that passing mentions found by a search engine just don't cut it as reliable secondary sources, but you keep asserting that they're sufficient without any attempt to justify why. Reyk _YO! 04:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be in both articles just as an article on the wars of Alexander the Great can overlap with an article on the battle of Arbela. Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT is never a sufficient reason for deletion, especially when these sections that I have added are out-of-universe in nature and therefore if good enough to be merged elsewhere even in your own opinion are not "cruft." They are sufficient, because they are multiple reliable secondary sources and again only intended as a start, i.e. if one review of the DVD talks about characters, it's added therefore with the hopes of encouraging others to use other similar sources as well. I don't personally have any vested interest in this Franchise; however, it does seem suffciently notable to our editors and readers that I am willing to defend it and help them in making it better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the three of us are just going to argue in circles until the debate closes. There's hardly been a new participant in this debate for days and as it stands the debate will probably end with a no-consensus. I don't want a default keep because no consensus could be reached, and I'm sure you don't want a second nomination in a few months. Would you agree to me asking for editor assistance so that we can get more opinions and, hopefully, a clear consensus? Reyk _YO! 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more participation the better, I think. One last thing I'll say for the night, though, is while I personally believe these sorts of articles are wortwhile as they serve a kind of table of contents function and can include out of universe context as I have shown, I would not be totally averse to a merge of the sources I did add and a redirect without deletion as a compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer reading, perhaps the Mediation cabal would be better than EA, because it's more than just one-on-one advice. Reyk _YO! 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An IP had removed the AfD template, which I noticed while revising the article and have thus restored it and cautioned the IP. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have begun adding referenced sections on creation, reception, and controversy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these references is an offhand mention that belongs in another article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean merge and redirect without deletion at worst. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could delete this article and you could use your references where they are useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use the references I added to this article eslewhere, I am certainly not stopping you; however, per the GFDL, you need to keep my contribution to this article in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can use edit summaries for that. --Phirazo 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An edit summary isn't enough. GFDL requires us to keep the original page history visible. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL doesn't bind us from using the same references in a different article without merging the two in order to maintain edit history of text contributions derived from the same source. If someone takes sources in this AfD and makes/improves another article, there is no copyright debt. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. But if any materials other than the reference is retained in another article, then the history of this article must be preserved. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Within limits. If that were true, all it would take to avoid deletion would be to copy some text over to a like article. The GFDL offers lots of options. We can add the edit history of the old article to the talk page of the target article. If the merged content is small enough and the attribution is limited, we can attribute it via the edit summary or a talk page comment. If, for example, large chunks of content that constituted the work of multiple editors were copied to another article , we would be in the territory of having to keep the article (as a redirect, maybe) for GFDL purposes. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real world notability provided. Even in world notability is questionable --T-rex 00:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Characters and groups that appear in multiple works of fiction are unquestionably notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No they are not. Especially when the multiple works of fiction, are all derived from the same source, and not really notable themselves. Simply appearing in a work of fiction falls far short of real world notability --T-rex 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, they are when they are covered in secondary sources that discuss real-world notability as indicated above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, even then it should still be deleted as WP:FANCRUFT, however there are no secondary sources provided for this topic --T-rex 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion and I added secondary sources to the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a plot summary, pure and simple. It abandons an out of universe tone as soon as possible. Summary style is not a free pass, and articles must show independent notability. --Phirazo 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no longer true as I added sections on creation, reception, and controversy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you added is off-topic, and doesn't "save" the article. Besides, it's since been reverted. --Phirazo 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added on-topic information unjustifiably reverted as indicated above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The topic here is "Characters in Bionicle." The sources you added are a Bionicle movie review and an article about relations between Polynesians and Lego. Two out of universe paragraphs don't save the rest of it. Trying to force a merge and redirect based on two paragraphs is ridiculous. Delete this and don't look back. --Phirazo 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There were more than just two out of universe paragraphs and there is no longer any valid reason for an outright deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Exactly the right thing to do with a notable series (or frankly just about anything like this). Have a page or pages that cover a bit about each part of the series. Otherwise the main article becomes either overloaded with detail or we don't cover important aspects of the series. Per WP:WAF's spinout suggestions. Also reasonable per WP:FICT. On another note, I think that merging tons of articles to this one and then bringing this one to AfD verges upon not acting in good faith. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith on the part of whom? The editor who did the merges did so four months ago, despite a multiple-problems tag on this article from December, and is not present here now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I dislike seeing something cleaned up so much and then deleted. It feels a bit orchestrated, but I couldn't say by whom. I've felt the Bionicle articles were targeted in AfDs, cleaned up greatly to a single page of stuff, and now that page is targeted. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly prefer that people make a good faith attempt at cleanup before bringing an article to AfD, or during for that matter. In some cases it may be to just remove unacceptable content in the interim. In some cases cleanup itself may sway consensus (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsaber_combat_(5th_nomination)) and result in keeping the article. None of this is orchestrated in any sense of the word. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep functions as a list, thus out-of-universe material is on parent article. I presume this list was also the result of deleted and redirected individual articles? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an article on this is necessary if we are to have comprehensive coverage of Bionicle. Please add sources to the article, though. Everyking (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both g3, hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Saleh[edit]

Amusing hoax, but hoax none-the-less. Ros0709 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is an article for an album by the same "artist":[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McMullen (broadcaster)[edit]

Article fails to establish the notability of this broadcaster. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. SSBohio 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —SSBohio 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per extensive prior discussion at its talk page. He's notable. The article explains his notability, which exists as a quality distinct from that of its sources. Would the article be better with more sources? Of course! But, that is a call to write a better article, not to delete what's already here. It's a stub: improve it, don't delete it. --SSBohio 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not established via a discussion on the article's talk page, it's established with verifiable 3rd party references of which this article has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did I say that the talk page discussion established notability? No, I didn't. I'm not going to refute straw man arguments. --SSBohio 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article sourcing has been improved. The information was trivially easy to find. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete one, {{sofixit}}. --SSBohio 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to properly source it. Others are always welcome to improve the articles but any unsourced information can be removed. This is especially true of biographies. I chose the AFD route instead since there were no references.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Remember, that blaming problems on a previous editor does not provide you with blanket absolution for excising what could be fixed. The sourcing I added took me a few minutes' Googling to find. {{Sofixit}}, already. It makes me heartsick that fixable issues are used to excuse deletionist ideology. Just because it's easier to destroy than to create doesn't make destruction a beneficial activity. If you spent as much time improving the batch of articles you nominated yestedrday as you've spent arguing for their destruction, we'd have a better encyclopedia. That is the goal of this project. If, in your opinion, WP:BURDEN stands in the way of your improving the encyclopedia, then you should ignore it. It's no excuse. --SSBohio 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nominator may not be aware of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which states: Before nominating an article for AFD... first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself... You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sirius OutQ. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How would that cover his prior radio work? --SSBohio 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all those references to 'JohnMcmullen.com' are primary sources. Aren't there references to those awards and other items available somewhere other than the Mullen's website?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article asserts notability via his media coverage and award-winning work. This notability is, in part, sourced to the subject of the biography. Ant that's your issue with it? Some items have, indeed, been multiply sourced, despite your claim that they have not.
  The article says that John McMullen won a GLAAD Media Award, itself an uncontroversial assertion; Such an assertion can be sourced to the subject's own biography. In this case, however, the assertion is also sourced to GLAAD, the organization giving the award.
  The article asserts that McMullen was covered in an article in The Advocate. That is backed up by both McMullen & by a citation to a copy of the article. Or are you challenging those sources, as well? What motivates your animus toward this biographical subject that you would challenge all these sourced statements? --SSBohio 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbohio, you are being overly aggressive, there is no need for assumptions of bad faith. Also, you could take on board some of the constructive criticism, and in future ensure that articles, especially biographies of living persons, have adequate third party sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no assumption of bad faith; I question the nominator's judgment in this matter and his/her interpretation of WP:N, not the he/she acted in good faith. For that matter, ascribing aggeression to me could be an assumption of bad faith, as well. WP:BLP seems to accept self-published sources for uncontroversial claims, as does WP:RS. Even leaving all of that aside, improving the article's references was a trivial exercise for me, and, I suspect, for you, as well. What's wrong with expecting someone who argues for deleting an article to at least give passing attention to fixing its problems instead? Mzoli's was improved rather than deleted, but it shouldn't take Jimbo Wales to make that happen. We've given carte blanche to deletionism for far too long without expecting better from its advocates. --SSBohio 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Theres nothing wrong with it, it just needs cleanup. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up - there is just enough overall coverage. Agree with Rtphokie's comments; editors creating biographies of living persons should include third-party sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Needs cleanup but from ratonales seems salvagable and somewhat notable. Keep for now. Tawker (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Haramein[edit]

No assertion of notability; article appears to fail WP:Notability (academics). According to talk page, main claim to establishing importance seems to be some quotes on the subject's own website.

Whilst a Google search, for instance, produces thousands of hits, on closer inspection, the majority of them appear to be video clips from the subject's DVD on Youtube-like sites, or forum posts. I can't really find anything that approaches non-trivial independent coverage.

Was originally PRODded; removed by article creator. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per nomination. I too had trouble finding anything this guy's published. ArXiv search turned up nothing, so it doesn't appear that he's a scientist. RayAYang (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have looked for reliable, third party sources that would establish notability and have come up empty handed. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haramein has been published by the Noetic Press and has written extensive papers on theoretical physics, whether according to Wikipedia this makes him a 'scientist' or not. The link is on his Wiki page. However I did change the category so this "notability-academics" requirement might be removed and we could move on with a page on him on Wikipedia as a notable living person. I am hoping some other Wikipedia editors might come forth to provide an unbiased point of view on this.Avsav (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there can be found some third party material referring to him. and his theories. ArXiv tends to include even very non-conventional physics if presented in an academic fashion, unless it makes no sense whatever. The absence there is indicative that either the supporters of his theory dont know enough about physics to even try to put it there, or that they will not include it. Of course, even the wildest pseudo-science can be worth covering here, but to show something is notable pseudo-science it is necessary to show that it is notable. DGG (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the published material referenced on his page not suffice to include him as a notable living person?Avsav (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A Google scholar search reveals only 8 hits. He exists but isn't very notable for a scholar. Artene50 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, don't delete the article, but reword it to explain that he is another fringey new-age nutcase/crackpot with absolutely no academic credibility. Cgwaldman (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this article does not break any surface WP:NOT policies that I can see. As I have done before, I am quoting WP:FRINGE: no need to crucify this guy just because he seems like some crackpot. I believe that in the spirit of Wikipedia, an accurate NPOV article stating the theories as "claims" would suffice if Asav can procure one; however, the current article seems to be fine (maybe a bit more tweaking is in order). I believe that some of Nassim Haramein's paper's actually HAVE been peer-reviewed so there might be some scientific credibility. Also, looking at the criteria for WP:BIO, I say that this article warrants inclusion under this category if the creator suggests it. Ace blazer (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alterhood[edit]

Article is certinly non-notable, almost certainly fictious, and contains false information including links to actual notable musicians CAVincent (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semms like a hoax to me. --neon white talk 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability test - this article is also a complete mess. A Sniper (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability, no sources, looking like a hoax. Black ngold29 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-adnim closure). There are several articles about different type of couplings mentioned in Coupling article. If they all are not notable (which I doubt, because they are widely used), please, bundle them together and nominate. Since these articles are rather short, the best soulution may be to merge them to the main article without going to AFD. Ruslik (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaw coupling[edit]

Originally speedied per G11; recreated with spammy links and renominated per G11. Speedy declined and article prodded. Prod tag deleted. Creator (who is probably also the IP editor) appears to have a COI. In any event, no sources or references after spam deleted, appears to be non-notable in the absence of sources. ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a common machinery part, not any less notable than other machinery parts which have their own articles, such as a driveshaft or sprocket. There are several manufacturers so it just needs to be made generic. -- P199 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy to withdraw the Afd if references can be provided. At the moment the article is just unsourced facts and claims. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having any references can't be a reason for deletion. Both my examples of the other parts also don't have a single reference (for that matter, 1000s of articles don't). -- P199 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can and is. --neon white talk 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the WP policy. If so, then 1000's of articles need to be deleted. -- P199 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Coupling. There's no good reason for a seperate article here. --neon white talk 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Coupling - There is some useful info here, but most of it is too technical and it isn't notable enough for it's own article. If it gets expanded large enough with useful info, then it should get a separate page. To resolve COI, include reliable refs not from Ruland. Crazyjoe (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: the technical info makes it encyclopedic. Otherwise it would be superficial and no more than a dictionary description. -- P199 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesnt address it's lack of notability. --neon white talk 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A jaw coupling is no more or less notable than other machinery parts. A google search shows 11400 hits with numerous manufacturers and distributors. -- P199 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti (Chris Brown album)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL) and it fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Theleftorium (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources exist for this album yet. Wait until at least the track listing can be verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - eo (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, just announced. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more info is revealed. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward future creation when album is confirmed. Winger84 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Brianga (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WCYC[edit]

A pirate radio that fails WP:ORG. WCYC operated in New Jersey in the 1990s. Hotly contested speedy, but the only reliable reference provided is a book mention that briefly notes that they were there. Everything else fails WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pirate radio stations, unlike FCC-licensed ones, are not inherently notable. There are no reliable sources for this one at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article presents one ref which has about a paragraph on the operation. Might satisfy verifiability, that the article is not a total hoax, but does not really satisfy notability. The one ref compares it to a high school FM station after hours, pretty much the height of non-notability. The "baby pirate" shortwave broadcasters, per the Popular Communications ref, which does not mention so-called WCYC, generally were children playing illegally with Daddy's shortwave radio for a one-shot broadcast. Whoopie. Edison (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The book mention points this article in the direction of notability but it doesn't quite meet WP:N. If additional 3rd party references could be located (I couldn't find any), I'd consider changing my opinion.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge - The book mention points this article in the direction of notability. Unable to locate other third-party reliable sources. Perhaps this content belongs in a general article on pirate radio or the "Baby Pirates," as a compromise with those seeking deletion. --SSBohio 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison above. I don't see how this station is notable, it's just as un-notable as the other pirate stations listed on the scanned page. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fraternities and Sororities at Southern Miss[edit]

This is a procedural nomination following a deletion review discussion located here. The original deletion was as an A7 (no claim of notability) speedy deletion, but the consensus at DRV was that A7 does not apply to lists. As such, it is being submitted for community review here. As this is a procedural nomination only, I have no opinion regarding the article. Shereth 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable organizations with local chapters at a notable institution. There isn't a redlink on the page. I also see no policy based cause for deletion. Seems to be a list organized by theme in accordance with WP:LISTS. The existance of each organization at this campus may need citations for verification, but that is a cleanup issue, not grounds for an AfD. The list is discriminate, entirely composed of notable entities, and useful. Jim Miller (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JimMillerJr. The article is well-written, and I would argue that many of the organizations included are notable, the school itself is notable, and the list is informative and well within Wikipedia precedent. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to be a good list to noted articles. I see lots of discussion on the "previous discussion page" but it doesn't leave me convinced that consensus to delete was reached.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The DRV compared this article to a similar one of the University of Texas at Austin. Rather than say "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS", should we also list that as an AFD and either keep both or delete both. Consistency is good. Inconsistency is potential bias and favortism. Chergles (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to list that article as a separate AfD you are welcome to do so but given the consensus emerging here, I believe that would be counterproductive. Shereth 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that this article is a keep but if others are being deleted then we should examine why there is possible inconsistency. I do understand why some may think these lists are unnecessary for WP. Chergles (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New opinion: Rename : This is an encyclopedia. We must be precise. I would favor renaming this to List of Fraternities and Sororities at the University of Southern Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chergles (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though eventually we should create a "Greek Life" template to handle these. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion the vast majority of these societies are totally non-notable, and a list of them is no less so. Sets a very dangerous precedent given how many universities and places of education have these clubs. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, almost all colleges that have a residential campus have a Greek system. However it's my impression that most of the votes to delete these lists come from non-US editors who may not understand Greek life. Most of these organizations are nationwide and maintain a chapter on campus for decades. Such lists are useful to those researching alumni relations, networking and powerstructure, or the universitites themselves. However I do agree that the lists are "bulky" and there should really be a template on the college's main page that lists, in compact form using the Greek letters, the different fraternities under headings for their respective conferences. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of the above. John254 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista based on Mythology and False Assumptions[edit]

Essay full of original research. Personal reflections and no references. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Identical article already present at Southwest territories which in turn is almost certainly recreation of a deleted page Southwest Territories. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now our friend has created two more identical articles: Reconquista Myth based on False Assumptions and Southwest Territories.

speedy delete OR POV rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mycroft7 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. OR. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure OR. Given the creator's penchant for recreating the article, perhaps the discussion should run to closing (whenever that is). If the article is recreated in its current form it would then be eligible for G4 treatment. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, we get it, the southwest USA belonged to the Indians before it belonged to Mexico. Anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere you'd like to educate us about? Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unfixable rant. Reads like somebody's angry letter to the editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starblind puts it best. Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsby Town F.C. past squads and players[edit]

Contested prod. Information is not a suitable article in its own right and the details should instead be included on the club's individual season articles. Peanut4 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Peanut4 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh. My. God. – Pee Jay 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep such details to seasons articles. --Jimbo^[online] 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory --neon white talk 20:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant recentism to display this level of detail on the "past few seasons", and practically the article is never going to be completed back to 1890-whenever (nor should it be) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give a serious dose of WP:TROUT to the deprodder. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Userify - so we can make sure the information is accessible for writing said season articles. matt91486 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to "userify" as the information is available on several websites, hence how the article was compiled in the first place. – PeeJay 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a matter of convenience, not impossibility. I'm obviously aware that the information could be found again, I'm not an idiot, but it's much easier if it's compiled in one place. matt91486 (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Details only need to be in a single season's article, not all compiled together. Dancarney (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Light Wiki[edit]

Orphaned, clearly does not meet notability standards, receives few google hits, and no reliable sources about it exist. Fugitive Motel (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything that suggests this is notable. Also fails WP:NOR. --neon white talk 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Being founded by Ben Kovitz doesn't equal notability. These utterly fail WP:WEB. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently nonnotable, but declining speedy delete because this article has been around since 2003 (and because this AFD was apparently started by a banned user). Full discussion would be better. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skylark (Italian band)[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC, in my opinion, and does not assert why the group are notable. They've released albums on numerous labels, the only notable one being Metal Blade (just one album). A group can be notable if they have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", and I don't believe the group qualify under this criterion. Delete LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did some work on this page. They also released on Scarlet Records, and had at least one release on Pony Canyon in Japan. They did several tours of Europe and one world tour, which passes WP:MUSIC, and have biographies in Allmusic and Rockdetector. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a former member of staff for Rockdetector, I can say 110% that Rockdetector isn't notable, not to mention reliable. First of all, a metal group merely has to register in order to create their own page, and can submit their own biography. Rockdetector hasn't even been updated since November 2007. Skylark's Allmusic biography contains nothing that asserts their notability. Furthermore, please prove that the group has "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" as regards their tours per the WP:MUSIC. criteria. Scarlet Records cannot be recognised as "one of the more important indie labels", as aside from publishing the albums of two Björn "Speed" Strid side projects, it'd be quite some stretch to say that the label has a roster of performers of which "many" "are notable". LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is an independent source covering a world tour, which passes WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, international releases on Metal Blade and Pony Canyon would also satisfy it, and the Scarlet releases are nothing to be disregarded. Aside from that, they have biographies on at least three metal websites, which speak of repeated reviews in metal magazines; the group has more than enough coverage to meet WP:MUSIC bullet 1. That's three criteria they meet. Chubbles (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that the Allmusic coverage of their tour isn't "trivial", as I contest it is in no way "non-trivial". It's merely mentioned in passing, and in no detail whatsoever. Also, prove that Pony Canyon is a notable label - the article on its parent company is a mere stub, and the label itself list no known groups. Also, prove that these three metal websites satisfy WP:RS. That's three reasons they don't meet the criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything I've brought to the table is of poor quality so far. You have sown doubts which I think are unreasonable, and I know that these debates are, unfortunately, typically "won" or "lost" by who posts last. So I won't feel a need to continue the discussion unless there is some sort of mischaracterization. I will merely restate, succinctly, that the group passes WP:MUSIC by: 1.) considerable third-party coverage (some of which is offline, but much of which is international); 2.) several releases on well-known labels (the reasonably well-known Scarlet, the pivotal Metal Blade, and the Japanese major label Pony Canyon); and 3.) international touring (a reliable source attesting to a tour on three different continents). Chubbles (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merely ask that people read my rebuttal prior to Chubble's last comment, which adequately refutes these claims. Chubbles has thus far not stated which reliable third-parties have covered the group, and how they meet WP:RS. I contest that Scarlet Records isn't reasonably well-known - I'm not a particular fan of attempting to stretch the truth, and these claims that the label is reasonably well-known are rather thin. Also, the claim that Pony Canyon is a major label is simply untrue - the only major label which prominently releases metal music in Japan is JVC Victor. Furthermore, Chubbles hasn't proven that Allmusic's coverage of the group's tours is "non-trivial", and the guidelines clearly state the coverage must be non-trivial. I contest that the coverage is "trivial", and was merely gleaned from a promotional biography Allmusic received alongside a promotional copy of one of the group's CDs. My three reasons why they don't meet the criteria still stand, and Chubbles failed to adequately respond to my last comment and prove what I asked him to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Allmusic bio seems rather convincing. I haven't been able to verify the international tour, but between at least one good source and a couple other claims, they seem to just barely meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Metal Blade Recording can be considered an important label but with only one release on that label and all other releases on smaller indie labels without much significance it still doesnt seem to pass criteria 5. Whether a profile on allmusic alone can be considered proof of notability is debatable. Any idea who wrote the bio? Is it a major contributor? --neon white talk 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Eduardo Rivadavia is a major contributor. Chubbles (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a staff member - this doesn't verify or shed light on anything. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It increases the verifiability of the source alot. --neon white talk 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all paid members of staff obviously contribute, so it doesn't verify anything at all. Feel free to actually read the biography, and not rest your case on the fact they actually have one. The bio is modest at best, and merely regurgitates info gleaned from the promotional material, as All Music base their biographies mostly upon the promotional material they receive - other sites do the same, but if used, would be condemned. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what point you are making, professionals are unverifiable?! What makes it verifiable is that the bio was written by a respected allmusic contributor, what the bio actually says has absolutely no bearing on it's verifiability. Similarily, where articles are sourced is not our concern. --neon white talk 13:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the point that who wrote the Allmusic biography isn't relevant, since all Allmusic's staff are paid contributors. If Ed Rivadavia wrote an article for Allmusic, and say Thom Jurek wrote another, Rivadavia's is not any more or less noteworthy. In other words, the fact Rivadavia is accredited doesn't verify or shed light on anything as concerns the bio's worth. So no, it does not increase the verifability of the source alot as you wrongly claim. You say that Rivadavia is a respected Allmusic contributor, and are insinuating his opinion has extra weight than that of others writing for the same publication - ok, prove it. Show me third party, reliable sources that say he is respected etc. etc., but more specifically prove this isn't a mere opinion of yours and / or Chubbles. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The work of a credible journalist who has a reputation has far more verifiability than an amateur journalist, that's just common sense and the basis of verifiability policy. He's been with allmusic for 9 years, is widely cited on heavy metal and has written liner notes for many artists [6], He isn't some hack writing puff peices. --neon white talk 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he is a "hack writing puff pieces", but then I equally don't believe that other members of their staff fall under that definition. Also, I wasn't aware that Allmusic hire "amateur journalists" either. Furthermore, I still would like to know where he is "widely cited" on heavy metal. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TPH. Allmusic is a reliable source as far as I am concerned. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yardbarker[edit]

This topic has been speedy deleted thrice as a CSD A7, no assertion of importance or significance. Following the third deletion and an inquiry by the editor, I'm bringing it here for community review. Does this topic meet WP:WEB? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by my reckoning the latest version meets both WP:CORP and WP:WEB (admittedly from what I can deduce the earlier versions most definitely did not). But mind I think WP:CORP is more applicable as it is a company, not a web blog. And under WP:CORP it does have numerous external non trival sources refering to it and was involved in several news stories, the biggest of which being Carmelo Anthony's DUI and subsequent apology. It currently meets WP:WEB #1 however if you want to use WP:WEB as the measure. Also using WP:Google Yardbarker produces 910,000 unique hits and 381 unique news hits from various notable newspapers, sports websites, sports channels, etc. So there is also interest in the page's subject. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd like to see a few more reliable sources, article needs a serious clean up to removed the self published and unsourced content. Please note - popularity and search engine hits are not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but search engine hits do highlight interest in the topic separate from notability. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, search engine hits are only a first, crude but very handy step towards finding out if a topic is covered by independent sources. Google's algorithms have nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability policy, they're cleverly written to help users find whatever content they think they might be looking for (whatever it may be) and to give a "rank" to that content within what's available on the WWW, all whilst helping advertisers reach them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again true, that's not the only reason I'm voicing a keep however on this article. It does have notable verifiable sources and more can continue to be added to enhance the article. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite - I guess it meets WP:N, though a quick search on Google reveals mostly press releases, self-links, and brief mentions, so the Google metric fails us here somewhat, I think. Also, I'm concerned about the tone and WP:COI, as the article's creator, User:Pelechati, appears to be an employee or a paid contributor to Yardbarker based on Googling "Pelechati" and "Yardbarker" (the user is also inserting references to Yardbarker in various athlete articles to a degree that is borderline linkspamming, but that's a topic for a different discussion). Mosmof (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the current version was created by myself, not User:Pelechati. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Fair enough, I didn't compare diffs. Still, the current edit relies a lot on original research, and could really use a lot more 3rd party cites about Yardbarker in general, I think. As I said, I think it meets WP:N, but the article still needs some chopping and cutting, I think. --Mosmof (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources establish notability. Wikidemo (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotness (Rihanna album)[edit]

So this album is an unofficial release created by the fans containing many unreleased tracks and is not supported by the artist or the label. So at the very best it's a non-notable fan album, and at worst is an illegal album full of copyrighted material (or just nonsense).... Anyway. It fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to establish any notability. --neon white talk 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not site references. fan-made compilations do not warrant an article. madgecic
Strong delete - per nom. Unofficial. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David DeJonge[edit]

Self-promoting article about photographer, created by User:Dejongestudio. Author removed advert and COI tags without addressing those issues. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Author seems to have put up a redirect to a non-existant page. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Original article speedied; author reposted at David DeJonge. There are now some sources, but I'd still like to see the WP:COI problem discussed. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak delete~~. Definitely a COI problem (I tagged the article as such) and some dubious phrasing, eg claims of being "recognized" for his work, but no mention of awards. References establish notability, but notability for WP:ONEEVENT, hence my inclination towards delete. Ros0709 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not believe that there is a COI problem with this article, it just so happened that I was at his studio when I created this article and forgot to re-login as myself. I am in no way related to him nor do I have anything to gain for posting this about Mr. DeJonge. JordanWade33 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Very Weak Delete !vote above struck). JordanWade has made some significant improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion. Whether or not he is the original article creator (he says he is) and whether or not he's closely connected to the photographer himself (he says he's not) is largely irrelevant - I believe the article establishes more than sufficient notability from multiple independent sources and is written from a neutral point of view, therefore even if there is a COI it has not compromised the article. Ros0709 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - JordanWade has just set out to prove me wrong, with this edit, which is hardly detached and neutral. Ros0709 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry man. I'm new to creating Wikipedia articles, but I'm pretty sure I fixed it now. It takes a bit to get used to writing in an Encyclopedia style. JordanWade33 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mendacious. Till a few minutes ago, we read DeJonge has received nearly 100 awards for his work, a remarkable assertion and one backed up (it seemed) by four references. (See here.) Trouble is, none of them actually backed it up. One did speak airily of "dozens" of awards, but didn't specify them and anyway hardly seemed a credible source. Two specified single awards. (I therefore deleted the pseudo-references.) I've already wasted enough time investigating this single grand claim, I'm not going to do more: the whole damn thing can go off to Deletopedia, with no prejudice about the possible later creation of a different article on DeJonge by some scrupulous, honest writer with no conflict of interest. I'd then hope DeJonge would be judged by his reliably referenced merits, and I would take the trouble to look up amazon.com and/or library catalogues for books of his photos, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or stubify by removing unsourced allegations per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Leivick (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prins[edit]

This article was written by User:Prino who is apparently the subject (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Further, the subject of the article is only notable for having had an entry in the 1991 Guinness Book of World Records. This does not seem to be a sufficient criterion of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). I note that Guinness ultimately removed all hitchhiking entries, so presumably hitchhiking no longer meets even Guinness' threshhold for notability. Finally, there are no reliable sources provided in the article (one blog and one self-published thesis). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. RayAYang (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James McDonald (Irish Filmmaker)[edit]

Unnotable director/filmmaker that fails WP:BIO. Article appears to have been written by McDonald himself, per his second article creation[7]. Article claimed he was an "acclaimed, award-winning filmmaker" resulting in a speedy being decline, however there is no source to back that up nor could I find any. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - It seems the only refs outside of IMDB are the 3 awards at http://www.accoladecompetition.org/ but they refer to a company LCA movies. IMDB (again) claims that Mcdonald owns LCA [8]. The LCA website claims to be part of AST Enterprises and make no mention of Mcdonald. I say WP:PROVEIT and it does not, so delete. --triwbe (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page on LCA films makes the link to enable it to pass. --triwbe (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability, no significant sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Can not find anything to show if or why this person is notable. nancy ^talk 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Definite Keep. ~~Though the delete points are well made~~ McDonald does have a minor notability. He is credited as actor, director, producer, & writer for 12 films, and has acted on televsion. No, nothing big... but it exists. Through his production company "LCA Films", his film "Optimystic won an honorable mention [9]. Through his film "The Photograph" he won an "Honorable mention" for editing and an "Award Of Excellence" for directing. The film itself won a 2004 Telly Award for Best Drama. So he is not major... but he does have a notability. I suggest that the article be tagged for improvement rather than be deleted. I am myself willing to do the research and sourcing should it survive this AfD. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michael, did you find any evidence (outside of IMDB) that McDonald has anything to do with LCA? If you can I would change to keep. I coulnd not and this link is suspiciously lacking. --triwbe (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment Will seee what I can find. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Twribe's sentiments. If someone can find the evidence that I missed I would be happy to reconsider my !vote - my own search turned up nothing except IMDB which is far from being a reliable source. nancy ^talk 06:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information as requested by triwbe and nancy: James McDonald is directly linked as owner of LCA at 1 and 2. His film "The Photograph" won a 2003 Accolade Homorable Mention for his editing at 3 and a 2004 Accolade Award of Excellance for direction and entertainment at 4. His production company LCA won Aegis Awards for Video & Film Production in both 2003 and 2007: 4 and 5. His film "Divine Souls won a 2007 Telly Award 6. My own keep vote is no longer weak. The information was out there... I just had to dig. He and LCA are award winners and directly linked. Thanks for the friendly nudge. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hats off to you for the fantastic effort but I'm still waivering. The first two refs are self-published and I am not completely convinced by the awards - the Aegis Awards page seems to suggest that they would be happy to honour a wedding video so long as you have paid the $40 entry?, McDonald did not actually win an Accolade Film Award, he just appears in a long list of also-rans (both times). It is a similar story for the Telly awards, again he did not win (as in coming first) anything - he got a Silver medal in his very specialised class (NB9. non-broadcast entertainment) & even that was not exclusive as many other productions in the same class got a Silver medal as well - there are over thirty pages of 2007 Silver Medal winners all told. I am inclined towards the opinion that these accolades are not hard to come by - you just need to pay the entry fee - and do not bring any particular prestige. Sticking with my delete !vote for the meantime. nancy ^talk 09:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doffing the hat.... Though self-published, the first 2 refs simply showed the connection between McDonald and his film company LCA. I agree that the Aegis and Accolade Awards do not seem the most prestigious.. but they were awards... more people did not win them than did. I was much happier to find proof of the 2007 Telly, as silver is first place, not second. I was not worried about the multiple winners, as there are over 200 categories that are being judged (almost as many as the Oscars (chuckle). More interestingly, and perhaps more fair, the Telly criteria do not have films competing against one another, but rather being judged by a performance scale. They could have multiple winners in one category or no winners. McDonald is definitely not a major name in fimmaking... but he does seem to have a minor notability. However, the search continues. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given that the awards are not notable themselves, what notability is asserted? The fact that he's a filmmaker? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of suitable sources. Also, it is too much like advertising. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid indication of notability; g3 hoax (fake magazine cover). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca De Marco[edit]

Stumbled upon this article whilst on AWB duty. Fails WP:N and WP:V, the article is also full of redlinks. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real indication of notability, and the fake magazine cover is indicative of the article.--Michig (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cast members[edit]

An unorganized list of cast members. Voice actors are incorporated into the character descriptions so there is no point in keeping a separate list. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant article. Doceirias (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. It shouldn't be necessary, but just in case, I'd like to point out that similar lists of voice actors are readily deleted both through AfDs and PRODs (I can provide links as evidence if necessary). —Dino guy 1000 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'd actually have voted to keep this if it were actually organised in some way and presented in a usable manner, but at present it's just a naked list of names. If anyone wants to fix it up, let me know and I'll change my vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G3. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In My Neighborhood[edit]

No citations have been provided to show this single exists, but significant evidence suggests it does not TheGoonSquad (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All early music releases by RuPaul were issued by FunTone Records (www.funtoneusa.com) based out of Atlanta, GA. There is no mention of an "In My Neighborhood" single ever being released. I contacted the help desk for that label/webpage and they stated that no such single was ever released. In addition this page suggests a new single of remixes was slated for digital release in 2007. No such single has ever surfaced. Thus it is fairly obvious that no such single ever existed and this was some kind of fantasy concocted by a fan. TheGoonSquad (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SONG.--S_RX 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as pure vandalism; TheGoonSquad (talk · contribs) has pretty clearly proven it's a hoax. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax, as proven by TheGoonSquad. This single clearly doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Desi[edit]

There is nothing in this article that suggests that the subject meets any criteria for WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, the lack of any reliable third-party citations is a violation of WP:BLP. A quick Google search reveals no coverage by any significant publication and there are no news articles about him. The article was created by Nabeelva, who is DJ Desi's marketing manager. I proposed this article for deletion but the prod was removed by an anonymous IP without explanation. -- Atama ^chat 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Atama ^chat 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no significant coverage of either him or his supposed charitable foundation. Nothing was found to back up the connection to Donna Karan. No real evidence of any notability.--Michig (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom.--S_RX 16:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the original contributor, Nabeelva (talk · contribs), has a conflict of interest here, as is evidenced by his upload comments on Image:Djdesi2007.jpg: This file is officially approved by DJDesi.com to be used on Wikipedia. I am the marketing manager for djdesi.com. Sean Reeves and We own the rights to this file. This file is being submitted to Wikipedia by djdesi.com Studios. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd also like to point out that an anonymous IP removed the AfD notice from the article, the IP is similar to the one that removed the prod tag. I don't doubt that these IPs are related to DJ Desi's marketing people, it might even be Sean Reeves himself. I reverted the change. -- Atama ^chat 16:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of independent third-party sources to corroborate claims, hence notability not established. WWGB (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what seems to be the issue here. All of the information on DJ Desi's page is verifiable and we can back it up by providing the factual data. His non profit contributions and information on his foundation is available at www.desiattitude.org.

The person proposing the deletion either has a personal agenda or has not conducted his research. DJ Desi news articles are easily found by searching him on Google. Such as this recent article in Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Desi_does_it_again_/articleshow/3185293.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicauthorityva (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Musicauthorityva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Times of India article makes no mention of DJ Desi. --Michig (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supporters of this Wikipedia article are becoming increasingly desperate to try and save it. The term desi refers colloquially to South Asians. Just because a media story uses the terms "DJ" and "desi" does NOT mean it refers to the (non-notable) DJ Desi. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes trying to save the article because it is a legit article of a valid performer and a musician. This seems like a personal agenda of someone who doesnt want DJ Desi to exist on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.82.139 (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC) — 71.191.82.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As opposed to the agenda of people who work for him? I'm concerned that as soon as this article is deleted it's going to be recreated in one form or another. -- Atama ^chat 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... at which time Template:Db-g4 will be applied. Deletionists are very patient people. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont work for him but I do volunteer for his non profit organization and support the causes he promote. The other people who are trying to save this article also fall in the same category because we admire who he is and what he stands for. Its unfortunate that you have some sort of a hidden agenda against someone who is 1) a true artist and 2) doing something to make a difference. Just because someone does not have coverage on the Internet does not make them any less of a person or artist. You can keep proposing deletion of the article. Not sure what you will accomplish. If you have any decency, you will verify the facts with his organization or leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.191.132 (talk • contribs)

Delete self-evident vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Way to go, Felicity! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Ward[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:V. Only 1,330 ghits for "Felicity Ward". Tavix (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be expanded. But there is some material online to show notability. [10], [11], and [12] AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article is expanded. If expansion is shown to be impossible or not within interest, I will change my vote to Delete. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have wikified and linked an IMDB page to the article. I searched for any other information on her and was unable to locate anything. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - there is some significant coverage available for the person, it should just be expanded, thus being kept.--S_RX 16:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:N criteria "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," and WP:V via IMDB entry. Mycroft7 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions[edit]

0% Referenced, 100% Original Research. Wikipedia is not a collection of extraneous information. Impossible to tell what on page is legitimate content and what is purely vandalism. Page is beyond recovery and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:VAND, WP:NOT.(Version as of AfD nomination.)

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 15:29, 24 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Delete In addition to the violations above, the article is also missing in-text citations which makes it near impossible to see which external link (if any) is used for each acronyms. This would need a complete rewrite if it were to be kept so deletion seems like the best option. Tavix (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary just like Navy Slang. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a mess and never could be anything but. One of the external links is to a searchable database of military acronyms; that is where this information belongs, not Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 15:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary I like Protonk's idea. The article surly does not belong on Wikpedia. But there is quite a lot of information another wiki project could possibly use. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary Consistency is always a good thing, which in this case would be to follow Navy Slang. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what part of this article is vandalism? Protonk (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely soft redirect target found wikt:Appendix:Military slang. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Consistency? What about List_of_U.S._Marine_Corps_acronyms_and_expressions, and the other links on that page? They should be soft links too! However, the entire article is regurgitated content from the referenced sites. I say we remove it altogether and, if desired, put a link to those sites on one of the other existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonrodney (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this page was a joke at first. Impossible to fix plethora of OR. Because of the lack of sources, its liely that most of the "slang" acronyms are just random spurts of vandalism. A soft redirect to Wiktionary works, too. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF, I'd guess most of these items came from veterans who heard them somewhere and added them here. Would the Army (or some veteran's group, perhaps) have a glossary of such terms, perhaps? This might be salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is not a suitable stand alone list (Wikipedia:Lists) due to lack of secondary sources supporting a lead section, and is not a navigation aid (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). Not suitable to directly transwiki to wiktionary. Wiktionary content should be created fresh from the sources, subject to wiktionary inclusion criteria. Userfy for anyone interested. Something could possibly be done with the material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Replacements (TV series) (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleemco[edit]

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:NOT. No secondary sources. Leonard^(Bloom) 15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Replacements (TV series) seems the clear choice here. Not enough for a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Replacements (TV series), non notable fictional company to warrant an article.--S_RX 16:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the AfD tag was left off the article. I've added it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I highly agree with this because I intended to just have a redirect page. Hmrox (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Destiny[edit]

Non-notable unreleased video game mod. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article itself: This game is still getting worked on, but it will be released soon. Even if it were already released it wouldn't be remotely notable though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. I'd also like to add that there is little effort shown towards wikifying the article. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTE, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTMANUAL; non-notable mod. Reads like an instruction manual on how to play the game. Jезка (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the hell out of WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL. The article says it all; a guide/manual-like article on an unreleased unremarkable video game mod. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, unreferenced, textbook case of "delete me!!!". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, though the original Combine Destiny was released in 2005 apparently, I'm finding no reliable sources for either game. There are reviews on ModDB and Planet Half-life, but both look like 'user reviews' (though they are well-written). Would happily lean keep if someone can find some reliable reviews covering it in detail. Someone another 00:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little more than a promotional page on Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis (band)[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC guidelines, and has been deleted three times in the past. Group is an unsigned act. Following its deletion after its first AFD, it was created six days later. Delete LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Article is clearly a self-advertisement (using myspace and self-generate bio material). Further, notability per WP:MUSIC has not been established. Delete Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No releases. No significant coverage identified in the article or found from a Google search. The only two real sources are a bio which is sourced from the band's website and another site that appears to only require a band to exist to have an article on it (as long as they're a metal band). --Michig (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still fails WP:BAND. As Michig said, the bands themselves write their profiles on the websites that they've provided as references. Not exactly WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable, non-notable band. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Black ngold29 07:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possibly merged to Schnauzer so I'll open a merge discussion - Nabla (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Schnauzer[edit]

Sure, different breeds of dog deserve individual articles. But different colours of different breeds? Pince Nez (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree that a seperate article is not needed for every color variation of a dog breed. Merge information to the Schnauzer article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Articles for specific colors of breeds is downright silly. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Schnauzer. Same breed, different color. It doesn't deserve a separate page. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment on above merges. See my keep vote - there is reasonable doubt as to whether the white schnauzer is indeed a schnauzer. More than reasonable doubt, actually. 81.158.32.171 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed a Keep remark from an IP, as it included personal attacks. Noting the fact here, for the record. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above IP I will behave. White Schnauzer deserves an article as there is controversy as to whether a white schnauzer is indeed a schnauzer - certainly The Kennel Club, for example, does not recognise it as such. P.S. They weren't personal attacks so much as expression of despair. 81.158.32.171 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Batshon[edit]

This article has been tagged for cleanup for the past six months with no major changes. No cited sources to assert notability and it's still written like a PR article (given the Contact at the bottom, it's safe to assume that it was written by a PR person). The most notable thing about the subject that is sourced is that she was mentioned once by a politician in the New South Wales Parliament. The article fails to meet the WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC and continues to be an advertisement. Delete CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she deserves an article (and that's a big "if", as the article itself doesn't exactly scream notable! to me, then she deserves a better one than this. It looks like a half-assed attempt at a resume, probably directly pasted from a word file or something. Neither an encyclopedia article nor an attempt at one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RyRy (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okichitaw[edit]

Contetsted prod: reason for PRODing was " advertisement, notability" Maxim_(talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete new art that has gotten some attention but not much. JJL (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly an advert maybe minorly notable for the controversy but that's not the focus so delete it.. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better than when nominated but my opinion that is it is still a promo piece, no longer in tone but in presence, there are some key citations that would be needed to convince me otherwise. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep it needs to be cleaned-up and sourced, I seem to remember an article a year or so back in Black Belt Magazine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It blows my mind that this DOESN'T have significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. I don't know if this can help at all. I have also added the rescue tag to the article. DigitalC (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally speedy'd it and then endorsed the prod, but I've been convinced that the article is rescueable. I'm in the process of removing a lot of the over-promotional language in it. Once that's gone, and it's better referenced, the article should look quite nice.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed a lot of the overly promotional language and re-ordered some of the sections to make it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a brochure. I think it should pass muster now.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've also re-worked the lead section to include some of the criticism.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can tell Okichitaw is the only martial art that claims any indigenous *and* is associated with a credible North American aboriginal organization (in this case, the Native Canadian Centre in Toronto). That definitely makes it notable (and no, I don't have any contact with this school). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.139.169 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Its a poor article, but it has some notability RogueNinja_talk 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it can be saved.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep It seems notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Halstead[edit]

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Kingturtle sums it up. Bruno23 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is difficult to contradict such comprehensive and incisive analysis as the above, I must demur on the basis of this subject's 235 Google News hits, several of which appear to lead to multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in such easily-dismissable sources as The Atlantic, The Washington Post. National Public Radio and The New York Times. Regretfully, and with due respect to the sterling research effort of the trigger-happy heroes, I move to facepalm keep. Skomorokh 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Skomorokh is correct. The 235 listings in the google news archive lead to a wealth of information to prove notability. The article needs to be expanded. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article a bit based upon his bio, and with some more research anyone could lengthen this article considerably. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire colloquialisms[edit]

The article mainly seems to be unverified and original research. JD554 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of original research and hearsay. Could perhaps be rescued, but probably better to merge any useful content into Yorkshire dialect and accent. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this article has a large amount of content, it is almost entirely made up of original research. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Yorkshire dialect and accent. The subject is notable but at present the article is unverified original research. Jезка (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a Yorkshire-man and I haven't heard of half of them Sceptre ^(talk) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nearly 3 year old article with many POV or unverifiable statements. Artene50 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Stage (R.E.M.)[edit]

Non-notable. This is one concert! No inline cites or references means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what the notability level for individual gigs is (Even Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock is only a section), but this doesn't reach it. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles which are obvious forks or subtopics are not candidates for deletion and should be dealt with through merge proposals. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy[edit]

Forked content, this is all dealt with in Frank Sinatra. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable additions to the topics covered back into Frank Sinatra, if any. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like him or not, Sinatra's musical legacy is huge. The main Sinatra article tends to get quite big, having to handle his long music career, his film career, his political involvements, his alleged mob ties, etc. This is an eminently reasonable subject for split-out, per WP:Summary style. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a summary of what could become a perfectly appropriate discography. Everything here seems sufficiently important conentto be covered, and the argument for a split on the grounds of extent of material seems reasonable. DGG (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political beliefs of Frank Sinatra[edit]

Non-notable political beliefs of a singer. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or careful merge into the main article. I don't like this article, not because of its content but because its existance could set precedent for cruft-filled similar articles much further down the celebrity food chain (we absolutely wouldn't want an article on the political beliefs of Jessie Camp, Lonelygirl15, or the fat Star Wars youtube kid, for example). But with that said it's impossible to ignore that this is a notable and well-researched article, and the existance of an actual published book -- albeit a minor one -- specifically on this topic suggests it is encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frank Sinatra, or, if not, Delete. The topic is unsuitable for a stand-alone article and properly belongs as a section in the biographical article about Sinatra. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It strikes me that there is enough material here to make this a reasonable fork from the main article, but it should be merged if that could be accomplished without either the loss of information or the appearance of undue weight.

Celebrities are going to vary widely in the attention paid to their political beliefs and activities. Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger stand at one end of a continuum; perhaps Lonelygirl15 stands at another, and Sinatra falls somewhere in between. The decisive test is the existence of verifiable commentary by unaffiliated third parties, and Sinatra's political views meet that test. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is interesting to note that in Frank Sinatra's main article, there is no mention of his political views. Trim down the non-necessary parts and then make it a section in his main article. Tavix (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Content does not appear to warrant enough reason to have its own article, and would do better located in the main article. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I didn't read far enough to find out who Ol' Blue Eyes would be voting for in 2008, but a separate article about any celebrity's political beliefs is hero worship gone horribly wrong. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge interesting contnet that is valuable and well sourced. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Pink Floyd[edit]

A collection of highly non-notable songs. Fancruft. Article fails WP:N. Limited media coverage of songs as they are unreleased. Anything of use can be merged to relevant albums that songs were destined to be on. Please see AfDs for Guns N' Roses' unreleased songs, List of Janet Jackson B-sides, bonus tracks and unreleased songs and List of unreleased Spice Girls songs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information into various other articles. Possibly add the information about "Vegetable Man" and "Scream Thy Last Scream" into Apples and Oranges (song) (which replaced the songs as material for the band's fourth single) and the rest could be merged into the respective albums they were orignally for ("Peace Be With You" to A Momentary Lapse of Reason) or the events they were done for ("Moonhead" can merge and redirect to British television Apollo 11 coverage, which the peice was created for). Now, I am a Floyd fan and familiar with alot of this material, but I know better not to vote "keep" via "I Like It"-type arguments and I agree that this is fancruft, but alot of this can be merged somewhere else. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Per nom. Very few songs are even sourced. I could see how some could be interesting, but they are not notable. Black ngold29 07:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Early songs can be merged into The Early Singles (Pink Floyd album) and some of that information into List of Pink Floyd songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. References #2 & #3 look like good independent secondary sources, but I find it hard to believe that much of the content is covered by these. CAn someone check these referecnes? Not clear that this should be deleted. At worst, redirect to Pink Floyd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreleased songs are not notable, a small mention in a discography page is all they deserve --T-rex 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note that it is always helpful when renominating a previously nominated article to explain what new issues should be considered that weren't previously. No prejudice against merging; discussion of that should occur at article talk page. Chick Bowen 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Baby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

One concert. This was not a band, but a one time collaboration! Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the previous AFD, this article met WP:MUSIC guideline 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Since the four members were members of two bands each notable on their own, and all four members of this band are notable in their own right, a collaboration, even a small one like this, would have notability per that guideline. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one time gathering is not an indication of being a band. This group has not released any material other than the recordings of the one time gathering. Note 6 on the WP:MUSIC guidelines says that a redirect may be more appropriate and that we should use common sense in applying it. Common sense says a few people that played in a concert and never again were probably not a band. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One (U2 song). "...it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects" This is clearly a side project for all involved. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on the grounds that it passed AFD with a keep decision less than two months ago. Articles must not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time once they've survived an AFD challenge. 23skidoo (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it was nominated recently. However, the prior discussion did not examine any possibility that "...it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects", a reason that was "not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Merging does not require an AfD nomination. — Gwalla | Talk 18:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - No, it doesn't necessarily require it, but it will get the job done if we decide that's what should happen. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, moved to Spice Girls Dolls and cleanup. *As an editor* I boldly cleaned up and merged as suggested here - Nabla (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls merchandise[edit]

Non-notable merchandise. Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Fancruft. There is significant content forking by including videos (from Spice Girls discography) and Spice World. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTE; list of non-notable books, DVDs and promotions. Jезка (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename the dolls part as Spice Girls Dolls, which is a notable, very popular celebrity doll line that would fit well into Category:Dolls and/or Category:Toys of the 1990s. Merge the "Endorsements and promotions" into Spice Girls. Delete the DVDs/books/videos, all of which should be dealt with in discography, bibliography, or similar articles/sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wasted Time R. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Spice Girl or Spice Girl Dolls...both would do fine. CelesJalee (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Wasted Time R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinC2125 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever We Go[edit]

The page has been created because of some irrelevant rumours! The article has no use!Olliyeah (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—More precisely, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs Livitup (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is There Even a Single Verifible Source In Here? Seems Like a Waste of Space to me! CelesJalee (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for rumours without references, There is not a single reason i can find why the article should stay here if its not satisfying WP:Notability. Kalivd (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no encyclopedic information included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitegames (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The release date isn't known yet. WP:CRYSTAL for sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will change when sources magically appear. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nickels Grill & Bar[edit]

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator. Chef Tanner (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nickels Grill & Bar

Non notable restaurant chain. Only 3 restaurants. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question When I went to the article there was no tag on it was that a mistake? Pls Respond On My Talk if you could CelesJalee (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a restaurant chain created by singer and pop diva Celine Dion, which created quite a bit of press as such. This was in 1990, so Google news search doesn't find it, but if someone can track down some sources... It also has 32, not 3 locations. Addionne (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the chain that makes it notible but the person who owns the chain. If worst comes to worst then merge it with celion dion otherwise keep.CelesJalee (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I wrongly thought this only had 3 locations. My mistake. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kombato[edit]

1 (non english) link no assertion of notability and no sources, reads like an adver Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the babelfish translation is understandable [13]: not many instructors but an impressive list of clients in this primary source. jmcw (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims every one from the UN to Russian navy/marines, I'm sceptical, with 5 schools in 2 countries it doesn't sound very notable... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Judiciary in the Politics of Pakistan[edit]

I'm not seeing anything salvagable in this article - it's an essay, unreferenced and POV at that - and whilst the subject is something Wikipedia probably should have an article on, this isn't it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 11:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and as WP:OR. Dpmuk (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An OR personal essay. Wikipedia is not your personal webspace. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yongmudo[edit]

1 primary source seems to be an advert. Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire article is non notable and worthless RogueNinja_talk 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source is an advert. there are no independant sources and no indication this is a notable martial art. Edward321 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this new art. JJL (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 22:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yashai Warcraft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Advert, some cleaning has made it less blatant but seems to be a promo piece with no assertation of notability. Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being made by one of Inosanto's students does not confer notability RogueNinja_talk 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no indication this is a notable martial art. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this new art; reads like an ad. JJL (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shadow Gang[edit]

Gangs can be notable (I have seen) but this one is unreferenced and not much can be found. triwbe (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Aside from a probably unrelated 1977 Chicago Tribune article, all I found was an Urban Dictionary entry. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI could find no evidence of this gang's existence aside from this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some sources have been provided, but major problems remain. Should be reconsidered if not improved. Chick Bowen 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuan Shu Kuan[edit]

Non notable martial art seems to be an advert, no sources Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It has only been tagged for sources for a short time. AfD might prompt people to add cites RogueNinja_talk 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in the old links (which disappeared from earlier edits, for some reason), and had a look round for print media sources. My work search engine came up with this:

'Gym'll fix it', Time Out, 11th January 2006:

Kensington Leisure Centre

Unlike some of the borough's other leisure centres, it's hard to fault this one. If you don't live nearby, you may well want to travel here.

It's clear from the minute you enter its swish automatic doors that a lot of planning has gone into the place. From the wide-laned 33-metre pool and adjacent teaching pool to the modern gym, now owned by Courtneys, and the popular sports hall, the whole place is a spacious, open-plan affair. Bare-knuckled masochists will enjoy zhuan shu kuan classes, where you can learn to smash piles of bricks with your hands and head, but there are plenty of generic workouts for those who prefer a more tempered approach to fitness; most are covered by the membership fee.

Slideyfoot (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this new art. JJL (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Links are provided at the bottom of the page to the art taken in Coventry. It is also taught in London and Scotland - this indicates that it is spread across a distance of the UK. There are many links referencing zsk, although some of them are only available to members of the discipline. Just because something is not as widespread as karate, ju jitsu or muay thai does not make it any the less notable. ZSK is a relatively new sport (breaking away from wu shu in the 1980s) but it has already seen members compete in cross-discipline competitions. The article was not written in the form of an advert, it was written coherently giving information about the style and as such I see no reason to delete it other than on a discrimination basis that it has only been going 20 years as opposed to hundreds and so has yet to gain the same coverage some traditional arts have —Preceding KSM comment added by 82.19.175.91 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm, and that the references do not support the notability of the subject. Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted. The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic, and I have counted those opinions as being from User:Julie Dancer. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal classification[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Blanked because of numerous personal attacks during the debate. See this version for the discussion. Kevin (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Kickboxing Club[edit]

Advert for non notable club, no sources, lots of promo text. Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability of the club per WP:N or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no Google News Books or Scholar hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this small club. JJL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blatant hoax, including winning MMA fights starting at age 6. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Singh[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. None of the external links work, the BIO is too good to be true, google gives nothing relevent. May be WP:CSD#G3 but I would prefer more consensus. triwbe (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. 24 years old and all those titles? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a hoax. You'd think a three-times champion of the world might be reported in sites that actually exist! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. No references anywhere; a bit of google-searching turned up nothing relevant other than the WP article itself. Nsk92 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clear hoaxness. Someone with that many titles should turn up at least one source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources. Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komal (martial art)[edit]

NN art reads like an advert Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It has only been tagged for sources for a short time. AfD might prompt people to add cites RogueNinja_talk 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable to me --UltraMagnus (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UltraMagnus Kitty53 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this newly created art. JJL (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references to support assertions of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete completely unnotable. I cannot find a single source anywhere on the internet about this martial art, I am not kidding, I have combed through the first 100 results on a Google search for +Komal +Brazil and there is not a single relevant hit there. - Icewedge (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In fact, lack of any coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor (non-admin closure). I can not find any information in this article that can be merged to Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Amalie Theresa of Austria[edit]

She only lived for three days, 200 years ago. I don't think she can be independently notable. Katharineamy (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N, as nothing could be added to improve this article. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 10:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. There may not be enough information about her to justify an entire article, but she should at least be mentioned on her father's article and her name should redirect to the section that discusses her. Neelix (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very short-lived daughter of a notable figure, worth mentioning. Likely would have affected the life of the father and may have impacted notable decisions--good for research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. The info here is useful but unsuitable for a stand-alone article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor all the information is there already no point having an article on her as has been noted nothing else could be added to her article. - dwc lr (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Monsalve[edit]

Non-notable individual, apears to be mainly a promo piece for Hurricane Combat Arts Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally thought the subject was a little more notable and linked somewhat with Systema, however I don't think it's wiki material. --Mista-X (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.36.248 (talk) [reply]
Weak delete recognize the name but can find no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability assessed, no sources, need I say more? Black ngold29 06:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good-Ass Job[edit]

A first version of this article, A good ass job, was at Afd here; the author has now blanked it and introduced this, which does have one reference. But per WP:MUSIC#Albums, Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album... Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. Here we don't even have a track listing, or a release date. ~~and this is not even his next album - it's the next but two: he's "prepping" Late Registration now, then comes Graduation, and then this one.~~ (see below) Too soon for an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (WP:MUSIC) - this doesn't. It has a passing mention. --Stormie (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "he's "prepping" Late Registration now" - Late Registration came out in 2005....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quote from the reference given in the article; now I look at it I see it's dated October 2005 - not exactly hot news. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if you ignore the problem that there's very little information available about this album to support its notability, the fact that it doesn't seem to have any reliable-source mentions since 2005 casts serious doubt on whether even that information is correct. I'm sure this album will be notable once announced properly - Kanye West is a very high-profile act. But right now there's nothing to say, and barely even any evidence the information here is even still correct. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable unreleased album. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:CRYSTAL. Jезка (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i'm not prepping late registration now. this article shouldn't be deleted as it has a source which states kanye west will release the next studio album called a good-ass job after graduation. the source is reliable and i will continue to find reliable sources and links. (Comment by the article author Ineel2009champ (talk) moved here from the article talk page and interpreted as a "Keep" !vote.) JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do find some more sources I'd happily reconsider my vote. But an article from 2005 that, in passing, states that at that time his next-but-one album was going to be called Good-Ass Job really isn't enough to base an encyclopedia article on three years later. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more links have been added, but one (Softpedia) is another interview report from 2005, the other is a blog of fans guessing what the album might have on it and what it might be called. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Alexf⁴² 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obviously fails for multiple reasons. Black ngold29 06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowsay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Small piece of novelty free software, with no real assertion of notability, certainly no sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as required by WP:NOTE.

This was nominated for deletion in March 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowsay), the result being no consensus. However I feel that Wikipedia's inclusion standards have become clearer in the three years since, and that the keep arguments given there (three unexplained, two "it passes the Google test" and one "this program has been around for a long time, and is in wide use") are in no way grounded in current Wikipedia policy.

It was nominated again last November (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowsay (2nd nomination)) but the discussion cut short when the nominator decided it met the criteria for speedy deletion and deleted it. This provoked a DRV discussion (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 14) where consensus was to undelete, but with little enthusiasm for the article itself, and numerous people opining that it should be sent back to AfD. So here it is. --Stormie (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a real piece of software and although it's extremely trivial, it is widely used. The notability here isn't about a Perl one-liner, it's the cultural history of why all those cows keep appearing in readme files. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but either way I'd like to see some better more substantial references in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the article has been around for so long and the references section is so pitiful suggests this is an exceptionally minor topic that is fundamentally unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. There simply isn't much of anything one can say about it, and I'm not at all convinced a few more years of waiting is going to change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. -- Alexf⁴² 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN :-) Hobit (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I may have been too hasty perhaps? Still think it doesn't warrant an article but I won't care on this one too much one way or the other. Just a silly bit. -- Alexf⁴² 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Has anyone read WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." ? You might not like this thing, no-one is claiming it isn't trivial, but it seems to be notable according to the very first criterion of WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources presently in the article are extremely weak. Only the ServerWatch one even comes close to reliable, and that sure as heck isn't going to prop up an article all by itself (besides, it also doesn't address notability in any way). If you have better sources, by all means add them, but since no reliable sources have been added in the previous several years, I'm inclined to believe that's because none actually exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Gazette isn't reliable? It's older than Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing looks good. . Linux Gazette isn't the NYT, but for something like this it's a great source. Serverwatch is great. The other two are basically blogs and can't be considered reliable. But two good sources and two poor ones (crunchbang is actually fairly well known) seems just fine. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does prop up notablity -- by definition. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the notability has already been established in previous XfD's and the deletion is primarily in response to its trivial status, similar to what Andy Dingley suggested above. I only wonder if, if we keep this, it'll be right back here when someone else 'discovers' the article. Kylu (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hobit. DS (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ______________________________________________________________________________
   / I think cowsay is a topic we certainly should cover, given its quirky but    \
   | notable place in computing culture. Given the relatively scarce sourcing and |
*  | the limited amount of things we can say about it, though, a merge to its own |
   | section in the larger [[ASCII art]] article putting it in context might be a |
   \ good idea. krimpet✽ 04:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)                                /
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \
      \    (__)               
           x x\               
          ('') \---------     
           U \           \    
              |          |\   
              ||---(  )_|| *  
              ||    UU  ||    
              ==        ==

ASCII Art is awfully broad though, as it includes vast swathes of stuff that's hand-edited and doesn't have too much to do with cowsay. I could go with a merge to "ASCII art generators", if such a thing existed. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is just another idea if users here decide not to keep Cowsay as its own article. But from looking at it here, the article has a good chance to be kept. For me, either option works fine, but I am going to say keep for this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Merge per Krimpets artwork. Synergy 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian Actor Expert (talk • contribs) 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per referencing improvements. Article needs expansion to further show the notability that the references (presumably) attest. Keeper ǀ 76 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oypa[edit]

No references,no way to establish notability.Also,Google search delivers no results for said supermarket in first page. Fireaxe888 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. -- Alexf⁴² 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --pbroks13^talk? 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice little set of references added to this article by Eastmain. Chubbles (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as irremediable original research. It has no reliable sources, a section entitled "Conclusion" and is generally written in the style of an essay. This does not preclude the writing of an encyclopedic article on the topic, if it fulfills the usual inclusion criteria such as WP:NOT, WP:N and if is not a WP:FORK of existing articles on the general subject matter. Sandstein 16:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and transgender[edit]

This article has absolutely no sources cited in it at all. This article is unencyclopedic and more or less an opinion piece on how certain people feel about transgenderism and homosexuality. There POV is presented as fact with little or no outside support to doccument this. I tagged this page as needing referecnes a full year ago and still no change at all. Hfarmer (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Hfarmer (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Sexual orientation of transgender people and clean up. --Alynna (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE For the reasons I gave above and the concerns that were pointed out below. To read this article it seems that the writers had the "point" of showcasing the variety of sexual orientations that transsexuals can have. That is not a reason for an encyclopedia article. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or very rapidly find some sources) - The majority of the article is unsourced, and reads like POV/original-research ramblings. The article has been around for long enough for sensible sources to appear, but none have. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per "Many concerns". Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comparing and contrasting any two things -- I think of this as the "Apples vs. Oranges" article -- is not the type of original synthesis that is encouraged on Wikipedia. The reason, of course, is that there are infinite combinations that one can make between two concepts: "Heterosexuality and masculinity", or "Deaf and deaf-mute", or "Caucasian and vertical leap". This particular article starts with the premise that people automatically assume that a transvestite is a homosexual, and then sets out to disprove it. Yes, you can write volumes about these things, but "compare 'n contrast" is a mental exercise, not an encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope clearly & rewrite heavily: I think that in principle an article on this topic should exist, but it needn't be this one. It should have a more clearly-defined scope and a better title. The existing text obviously isn't considered adequate, so a heavy or complete rewrite is in order. I've previously argued on the article's talk page that this article be replaced by one titled something like Sexual orientation and gender identity, the scope being to explain how gender identity and sexual orientation are related and unrelated. (That title could be augmented by something like “Distinction between…” or “Correlation between…”.) There is evidence that the two are related—a BBC programme shown just today reported that in some particular cognitive tasks, gay men performed more like straight women than like straight men. The citable scientific evidence (including research into people's attitudes) should be documented in an encyclopaedia. --Greg K Nicholson (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:my reasons are stated below. Article doesn't prove its validity for existing as an independent topic, and seems biased. itinerant_tuna (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think that it's a good starting point. It would be appropriate to create an article on transgender sexuality, which would outline the variations within the transgender community including having a section that had a {{main}} and summary of transsexual sexuality, but I don't think this article would form a good basis for that article. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please add your votes above this line for easy counting. Then put any discussion below this line. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~ I struck this out, because we do not vote but discuss and give our opinions. DGG (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but if there is a strong consensus to delete a page it has a tendency to disappear. I prefer to call things what they are. 70% - 80% of people suggest keep or delete and articles end up being kept or deleted. You want to debate fine.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many concerns.[edit]

The title of the article, Homosexuality and transgender, is only the beginning of the problem. My overall feeling after reading the page in its entirety is that it is either:

A plagiarized piece, "wikified" with internal links; or
An essay written for a class of some sort.

The title simply refers to two completely different topics, and gives no clue as to what lies ahead for the reader. User Alynna Kasmira's rename is a little better; however, I am in favor of deleting the article completely.

As mentioned, it's missing specific, external citations, and the writer uses words and phrases such as "lots of" and "usually" instead of giving any concrete, figurative information. A quote from the article -

"Many lesbian transwomen for example will have had relationships exclusively with women beforehand - many, indeed, marry. Were those relationships heterosexual or homosexual?"

Not only is this confusing and vague, it reads like the author is making a "point" - and ends with a question mark. Plus the wording is so confusing, I can't figure out exactly what that "point" is supposed to be; the term "lesbian transwoman" makes my head spin and doesn't ring as a correct joining of words; if it IS correct, then I think there should be a "lesbian transwoman" article too... it's confusing in an almost comedic way - a riddle!

My greatest concern is the final "Conclusion" section, which is not only very "book reporty", but also totally out of line for an encylopedia entry. The READER is the one, if any, who should be reaching conclusions, based on what they have been provided with by the WRITER. And I wouldn't want anyone making up their mind or forming an opinion based on this article, because it's confusing, suspiciously worded, not entirely neutral, and not proving its own purpose for existence as an independent topic.

To be totally honest - I don't know what the topic is supposed to be! Humbly itinerant_tuna (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think that the existence of this article is in a sense a response to the concept of the Homosexual Transsexual. "Homosexual Transsexual" (a old line clinical term for Male-to-Female transsexuals who are attracted to males) is not a new concept, in fact it is the reason you find it so hard to fathom the existence of Lesbian transwomen. Real talk that variety of transsexual is what leaps to mind when people think transsexual. They think of a boy who liked to play with dolls or to play house growing into a transsexual woman perhaps doing some hyperfeminine job.

What that article sought to address was just that perception by reporting on the facts that.

Male-to-Female and attracted to women or who are bisexual exist.
Female-to-Male and attracted to men or who are bissexual exist.

I used to think that such was a good use for the wikipedia and I placed a tag on the article one full calendar year ago asking it's active editors to throw in some references. In a whole year their has been no action, not even on it's talk page. Upon further thought in a real sense even creating this page was a big piece of original research, a synthesis. That is another reason for it to be deleted.

A much better article which basically covers the same topic and has a real hope of finding good external references is Gynephilia and androphilia. I have seen those topics used in literature which could back up what it says. That article covers the same terms without making a "point".--Hfarmer (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lesbian transwoman? Nick mallory (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is evidence for the need to have an article of this sort. I think Transexual sexuality however is a much better covering of the topic, presenting the controversy without a "conclusion" ending, rather presenting the current mainline opinion of those in transsexual sexology... Even BBL theory, the most controversial of transsexual taxonomy theories recognize that lesbian transwomen exist --Puellanivis (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit for npov. We could use a good comprehensive article on this general topic, considering the many recent somewhat acrimonious discussions at Wikipedia on related subjects, but, given that there seems to be considerable disagreement about the applicability of any of the various theories, it should be written in a representative manner. I think it could well supplement the article cited by Hfarmer. DGG (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how such an article could not be a POV synthesis. Please write up a draft of what you have in mind and put it in a sandbox so we can look at it.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. There is potential for this article to cover helpful content in a neutral fashion, as opposed to the as-per-usual incomprehensible and fairly unique original research for which Hfarmer advocates, and which she's evidently started another article pushing. Rebecca (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please what other article? what original research? My articles have citations and are based on other people's research. You just don't like thier conclusions.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Transsexual_sexuality: The two articles deal with essentially the same topics. Merge them, and point the old article to Transsexual sexuality. --Puellanivis (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it can be looked at this way. Since articles like Gynephilia and androphilia and the one you cited exist and have sources the path of least effort to getting a better WP is to remove this content. To merge it would still requier finding reliable sources for what it says which cannot be impuned as biased one way or the other. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply deem what information is worth keeping, and isn't duplicated in the other two articles, and then source only that. I don't think the objective of Wikipedia should be "the path of least resistance". --Puellanivis (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ay that's the rub. I am not willing to do that. So far as I am concerned those other articles cover the territory that this one does and do a much better job. To add this stuff to them would make them worse articles. They are pretty good now. This article, the one in question, is almost total opinion. (Good job on finding the two references that all of that is based on.)

The path of least resistance means not doing more work than necessary. This same topic need not be covered two or three times. Certianly not in the form of an editorial like this article.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some validity for this topic, but ONLY because of the discussion above! I also agree that there is at least one other article that deals with this subject already. Anyway, I still stick to deleting this, because of the confusing context of it and lack of citations. This deals with very controversial topics, and some people have very volatile attitudes toward them. As such, articles dealing with sexuality issues should prove that they come from honest, nonbiased sources from the very start. If the principle write of the page believes in his/her article's validity, then they should care enough to re-present it in better order. itinerant_tuna (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I commented on the phrase "lesbian transwomen" I didn't mean that I denied or questioned the existence of such people. My difficulty with the term is trying to deduce, in my head, what the phrase is referring to - a definition (and the term is used in the article without defining it.) It's like a double-positive, the opposite of a double-negative - such as "he can't NOT do nothing" (which is probably a triple negative) in that it's like an equation that has to be solved without paper and pencil, in your mind. When I see "lesbian transwoman" and take it apart, I get "a woman attracted to other women, who has transformed from a man into a woman" - and that may be correct or totally wrong. But I still don't get it, haha, because it's like a "brain twister" and I would have to go offsite (from the page we are debating) and try to get some sort of clear definition, if one exists. I am totally a believer in sexuality being a genetic, chemical component that we either are born with, or develop at an early age, so please don't think I'm against the article on any moral grounds or personal beliefs. itinerant_tuna (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly right. A lesbian transwoman is for most practical purposes (Aside from certain medical facts of life that no sane person can deny) a woman who is attracted to women. Though I suppose that's even a little simplistic. For on here I have when discussion non-op transsexual women.. been told that if they self identify as transwomen that makes them simply transgender and not transsexual and therefore are just men. (But I usually only hear that in relation to such transwomen who are attracted to men.) So it is really complex.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the original author:[edit]

First of all, this article is neither copied from somewhere nor was it written for anything but Wikipedia. It is entirely possible that it is too essay-like for Wikipedia, but then it should be re-written, not deleted. It should also be merged with Transsexual sexuality, but definitely not under that title.

This article does not throw together two random concepts, but two concepts which are quite related, especially in the minds of people who are not very well informed about transgender issues. There is much confusion about whether trans is some form of homosexuality (which it is not) and there is just as much confusion about how do use the terms homo- and heterosexual with regards to transpeople. IIRC, it has been a while, I wrote this piece mainly to address the latter issue because of some discussions here on Wikipedia. This is a problem, and is still a problem, so pointing out the issue is definitely something WP should do. We do not just have to present solutions to problems, we also can and frequently do point out ongoing discussions and problems.

Transsexual sexuality convers those topics, too, but it would be utterly inacceptable to leave this article as the only one, mainly for one reason: Its title. There is a vast difference between transsexual and transgender, the later being, by most definitions, the umbrella term for a group of people which also includes transsexual people; if we left this content under this title only, it would be conveniently (convenient for some anti-everybody-else transsexual activists, that is) ignore that the very same problems apply for the much larger number of non-transsexual transgender people.

Oh yes, regarding the "original author". I am indeed, I changed my name, though, when somebody started stalking me a while ago. If need be, I can log in with my old name again. Err, and I hope my spelling wasn't too bad, it's late here. -- John Smythe (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per WP:HEY. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies[edit]

This article has been tagged as lacking reliable secondary sources since May 2007, and I can find nothing but passing mentions on Google. It was up for proposed deletion a few weeks ago but this was contested, so I'm bringing it here. Reyk _YO! 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not appear to meet criteria for notability in my search for reliable secondary sources. --Stormbay (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good written sources, I will happily change my opinion. (Interest in the article was totally lacking until recently) --Stormbay (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not easy for such centers to be notable, but this one is. Sponsorship, leadership, and publications when the rest of the information available gets added. There will be multiple review ofits work. I note the period of major activity was pre-google. It's not appropriate to delete such for lack of sourcability until printed sources have been checked.DGG (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lack of online sources is telling for this type of company.--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HoocLyne Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable publishing company; Original research without any chance of remedy. A Google search confirms that it probably once existed,[14], but there is no non-trivial coverage of the company itself; I don't see how we make any of the info in here verifiable. -- Mark Chovain 07:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and information seems unverifiable from how little is displayed in a web search. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 10:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure of my vote yet... this seems like something very local that might not have a lot of sources on the internet. For example, this page says that their comics about a local junior ice hockey team were printed in a local newspaper. There seems to be a section on the FLOYD series on this page. Esn (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V as well as WP:N. (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The debate established that the sources provided are not independent; please note that the existence of another Wikipedia article does not constitute an argument to keep this one; we do not work by precedent. Chick Bowen 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stable Isotope Foundation[edit]

Contested prod, still does not meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Also, we do not wait for something to become notable, it must be notable first. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article claims The SIF is notable since it supports a peer reviewed scientific journal, supports ongoing research projects, raises funds for stable isotope research, and provides grant funding for stable isotope research across several disciplines. However, the journal has never been published and is only soliciting contributions at this time. I also can't find any lists of those awarded grants. Finally, this article appears to be created and edited by a single purpose account. I think it's an honest effort by someone affiliated with the Foundation to publicize its existence. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with all above, and articles that contain text arguing their subject's notability seem to be self-referential in a sense, as well as clutching at straws. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Lich, a modern undead creature, has a wikipedia page. This defies my concept of notability, however, I would not go out of my way to tag the Lich article. From the scientific organizations on Wikipedia I surveyed, 30-50% do not have any references, or are only self-referential. e.g. the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. I am not and would not recommend tagging their article, even though it has zero references, and no evidence it exists. It's just an example. At least the subject SIF article provides a reference that the foundation actually exists, which is more than some others. The subject non-profit has not sought publicity, however it is performing research, which may be notable by itself. The site provides mathematical proof which suggests unstable isotopes in human DNA is a source of spontaneous genetic mutations, and is illuminating a research path which provides a potentially promising new approach to cancer prevention, which is currently killing about 25% of people now. That seems notable to me, even more so for a non-profit. That's more than I can say for the Lich. I would argue to keep the notability tag for now, but not to delete the article at this point. --Fisad (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the issues raised relating to the lack of non-primary sources about this topic. I'm in principle amenable to close AfDs as "protected redirect" if there is any worthwhile (i.e. well-written, reliably inline-sourced) content, which does not seem to be the case here. An editorial redirect may be created. Sandstein 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malal[edit]

This nomination was inspired by the recent discussion, WP:Articles for deletion/Khorne, as it was on a similar topic in the same universe. It has issues with WP:FICT, WP:RS and WP:OR, but essentially its biggest problem is non-notability: this is not a notable fictional entity even within the fantasy setting, let alone beyond it. The article itself makes clear that the only mentions of 'Malal' since its first creation have been scattered and trivial. I believe finding any kind of sources for this article that would indicate real-world notability to be impossible, therefore it should be deleted.

At the risk of violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: if Khorne was rightly deleted, this one, which is about one-tenth as notable, most definitely should go the same way. Wikipedia is not a fansite, but an encyclopaedia. (It was in fact turned into a redirect two days ago by User:Jaysweet, only to be reverted by User:KiTA one day later.) Terraxos (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~with a vengeance~~ It is frankly laughable that people think this should be an encyclopedia article. It is a specific character of a specific faction of a specific expansion set for a fairly notable wargame franchise. There is zero external coverage; the only sources are primary sources. Le Grand Roi de Citroulles (apologizes if I botched the spelling, Roi) has recently convinced me that a redirect is a better solution for stuff like this, especially since there is a strong case to be made to transwiki it to the WH40K wikia, and also if any content were to be merged into another article then the revision history should be preserved for GFDL reasons. However, I have found that putting a merge tag at the top of articles results in zero discussion, and it is apparent that the cruftlovers are going to revert any unilateral redirect. Based on this, it appears to me that the only workable process we have in place for exposing the strong community consensus against including this kind of material is AfD. So be it. Delete, delete, delete, and don't you dare come whining to me that the article history should have been left in place to enabling attribution and transwiki. Ain't my fault. Okay, well, maybe my fervor is not productive. In any case, there are zero independent reliable sources. No notability outside of the game, and questionable relevance even to gameplay. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I agree with what Jay said completely (and then crossed out). You should restore that - you make excellent points. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt my tone was unhelpful, especially considering that -- let's face it -- any deletion discussion on a several K article that is not a blatant copyvio means we are talking about discarding hours of someone's work. With that in mind, I thought my aggressive tone was a bit insensitive.

Reading it back, there is one thing from the struck comments I would like to reaffirm, though in a milder tone: Le Grand Roi recently convinced me that for an article where some of the content may be merged into another article, it is better for GFDL purposes (if not explicitly required) that the page be changed to a redirect rather than deleted, in order to preserve authorship. However, there is no binding "Articles for Redirect" process (and in fact, one time I nommed an article with the intention of making it a redirect and got yelled at by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) for misusing AfD), and there are a large number of users who understand how to use the undo button, but don't understand WP:NOTE or the AfD process. These conditions create an incentive to use AfD even when deletion is not the optimal solution.

Once, I warned a defender of a problematic article that if we could not find a compromise, the article would go to AfD and that my experience told me the community consensus would be to delete -- and he accused me of threatening him and of WP:CANVASsing! I tried for quite some time to explain to him that I was not trying to threaten him, I was just telling him the reality. I assured him that even if I keeled over at that very moment from a massive heart attack, eventually someone else would come along and the article would get deleted. But he still maintained it was a threat.

Unfortunately, I have found the only practical way to inject a dose of reality into a discussion over notability is to use AfD. It is the only thing that 1) is nearly guaranteed to get additional community involvement, and 2) ensures a binding enforcement method to uphold the achieved consensus.

What we really need is for AfD to also allow "redirect and protect" noms, i.e. essentially a deletion that preserves publicly viewable revision history. Frankly, though, I don't believe Wikipedia is structurally capable of significant policy change anymore, so that's why I'm complaining about it here instead of at the Village Pump :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I don't quite share the fervor of my fellow editor above, the article cites no sources independent from the game manufacturer (This gets old but The codexes, White Dwarf magazine, Fanatic magazine (this specific one), and the fiction are all published by Games workshop) to establish notability per the WP:GNG. The article covers the fictional god of a faction in a miniatures game and falls squarely into the "backstory" category. Knowledge of the crowded pantheon of gods is not required to play 40K, EPIC or Dawn of War--even within the fictional universe of 40K, the significance of this subject is marginal. Outside the magic circle, significance is nil. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. This is a worthwhile article that focuses on "lost lore" from GW that has since been removed. I have intended to go back and re-add the missing references in such a way that the delete-bots and the people incorrectly citing policy would stop nuking them, Just have not had the time to do so. If it is deleted, I feel most of the information should be merged into the Warhammer/Warhammer40k Chaos articles, at the very least. KiTA (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This character appears only in the roleplaying game based on the background of a fantasy-themed tabletop wargame. The likelihood that sources exist outside of Games Workshop (or whatever company they've licensed their RPG to lately) is essentially nil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge this article contains decent information on an important, if moderately obscure character, even if it was dropped for legal reasons later --UltraMagnus (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this article contains decent information on an important[...] character^{[citation needed]} - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that was some sort of in joke? because it wasn't very funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's important. That's all well and good, but source please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a very long article, and if I see a long article, I say it's notable.Kitty53 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short, length means squat in terms of notability. This isn't even really long in the first place. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your keep vote for the very long article I intend to write about my pet dog Juniper. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable spinout article per WP:FICT. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kitty53 Oh Bishoff, Won't you? (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Oh Bishoff, Won't you? (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked MurrayBishoff (talk · contribs). I am reporting now. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Father Time (album)[edit]

One one source which from Amazon.com, which isn't that good of a source, and knowing Curb's history of delaying albums this album may not come out on Sept. 9. Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also came from Hal's MySpace page that I got in a bulletin today. And I haven't checked, but I'm sure his webiste says it, too. Like you said, Curb does delay albums alot. One More Midnight was supposed to be released in October 2006, but never was. Then it was released in the Uk only. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Alexf⁴² 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently the nom is learning from me; I've found that Curb tends to delay albums all the freaking time (or in extreme cases, not even release them at all). Also, Amazon isn't a reliable source. Come back when it is released, or when there're at least more sources to verify it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with everybody else, delete this. It won't be released for a couple more months, or it could be longer due to Curb's tendancy to totally mangle things. Curb delays albums a lot, like they did Lee Brice's debut album, which was originally supposed to be released back in May, but his label delayed the album to be released in November. --Martin4647 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Crystal ball. Black ngold29 06:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian renaming controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Factually inaccurate article, appears to have been more of an attempt at POV pushing than a legitimate article. The very first sentence is factually inaccurate The Indian renaming controversy is a result of a movement, it is not any "movement". Any useful information can be mentioned in List of renamed Indian public places. It is not an controversy after all, any opposition to the renaming should be mentioned in the main article, there is not need to create this POV fork solely serving to push a political agenda. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article says the congress started this in 2005. Which is not true, This started way way back in 1949 with the renaming of Ellore. Only recently with the renaming of Mumbai in 1995 did this trend pick up steam again. Clearly a POV. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this is a legitimate topic: it is indisputable that (a), some Indian cities have been renamed, and (b), this has provoked some controversy. While the article may be factually inaccurate and/or non-neutral in certain areas, those are arguments for improving it, not deleting it altogether. As for the claim that it's a POV fork: what of, exactly? I don't believe there's any other article on this topic already, beyond the list List of renamed Indian public places, which doesn't contain any mention of the political issues involved. Terraxos (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your claim "this has provoked some controversy" is wrong. The article falsely portrays some opposition as controversy. The action may meet some opposition, and that can be mentioned in the article List of renamed Indian public places. There is no need for creating this POV article with a single paragraph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The article title itself is a prime candidate for WP:OR. There is no "movement" as the lead states. They were sporadic events with little to time them together (except maybe for copy-cat renames and me-too's). Full of errors . More of a rant than an encyclopaedic article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ - with List of renamed Indian public places. No need for this separate article. BTW, most of these changes, if not controversial, are definitely not being used by majority of common people. Example: Brigade Road of Bangalore (very few people knows/uses the new name); Exception: M.G. Road of Bangalore (very few people knows/uses the old name). --GDibyendu (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was looking into some reports on the country's research infrastructure recently (to rewrite the Pune article) and there definately is a movement in western India. Ottre (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can agree with merger, but place focus on major international cities such as Mumbai, Calcutta and Bangalore. The problem with the list is it is too complete and it is hard to weed out important information from less-important information. However, on the flip side, while the article explains much better what has happened, it does not substantiate how the renamings are controversial or show that a movement is going on. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the comments by =Nichalp and Otolemur crassicaudatus, I agree with Cleanup + Move to alternate title. One suggested title: Renaming of Public places in India. This should concentrate on history of renaming places in India, including the fact that names of many places got changed in different times (Mughal India, British India etc.) - it may turn out to be an interesting article. Currently it is just focusing on renaming in Independent India, which is only part of the (hi)story. It may not be difficult to demonstrate related controversies of recent renaming 'moves' using newspaper references, but there is no point in trying to establish any 'movement' in it. That would be OR for sure. There is no public movement towards these renamings, its usually initiated by Politicians who get the idea endorsed by local celebrities/intellectuals, mainly writers of local language. Detailed list of renamed public places should be left to the list as it is now. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete present article. The name "Indian renaming controversy" is OR. The info can be merged or used in some other article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider renaming as "... movement" and check for POV. If incomplete, expand. DGG (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was almost about to mark Kolkata as a hoax article and move the article to Calcutta until I clicked the link to this article. We need to populate more articles with links to this and/or a similar list that talks about all the cities that have been renamed, as these are not the actual names of the cities that we grew up with. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - This article contains useful information that should not be lost. -- 85.181.57.70 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve, and possibly rename/move - it's not really a controversy, but although parts of the article are incorrect, there is a need for an article discussing the renaming of cities to pre-colonial names. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- adequate sources can be found by journalists and newspapers questioning the fad for renaming. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed the original point. First there is no movement like this as the article states. Second the fact presented as controversy is actually opposition, how exactly will you define controversy. The article can be moved to a new name like Renaming of cities in India, but the present version with the present title is simply an attempt to push a POV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. But an article needs to be present on wikipedia that details the renaming, reasons for renaming, controversial renamings, and public response. This information would be unsuited to be merged with a list. So I change to Cleanup + Move to alternate title =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Last Stand[edit]

fails WP:N, WP:V - there is no significant coverage of this topic and few reliable sources. Shiva Indis (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside the game. JIP | Talk 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed that this stub is entirely not-notable.Wikigonish (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete occurrences in video games are rarely ever notable and this one is no exception. - Icewedge (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also there is no a real battle like that. Raymond "Giggs" K o 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reiterating that this is not notable outside of the game. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, this subject carries no notability outside of the game. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO more reasons are required i suppose as all have been stated above by many other editors. Kalivd (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even deserve the usual courtesy redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't need to repeat what has already been stated above. --.:Alex :. 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. MuZemike (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About one part of one particular game. Martarius (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't do much of anything to help our understanding of the game or game series. --Kiz o r 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love and biscuits[edit]

The original text to this article described it as an "amateur" movie. The article's author removed the Speedy Delete tag originally placed on the article, so it is being brought here for discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateur films not listed in the Internet Movie Database are extremely unlikely to be notable per WP:MOVIE. If the film actually does get distribution or in some other way achieves some cultural impact, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a synopsis of a self-described amateur film, starring a bunch of highschool students. Definitely not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia.Wikigonish (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not surprisingly, this school project gets no google hits outside Wikipedia [15]. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a school project does not meet Wikipedia's standards of encyclopedic notability. --Stormie (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The merge was once discussed on Talk:Olivier_Messiaen without reaching a consensus. Note that Olivier_Messiaen is a Featured article, and before the list can be merged to it, it needs at least to be cleaned up and referenced. Please, start merger discussion on the talk page. Ruslik (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of students of Olivier Messiaen[edit]

Non-notable list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't say this list is entirely non-notable. The teacher is himself notable, and some of his students appear to be as well. A list of a notable composer's students is of some interest. The list might be better included in the composer's page itself, but it should not be deleted.Wikigonish (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as separate section with article about Messianen. Suggest removing all students listed who are not wiki-notable. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list of students doesn't indicate a source. Where does one find an authoritative list of Messianen's students? -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in agreeance with Quartermaster. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, there should be a list in the Messaien article, not a separate article.--Poetlister 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. As for the red links, they should be checked to see if they should be articles, since about 2/3 of his students already have them. This sort of a very distinguished list is a suitable subarticle. Alternatively, merge, preserving content. DGG (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- maybe include a list of Messiaen's "top ten" students and cull the rest. This is bordering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Film Institute list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable list, Copyvio, see first nomination for more details. Tavix (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an excellent list of films. If we can keep 100 Greatest British Television Programmes, then we can keep this. If there is no copy violation there, then there is no copy violation here either. Cheers 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guys. Wikipedia has enough crap lists, and this isn't one of them. I'd say bring back the full list like the top 100 TV. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has only one reference, which is a direct reproduction of the list instead of any sort of commentary on it or journalistic discussion of it. It would almost appear, in fact, that this Wikipedia article is about the Daily Mail article that's given as a reference. I'll note that the Daily Mail article doesn't even mention the British Film Institute, it says this list is from a "panel of experts." Brilliant Pebble (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a BFI List. See Children get must-see movie list . I've added the BBC ref to the article.ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article, when I reviewed it, didn't have that link. When I looked the article over, the sole link was to a Daily Mail article which, as I said, didn't even mention the BFI. However, even the BBC article that has been added says: "The 50 films were whittled down to a top 10". This says to me that the 50-item list was an interim thing, and therefore may not be particularly notable. I'm noticing - based on the dates of the articles - that there appears to have been a two-week spate of newspaper articles about this, which immediately died down, as if they were polishing up a BFI press release and putting it out. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not a copyright violation, as it does not reprint the list. On the other hand, I can't say this list is very notable. It's pretty much hidden on the BFI's own web site, which suggests that even they don't consider it of great importance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bad search engine and horrible nav structure, doesn't mean it is hidden. It is covered by the BBC as noted above.

Keep A list from a notable organization and it's been dealt with in mainstream news sources. See the varied Category:AFI 100 Years series for similar.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and improve by removing unsourced material and adding inline citations to make verification of facts easier. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per first AFD. Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing different to change my original opinion in the 2006 AFD, although I would still like to see some additional commentary added. 23skidoo (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there may be a slight expandability problem here, but the list itself is notable (as are similar BFI and AFI lists). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Film Institute. Doesn't seem much else to say about it than what is already there, even when fixed up with proper sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The avtul list could be added, not being copyvio. The proof of that is that multiple UK newspapers published it. DGG (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Skin Flautist (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anting Anting[edit]

~~Terrible references and very stale request for references: Fails WP:V and likely WP:NN. Only one article links to this. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Revised: Redirect per below. Good catch y'all. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agimat, same thing.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Even in Tagalog, both Agimat and Anting Anting mean the same; I can't think of any specific difference between the two (save for the spelling). --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In my experience, Agimat is a Tagalog term, while Anting-anting is a Hiligaynon word. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 09:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agimat. They are the same. Starczamora (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected - Done -DaughterofSun (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. PoV is a fixable problem, to which deletion is not the answer. If you have a problem with the article's PoV, I would recommend requests for comment. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as theory and fact[edit]

The article violates the principle of no original research. An indication of that is that only two statements are sourced and both of them have at least seven sources. The article is primarily a rant against those who disagree with evolution. Ezra Wax (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a WP:POINT nomination. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the article is a rant and is original research. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you can't vote for your own proposal. your proposal is a vote in itself ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too many sources is a bad thing? Did you bother to check them out at all? If you had, you'd notice they're extraordinarily and clearly relevant. Can the article be improved? Sure. But Ezra hasn't offered anything to work with, only various rants on the talk page (here on down). — Scientizzle 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is just an essay. Find an appropriate external link and place it at Evolution for this idea. JJL (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, factual, reads well, not an essay, nomination is in bad faith. Could be merged with Evolution article if that doesn't make the Evolution article too large. Shot info (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no WP:OR problem. There are many high quality references to eminent life scientists and other notable scientific opinions published in reliable sources. The article is clearly using these sources in a manner consistent with the authors' intention. Also, I disagree with JJL's characterization of the article as an essay. This is a notable distinction, particularly in creation-evolution polemic, and as such is clearly deserving of its own article. See, for instance, Casey Luskin's report at the Discovery Institute: part 1, part 2. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references and more. Some sections could be cleaned up a bit, But that in itself is no reason to delete. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; well sourced, encyclopedic. I don't see a problem. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by the citations for its central premise -- and these same sources also provide verification for the body of the article. The accusations of WP:OR are nonspecific and, as such, do not even (as yet) form a basis for altering the article, let alone deleting it wholesale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rework As is it should be Delete as it is an essay, but its a sub-article to Evolution and covers important information so deleting it will be bad. The references are fabulous but the text is dense and rambles. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I also see this nomination was WP:POINT by an editor who strongly disagrees with the theory of evolution and is using the AfD process as part of a 'battle' against it. Note this quote from the article's talk page also "This page breaks the rule against original research. The opening paragraph has nine sources for one statement. That is by definition original research." The nomination also claims that only two statements are sourced which is simply not true. I ask the closing Admin to look at this nomination carefully as I am convinced it is simply disruptive. Doug Weller (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article factually addresses a misunderstanding that has occurred (and will continue to occur) countless times with respect to evolutionary biology, and does so in the manner of a primer, not an "essay". Furthermore Ezra Wax has failed to substantiate his stated reasons for nominating the page for deletion. Ichneumon (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article, meets WP guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously a POV essay as it states its argument in the opening lines and then uses the rest of the article to make its point. Sure, the references are interesting (at least the ones I looked at are), but that does not make the entire missive important as an objective encyclopedia article. Editors interested in these ideas should simply incorporate the references into the Evolution article itself, with some explanation there. But there is no need for this extended argument to be considered an article in Wikipedia.Wikigonish (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem like a rant at all to me. Maxa megalon 2000 05:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clearly explained and arguably necessary article on a notable subject. While there might be some reason for concern about original research, it seems to me that essentially everything in this article has already been said elsewhere (as the various references show) and so there is no part of it that is particularly vulnerable to being challenged as unverified. Terraxos (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, if no one disputes this, why does it exist? If someone disputes it, where is their viewpoint? Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to catalog "disputes". Primarily its purpose is to provide information. See: WP:NOT. - Ichneumon (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if there's no dispute, again, why is this information provided specifically in the context of evolution? Your assertion, if correct, argues that the information should be merged into theory, fact, or evolution. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blindingly obvious speedy keep. A useful review of how evolution relates to the concepts of theory and fact. I see no sign of the original research, or the "rant", referred to by the nominator. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a significant topic, the subject of a very recent academic paper which should be used as a reference to improve the article. . . dave souza, talk 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - A very easy topic: "Evolution as theory and fact", it is impossible to have any original research. However, it is very important article, which shows a lot of evidence . Raymond "Giggs" K o 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic and notable topic; detail article correctly factored out and linked from overview articles such as objections to evolution. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Are we kidding? Well researched and factual. What a waste of time! Why are we even discussing this in an AfD? -- Alexf⁴² 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable paradox, certainly warrants an article. Objectivity is not POV. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evolution where it merits a paragraph at most. We don't need a huge article on this fine point of language per WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Such an important subject in our society should be in Wikipedia. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Sadly, evolution has come under attack by ~~intelligent design~~ creationists, hence the need for this article to stay. This article is an encyclopaedic level entry, and discusses very throughly the aspects implied in the title. 67.189.228.127 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to their respective seasons. Plus Petrozza should've won ;) Wizardman 03:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Machamer[edit]

winning a reality TV show alone does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE, as other reality-tv-based articles have had their individual winners pages deleted for the same reason. This one should be treated no differently. Being mentioned as the winner on the show page should be enough, unless there becomes a significant reason for the individual to become notable on their own outside of being on a TV show. SpikeJones (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable just because she won a reality show. JIP | Talk 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the convention of deleting reality show winners. Maybe someone should just make a list. Maybe there is a list already. How about a list of people who appeared on any game shows? (joking).Wikigonish (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - looks like they did: Category:Reality_show_winners.SpikeJones (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 4) would be more appropriate than deletion, per WP:BLP1E. --Stormie (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Tosqueira (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you checked the winners of the previous two seasons of Hell's Kitchen ( Heather West and Rahman Harper) both have Wikipedia pages. So there is precedent for this. So either keep this page or delete all three. Joetheduded (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as original entry: appearing on/winning a reality tv show is not WP:NOTABLE by itself; all appropriate info about winner can be included on the show page itself. SpikeJones (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those were both found to be within the scope of various Wikiprojects (such as the Food and Drink Project). Since all three are professional chefs they are notable and therefore probably fall under the scope of that project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetheduded (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - practically every restaurant in the country can claim that they have a "professional chef". The key is proving notability, and if these pages' only claim to fame is that they appeared on a reality tv show (albeit a cooking one), precedent has already been made to delete them. SpikeJones (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment And yet these have already been found to be notable chefs, within the scope of the Food and Drink project. They are also notable for the restaurants they work and there status as celebrity chefs. Chefs at world class restaurants (Michelin Star worthy restaurants) have been found notable.Joetheduded (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - their celebrity chef status that you claim is due to their appearance on a reality-tv show. They have not yet proven that they would have achieved the same level of skill/success/noteriety if they hadn't appeared on the show. SpikeJones (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 4) Artene50 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 4). Lacks sources covering this specific subject to justify stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 4). It might be a search term, so a redirect should exist, but there's no reason to keep it without references. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it without any references.

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

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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of well-argued responses. "written like an advertisement" is a WP:PROBLEM independent of the suitability of the topic for inclusion. Gazimoff plausibly addresses OBM's concerns. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N4G[edit]

This article about a website lacks notability, neutrality, and the contents of the article itself is very poorly crafted and lacking in content. ryouga.h (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. No References to establish notability whatsoever. However, it appears to me to be like Digg or Fark for gamers. I lean toward Keep as a result of articles like this and a page rank in the 2000s [16], but I probably could be pushed over.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. A list of users has no place here, and perhaps a criticisms/controversy section might be needed for the balanced picture given by the above link. Themfromspace (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User lists are obviously not welcome. When I made it, it was very brief article and there were no users list. I think we should keep it, but modify it. N4g is a big gaming site and so it is good if we have an article about it. kittoo (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Delete as not asserting notability at the moment. It just seems to be one of many web forums; if this isn't the case, then that needs to be demonstrated.OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tough one to call. Looking at the notability guidelines for websites, it will be very difficult for N4G to satisfy criterion 1, as it does not produce any content itself but instead relies upon links to the content of others. The website hasn't won a well known or independent award either. The content hasn't been redistributed in an independent mechanism either, as it doesn't have any content of it's own. Having said that, they have been the subject of multiple news articles for either the mechanism used [17][18], or that Future plc bought a share of the company. [19][20][21] With all this in mind, I think the website has garnered some notability but not in the specific areas required by WP:WEB. However, if we take the alternative view that N4G is an organisation as well as a website, then it can also be assesed by the notability guidelines for organisations and coporations, as it has had significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Using WP:CORP as the basis, instead of WP:WEB, it passes notability. Gazi moff_{(mentor/review)} 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazimoff's sources. —Giggy 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Fails WP:ADVERT; written like an advertisement. MuZemike (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremor (band)[edit]

Group fails WP:MUSIC, in my opinion. One of the criteria guidelines says a notable act may be one which "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", and I don't feel INRI Unlimited falls under either. Delete LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MUSIC. The one reference the article has (not related to the band's myspace page or label) is broken. Furthermore, the band's label has only had one release - the album This is Primitive Hate by Tremor - thusly the label is NN. Also, the label is run by one of the members of Tremor. Sonuvafitch (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MUSIC for its inability to meet the 'rules of thumb' and the unchallenged need for expansion of the article. Moreover, one would find that such an insignificant band is in no place of honor to be awarded an encyclopedic page, as it is so defined by the wikipedia guidelines for deletion. Posted by incognito user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.92.194 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Lipsynced with Satan is an awesome name for an EP, but I fear this band just doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's standards of notability. Delete album article This is Primitive Hate also. --Stormie (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Definite POV issues among other problems. Dreadstar † 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial issues[edit]

This is pure WP:POV. Who decides what is controversial or not? What's the point in having a list when we have cats? Also, what's with the biggest section being about the USA? WP:BIAS. No one can decide on something so non-neutral. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Scarian. From "American Idol" to "9/11" and back again. Do me a favour. Channel ® 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject matter is too broad and too ill-defined. Nsk92 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and file under List of extraordinarily bad ideas for articles. This is neither needed nor maintainable in any reasonable sense. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per what everybody's saying. Good grief. Next we'll have a "List of All Lists Which Are Not Members of Themselves." RayAYang (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IINFO, undue weight. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create List of uncontroversial issues as an amusing alternative to deletion. --Rividian (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add to List of Controversial Lists. Or just Delete.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utter nonsensical article, vague inclusion criteria. What next? List of honest issues? List of dishonest issues? List of good issues? List of bad issues? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, definition of "controversial" is subject to POV. JIP | Talk 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added to List of deletion discussions that are not at all controversial. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of these biased lists floating around. I recently found the list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Much like deciding whether something is controversial, how do you decide whether something is or isn't pseudoscience? Kind of like a list of stupid ideas. The list of pseudoscieces, however, has been suggested for deletion twice already and has been saved both times. I urge everyone who is voting to delete this biased list, to go and get that other biased list deleted as well.Wikigonish (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a list with no clear inclusion criteria whatsoever (since just about any issue could be plausibly claimed to be 'controversial' in a certain context). I imagine the point of it is to collect all of Wikipedia's 'controversy' articles together in one place, but we already have Category:Controversies for that, and it does the job much better than this list. Terraxos (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like it. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way too broad, unviable, requires WP:NPOV violation in order to list anything, potential WP:BLP issues, unmaintainable ... I think I'll just stop there. 23skidoo (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If judging something as "controversial" or not is considered POV, why do so many Wikipedia articles, including the Category:Controversies, have it in their title? — Timwi (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCompletely unnecessary given Category:Controversies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete waaay too broad to be encyclopedic, and there's a category anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Innocent Bystanders[edit]

Orphaned, unreferenced band article. With one album and one single released, neither of which made much of an impression, this band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Plenty of google hits, but almost all of them are junk. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, could quite happily have speedied this as an A7. --Stormie (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Alexf⁴² 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reliable sources or assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after a source was found. Sandstein 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koduvila[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Could not find reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Samuel Tan 02:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this place supposed to be a town or village? Or what exactly is it since the article never actually states what it is. As a viollage or town, it would be notable as a recognized population centre. As a geogrpahic feature, it would also deserve a place in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 06:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:RS are lacking and unreliable sources conflict. From the article: Koduvila is in East Kallada. East Kallada is a village according to the Kollam District website. The post office recognizes Koduvila addresses at Pin code 691502, variously at the Koduvila or Koduvila, East Kallada or East Kallada P.O. There is a big problem with WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to me that if after all this time we can't even find reliable sources that state plainly what the subject is, it's probably not an acceptable article at this time. No prejudice against future re-creation if something more concrete (and hopefully better-written and less advertisement-like) shows up. Also, the part about it being a world-famous tourist destination is pretty much obviously false... "Well, kids, it's either Disneyworld, the Grand Canyon, or Koduvila this year... let's take a vote!". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the article fails verifiability. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. And considering the content would need to be rewritten anyways, recreation with actual sources would be a better route if this place were actually notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - User:Nichalp has found one instance in government documents to establish it as a named and recognized population centre. There's also this document from elections that has a couple of candidates with addresses in Koduvila. It still is woefully lacking in references. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Koduvila is a place in Kerala. By default, places are notable on wikipedia. [22] This is taken from the government of Kerala education department. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan ǀ 39 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postolar Tripper[edit]

No real assertation of notability. Only claim is that a song hit the charts of a teen show on HTV. Only one album, no reliable sources anywhere. (By the way, was this inspired by their song?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 06:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. As a song writer I can't knock their song ideas, you gotta get that inspiration from somewhere!!!!! Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They get >1500 Ghits, but most are not in English, so difficult to assess. We need to be careful of the bias in Wikipedia against articles with non-English-language coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic may have non-english coverage, but it still fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Black ngold29 06:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How can you know they fail to meet WP:MUSIC without understanding the non-English coverage? One can say there is insufficient evidence presented in the article (and obviously eventually the evidence has to be in the article), but it seems to me presumptuous to simply say that they fail WP:MUSIC irrespective of what this large volume of material may say. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only base my decision on what is in the article, as I can only read english. If someone wants to translate and add a source to the article I will gladly withdraw. Black ngold29 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. You're right, the article is desperately poor. This is the page of their 1st album publisher "Menart" [23] and little article abound the band. I can translate it. Do you want it here or straight to the article? Zenanarh (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just add it as a citation to the article. Black ngold29 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:MUSIC: ...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria... At the first sight Postolar Tripper meet the points 1,2,4,7,10,11. Zenanarh (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually it doesn't fail to meet WP:MUSIC. This band exists, they use some "peasant" local dialects in their songs, so therefore concentrated to the local music scene, anyhow quite enough known in Croatia with a few of their radio hits. Zenanarh (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanding on my earlier comments... Over 500 Ghits for their songs "Tužna priča o selu" and "Balada o Viliju i Vesni". Possible citations to consider: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Zenanarh. I have heard of them just a few times, but even so I can say they definitely don't fail WP:MUSIC. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; references are needed, but Google shows enough hits on the obscure phrase that is the band's name to indicate notability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Has some sources, but it needs more with commentary of the subject. These probably exist in Croation. Give editors more time per WP:EP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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