Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 9 November 11 >

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 delete.  Sandstein  18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Klang[edit]

Kurt Klang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I removed the proposed deletion on this article because I noticed proposed deletion was contested back in April of 06. However, I agree with the assertion that it needs to be deleted. There are zero references in the article, none can be found in a search, he doesn't appear to meet criteria for notability. Raven1977 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasi[edit]

Anastasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. Written in 2005 by anon IP. Stated to be hoax by anon IP in talk in 2006, tagged as no references in September 2007, tagged as factual dispute in April 2008. Rumping (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to an article on Anastasi Indians I investigated and there's is no sign of "Anastasi" tools being found in the cave mentioned. However, the Anastasi are a tribe in the Southwest. So I am going to rewrite the article accordingly. If I'm doing something wrong, slap me with a giant warning template. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried a bunch of different spellling but I guess it's Anasazi. I suggest the article page be made into a redirect there as an alternate spelling of the American-Indian tribe. Lots of articles spell the word that way. As far as this Maltese tools go I couldn't find any evidence anywhere for these claims.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like bullshit, Barry. Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's not a hoax, then it is unreferenced and non notable. Reputable sources on Ghar Dalam make no mention of an "anastasi". There's a scientist, a sculptor, a taxi driver and a hotel chain going by that name, but no ancient weapons Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbeat theory[edit]

Heartbeat theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed deletion as original research, seconded, tag removed with no explanation by single purpose account (sockpuppet?). Still open and unequivocal case of original research. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completely rewritten the article! Please evaluate its worthiness to be kept based on how it looks now. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK
  • Withdraw Article no longer original research. Just keep an eye out in case original author tries to revert. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EGM-14B Saturn[edit]

EGM-14B Saturn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax or self-promotion. No ghits. No good sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided verifying the content. This is the type of subject matter that you would think would have lots of online sources to verify it. Yet I can't find any, which implies to me that it is indeed a hoax. If this is confirmed by multiple users, I see no reason this shouldn't be G3ed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google returned zero results (other than self-reference to Wikipedia) Appears to be subtle advertising Kortaggio (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Launching a model rocket to 900 feet is entirely non-notable. - Atmoz (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like something made up at school "...burning of the fuse... caused an ignition of the parachute leaving it crumbling to dust. Luckily no astronauts were on this test flight...". Yeah, on a test flight of a giant firework. No references, no evidence. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. geographical locations are mostly notable (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Bird Sanctuary[edit]

Sandi Bird Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lakes and other geographic features are automatically notable. This sanctuary is also a lake.(27°19'N, 79°59'E) and should be kept for that reason. (From the article: "The Sandi Bird sanctuary is also known by its ancient name as “Dahar Jheel” (Jheel = Lake)")
I found a reference at the World Database on Protected Areas: http://www.wdpa.org/siteSheet.aspx?sitecode=308595
I think that there may also be reference in http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Portals/15/India.pdf -- Eastmain (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After looking through the sources I find, I think that almost every national or state/provincial park or other protected area is the subject of coverage in reliable sources. The discussions about whether the area should be protected, and the legislation and ceremonies to designate a protected area will generate coverage from reliable sources -- butnot necessarily online. This is why I suggest that these areas be considered inherently notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a bird sanctuary. All such sanctuaries are notable unless all are considered non-notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ll protected natural areas a notable, at least id they areublicones,m on a substantail style--along with all state, provicinial, and national parks, and similar public entirtites. tehre will all be descriptive sources. DGG (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment -- What on earth do you mean that you can't find a reliable source? Google it up! You don't need a peer reviewed journal to establish that it exists. Govt of India source =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments and these topics are notable. Ref Center of Pollution control board Government of India --GPPande talk! 11:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Widower[edit]

White Widower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article as it has stood for going on 10 months is with out any source information and reads as a vanity/fan piece. Attempts to find references for the character, mentioned publication (The Powers of Light), publisher (Black Comics), and creators has resulted in only finding this singular Wikipedia page. J Greb (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cannot find any evidence of notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence this even exists, let alone whether it is notable or not. (Emperor (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. No references, not notable. No evidence (per nom) that the authors even exist. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1977 (band)[edit]

1977 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

KISS tribute band. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Some reviews, but nothing in a major, reputable magazine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your pleasant and timely response. As I hope you realize, my presence here at Wikipedia is very recent and I am still familiarizing myself with many of the accepted protocols. The page you referred to; WP:MUSIC also states...

This page in a nutshell:

  • A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts.
  • Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.

1977 (band) is published with , and recognized by, ASCAP and although there is no evidence, currently included in the article, two (2) tracks from the 1977 (band) debut album have been in light rotation with Next Media Broadcast Company since it's release date. The reason this is not currently included is because I need still need to gather the proper, third party, reference materials for this fact.

Furthermore, the article titled Wikipedia: Notability states:

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

The 1977 (band) definitely falls into the category of "attracting notice". A Google Search of "1977 Rock 'N Roll" may help to clarify this.

I hope it can be agreed that the article in question is currently limited in content, but it should be realized that it is all factual. Nothing has been fabricated.

I would like to suggest to all concerned that the current status of this article be viewed as a stub rather than be deleted. Thank you. With all due respectAlexander Coin (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You haven't really addressed the points that WP:MUSIC and the deletion nomination are making. A search for "1977 Rock 'N Roll" produces only one hit I could see relating to this band. And that hit is not to a reliable source, it's to a sales site. You need to point to where the band has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the ensemble itself and reliable to Wikipedia's standards. If you can do that, you're usually in. Any of the other 11 points would be good to get as well; so far you've only got point 11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. And even there you can't prove it, as you've said yourself. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swizz Beatz' second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Swizz Beatz' second studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnamed album with no confirmed release date: fails WP:NALBUMS. Ros0709 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Krusty Krab (which badly needs fixing itself, and may even be a candidate for redirection). Black Kite 11:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krabby Patty[edit]

Krabby Patty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is an in-universe mess and the subject is definitely not worthy of its own page, as Wikipedia is not a SpongeBob fansite. It's already covered in the Krusty Krab article. sixtynine • speak, I say • 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak redirect Why weak? Because there are a surprising number of news sources for Krabby Patty out there. However, most of them are minor mentions like this and the coverage doesn't seem significant enough for notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idle Vice[edit]

Idle Vice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a speedy request on this band, because there are claims that they have toured the U.S. a couple of times that would at least make a run at meeting WP:MUSIC. However there are no sources, the band has not released albums on major labels, and most of the other guidelines from WP:MUSIC are a little thin on the ground. The article requires further consideration with regards to whether or not it's notable, thus I bring it here. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced and no claims that add up to notability under WP:MUSIC (touring isn't the criterion, it's coverage of a tour). Bongomatic 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Horror Novels[edit]

Classic Horror Novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst there may be classic horror novels I don't see any evidence (and certainly none is presented here) that there exists a definied, univerally accepted, list of just six. Appears to fail WP:OR and WP:V. Ros0709 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, possibly speedy delete Term is at best a neologism, but in reality more likely to be bollocks. The inclusion of Anne Rice in a list of Victorian horror novels rather gives the game away. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and quickly. Totally arbitrary list. POV is unavoidable, and it's OR. xschm (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankenstein and The Mummy were written "around the Victorian era"? (And The Phantom of the Opera was only for a loose interpretation of "around.") Clearly childish original research. Deor (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malignant Monster[edit]

Malignant Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. No notable label. No tours. No awards etc... Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I withdraw my nomination and will later nominate the articles separately. Non-admin closure. Reywas92Talk 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leland William Modjeski[edit]

Leland William Modjeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person only has notability for attempting to intrude the White House. This article does not pass WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. There are no references. It and the others like it could easily be merged into White House intruders Reywas92Talk 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related and easily mergable to White House intruders and do not pass WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E:

Gerald Gainous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chester Plummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Mahonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frank Eugene Corder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francisco Martin Duran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marshall Fields (White House intruder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert K. Preston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Keep, I'm going to assume this was a good faith attempt to clean up the project, but you're suggesting a man who flew a plane into the White House in an attempt to assassinate the President is "not notable"? That seems highly suspect -- same for attempted assassins who fired shotguns and assault rifles at American presidents -- I'm not even American, but they're all at least as notable as Andre Dallaire. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I shouldn't have bundled the nomination. Leland William Modjeski, Chester Plummer and Gerald Gainous should be deleted/merged at the very least, though. The others' articles are a bit longer and may be notable, but I am a strong mergist. Reywas92Talk 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plummer was shot and killed by the Secret Service, I'd say he definitely fits notability. Arguments could be made for Gainous and Modjeski though; who at the very least, need to have their articles improved/reffed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cathal McCarthy[edit]

Cathal McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hurler, fails WP:ATHLETE, does not play in a fully professional league. Only claim to notability is that he is the son of Charlie McCarthy a major professional hurler, but as is stated in WP:BIO notability is not inherited. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - no independent notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their is no professional league thus different standards apply , please read about the topic before making claims of notability but fails WP:GAA guidelines as he doesn't seem to have played at Senior level.Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Note: The nom states "delete because does not play in a fully professional league". Per Gnevin however, this criteria does not apply here - because the sport in question is wholly amateur. The ATHLETE criteria that applies therefore is "competed at the highest level in amateur sport". This however appears to fail. As, as per Gnevin, this would seem to expect that, for an automatic pass on WP:ATHLETE, the player who need to have played for their county at a senior GAA level. Again, on it's own, a fail of WP:ATHLETE is not automatically a reason for a delete. However, the subject also appears to fail the general WP:BIO criteria of "substantial coverage". (There is SOME "trivial coverage" in match reports/etc for minor GAA games. But these are largely "passing references" that do not add to notability directly.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with nom. ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Military Operations Group[edit]

International Military Operations Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is probably a hoax. It was posted in May 2007 by Joshua holdridge (talk · contribs), who has no other edits, and was tagged "unsourced" the same month; but no source has been supplied, nor can I find any. Google finds nothing relevant for International Military Operations Group or IMOG military or Major Tarrant gulf war or Major A. Tarrant. Whether or not there is any truth in the article, it has been in Wikipedia without any sources for 18 months, it is evidently unverifiable and per WP:V we should Delete it (even if we get this response! JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Transistor.  Sandstein  16:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How a transistor works[edit]

How a transistor works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOT. This website is not wikiHow, it is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide and this should be deleted. Any content that needs to be merged to transistor can be put there. Boshinoi (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or "Merge" There is nothing in the article that says "do this then do this", so I don't see why it's a "how-to". It isn't a set of instructions. It is, as its talk page suggests, a basic description of transistor operation without going into excessive detail. As to merger, that proposal does not seem to have achieved support, let alone consensus, but clearly there is scope for this level of description in Wikipedia somewhere. --Rodhullandemu 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - agreed, this is not a "how to" article! KEEP! Geĸrίtz (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be some useful information here that isn't in Transistor or Bipolar junction transistor. If so it should be moved. This seems like a very unlikely search term, though; anyone wanting to know how a transistor works is likely to go to the main Transistor article first. Rklear (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ... and find nothing except a link to this article; not even the transfer characteristics graph. --Rodhullandemu 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why that data, if useful, should be moved to the main article. My point is that, once this is done, keeping "How a transistor works" around as a redirect is not really useful. Rklear (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you don't mean Delete, you mean Merge. --Rodhullandemu 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean delete. As I said, if there is something in the article worth salvaging (which I don't see), someone should move it. Rklear (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why say "There may be some useful information here that isn't in Transistor or Bipolar junction transistor. If so it should be moved"? Have you read the article? --Rodhullandemu 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, and there is nothing there that I would move. I would also point out that "merge" implies redirect and, as I said, I think this redirect is pointless. The whole concept of the article is pointless. It amounts to "Transistors for dummies", and the Transistors article should be clear enough. Rklear (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article (but keep content). And don't leave a redirect. Improbable search term, ultimately unhelpful to readers. Bongomatic 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the content is kept then the article history also has to be kept as a redirect for GFDL purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the article history can be moved to somewhere else, without the redirect from here. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete article. An unlikely search term for an excyclopedia. I'm not sure how this exactly affects GFDL, but else there is no reason to keep the article. There are other redirect pages viz. How transistors work, How a Transistor Works, How a transistor work which should all be deleted for similar reasons. LeaveSleaves talk 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia Foundation project. It doesn't matter to me if the information is merged or transferred to Wikiversity or kept in some other way; deletion should be the last recourse, and there's no need to delete this. Fg2 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. First, this article is not a how-to, but discusses two important applications of bipolar transistors in encyclopedic fashion. Second, there's little justification for a separate article, and the title doesn't reflect the contents, so merge to Bipolar junction transistor#Applications, which is underdeveloped and doesn't mention these two applications. Third, a redirect is needed to preserve the history per GFDL. A separate article on Applications of Bipolar junction transistor could be developed in the future, but there's not enough material at this point. VG ☎ 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to transistor. The article does not fall into the purview of a how-to guide as it is not a manual on how make or operate, or other wise provide steps for doing something with a transistor. It is n fact a simplified description of how transistors function, and would make an excellent addition to the transistor article by improving it with content written in a way that is accessible to a borad general audience. The fact that a merge leaves behind a redirect that is an unlikely search term is irrelevant as redirects are cheap, and attribution history is needed for GFDL compliance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecutor v. Milan Martic[edit]

Prosecutor v. Milan Martic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an encyclopedia article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly notable court case with third party sources, just not written in an encyclopedic style.--Boshinoi (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of third-party sources are given in the article for this ICTY case. The article just needs a little clean-up, it was obviously written by a new user. That's not a valid reason to delete it. If you're not willing to do any formatting work yourself, please tag such articles with {{wikify}} and/or {{tone}} as appropriate instead of trying to delete them. VG ☎ 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Goblin's Last Stand[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Green Goblin's Last Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article on a fan film does not currently meet the standard set by the Notability guideline for films. Specifically, it shows no evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please note that the guideline considers IMDb to be trivial coverage. The only citation from a reliable source comes from the Baltimore City Paper. I don't consider this to be significant coverage. My interpretation of the previous AfD is that the article survived because this film is considered to be notable as a fan film. That may possibly be true, but there is no indication of that in the article. There are no citations from the usual comics industry/fan publications. Given that there has been a request for citations since 2007, I have doubt that any will be found. Consequently, I do not believe that the article lives up to the Notability guideline. GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles: Los Angeles Times, The Independent (London), ComicBookBin.com, ComicBook Resources, Comics2Film
Festival screenings: BackSeat FIlm Festival, NoDance Film Festival - documentary about the film won the Audience Award, Waterfront Film Festival, JohnsHopkins Film Fest
Books: Homemade Hollywood by Clive Young will be published next month, reportedly with a section about this film.
I'd say the film definitely meets general qualifications #2 and #3, and I would also argue for its inclusion under #1 in the "Other Evidence" section. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need to work through the sources, but two things immediately leap out... the LA Times reference is trivial (a couple of sentences do not constitute "non-trivial"), and secondly I don't see how this fan film fulfills criterion 3... it hasn't won a major reward; a documentary about the film won an "Audience Award" from a borderline notable film festival. That doesn't cut it. I need to look at the other sources though before making a decision. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that "other evidence" is about the only way it is notable. The Independent article offers some thorough coverage, but the LA Times article does not. The only comic book website listed here that I would consider to be a reliable source is Comic Book Resources, and it offers only a few short paragraphs. To my mind, it is not particularly notable as a film in general, but you could argue that the other evidence is that it is notable in the genre of "fan films". But how does one determine notability for that milieu? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually moving towards keep; like you I feel the overwhelming majority of fan fiction should be deleted with extreme prejudice, but the coverage in The Independent is pretty substantial, and at least two of the festivals seem notable. Not sure about the comic book resources, but if they're not being distributed by an independent medium then they are probably unreliable (for Wikipedia purposes). The article's still a horrible mess (the plot synopsis needs cutting down by about 75%), but I reckon notability has been established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is enough of a mention (and usage) to make it "notable". Let's not get so hung up on the specifics of "rules", and look to the wider "notability". - jc37 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi JC. Thanks for chiming in. I'm all for keeping with the spirit of the law more so than the letter of the law. :-) And I admit that I'm biased against including fan films on Wikipedia in general. Are we going to let anyone with a camcorder who has posted their superhero video on YouTube have an article? (Don't answer that - it's a deliberately exaggerated rhetorical question.) This film appears to be more than that, but I'm still not convinced that these links constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". The notability guideline is just a guideline, but without it, what yardstick do we measure "fan films" by? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. However, in this case, unless I'm misreading this, there is some "real-world" notability to this. The problem just seems to be that it just seems to fall "between the cracks" of the general WP:N.
    That said, if I'm missing something, please enlighten me. - jc37 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the coverage in the Independent is spectacularly unusual for a fan film. It is a full, in-depth article which features the film and its creator squarely as the primary subject. So with such a substantial article, only some additional minor coverage needs to be found, which it has. But just for good measure, this Google book search indicates that the film is included in the The Encyclopedia of Underground Movies. However, the plot section could use a heavy dose of trimming and copyeditting. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on Google Book Search! I wish they had more than a snippet view available for that book. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon second review, I retract the Google Book reference. The entry is for the documentary about the movie, and is not an entry for the movie itself. However, that does not change my position, as the minor coverage in addition to a substantial Indpendent article is sufficient already to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. The article is well-referenced and not an immediate spam/coi concern. The lack of outstanding delete preferences make this a simple close. Potential merges/redirects ought to be discussed on the article talk page. Non-admin closure by the skomorokh 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Learning Systems[edit]

Fox Learning Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be notable. Sources are local or press release/puff piece types. Biggest claim to fame appears to be that it was founded by a former local news reporter. Recommend deletion. SiobhanHansa 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a local paper? And the e-magnify piece seemed like a fairly straight forward puff piece intended to highlight an entrepreneur rather than take a critical look at the business. For the sake of completeness I would mention that as well as press releases there is another newspaper reference to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review but again that seems like a local paper to me. -- SiobhanHansa 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comment Your above logic could be applied to anybody that sites the New York Times or LA Times. Are they not local papers as well. They didn't site the Erie County Nifty Nickel. These are 3 articles that are as legitimate as any on wikipedia, Supported by Press Releases... Debate the information pertaining to the press releases if that is your issue, the whole article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure the above comment with the IP is mine Zdubya36, i don't want anyone to think i was trying to use multiple users to get a point across... (i logged into a different computer but forgot to log into wikipedia before i posted)
The New York Times and to a lesser extent the LA Times are sold all over the world. It wasn't my impression that this was generally the case for either of the two Pittsburgh papers - though maybe I'm wrong. -- SiobhanHansa 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo my knowledge, there are 3 Papers with National Circulation. The meaning of this is that you do not need to go to a specialty newspaper store to get them. They include the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Please tell me if I am forgetting any. My purpose for writing this is that you cannot discount a newspaper only because it is "local". Any newspaper that has a legit circulation in a medium sized U.S. city as well as a website should not be discounted. You might also note that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is well respected enough to syndicate op-ed articles, specifically Rob Rogers cartoons. I commend your thorough approach, SiobhanHansa, but I think your standards are through the roof. Maybe Fox Learning Systems isn't notable enough to get a front page in the Wall Street Journal, but they are notable enough to get press coverage in the Post Gazette with 400,000 readership daily plus their website. In addition to that, I and another contributer have cited numerous business journals and medical journals. Your point about Dr. Rosen being related to the owner is moot, since if you would read the studies they are NIH funded, with disclosures of their relationship, and are double blind. Some of the studies even show that FLS system did not work. See the stroke study for an example of that. Companies of all sizes and notability fund studies to test their products. If these are double blind, and published in a peer reviewed journal, they should not be discounted. This is how companies are able to innovate, find out what works and what doesn't, and plan for the future. This is exactly the type of discussion that wikipedians need to be a part of. Theovoice (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below it's a Pittsburgh company in a Pittsburgh paper - that's not coverage that really satisfies our standards. These aren't "my" standards they are the ones in Wikipedia's notablity guidelines. If it's actually notable it should be covered by other sources that are not so local. That doesn't just mean general newspapers - other independent coverage that takes a significant look at the company could also do the trick. But local newspapers do not really show anything other than local notability. -- SiobhanHansa 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with you on the local coverage issue. This is why I as well as another editor have included a multitude of other sources. I believe there are 21 citations now. It has been sufficently proven that this company is notable enough to have medical journals publish articles about them, newspapers run stories, Government agencies grant money to them. What more do you need? In terms of taking a sufficent look at the company, what is your definition of sufficent? No, the journals did not publish a front page article on them, but they did show multiple peer reviewed studies which use the systems provided by FLS. Again, the discussion should be morphed from "Should we delete this page?" to "How can we change it to fit wikipedias standards". I think you are being overly aggressive and negative in this pursuit of spreading knowledge. Theovoice (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see it as aggressive but when my posts to the article and talk page were reverted or ignored without significant improvement - and I could not find references I considered appropriate - I had few other avenues than to nominate for deletion. I would be happy to continue the discussion I started there before nominating Talk:Fox_Learning_Systems. This debate however normally last for five days and doesn't change focus. -- SiobhanHansa 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Zdubya36 comments in the discussion portion... i have never had to debate a deletion before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdubya36 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ammendment: I have added a new section to the Fox Learning Systems page about a medical study they conducted that was published in a the American Journal of Psychiatry this should please SiobhanHansa as it is not local nor a puff piece and published in a major medical journal. Included in the sitations are an article about the study and the study itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure the above comment with the IP is mine Zdubya36, i don't want anyone to think i was trying to use multiple users to get a point across... (i logged into a different computer but forgot to log into wikipedia before i posted)
These are much more compelling as evidence of notability. Thanks for adding them. -- SiobhanHansa 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a much closer look at the studies and can't find that they indicate notability. The one in a prestigious Journal (AJP) does not look at the effectiveness of FLS's product but at a quality improvement protocol of which their product happened to be a part - it may be that any training product would have been as effective - plus one of the studies author is Dr. Rosen - spouse of Debra Fox and co-founder of FLS. So not there's not even independence in it being picked to be part of the protocol. Other published studies are just well done product testing - and as yet there's no evidence in the article that the results have been particular influential. -- SiobhanHansa 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thorough assesment and help forming the page. I do still disagree with you in the merit of nobility but i believe you have put a fair effort into looking into the site as i feel you did not do before marking it for deletion. there will be many more things added to this site including people that have used the studies in their studies. another study about strokes that they have performed and some other information. About the studies... Fox Learning Systems headed all of these studies and hired all of those doctors for their research... which is why dr. rosen would be the author. I know this company is notable and as it stands i am more than willing to have someone judge it for deletion because it is a lot stronger than some of the content that currently lives on wikipedia and was unfairly marked for deletion. At this point i have provided more than enough evidence to its nobility and i am not trying to change your opinion at this point because i feel nothing would. but again thank you for helping form the site to wikipedias standards... please check back in and review the changes i will make in the next couple days... maybe i can change your mind[[Zdubya36 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete A nonnotable provider of educational material for nursing home staff. That people associated with it produced one product about which they wrotea paper which appeared in a peer review journal is not notability. Notability would be judged for this the same as for other research groups--dozens or hundreds of references to it. It is necessary to show wide use. DGG (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC) struck on the basis of JR's comments below. DGG (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you would read further you would see there are other studies in which they were involved... another of which is sited in their wikipedia site. Not only do they produce educational materials but also do independent studies to help the learners as well as the elder care community. This company did not produce a product based on their studies. They distributed this information to the industry. A peer review journal is notable. I once again go back to if "peer" review is not notable then anything published in JAMA is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have provided sufficient sitations to prove they are a note worthy company. They produce a widely distributed product. They are a multifacited company that works with/for large corporations. They perform their own studies which are sited in industry publications, and which their unique findings are used by other industries and companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.104 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Debra Fox. There seems to be a lot of ad-speak at this moment, but with or without it, I don't see the company's notability. Having a laundry list of notable clients doesn't make a business notable itself. --CliffC (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is notable in the elder-care industry. Not every business on wikipedia has worldwide exposure. The question should be "is the business notable in a certain industry?" The answer for Fox Learning Systems is YES! If you were familiar with the LTC industry, there would be no question as to the notability of this company. Moreover, the Post Gazette is a legitimate enough source to justify wikipedia's legitimacy requirments. The notion that it needs to be in a "national paper", of which there are only about 5, is completely ridiculous. I know there are not any requirements set in stone for what a reliable source is, but lets use common sense. The Post Gazette is the main newspaper for the Pittsburgh region, with over 400,000 readers on weekdays and over 600,000 on Sundays. Plus their website gets a significant number of hits. Theovoice (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)— Theovoice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue I have with the post-gazette isn't about whether it's a reliable source but about whether it helps meet our notability guidelines which says coverage should not simply be local. A Pittsburgh company whose newspaper coverage is only in Pittsburgh newspapers - that's looks like local coverage to me. The rest of what you say about the company may well be true - sources that verify it would be great. So far though we have local newspapers and studies by people connected with the company, press releases and a puff piece. -- SiobhanHansa 00:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will put up some industry sources soon to put the issue of notability to rest. Please take a look at the following wiki and tell me how it meets notability if FLS doesn't. My opinion is both of these pages should be kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viv%C3%ADsimo Both of these companies are notable in a certain industry. I know nothing about Search Enterprise software field, but I can see from their sources, which are some press releases and other technological journals, that they are notable. Theovoice (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Voice, WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid argument for inclusion. --CliffC (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Point taken. I have added two more LTC industry sources that cite grants being funded to FLS. If government agencies like the NIH and NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) find Fox Learning Systems notable enough to give large amounts of grant money, then so should wikipedia. When can we finally put this discussion to rest? Theovoice (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a legit and notable company. I have heard about Fox Learning Systems in many states across the nation and I've seen their videos throughout the medical community.BAT77 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)— BAT77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This is Jules Rosen M.D. jumping into this interesting conversation. As I do with any grant submission, publication, and presentation, I acknowledge my financial and personal interest in this company. As a absolute condition set by the University of Pittsburgh, I have NO access to raw data and do NOT participate in any data analysis in work that involves FLS. That said, I wish to point out that the unique presentation of FLS' educational material has impressed mental health educators nationally and continues to grow. Specifically, in an age when slide presentations (such as PowerPoint) are the standard bearer of education, FLS uses the technique of interactive documentary, similar to watching "60 Minutes", but learners engage with on-line questions and tests. An emotional connection with real-life patients, families, and clinicians knowledge and is consistent with the standard theories of adult learning. In terms of the national impact of FLS, the following faculty members of universities other than Pittsburgh have actively participated in the conduction of research or data analysis and are co-authors of peer-reviewed medical journals: Vikas Mittal PhD, Professor of Business and Marketing, Rice University; Benoit H. Mulsant MD, Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of Staff, CAMH, Toronto Canada; Martha L. Bruce PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; Robert C. Young, Professor of Psychiatry, Weill Mecical College, Cornell University. The Stroke Education project, recently funded by National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, involves Eric Lenze, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis; Michael Munin MD, Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of PIttsburgh; and Lawrence Wechsler MD, Professor and Acting Chair of Neurology and Director of the STroke Institute, University of Pittsburgh. I (Dr. Rosen) have no involvement in this study. We have corrected the initial posting that incorrectly cited a negative study on stroke education of FLS. That published negative study was actually the reason Drs. Lenze and Munin approached FLS. Using traditional classroom and video education in rehab, 1/3 of the stroke survivors had no idea what their risks factors were or what they could do to prevent a stroke. Finally, the National Institute of Mental Health approached FLS recently to develop a curriculum of late-life mental health education to attract physician, nurses, social workers, and psychologists to geriatric practices or research. The team of experts from around the country confirms the position FLS has on the national agenda of late-life mental health education. The key consultants working with FLS include: 1) Dilip V. Jeste, M.D. Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Director, Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging and Chief, Geriatric Psychiatry Division at UCSD/VA SD Healthcare System; 2) Patricia A. Arean Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry, UCSF; 3)Charles F. Reynolds III, M.D. Professor of Geriatric Psychiatry; and professor of neurology and neuroscience; Senior Associate Dean University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; 4) Cornelia Beck, PhD, RN, FAAN, Professor, Department of Geriatrics, and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Professor, College of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas 5)Richard Schulz, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Director of Gerontology, University of Pittsburgh and Director, Geriatric Education Center of Pennsylvania. Finally, the producer of the Late-life Education curriculum is Gregg Ramshaw, formerly the executive producer of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) for 28 years and the winner of a prestigious Peabody Award for television journalism. The unique blending of network television journalists and the national leaders in late-life mental health research and education positions FLS in a position of notable prominence. I apologize for the long-winded response, and look forward to further discussions. Jules Rosen MD 


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjo1127 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walk the Line (band)[edit]

Walk the Line (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band that seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Unsourced, thus failing WP:V. Google search returns many results, but seem to be either Johnny Cash tribute bands or a Finnish band called “I Walk the Line”. A search for “Walk the Line” AND “Tom Kearney” brings only 6 results, one of which [1] suggests part of the article is also a copyvio. Possible WP:COI judging by article creators username. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Aizik[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Moni Aizik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Weak assertion of notability backed up with dubious sources. 9Nak (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alexnia (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Time Company[edit]

Electric Time Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not establish the notability of Electric Time Company. It is poorly written as well. Wissembourg (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Just because it does not establish notability or it is poorly written does not certify deletion. Instead of putting it up for AFD, why not fix it instead? Poor argument put up by nominator. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the article could be rewritten. But is it worth it? The question is whether Electric Time Company occupies a notable place in the history of clock-making, or contemporary American manufacturing, or some other relevant category. Nothing that the article mentions (the size of the company's current facility, its date of foundation, the fact that it has been featured in a Boston magazine, etc.) indicates that this is the case. Wissembourg (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable to me, even if the notability is not well established as the article is currently written. Is certainly not advertising, and seems to meet the notability guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notable company as shown here [7]. With regards to the article itself, yes it needs a rewrite, which I will start on in the next couple of days, however, that is not a reason to bring to Afd. ShoesssS Talk 20:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "the fact that it has been featured in a Boston magazine" means that it passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs massive rewrite, but is otherwise fine. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely weak rationale. Nom even admits that the subject is notable. The article clearly has potential, and that is all that is necessary for the article to stay on this site. SashaNein (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:Talk page. Uncle G is right in that this discussion was not conducted in a very rigorous policy-based manner and I am therefore reluctant to find a well-reasoned "delete" consensus. But, frankly, most people here for one reason or another don't think that this is article-worthy, so the next best thing is a redirect, until a consensus to the contrary emerges.  Sandstein  18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

Talk page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Should be deleted per WP:ASR and WP:N. The sources do not give it enough coverage to write an encyclopedia topic about it, and some of the article is WP:OR. Boshinoi (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination; self-referencing and original research. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Wipe the history and just have it redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page. After reconsidering the article and looking up some of the references I find myself changing my !vote to Keep as it passes WP:RS and I feel the topic is notable beyond the WP:TALKPAGE wiki article. --Pmedema (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any rationale based upon our policies and guidelines for that action? You haven't given one. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for providing a rationale. Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page makes the most sense here. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: what else would a person be looking for when typing "talk page" into a search box, no? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • An encyclopaedia article about talk pages. Please explain, with reference to our policies and guidelines, why it is not possible to have one. A bullet-proof rationale based upon policy will make a convincing argument for the closing administrator to hang xyr hat on. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect...no strong preference either way. Doesn't deserve its own article. A wiki does not need a talkpage by nature, and it can be covered perfectly well in wiki and Mediawiki as appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk pages can also be covered in an article entitled talk page. It seems like a sensible title. So please explain how your notion of what "deserves" an article matches up with our policies and guidelines. It is not apparent. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WP:TALKPAGE. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? You, too, have provided no rationale. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has become a term beyond Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect per Verdatum, Mufka and Theseeker4. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one of them has given a rationale, and xe did so after you wrote that (in response to my request to xem for a rationale). What rationale do you propose for that action? Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Redirecting is a bad idea as it links external users to the backroom of the project. Wiki has the extra space required. MBisanz talk 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has become a significant concept and notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean that it satisfies the primary notability criterion? This is the closest that any editor has come to a proper rationale in this entire discussion. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't this just WP:TALKPAGE? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at this diff, the answer to that question is clearly "No.". Do you have another rationale? Please make a case that is firmly based upon our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost entirely original research/self-reference. No need to make any cross-namespace redirects. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither you nor the nominator have explained exactly how this is original research. And you both appear to not understand what a self-reference actually is. Please re-read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and learn what it is in fact aimed at. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is he does not meet the criteria for notability StarM 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Royer[edit]

Shannon Royer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as he has not been elected and is not a subject of significant coverage. Boffob (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is three hits of regular election coverage for a defeated candidate significant? Any candidate from a major party is bound to get some at the local level.--Boffob (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe he needs a wiki because he is very popular in West Chester, PA which merits a wiki in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rockyobody (talk • contribs)

  • Delete – does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Being covered in one's local newspaper as a candidate in a local election is par for the course, and not an indication of notability. ... discospinster talk 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Reviewing the guidelines for inclusion under both Politicians and/or the general Notability guidance have to say Mr. Royer just does not make it at this time. As it states; “…Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In reviewing Mr. Royer coverage, I do not see significant – independent coverage of the individual himself. Rather quotes concerning various subjects –topics or other matters. ShoesssS Talk 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - twice losing candidate for state house? Former Borough Councilman? Not notable.--HoboJones (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of boxing triple champions. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown of Boxing[edit]

Triple Crown of Boxing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no "triple crown of boxing." This term has been made up by the author of the page. MKil (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? This source:
    • "Boxing's Triple Crown Winners". Chicago Sun-Times. 1987-10-29. p. 128.
  • seems to indicate otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to follow the link but couldn't do so. Is there another way of providing the information?MKil (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
      • Well you have the name of the publication, the dateline, the (now correct) page number, and the article title, so there are plenty of avenues open for reading the article, including public library catalogues of that newspaper. Anyone suffering from FUTON bias can always put the article title into Google News Archive search. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed suffer from FUTON bias, but I've done a little more searching and I guess it's true that other people have used this term. So I'll amend my statement that the creator of the page made up the statement. However, looking around it seems the "triple crown of boxing" or "boxing's triple crown" is not used widely and is not a concept with a coherent definition. This page seems like original research to me. The basic concept is covered on the creator's list of boxing triple champions page.MKil (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established the usual way. No reason for an exception here. WilyD 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could you elaborate on how the subject's notability has been established in the usual way? I googled "boxing's triple crown" and "triple crown of boxing" and came back with barely anything. It hardly seems like there is significant coverage from reliable, independent sources as far as I can tell.MKil (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
Read the discussion before responding to it. Google is not the be all and end all. WilyD 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the discussion. In your mind does one newspaper article establish significant coverage?MKil (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
WP:N gives the jargon of significant as "more than trivial". An entire article devoted to a subject in a newspaper, magazine, journal, whatever is likely to be nontrivial (though this can vary - certainly I've seen 1-2 sentence "brief articles" in newspapers). So, per WP:N's jargon, yes. WilyD 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "sources address the subject directly in detail." It seems there are few sources that do this. And the one source I've seen that uses this term (an old Ring magazine I have from the late 1970s) simply uses the phrase and isn't describing anything concrete. There is no such thing as the triple crown in boxing as there is in horse racing.MKil (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
To elaborate, there is no such thing as "the triple crown of boxing" or "boxing's triple crown." It's a phrase that has been used a few times to refer to a fighter who has won a world title in three weight classes. Does a seldom-used phrase that describes a concept that already has a page on Wikipedia really need a separate entry?MKil (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information that is relevant is in the page List of boxing triple champions. Any reference to "Triple Crown of Boxing" should be there, it does not need a separate article; whether or not the term is notable it is not notable independent of the list. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-verifiable (no good secondary sources) apparently non-notable term that is not now now nor ever has been in widespread use.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of boxing triple champions and do not delete to preserve edit history under GFDL, as content from this article has been merged into that one. DHowell (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UcoZ[edit]

UcoZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing showing that it is notable in the US, nor Russia besides Alexa. I fail to see how this is anything but a typical free webhost. No citations, either. The only site I could find besides primary source was Alexa, which just details popularity. I did find some forums and yahoo answers, but that hardly counts as anything. DavidWS (contribs) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not the U.S. Wikipedia, neither is the Russian Wikipedia an encyclopaedia for Russians. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the Russian Wikipedia is the Russian language Wikipedia. Furthermore, notability is not fame nor importance. Please give a proper deletion rationale that is actually based upon our policies and guidelines, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination and User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Please show what work you did to find sources. Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, I updated the rationale to better explain what I meant, I suppose. DavidWS (contribs) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep demonstrated popularity suggests there're other sources out there - unsurprisingly, uk & ru show another. This isn't an American encyclopaedia; I'm not an American - that argument is a nonstarter. WilyD 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found the following on the AfD talk page; it belongs here:

1. UcoZ is not a typical free webhost but a hosted CMS. Among the vendors of this SaaS class, presented in Wikipedia, are Bravenet, Freewebs and other.

2. This article has appeared in the English language Wikipedia because UcoZ is multilingual. Russian language was the first to be introduced and that's why it is more popular. At this moment UcoZ is a finalist of the most popular award in the Russian language Internet - premiaruneta.ru.

3. UcoZ is gaining popularity in the English language Internet very fast ( [9] ). By means of this article Wikipedia presents one of the leading services of this information technology (SaaS).

Please, don't delete this article. I'll improve it if necessary.

Meskalyto (talk) 14:52, 6 November 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  18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Popularity, or even relevance to the English language internet is not a requirement for inclusion in the English language Wikipedia. If a company is notable, it doesn't matter what language they use or what country they are in. However, I am not sure the article properly establishes notability. I would vote for now to keep but to re-nominate for deletion if the article does not establish notability within a matter of a few months. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stains (Los Angeles)[edit]

The Stains (Los Angeles) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable no-band. Damiens.rf 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, possibly speedy. A quick google search showed a number of bands, none of which seemed to be this band, other than Wikipedia hits. Seems to fail notability entirely. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this article appears to have had attention from multiple users over a period of two years makes me suspect the band may be more notable than this article suggests. Difficult to tell with Google because of two other bands that have the same name. However, until either someone asserts notability or gives a good reason why this band can be presumed notable, Weak Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon[edit]

List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial list; also unreferenced, and no evidence of notability. We group films by various means: by director (Alfred Hitchcock filmography), by actor (Buster Keaton filmography), by theme (List of films about animals), by country (List of Japanese films), and so forth. That sort of classification is useful, interesting, and treated in scholarly works. This, however, is not: that some film happened to play at some obscure film marathon is not a defining characteristic of that film, it is of no interest to third parties, and maintaining a record of it only serves to clutter up the project. Biruitorul Talk 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is hardly trivial. Rather, it is a means of detailing the various films that have played at this unique festival. Previous complaints focused on the fact that WP's has a policy that such lists not be included in main articles. I feel that this is a good compromise. The creation of a separate list article does not clutter up the project; rather, it provides further details that would be of interest to anyone wishing to know more about the type of films played at this festival. Bobomejor (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every festival is unique; that does not justify lists of films that have played at every festival. One can get a sense of the type of films played there from this paragraph, but the level of detail here is excessive and unwarranted. Biruitorul Talk 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As each festival is unique, so is each organization in the world, yet WP allows a list such as List_of_Eagle_Scouts_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) which seems equally trivial to those not interested in the organization. Is that list allowed to exist on WP only because the individuals are notable? Are the individual people noted in a list inherently more important than individual films noted in this list? The level of detail provided in the Eagle Scouts listing seems equally excessive and that if each individual listed has an entry on WP then their membership in Eagle Scouts can be listed on their individual entry page. Eagle Scouts of note can simply be mentioned at the Eagle_Scout_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) entry. Achieving Eagle Scout status is noted under "Award Winners" in the categories, but it does bring up the question of what awards are necessarily worthwhile of compiling a list over. One might receive "Employee Of The Month" at their place of work, but such a list would indeed be deemed trivial (and would be so since it has little or no cultural relevance) for WP. However, in that the Butt-Numb-A-Thon has premiered films of note that are part of larger cultural landscape, it certainly seems worthwhile to provide context for a film's premier, including what other films were associated with a particular premier as part of a larger context. The list of films provided here do need citations, but deleting the list quickly does not actually allow for those that would like to research citations the information necessary to do the research if they do not already have the list on hand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Badedukation (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 November 2008
Agreed with the above, unsigned poster. Previously, the main complaint was that the list made the original Butt-Numb-A-Thon article too lengthy. Per WP's list policy, this list was made as a compromise and a means of detailing the films played at the festival. Over time, citations will be added to strengthen the article; however, it's worth is inherent. Film festivals like the Sundance Film Festival have lists of all the films that played there each year (i.e List_of_films_at_the_2008_Sundance_Film_Festival). I fail to see how this list is "excessive and unwarranted," when the complete lists for each year of the Sundance Film Festival take up multiple articles; the list of Butt-Numb-A-Thon films is tiny compared to those.
This list should be kept in the spirit of those lists. You can argue that Butt-Numb-A-Thon is obscure, but that's your opinion. The fact that several films have had their first real audience screening there (i.e. The Passion of the Christ and the still-unreleased Trick 'r Treat) make it relevant. It's in WP's interest to keep this list and allow it to flourish. Citations and form can and will be improved. Bobomejor (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - one of my biggest frustrations with Wikipedia is that poorly-maintained pages exist for months with no action taken, yet pages with 'potential' like this one, wikified extensively, are cut down as soon as they appear. Aside from the absurdly POV suggestion that this festival is 'obscure' - the list of films that received premieres there suggest otherwise - I would suggest that the page is a few citations away from being an excellent example of a list page. I agree fully that this information should stay away from the main Butt-numb-a-thon page, though. Hammer15 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without going off on tangents, could you please try to square this list with WP:V, WP:N, WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA? -- Biruitorul Talk 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I have to agree with Hammer. This list has already received attention, as a similar list previously was part of the article, until Biruitorul deleted it multiple times (much to the chagrin of other users who felt it was relevant). As such, it's obviously relevant and of general interest to the community. If it were the only film festival on WP to have a list of films shown therein, that'd be one thing. But, as I mentioned before, the Sundance Film Festival has individual list articles several years back. That sets a precedent that Butt-Numb-A-Thon should be allowed to follow. The specifics of the list can be updated to be more in line with WP:LIST, assuming it's allowed to flourish and remain active. The actual films shown can be fully verified to comply with WP:V and notability, as we've discussed, with pretty subjective. I have no hard feelings toward Biruitorul, but a quick look at the Butt-Numb-A-Thon article history appears to show a lack of compassion for editors who just want to make good-faith edits and allow the article to grow over time. I don't understand that need to constantly undo the changes that others in the community find beneficial.
If the major complaint with the list appearing on the main Butt-Numb-A-Thon article is that it was making it too long or tacked on, this separate list is a perfectly justifiable solution. In WP:LIST it reads, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Indeed, this list exists as an information source for the films that played at very unique festival consisting of 24-consecutive hours of films. Those films selected are just as much of the experience because many are not readily available any where else, or are considered to intense for most audiences (i.e. rare viewings of the Italian film Addio Zio Tom and the yet-to-be-released torture porn film The Poughkeepsie Tapes). As far as WP:TRIVIA, the guidelines state that "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." The whole point of this separate list article is to do just that: "To provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions" so those reading, investigating or researching this unique festival have a complete understanding of the films that played during those intense, 24-hour film watching sessions." Again, I fail to see Biruitorul's seeming obsession with quelling the growth of this article and the Butt-Numb-A-Thon main article, but I feel it is hindering what could be quite a valuable, fully cited, informational and interesting addition to the community. Bobomejor (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sundance lists are bad precedent, and should also go at some point. Anyway, this AfD is a nice exercise: notwithstanding WP:CCC, it will help settle the issue for the foreseeable future. Biruitorul Talk 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for expansion. Having this information in one concise article improves Wiki... and Wiki has not run out of paper yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 11:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no objection against re-creation once it has been released and meets the relevant criteria StarM 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Symmetry (song)[edit]

Perfect Symmetry (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song hasn't been released yet, only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article in current state is not good enough. Recreate when more sources pop up or when the song is actually released. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It takes just as much time to add sources as it does to criticise. In fact, I'm adding one now. Notable song by notable band. U-Mos (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -from WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not merit an article" and "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." - this hasn't even been released, the only source is the band's website. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear disadvantage is given for almost non-US based bands, since it appears Grammys and MTV Awards are only notable for you. "Somewhere Only We Know" has won no award and that doesn't mean it is not notable. Your non-notability claims are absolutely irrelevant. Also, as per U-Mos.--Fluence (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the reason it hasn't won any awards is because it hasn't been released yet? Once it is released and it charts or wins something, I am pretty sure everyone here would say "keep", but that isn't the case right now. We ditch US song articles every day for the exact same reasons. Perhaps you should assume good faith. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 08:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has a source for release but that doesn't make it notable. Not an anticipated album, not notable, just another single that is supposed to get released. Perhaps recreate if it actually charts. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:MUSIC#Songs you're falling in a contradiction since WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply anymore. It has been officially announced.--Fluence (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not in a contridiction. I knew it didn't fail wp:crystal and said "it has a source for release". Perhaps you mean this comment for someone else? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue Mountains articles[edit]

List of Blue Mountains articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Moved from MFD on behalf of nominator. Listed reasoning was "This article seems to have all the information in it that the category also has and has very low traffic statistics compared to other Blue Mountains articles which make this list useless." GlassCobra 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – At first I was going to agree with the original author and his/her rational for asking for the deletion. However, after reviewing the page, looking at the links and pondering the merit of such a piece, I found myself typing out “K-E-E-P”. The article/list does provide a one-stop shop for investigating all the articles here on Wikipedia, concerning the Blue Mountains. This, in and of itself is a great research tool. In reviewing the articles linked to this page, or vise-a-versa depending on your viewpoint, I found none that contained all the pieces referenced here. In that light, I find the piece informative – intellectual - and a great research tool. What more can we ask of a list? ShoesssS Talk 18:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is what categories are for. Hesperian 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category Category:Blue Mountains, New South Wales is a more appropriate association of articles. WWGB (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep In its current alphabetical form it offers nothing different to that of a category. I can see some potential in creating a list of articles about a region where the list gives some depth/width to the information that the article cant. To achieve such depth/width the presentation of the information needs to be reconsidered, breaking the information in to sections, on places, on people, on events, natural features and politics. Someone like Gregory Blaxland could be listed with William Wentworth, William Lawson, George Evans (explorer) in a section that lists explorers of the region. At the very least if the list is retained it should be sense checked just writing this comment theres two explorers not listed and Wollemia isnt listed though the National Park where the only natural specimens exist is. Gnangarra 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list is comprehensive. The Category only has 29 articles, while the list has just about all, ie about 70. Sardaka (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of Blue Mountains localities (going with localities as there are both suburbs and towns) and make it more like List of Central Coast, New South Wales suburbs. We can still keep the pic, articles not about localities could be removed. Orderinchaos 08:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the title "List of BM Localities" isn't logical, because it's a list of articles, not localities, which isn't the same thing. Deleting articles not on localities is pointless because it would gut the list and make it much less helpful.Sardaka (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Air (album)[edit]

In the Air (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This non-notable album from a non-notable band was never released by a notable (neither non-notable) label. Damiens.rf 18:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. See the band's AfD. Might you want to move this (and the other album) directly under the band's original AfD? DARTH PANDAduel 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I've Ever Wanted to Say (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
All I've Ever Wanted to Say (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This non-notable album from a non-notable band was never released by a notable (neither non-notable) label. Damiens.rf 18:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventeen (band)[edit]

Eleventeen (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, never covered by the media, never released by a label, never made a video, should never have an Wikipedia article. Damiens.rf 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Is it enough that they have some of their songs on a video game? Confirmed - they are on the "Amped 2" game. I don't think it's enough personally. --Pmedema (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources could be found either on Google News, Book, or Search. In addition, fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:MUSIC in no particular order. Having music in a video game is not enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. DARTH PANDAduel 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to James I[edit]

Line of succession to James I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic article, see talk. PatGallacher (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent where we deleted a similar article recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to Henry VIII. PatGallacher (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see a merge was suggested on the talk page--perhaps that might be a good idea. DGG (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean by a merge. To my mind that could mean copying most of the content of this article into the main James I article, which I would oppose. I am not in princple against the James I article saying something about the succession to him at some points during this reign, but I question whether there should be a list of anything like this length, since you get into problems with e.g. accuracy, original research, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When we had the similar discussion before with Henry VIII the "merge" option was considered but replaced by a straight "delete". PatGallacher (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and legitimate set index article. Needs sources, though. --Elliskev 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, "possible successor of..." may not be a legitimate type. So, no preference --Elliskev 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look, I don't think this is a set index article. As you say, needs sources, but I doubt if you can find sources to back this article up. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think I was stretching a bit with the "set index" thing. --Elliskev 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on deletion or not, but if this is kept, it should specify "James VI of Scotland": concentrating rather on Scottish succession than to the English throne. But anyway, "James I" could refer to at least eight different guys, so we need to specify which one he is. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and Rename line of succession to the Scottish throne per line of succession to the British throne--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not the same as line of succession to the Scottish throne - this article simply claims to show who the heirs of James I/VI were upon his death. You'd have to have one such list for every monarch, and it strikes me as a pretty indiscriminate collection of information, as well as being hard to source and verify. The succession to the Scottish throne is covered by the list of Scottish monarchs down to 1688 (as the two kingdoms were separate but in personal union after the accession of James I in 1603); latterly, the articles on Jacobitism cover the putative de jure successors, while those for English and British monarchs cover the de facto line. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 5 November 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  18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As AlexT correctly points out, this isn't a line of descendants, but rather the names of 15 persons who were alive at the time of a particular monarch's death. King Charles I did succeed to the throne, and if he had not been able to serve at that time, there was his sister, followed by her six children. I'm not sure where the others come in, but this became a moot point after Charles I started siring children. The American equivalent is to note that the Secretary of ______ would become acting president if ___ other people died in a common event. Absent a "King Ralph" type of disaster, being third or beyond in line isn't of even academic interest. If one wants to mention, in the article about Prince Maurice von Simmern that he was 6th in line in 1625, that's a somewhat interesting bit of trivia. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination[edit]

Straw polls for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Parent article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election (2nd nomination). Both articles suffer from WP:SYNTH with the republican article also suffering from WP:COATRACK. Neither article presents reliable sources that explain how these particular presentations of the data are noteworthy. I don't know if they can be speedied per the original AFD, but I thought I should list them here just in case. Burzmali (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per the arguments at the AfD for the parent article. Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, these are not "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact". JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete both: Was always a WP:COATRACK with dubious criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No prejudice against separate re-nomination.. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babs and Buster Bunny[edit]

Babs and Buster Bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Gogo Dodo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Concord Condor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Byron Basset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bookworm (Tiny Toon Adventures) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barky Marky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mary Melody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plucky Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hamton J. Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montana Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elmyra Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dizzy Devil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Furrball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable characters, no out-of-universe info, too many fair use images and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the above noted reasons. I would be open, however, to merging all of these into a "characters of" article. Trusilver 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just merge all Tiny Toon characters into Tiny Toon Adventures. If the article gets too large, just make a "List of characters in Tiny Toon Adventures". Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how is that an argument against merging what there is to merge? DGG (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a point. Most of these articles have at most, one paragraph of useful information about the character. The rest is just original research, speculation, and personal opinion passing off as fact. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject nomination altogether as invalid group nomination Nominator, please see [10] This was a non consensus keep that closed yesterday, with 2 keep, 2 merge, and nobody but the nom. saying delete. Is renominating this just carelessness? I point out that "too many fair use images" is not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for discussing the images. similarly inclusion of trivia is not a reason for deletion, but a reason for discussing the content. Most important, these are characters of different importance, so it is not a vlid group nomination. Bookworm is a supporting character; Babs and Buster are the stars. DGG (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh noes! Keep in mind that you're just referencing one recently-AFD article. Not that I don't disagree on everything else, though. MuZemike (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into a characters of list, where everything can be verified properly. I also echo DGG that a crapload of fair use images is not a reason for deletion, while the trivia is a copyediting issue. However, once that's all said and done, I believe that there wouldn't be much left, unless someone is willing to spend the time and expand the article properly, at which point the characters can be spun back out if needed. MuZemike (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject nomination, but Keep and Merge if AfD continues: Reject grouping of list of characters per DGG. Marquee characters (those specifically mentioned in show's theme song) lumped together with supporting characters needs to be discussed independently. Keep characters listed under "Major characters" in Tiny Toon Adventures. Merge those listed as "Supporting characters". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into List These should be moved into a "characters of" list as per MuZemike. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- these articles are badly sourced, consist of too much fan speculation and are way too long per WP:WEIGHT. I'd support a merge, but note that these characters are already covered in sufficient and appropriate detail at Tiny Toon Adventures so there would be nothing left for a merge to accomplish. I say delete, and then reinstate them as redirects to Tiny Toon Adventures. Reyk YO! 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close as improper group nomination. As indicated above at least one of the articles passed AFD with a Keep decision TODAY. No prejudice against separate renomination, but the fact at least one has passed AFD recent renders the entire nomination null and void, and this should be tried again. 23skidoo (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ah yes, because addressing each character individually and being left with half getting deleted and the other half remaining would be soooooooooooo much more intelligent. The idea of closing this and doing this piecemeal is ridiculous. Trusilver 07:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tiny Toon Adventures or a character list. In-universe style and excessive fair-use images are not reasons for deletion in and of themselves. Since few or no sources are likely available to verify any out-of-universe relevance, these articles should not stand alone. While Tiny Toon Adventures itself has made an impact outside its fictional universe, its individual characters likely have not. Excessive fair use merits removal of the offending media, not deletion of the article. (If this AfD is closed on procedural grounds, it won't bother me in the least bit.) szyslak (t) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I've just reverted the re-direct of Dizzy Devil, the AfD is active and it should not be re-directed during the AfD. Let there be consensus first to merge before that's done. I am not, however, going to edit war over it StarM 19:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete all - None of these establish any sort of notability. These are very simple cartoon characters, so merging them to a list is unnecessary. They have very basic personalities that can be described in a sentence or two. Any further information is just junk. TTN (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
care to explain why simple characters cant have much written about them? or why any further information must inherently be junk? or why the study of cartoons can not be a valid academic study, or, more important, even if you personally think it is not, why that proves conclusively that everyone else things it's worthless also? clear case of IDONTLIKEIT. as it happens, I don't think all that highly of the genre either, but then I probably dislike most of the fiction with wp articles--which is different from disliking that there should be articles on them. DGG (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're simple; that's really all there is in this case. Anything else is either going to be original research (much of these articles), unnecessary plot summary that can be found within the episode list, or other completely unnecessary junk. It's not like it's going to be the same with every character in existence, but most common children's cartoon characters are not going to require much space at all. Bugs Bunny is also just a simple as these characters, but it obviously has real world importance to require more than a basic description. TTN (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close - most all of these are likely search terms, and could be redirected to the main TT article without requiring an AFD per WP:BEFORE. Neier (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Tiny Toons article and trim the excessive fictional overview. Surely they belong on here somewhere, but if Buster and Babs aren't notable enough to have their own article, none of the others would be; and B&B are not discussed as characters as much as Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck or any other truely notable cartoon character. A list of Tiny Toons characters might also be considered, though it would have to be shown that the characters as a bundle are notable. This is what special interest fan-based wiki's are for. Themfromspace (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete these pages for main characters, you could delete the minor characters, just don't delete the main, because there's a ton of information. Cartoonbook (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep all And clean-up as needed. I was ready to suggest create a list article as merging to Tiny Toon Adventures is rather pointless as that article is already huge. But then I looked at the articles themselves. They are reasonably well-written and organized, they come off as somewhat encyclopedic needing no huge amount of work that a bit of regular editing won't cover. The characters are enlivened by experienced voice actors who are notable and the series itself is notable, many of these are the main characters of the series as well. All the content seems to be coherent and non-sensational so I assume good faith it is source-able to the original episodes. I guess I'm not seeing why Wikipedia is somehow worse off for having this content. In fact, I think we're handling it pretty well and this is exactly where Wikipedia excels. Do I care one tittle about Babs and Buster Bunny? Not terribly. But some of our readers do - just as some are absolutely absorbed by distant stars, every episode of the Simpsons and any number of animals I've also never heard of. And for those who seek knowledge Wikipedia has a generally good article to help explain the subject and step the reader into greater understanding. Leave the menagerie of critters be and let's encourage the editors to expand the horizons of the articles so our readers can truly benefit from what we have to offer. -- Banjeboi 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Isn't Tiny Toon Adventures one of several related series, so that some of its characters also appear on Animaniacs? Elmyra is also a main character of the crossover Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain and currently, her article includes information about that show (including the existence of Rudy, Elmyra's "crush" throughout it) that I find important to it, but that its own article does not include (though I would like to add it, and List of Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain episodes includes some but not all of it). The section about the Duffs might also describe a planned but not realized spinoff. Other TTA characters also appear in a spinoff with its own article, The Plucky Duck Show, though I don't know to what extent that is considered separate from TTA. --Kletta (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a characters list, but possibly keep separate the articles on the most important characters. Everyking (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all and trout slap the nominator for not doing a reasonable search for sources, nor discussing the possibility of a merge, before running straight to AfD. Babs & Buster, at least, are covered in the book Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation. Coverage for all these characters can be probably be found in sources as well, but five days is not enough time to research all of them. DHowell (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per reasons mostly covered above. - jc37 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least some of the characters are notable; please renominate those that aren't separately. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into a list of characters. Perhaps individually falling below the bar for notability, but there's not really a good reason to eliminate the information altogether. Individual entries can be spun back out of the list with the procurement of good sources, which I am certain exist for at least a few of these characters. Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Tiny Toon Adventures. McWomble (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles include lots of useful info. The original research is very good and will eventually have references. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David and the Giants (album)[edit]

David and the Giants (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN album from barely notable band. Recreation of previously deleted material via {{prod}} by WP:COI author. See related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Or Hell Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under G4, recreation of previously deleted article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussions on merging can, as usual, be carried out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei)[edit]

Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Look at Japanese diaspora, Issei, Nisei, Sansei and compare with each other. This nominated article is absolutely "redundant" because the content is just copy/paste from other related articles:Isei, Nisei, Sansei. The article has no difference from them except the numbering in title. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary to denote literal meanings of some word. Sansei also should be in consideration for merging with Japanese diaspora or Nisei as well because of the same reason.

I propose this AFD here instead of merger because I'm afraid that I can discuss with Tenmei (talk · contribs) who has written some inappropriate rants to the talk page of the article in question. Edit wars at Nisei[11][12] and WP:OWNERSHIP issues[13][14][15] as well as some unpleasant history are all in consideration. He resents that I made Yonsei back to WP:DAB page, but just google the term. Most of entries are related to Yonsei University. Of course, I did some research with time. Yale, Harvard, and Todai, Waseda redirect their pertaining article, and those have separate DAB page just like Yale (disambiguation). However, instead of redirecting Yonsei to Yonsei University just like the examples, I chose to back to Yonsei to the original DAB page. Since Yonsei University is dominantly found in web and I was convinced that the move of Yonsei, the fourth generation of Japanese-American was a due course regardless of the poor article status. Issei, nisei are dealt significantly in history of immigration because of some relevance with WW2 but not Yonsei which is just mentioned to denote the "literal meanings" in spuriously provided sources to the article (just check them). I would not be surprised even if "Gosei" (fifth generation) and "Rokusei" (sixth generation) would be created sooner or later per such track which should not happen though. Also look around other articles related to diaspora, there is no such article divided by generation. With the reasons, Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) and Sansei do not need to have its "separate article".--Caspian blue 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: I think that Yonsei should remain as a separate article because of generational, cultural, and other differences with Issei, Nisei, and Sansei. Most Yonsei are now in their 20s, 30s, and 40s so the time is right to develop an article. I do agree, however, that the article requires editing and additional information pertaining specifically to Yonsei. Perhaps, for example, someone could add intermarriage percentages for Yonsei. I believe that some people will not intuitively go to the Japanese diaspora article to find Yonsei. Keeping the articles separate will retain multiple entryways and thereby increase the number of people who are able access the information for Yonsei and for the various links within the article. I also believe that combining Yonsei and Nisei will blur the distinction between the two terms. Yonsei are separate and not a subset of Nisei.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DA19 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-12T05:35:34 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasoning articulated by DA19.
The ambit of this article encompasses bibliographic references, in-line citations and a table which clarifies the generational relationships in related emigrant/immigrant terms. At present, the article also identifies internal links to articles about illustrative exemplars of notability:
Shortcut
In this context, the unclear rationale which informs this AfD thread continues to elude me. The stricken sentence was a polite fiction; and that kind of conventional courtesy has no real place here.
It is exceedingly plain that Caspian blue is trying to make a point, flaunting the ineffective niceties of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's just not clear what that point is supposed to be? What does continue to elude me is this: What, if anything, could have been addressed more constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that DA19 is the creator of the article, and Tenmei (talk · contribs) is the one who just copied and pasted the same contents including a non-PD poem[19] for purely a decorative purpose or an attempt to prevent the article from deletion. Sansei, and Yonsei had the "bogus inter wikis" inserted by Tenmei (talk · contribs)[20][21] all of which do not even have articles at Japanese Wikipedia unlike Tenmei's insistence for the article's importance. The latter individual should remind especially No Personal Attack and WP:DISRUPTION because of his various inappropriate behaviors to related pages. People are here to discuss the issue not come to feel irritation and fatigue. The article is as pointed out, redundant. The notable people's list does not justify why the article should be kept, just like the unexplained poem's existence. The authors would better explain what is the role of the articles.--Caspian blue 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded that Caspian blue's concerns have not been framed in a manner which can be addressed; however, Wikipedia:Notability identifies a more easily approached set of issues. The mere fact that book publishers consider Issei, Nisei, Sansei and Yonsei as independent, worthy, and potentially profit-making subjects for publication becomes sufficient in satisfying the very minimal wiki-standards of notability. The further fact that academic or scholarly journals have published articles about the Japanese Brazilian, Japanese American, Japanese Canadian, and Japanese Peruvian and other Issei, Nisei, Sansei and Yonsei becomes an additional demonstration of wiki-notability.
My modest intentions here are not focused on bringing this initial text to "Featured Article" status. I'm glad to leave that hard work to others who may contribute to this article in the months and years ahead. My narrowly-focused objective at this point is simply to assist in constructing an adequate first-draft foundation from which others can feel comfortable building.
Re: Cut-and-paste -- The following struck-out sentences were posted briefly, then edited-out at the same moment Caspian blue was posting the comment below. In part, Caspian blue was responding to this text; and when I discovered the edit conflict, it should have been promptly restored. I didn't recognize that this was needed until after several re-readings. --Tenmei (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To that end, I did use-cut-and-paste in modifying DA19 work; and this seems so obvious that I wonder why it's even mentioned by Caspian blue in this thread. I admit freely that I used text from Issei, Nissei, and Sansei as something of a boilerplate overlay. My plan was to replicate a structural format which would organizationally link the corollary articles; and I know of no wiki-prohibitions which would have or should have discouraged this practice.
In fact, to a large extent, I applied a similar boilerplate strategy in populating the extended array of articles at List of Emperors of Japan and at Japanese era names; and I fine-tuned this strategy in articles about the Canadian Pacific Steamships fleet. The fact-of-the-matter is that this is a variant wiki-hoax. There is not now nor was there ever any arguable basis for nominating this article for deletion. The conspicuous absence of Caspian blue from any talk page thread which discussed perceived problems in Yonsei before it was arbitrarily re-named is telling. That this AfD thread was initiated as an afterthought is revealing. The functional purpose of this thread is disruptive -- nothing more.
The oblique purpose of this thread is to distract attention from yet another variant wiki-hoax contrived by Caspian blue at Yonsei. Structure and substance are at times arguably conflated, but I don't see how this accounts for the escalating, accusatory tenor of Caspian blue's language. Bluntly -- succinctly: These are wrongly chosen venues for an unhelpful proxy dispute with dimensions of Korean and Japanese nationalism.
Caveat lector. --Tenmei (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Tenmei (talk · contribs) keep failing to address that why the individual articles about Sansei and Yonsei are important and should be kept being separated from Nisei or Japanese diaspora. If this subject is notable, how so? You're only resorting to personal attacks which are so pathetic attempts but very familiar. We've seen that Tenmei (talk · contribs)'s usual way of communication are as such: can't stop himself being disruptive. The subject and approach of List of Emperors of Japan and Japanese era names and the funny ambition are totally irrelevant to the subject in question. We're talking about the current article based on possible potentials and notability, but I don't see any of them from the article nor your insistence. Please provide propable "logic" instead of your usual tactic: resorting "personal attacks" and rambling. I checked your sources which only just briefly mention about the meaning of "Yonsei". If the term is so important, you should've addressed Yonsei's demography, population, roles, legacy, relation with Japan or their parent generation in American or Australian societies, but there is none except overlapped contents with Nisei. That's why I call the article "redundant". I know you want to make this like a battle between Korea and Japanese nationalism per your disruptive AFDs stemmed from your Ownership issues just about two months ago. However, you already edit warred with another user for the same matter questioned as this and you failed to answer his question just like this time. So why don't you bring some "logic" if you have any (I doubt though).--Caspian blue 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally I'd work on the article before !voting, but this is such a big subject, and the article is in such disarray, that I'll just add a few sources. The sourcing I found showed that this generation is the subject of books and chapters from university presses. The subject is notable, the article needs work. Lots of work. This is no reason to delete it, but to work on it. Dekkappai (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Dekka, good to see you again. I seldom see you only when some AFD brings your attention. However, there are sources that are not used to the article (most of them just mention about the meaning briefly though). I know that you're attached to Japanese culture from your background, but still I don't see any evidence from your assertion that the subject is notable enough to have its own article. The content is just duplication except a few since its creation for months. At least Sansei is featured in dictionary, yonsei is not although the article of Sansei is poor in status. Can you tell me your reason more clearly? Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Caspian, good to see you too. Obviously the yonsei are a younger generation with less literature on them than the issei & nisei, but already a quick search showed that there are already university writings on the subject... Our feelings for or against the subject are irrelevant. I don't assert on my own that the subject is notable-- the fact that the subject is covered in multiple reliable sources indicates it's notable. Hopefully someone who has access to those sources can use them to expand and improve the article. (Though I don't think it should be deleted, the subject doesn't really interest me enough to do much work on it. So I'll bow out now. Regards.) Dekkappai (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the fact that most of them are just addressing "literal meanings" unlike Baby boomers. Before I nominated this article for deletion, I did look through diaspora articles, but there is no such "detailed" division by generation in minority. The article has "developed" (actually just copying-pasting) for over 3 or 4 months, but still I don't see anything difference from Issei, Nissei.--Caspian blue 04:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to make sure the sources to which I'm referring don't get ignored in the on-going discussion:

I don't have access to either, but both appear to be university press, significant coverage of the subject. To me, that equals notability, and I believe Wikipedia policy agrees with me here (if few places else :-) Dekkappai (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep. Here's over 600 books (all searchable online) that may help. AfD is not clean-up even if there is content disputes or more complex article and project organization issues at hand. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a particularly accurate count. Even on the first page of that Google result, you see references to Yonsei Medical Journal. A lot of search results refer to Yonsei University simply by the word Yonsei or Yonsei U or Yonsei Univ, or they refer to terms related to Yonsei University, like Yonsei Medical Journal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we can be assured that out of those 600+ at least a handful are quite helpful to showing sources exist. -- Banjeboi 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To more constructively address noms concerns, I suggest transcluding a discussion on the various article talkpages how to clearly show some of the unique characteristics that have been attributed to each generation. If a handy template linking the articles doesn't yet exist that may also be helpful for the average reader to point out the parent article(s) and the various offshoots and break-outs. -- Banjeboi 13:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Right-- over 600 books that mention or discuss the yonsei generation. That's including two university works-- one chapter and one book-- specifically on the yonsei generation. I don't want to speculate here as to the reasons behind this AfD, but it seems to have been instigated by a content/disambiguation dispute, as well as a long-standing editor conflict. Needless to say, neither of these is at all reason to bring an article to AfD, much less to delete it. Dekkappai (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject itself is only notable within the context of the subject of Japanese Americans and the Japanese diaspora, both of which have articles of their own already. Though there are plenty of sources about Japanese Americans, Japanese immigration and diaspora, etc., I can't find any sources on the subject of Yonsei itself - at the very most, it is written about together with the Sansei generation - which makes sense, because Sansei and Yonsei are basically post-WW2 Japanese American generations and they share the same characteristics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hong, you had a chance here to prove my evaluation of your motives in the Japan-related articles wrong, and you blew it, naturally. "...Sansei and Yonsei are basically post-WW2 Japanese American generations and they share the same characteristics."... oh yeah, and you tried to erase the Nisei article too... Your analysis of this generation of Japanese-Americans, while of interest to you, is of no use to Wikipedia. We go by experts in the subject and the sourcing they produce. And the sourcing shows, overwhelmingly, that the subject is notable. Now, about that speculation as to the reason behind this AfD-- and Chinese and Korean editors' recent efforts to erase Japanese-American topics: Here is the reason: racism. I use that word carefully and with considerable thought. There are reasons (but NOT excuses) for you China- and Korea-related editors to have a bias against Japan. That is understandable, but still NOT to be tolerated here at Wikipedia. But for you to carry this hatred on to Japanese-Americans-- descendants of people who came here before WWII, and who fought on YOUR side-- that is RACISM. Caspian, consider our cooperation on Korea-related articles finished. I have long tried to believe you were just a "normal" Korean nationalis/Japan-hater. But this AfD, and your marshelling in the Chinese brigade proves my assumption of good faith to be totally wrong. Dekkappai (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Dekkappai, please calm down. The nomination on the "duplicated poor" article is equal to mean "Anti-Japanese" marshelling? As I said, I don't agree with your assessment on CJK subjects and users. That is your long-term BIAS. Rather, your right above comment is just personal attacks based on RACISM. I know you've been conflicting with Hong over numerous AFDs for Japanese porn stars. However, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia providing "useful info" to readers. A funny thing is that as you're well aware of that, 2channel Japanese people often call you "anti-Japanese American" degrading overall images of Japan with useless obscene articles." So point of view is depending on people. It is regretful to reconfirm that you're not neutral in this and are confusing the issue in question with your own problem. If I were the author of the article, I would add some to prove that the article is important enough to have its own article not just adding "unused sources" or would not waste time attacking the nominator. The only reason I let "one person" (unlike Tenmei) know of this is he was disputing with the author for the same reason I have in mind about the "duplicated articles". Please don't drag your problems with Hong into here and I wish you retract the incivility and personal attacks here.--Caspian blue 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue -- Just wondering if you're sure you don't want to pull back a little bit? Maybe you might have over-reached? Maybe a modest degree of restraint would better serve? --Tenmei (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Tentative invitation to think again is withdrawn. Plausible outreach is unlikely to be construed as constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dekkappai - hey look, I admire some of the editing you do on WP, but you are way off base here with your accusation of racism. But I'm not going to diverge the discussion with some drawn-out explanation and argument about why you're wrong. It's irrelevant to this AfD. So let's discuss the merit of my argument instead. I never said the subject matter is not notable. I said it is only notable within the context of the subject of Japanese Americans and the Japanese diaspora, both of which already have their own articles. If not a deletion of this article, then at least Sansei and Yonsei ought to share one article. Seriously, I challenge anyone to find published sources that highlight a substantial difference between the Sansei and Yonsei generations. Regarding the article for Nisei - I don't think the article ought to be deleted. I only think it should be renamed and retooled to become an article about Japanese American involvement in the US military in WW2. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Qi Gong -- Just wanting to make sure that you don't want to re-think this comment? Perhaps you might want to revise or strike out part of this posting? Just checking? --Tenmei (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Tentative invitation to think again is withdrawn. Plausible outreach is unlikely to be construed as constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Japanese diaspora is not so long that it can't take the content. Most of the current content on Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) is not bound to a specific generation. Also the generational assimilation or lack thereof is content that is best suited for the overarching article. If and when the content on specific generation causes the parent article to grow to long it can be spun out. Taemyr (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, though some new article like Nikkei immigrant generations (along the lines of the existing Immigrant generations article to which 1.5 generation and similar terms redirect) to cover Issei, Nisei, Sansei, Gosei, etc. would probably be a more appropriate target than Japanese diaspora --- not all populations of Japanese overseas identify with or use these terms (like Japanese people in the United Kingdom). Further, Yonsei should remain a disambiguation page --- as it was TWO YEARS AGO [22] before the ethnocentrists came in and started doing copy-paste move warring to get it to refer solely to their own country's term (regardless of the fact that both usages feature prominently in the first page of GBooks hits --- WP:TROUTs all around). cab (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CaliforniaAliBaba -- Just want to make sure I've understood you correctly? It would appear that you're labeling me ethnocentric -- a very interesting gambit? I don't want to misunderstand, misconstrue, misread? Just wanting to make sure that what seems like specificity isn't misplaced, misjudged, misconstrued? Two choices are possible -- either reign it in or "go for it?" Which will you choose? --Tenmei (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Tentative invitation to think again is withdrawn. Plausible outreach is unlikely to be construed as constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toy store[edit]

Toy store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fill in the blanks with any noun.

A ____ store, or ____ shop, is a retail business specializing in selling ____. No longer held to the limitations of a physical outlet, many ____ stores are now doing business over the Internet.

This article is a joke. Remurmur (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure it's a joke at all - a number of articles quite properly link to it. However it does seem unlikely to ever be more than a WP:DICDEF, in which case a soft redirect to the appropriate entry on en.wikitionary may be better. M♠ssing Ace 15:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This article as written, and through its history, is nothing more than a definition. However, there is quite a bit of potential for development beyond this definition, such as the history of toy stores, revenue generated by toy stores, etc. I say keep it but tag it for expansion.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It's a dictionary definition. It's a tough call, though, because it may have room for expansion. DavidWS (contribs) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reference found and discussed on the article's talk page, which appears to show considerable scope for article expansion. The article as it stands is weak, but the concept seems to have potential. MadScot (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Toy stores are an important subject which WP should have an article on. They are an important part of American society and economy, and I'm sure important in other countries as well. I was kind of surprised that this article was so little compared to many others on trivial subjects. p.s. Here is Toys R Us, America's most well-known toy store. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept meets notability guidelines and there is much room for expansion. I say keep for now and merge somewhere (or redirect to) if article does not improve. The DominatorTalkEdits 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that it could be expanded using this as a start...? --Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The talk page shows some potential sources. The concept is certainly notable, as anyone who's ever stepped into a Toys "Backwards R" Us can attest. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would consider this a stub that someone might have fun expanding in the future (indeed it is a stub). Also has potential to add drool-inducing photographs. Fletcher (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - much room for expansion if some editors are going to work on it. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment The problem, people, is that there's no real reason to have articles on specific stores like this. A toy store does not operate much differently from any other store. It can all be covered in the Retailing article.--Remurmur (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor (fictional character)[edit]

Sandor (fictional character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - this character is not notable outside the film in which he appears. No evidence of cultural impact, no appearances in other media, article consists largely of plot summary which is covered at Dracula's Daughter and original research speculation about where his relationship to his mistress falls in the scope of master-servant relationships. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Otto's pretty much said it all. I'll just add that there is virtually no sourcing and I can't find much on Google beyond passing mentions. Reyk YO! 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep see below as there isn't enough for a separate article. (there may be already enough in the main article though). However, I wouldn't assume the speculation cant be sourced, until I checked all the reviews. (but unless there's a major discussion, it still isn't apropriate for a separate article). DGG (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What specifically of the unsourced material are you suggesting be merged that would not throw the article out of balance in favor of this character? If you take a look at Dracula's Daughter, you can see how much I've expanded it over the last several days. I've checked literally dozens of sources online and off and there is nothing about Sandor or the relationship between the two characters that isn't already noted in the film article. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep; it seems someone very quickly found 6 sources, some of which seem pertinent. Furthermore, if the sources you found discuss this particular character, and they seem to, then there would be firm reason by our standard criteria to have an article. Otherwise you'd have to be saying, a/ challenged as unsourced. b/sources found by two editors c/ delete anyway, regardless of the amount of sourcing. I don;'t think you mean to make a general statement that characters in fiction never get articles, regardless of the sources and what they say, because I think you know there would be very strong consensus against that. And I note your own sources would seem to contradict your own assertion that the discussion of the relationship is just OR. DGG (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come now. Two of the sources, Kane and Clute, merely confirm the existence of the character. The Benshoff reference is about two sentences out of a 328 page book and is used to identify the actor who played the character. The Humphries is also two sentences, out of a 224 page book. The Willis is a description of the character as "incredible-looking". The Leeper website has no indication of its reliability as a source and again is a single sentence. I checked all six of these sources and dozens more before making the nomination and in the course of working on the article and they are all trivial passing mentions that do not establish the independent notability of the character. And yes, I will stand firmly and unswayingly by the proposition that the mere mention of a fictional character in a book does nothing to establish that the character is notable independent of the film from which the character is drawn. I can find you dozens if not hundreds of sources that confirm the existence of this character. You know as well as I do that mere existence does not equal notability and you ought to know as well as I that WP:N specifically states that mentions such as these are trivial. I never said that fictional characters never get separate articles so I have to wonder why you would even try to suggest that I ever said such a thing or anything like it. Our standard criteria for an article on a fictional character are found at WP:WAF, which states that "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources" and WP:GNG which requires "significant" (meaning "more than trivial") coverage in reliable sources. What sources, either that I found or that this other editor has found, reliably source the assertion that the way Sandor interacts verbally with the Countess is "more complex than a master-servant relationship would permit" or that permits such speculative comments as "We are left to ponder why he allowed himself to be strung along by the countess, the ultimate circumstances that would have resulted in her granting him his wish for immortality, and why she felt she could tell him of her desire to be free of vampirism without arousing his anger at feeling betrayed"? I know you're an extreme inclusionist, but honestly, aren't you a little embarrassed to be arguing in favor of this article? Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable due to large number of sources, which also means it is not original research and as the article contains multiple sections rather than just covering plot it satisfactorily meets our inclusion criteria. Anyone who argues in favor of keeping this article should feel proud!  :) --63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I once again refer to WP:GNG which states clearly and explicitly that coverage must be more than trivial and challenge those in favor of keeping this article to address my points above regarding the triviality of the proffered sources. Note the examples given of significant and trivial sources: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial. and explain how these passing mentions of the character's name satisfy that criterion. Please explain how the proffered sources or any source establishes that the relationship between Zaleska and Sandor is "more complex than a master-servant relationship would permit" or the speculation about Zaleska's motives. And, someone's slapping three single-sentence "sections" on the end of the article is meaningful in establishing notability? Really? Can you point me toward the section of WP:N that supports that idea? Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's argument; the fictional character's notability does not extend beyond his one appearance in Dracula's Daughter. From what I can tell from the article, the mentions are very trivial and do not support establishing the character's notability apart from the film. Any useful information should be incorporated at Dracula's Daughter. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Calvin College. content is there for whomever wants to merge. StarM 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Capella of Calvin College[edit]

The Capella of Calvin College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

College choir that does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Only possible places are criterion 4, where the article does assert international touring, but I could not find reliable sources covering this as required, and criterion 9, since the article asserts placing in a music competition. However, since the competition they competed in (the Florilege Vocal de Tours Competition) was a qualifier for the notable competition referenced (the European Grand Prix for Choral Singing, it does not seem to itself be a "major music competition". gnfnrf (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep International tour = passes WP:MUSIC. I see no reason to deviate from the usual standards in this case. WilyD 15:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MUSIC doesn't say that. Criterion 4 reads "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." I don't see where the tour was covered in reliable sources. If actual consensus is that the tour establishes notability, not the coverage, then the WP:MUSIC needs to be changed to reflect this. In such a case, I would withdraw the nom. gnfnrf (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have asked this question in general (and in more depth) on the talk page for WP:MUSIC, at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Criterion_4. gnfnrf (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see this wording is subject to longstanding dispute. I don't usually worry about AfD or marginal musical articles, so I'm not privy to it's long details. WilyD 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Calvin College whatever can be sourced. It would enhance the college page but I see no reason for a separate article, particularly since it is mostly unsourced. TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per TerriersFan, the article can't really stand alone, unless more sources establishing notability are produced.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debunker[edit]

Debunker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articles is a tentative to redefine the word "Debunker" to mean the just the narrow concept of a pseudo-science debunker. The leading paragraph and the "Etimology" section show how this actually belongs Wicktionary. The "Criticism" section is pure original research focusing on the "pseudo-science debunker" narrowing.

In the first phrase, a reference attributes the given definition of Debunker to dictionary.com, but when one really checks the source, one notice that the word "unscientific" was added to the wikipedia version, to prepare the reader for the upcoming narrowing of the concept. (Update: fixed in this edit)

The section "Well-known debunkers", if proved not to be too subjective, could be turned in an list-article. Damiens.rf 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable, encyclopaedic. Article title might be a bit off, but that's not a matter for AfD. Certainly not a dictionary definition. WilyD 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of debunkers keeping a short explanation of what "debunking" is (it's also useful as an inclusion criteria) Keep The article has a few problems, like a too loose definition of the term, but they can be solved by editing. Next time, please consider raising the issue at the talk page, or trying to fix it yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly think, at this moment, that we can't make an article about this topic that would really be more than a dictionary definition. TThe current article actually deviates from the correct definition to try to talk about something else, not without a good deal of original research. But I wouldn't have a problem in being surprised. I see you're already doing a good work there. Please go on. --Damiens.rf 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This response matches what I said about your complaint being perhaps valid about the title, but that the solution then being a move, rather than a deletion. Where, I dunno. Debunker seems to be an overloaded term. WilyD 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only move I can think about would be to "List of pseudo-science debunkers", and leave no much more than the list-section in the article. --Damiens.rf 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would support a move as suggested, with the caveat that most of the brief text of the article could usefully remain as defining the scope of the list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, the text should be tweaked to explain what pseudo-science debunking is about, instead of trying to convince the reader that "debunk" basically means "pseudo-science debunking". --Damiens.rf 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That looks like a sensible solution to me that solves the problems with the article. P.D.: However, I don't see the "pseudo-science" part correct unless you remove the non-pseudoscience debunkers, specifically Harry Houdini, Philip J. Klass, Snopes and Robert B. Stein --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would seem to me there's at least nominally enough for both Pseudo-science debunking and List of pseudo-science debunkers which probably should stick at Pseudo-science debunking until article size merits a split then. Certainly there's enormous potential for expansion here. WilyD 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that would be ok too. But we should take an extra care with independent sources and undue weight on Pseudo-science debunking, because there appears to be a lot of "activism" and self-promotion in this area. But nothing Wikipedia can't deal with. --Damiens.rf 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's probably not as bad as bands, but moreso than usual, I guess. Not qualitatively differnt, I think. WilyD 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- not being a dictionary doesn't preclude this entry, if well sourced and properly documented. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be ok, sourced, covers the topic are much more than a wp:dicdef, provides a list of notable examples. Not sure how a move is necessary. Maybe adding a new article, List of.. if the list gets long enough. "Dubunking" itself seems to be a notable enough activity. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wiktionary. As a dictionary definition, it'll be incredibly hard for this not to become more than pretentious amounts of trivia pretending to be an article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, the technical term is not merge, but transwiki. ;) --Damiens.rf 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, that's the one, I knew it was around somewhere in my head, but apparently I'm slow today. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki Definition portion to wiktionary and Move list of debunkers to new purpose made article, possibly ceat an article detailing the process of debunking if none exists. If Snipe hunt can be an article so can debunker --Brendan White (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERCRAP --Damiens.rf 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to a list Fuckin thing sucks- sincerely, bill O'Reilly --Δζ (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Debunkers and debunking are notable topics. Even just a history of the expression would be worth a WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven F. Freeman[edit]

Steven F. Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article's subject fails to meet criteria for notability. Additionally, the article's creator, user:Buon professore, has little history here in wikipedia, except for editing this page and pages related to Steven F. Freeman. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's got sources and appears in places, even in books. The article needs to be rewritten, but that isn't ever a reason for deletion. DARTH PANDAduel 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated this article. Publishing a book does not establish notability, as per notability of academics.Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of many non-notable academics with an axe to grind. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall on, not every partisian professor who writes a book is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see evidence of passing WP:PROF. Information on his awards seems to be difficult to find – a speakers’ site has some. The awards do not seem to be the type that would fit WP:PROF criterion #2. Business Source Complete returned 3 hits for him, with a total of 4 citations in that database. ABI/INFORM returned 1 hit only. Google Scholar returned 14 hits; the most highly cited has 10 citations. Most news sources that could establish WP:BIO notability refer to his calls for an investigation of 2004 Presidential Election, and related book. Many others have made many similar points in the past, and the media lost interest in the topic.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is discussed by various sources. Media interest in or even the importance of his topic is not a reason to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the references on the page were written by Freeman, save one. A Status Report of the House Judiciary Democratic Staff mentions his work, but being cited is normal for academics. His CV lists eight articles and two books, which is enough for tenure, but probably not enough to pass WP:PROF. RJC TalkContribs 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Politics aside, the guys a nut real character. He created a sockpuppet account to create an article about himself and push his tinfoil hat fringe theories to sell books. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Could you point us to the Sockpuppetry case? Also, please be more civil with your tone: even nuts deserve their day in WikiCourt :) RJC TalkContribs 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. RJC, you're right and I apologize for the brash language. RE:Sockpuppetry, the account User:Buon professore, was the creator of the Freeman article as well as other articles which happen to match nearly identically to many of the edits Freeman made on an issue Wiki he runs. While "Buon professore" disputes this identification, it appears the evidence disagrees.71.178.193.134 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It's not by the literal definition, but I think the intent is the same. Does WP have a term for prentending your someone else to make an article for yourself?71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. It is frowned upon according to WP:COI, but there's nothing that says you have to acknowledge who you are in real life in order to edit Wikipedia, or that you can't edit articles on yourself so long as you adhere to the guidelines. We might discount a person's assertion of their own notability, but I believe they are permitted (in that no administrative action can be taken) to assert their own notability without acknowledging who they are. RJC TalkContribs 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment That would be my take on it as well, its noteworthy, but not against the rules. Bonewah (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Desmond Worldwide[edit]

Jax Desmond Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google news search (all dates) generated zero hits. Google search generated no hits that appeared to be significant coverage (despite numerous directory entries, etc.).

Moreover, the references in the article do not provide any evidence of notability:

External Links

  • Jax Desmond Worldwide's official website. Not third party.
  • Close Protection World's website. Unable to find any reference to the subject on this website.
  • Freelance Security. Unable to find any reference to the subject on this website.
  • Kiss Your Second Amendment Goodbye. Broken link.
  • Fugitive Recovery Network. One-line listing of contact details in a directory with no editorial commentary.
  • International Contractors Association. One-line listing of contact details in a directory with no editorial commentary.
  • The Sunday Indian - India's Largest News Magazine. No reference (see below for mention in article in this publication).
  • Second Amendment Love.com. One mention (without any editorial commentary) in a long blog entry.

References

  • ORCA Government Records. Registered access only, presumably evidence of being a registered contractor, which specifically is not evidence of notability.
  • The Sunday Indian article. Mentioned in passing as one of the "biggest American PMCs" in a list including six others without any evidence or editorial commentary. No discussion of the company beyond its name.
  • Jax Desmond Worldwide - Official Website. Not third party.
  • ORCA Government Records. Registered access only, presumably evidence of being a registered contractor, which specifically is not evidence of notability.
  • Central Contractor Registration. Registered access only, presumably evidence of being a registered contractor, which specifically is not evidence of notability.

One commentator suggested that having no verifiable information is evidence of being "a well run Private Military". However true this may be, it doesn't help in satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements, which (by definition) require third party sources. Bongomatic (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above enumeration. Which of the references do you think provides evidence of notability? Bongomatic (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the above. The fact that it is Canadian, in an ocean of US firms, is. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the notability guidelines for companies and fail to see how this factoid qualifies the company for inclusion. The guideline states:
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
The Canadian factor doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions, either. Bongomatic (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does... "common sense and the occasional exception" would seem to make sense to me, as it is the sole Canadian addition to Private military company. WP:N would be derived from being the only one in the country. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for "Jax Desmond" on Factiva revealed no newspaper coverage for this company. Without coverage it will be impossible to verify information in this article. If coverage occurs in the future the article can be recreated then.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As you said the Sunday Indian named it as one of the Top 5 PMC's in the world out 470,703 which should be enough to consider it notable. In addition out of the 470,703 they are only one of five listed on Gamespot.com as one of the top five Real Life PMCs portrayed in the video game Metal Gear Solid 4: Rise of the Patriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If reliable sources, like the Sunday Indian, just mention something with no significant coverage to write an article, then I think Wikipedia should do the same. If there is a Wikipedia article on PMCs perhaps it should mention Jax Desmond Worldwide. And it looks like Private military company already does this.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the list is of sevensix, not five, contractors, and the Sunday Indian didn't state that this was a list of the top largest such contractors. Further, size by itself isn't a criterion for notability, nor more emphatically for verifyiability. I think it's an interesting (but false) claim that being "portrayed in the video game Metal Gear Solid 4: Rise of the Patriots" is a demonstration of notability. By analogy, are all the armies of videogame engineers who put their own faces on characters automatically notable, too? Bongomatic (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apart from Blackwater, some of the biggest American PMCs include the likes of AirScan, C3 Defense, Dyn Corporation, Jax Desmond and Tactical Response Service." That's the quote from the Sunday Indian. I count five. And it does state that Jax Desmond Worldwide is one of the biggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was including Titan, mentioned in the next sentence, but even if you don't include that, Blackwater needs to be counted. Bongomatic (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect this doesn't seem like a matter of notability or verifiability. It seems like a personal vendetta Bongomatic. Who really cares whether it's 5, or 6, or 10... the fact is that the Sunday Indian which is India's largest business magazine named Jax Desmond Worldwide as one of the biggest. That should be considered notable in addition to the video game and other articles such as the one posted in the Atlantic Free Press. With respect to verifiablity, what's more verifiable than a US Federal Government database. If you visit CCR.gov or BPN.gov you can do a simple search by company name which confirms more than half the information contained in the article. As Exit2Dos2000 pointed out, any good private military company won't have a lot of press unless they had issues. The fact that Jax Desmond Worldwide has been listed in articles and press as one of the top 5, 6 or 7 PMCs out of more than 470,000 is notable enough and YES, to answer your question any army portrayed in a best selling video game should be considered notable, especially if it's a private force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly--who cares whether it's 5, 6, 10, or 100? The notability of a company (with respect to being a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia) is not established by size alone, or by Canadian-ness, but by significant coverage in reliable sources. So if you think it's vendetta to wish to see Wikipedia policies adhered to, view it that way--but I don't. Bongomatic 12:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically how many "reliable sources" have to cover it before it's deemed significant coverage? I'd like to know the number exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the notability criteria (which are referenced in the original AfD nomination text above), "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." So, being mentioned in passing (even if being alluded to as a large organization) does not constitute "significant coverage". It would be helpful if people read the policies before opining on their applicable or inapplicability. Bongomatic 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be mentioned that Wp:There is no deadline. An Article deemed Notable by the group can survive without any Citations until such time as the can be located. (I would also like to politely mention, dont WP:Bite. Anyone is free to comment even without haveing read any policys, guidelines or essays. Having not read any of the afore mentioned, does not make a persons opinion less valid.) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How soon until this matter is resolved whether it be the page is kept or deleted and who makes the final decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All AfD's are decided by consensus, not by any one person. In most cases discussions are closed after 5-7 days of discussion. An Administrator will then close the discussion, encapsulate it from further comment, and determine what the overall group think is. If the outcome is still disputed, there is a Wp:Deletion review process. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you expect will happen with this article? I defenitely dispute the deletion and think it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.225.109 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned that (a) the article may be deleted; but (b) you may have additional information in the future that would give rise to a non-deletable article, you may wish to create a user account and save the current article text in a sub-page of your user page. This way, you can improve the references as you find them / they become available, and re-create the article in so-called "article space" once it's sufficient to demonstrate verifiable notability. If you need assistance with this process, let me know once you have a user account and I will assist. Bongomatic 10:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources available other than the Sunday Indian article, which only treats the subject as one name on a list. Everything else is like the sources in the article: blogs and B2B marketing directories. (That includes CCR and ORCA, which only prove that Jax Desmond is a US government contractor; I just found 451 Virginia-based janitorial service companies by searching CCR. The NAICS code is 561720; try it yourself.)
Interestingly, there was an article titled Jax Desmond by the same author which was deleted after an April AfD. It had pretty much the same problems. Rklear (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Rklear. Lack of nontrivial coverage is fatal. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way to establish WP:V. For all we know, this article could be a hoax. DigitalNinjaWTF 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Houston[edit]

Kevin Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A successful but non-notable professional mathematician. Houston does not meet WP:N or WP:PROF, so we should not have an article on him (yet). This is not a personal criticism of Houston, simply an application of our inclusion criteria. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable source to establish notability according to WP:PROF criteria or the general notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. MathSciNet lists 21 publications, with citations mostly in single digits in MathSciNet, WebOfScience and GoogleScholar[23] (the latter search has a few false positives for a medical researcher of the same name). He does have a 2002 paper in Inventiones Mathematicae, a top math journal. That's good but not good enough for passing WP:PROF. Looking at his homepage[24] I don't see anything else there to suggest passing WP:PROF (such as awards, journal editorships, etc). Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid I concur that he doesn't yet meet WP:PROF, although I have a question for those familiar with the academic climate there: Does he have tenure? If not, it's clear he doesn't meet WP:PROF. It doesn't seem he meets any of the other aspects of WP:BIO or WP:N. Perhaps after the book is published? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Looks like I am in the majority here. Just not there yet, but getting close. As Mr. Rubin pointed-out, maybe after the book is released. ShoesssS Talk 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Senior lecturer is a permanent position (the UK analogue of tenure) immediately below the top position of Professor, together with Reader. It is therefore somewhere in between tenured Associate professor and Full professor in the US, probably closer to Full professor, but these things vary with the university. I find the academic notability line a difficult one to draw, and don't find WP:PROF a particularly clear or compelling guideline. I don't see, for example, how deleting this article would improve the encyclopedia. The article on Brian Bowditch was recently kept. He is a professor of course, but I can think of at least one UK professor :-) who doesn't have an article (and shouldn't in my view) although his publication record is comparable to Houston's. Now that this article has been brought for deletion, it may set a poor precedent to keep it. Geometry guy 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this case is not comparable to Brian Bowditch. Bowditch has won the Whitehead Prize, gave an invited address at the 2004 European Congress of Mathematics, solved several important conjectures in geometric group theory as well as solved Conway's Angel problem. That is why Bowditch's article was kept, not because he has the rank of Professor. In the case of Kevin Houston I just don't see any comparable accomplishments or anything else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete agree with Nsk92's position. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to add to Nsk92's points, a news search does not yield anything that would make him qualify for WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the above remark regarding tenure by Arthur Rubin: "Does he have tenure? If not, it's clear he doesn't meet WP:PROF". Non-tenured status is not a disqualifier under WP:PROF. Taken at face-value, the statement would seem to imply that tenure equates to notability, which is clearly false. (There are many non-notable tenured professors). On the other hand, there are non-tenured academics that are very clearly notable, Grigori Perelman for example, the jobless (since 2003) academic, who would easily have been considered notable years before winning the Fields Medal. Tenure is also completely irrelevant to a researcher in the commercial sector, who's notability is nevertheless covered by most (though not all) the points enumerated in WP:PROF. So, I do not feel that tenure status should figure prominently in deliberations of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Well, I feel that tenure status should be relevant to an academic researcher. I didn't mean to imply it was conclusive, but if he's employed by a university (US definition) and doesn't have tenure, it's an indication that his employer doesn't think he's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, I think we're in fair accord. I meant to make the point that, although there's almost certainly a reasonable correlation between tenure and notability, the former is not the cause of the latter. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Andy[edit]

Cowboy Andy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable drink. No reliable sources provided, none found. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. TN‑X-Man 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Did a Google search of "Cowboy Andy cocktail" and turned up nothing aside from the wikipage. WP:V and I would venture to say, WP:MADEUP. And even if it isn't made up, it simply isn't WP:N. DARTH PANDAduel 14:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources to be found. In fact, no sources to be found at all. gnfnrf (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walsh[edit]

Gerald Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe fails WP:CREATIVE. Prod declined by IP author. No gnews hits, web hits seem to be almost entirely self-published. RayAYang (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are tons of hits for "Gerald Walsh," but none of them are the man mentioned in the article. All sources cited by the article fail to provide notability. Interestingly, a Google search points at Gerald Thomas Walsh who seems to be equally not notable. DARTH PANDAduel 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability, let alone provides citations to back the claims up.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content reads like an advertisement; more suited for an art gallery exhibit than Wikipedia. sixtynine • spill it • 07:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ambalavasi families[edit]

List of Ambalavasi families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete-This article is a directory of family names. The families are not notable enough for an article or even proper referencing to be created for them. Ambalavasi001 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as per G7, courtesy of Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Adios, folks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican beauty pageant contestants[edit]

List of Mexican beauty pageant contestants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally crated this list, but realized it's not necessary. Articles on beauty pageants already exist and they include the list of winners/contestants to those four pageants. - Lancini87 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete of the author request ("G7" in Wiki jargon) variety (you don't have to go to AfD for this).--Boffob (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Boffob, only major contributor to article expressly requested delete.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (enough keeps in a short time to justify). Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted So I think that Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay should be deleted as soon as possible. The entire article is filled with opinions (Turn-based games are difficult to master, Sitting around and waiting for turns to end is boring, etc...). Yes it has many sources, but there is no point of having a source of an opinion. And this article just doesn't fit in wikipedia, there already exists a real time games and a turn-based games article so why should you compare these two in one article?--Megaman en m (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not going to say that this article doesn't have its shares of problems, but I don't think that they're insurmountable. While it isn't universal across the sources, most of them do delve into a comparison of the two; I think its a perfectly appropriate topic. Issues that aren't intrinsic to the subject are best kept at the article and resolved through the normal editing process. Celarnor Talk to me 03:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A comparison article can be very useful and there are hundreds of them in the project (see Special:AllPages/Comparison). The article does need cleanup, particularly more prose to place the debate in context and provide history. I also find it to be surprisingly balanced and NPOV, which is an excellent start, even if some of the reasons are poor arguments. Dcoetzee 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This appears to actually be a first nomination, not a 2nd. I find no evidence of a first nomination (no Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Real-time_vs._turn-based_gameplay, no talk page box, nothing I could find in the history). It was nominated for speedy deletion once, but that's different. Dcoetzee 09:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then I guess it will have to stay. But this article needs help. First of all it should be called "Comparison between Real-time and turn-based gameplay" instead of something I would expect from a boxing match. Secondly, the list should go. Or it should be merged into two paragraphs. And last but not least, the neutrality, especially from the list. I mean "Sitting around and waiting for turns to end is boring"? You're not going to tell me that that's a fact? So does anyone have any objections against these changes I want to make?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article in its current form is OK. There are certainly other articles on Wikipedia about differences in opinion. The list merely reproduces statements made in reliable sources and is clear about labeling them as opinions, not facts. This is exactly what we're supposed to do. We can't just go around making things up. It seems to me you just disagree with the article because it doesn't present your own personal opinions.
    Lastly, just because a topic is controversial doesn't mean Wikipedia should refrain from having an article on the subject. That's called censorship. SharkD (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Also, it's proper practice to notify the creater of an article about deletion. Please remember that next time. SharkD (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Megamans first AfD nomination. It's quite understandable to miss one of all the places an AfD should be listed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to game mechanic. I'm somewhat concerned about the WP:OR level in this, but in general it doesn't seem to need to exist other than as a discussion within the notion of game mechanics. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about a definate topic. Opinions are labeled as opinions and are sourced. It also would be a shame to delete this article since it is actually interesting and easy to understand, in contrast to some others on WP. Keep the title since googlers might be looking for a discussion of exactly this topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep maybe there's a better name, but it seems to me that the article's creators identified a notable area of debate within the video game world. I might suggest a merge to strategy video game if the article lacks sufficient context. Otherwise, representing notable points of view is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV and not reason for deletion. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable game mechanic that has been covered in too many reviews to count in the last 20 years. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Dixon[edit]

Rob Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. This article does not demonstrate clear notability and the references seem to indicate biased/promotional websites. Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivid hosting[edit]

Vivid hosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources could be found anywhere to establish notability. Wizardman 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Wizardman. Also found no RS. -- Nevard 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. to delete. As many have said here, AfD is not for merging and that can be discussed on the article talk pages or a project talk page. No one is arguing for the deletion of this material and where it lives doesn't require continued AfD StarM 17:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Galaxy Being[edit]

The Galaxy Being (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Retroactive test case: This is one of approximately 150 The Outer Limits episode articles that I by-and-by boldmerged last week with the reasoning "plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT), no apparant WP:NOTABILITY" (I do that a lot for shows whose wiki coverage seems to have been abandoned by fans). All but three TOL episode articles follow the same formula: One-sentence lead, one-sentence plot Introduction, Opening narration quote, one- or two-paragraph Plot (which I merged into List of The Outer Limits episodes), Closing narration quote, very occasionally an unsourced Trivia section, Cast list, EL. One editor is concerned about the legitimacy of my merge approach and agreed to an AfD for objective outsider feedback. (I know that my wrist will get slapped for retroactively justifying mergers through AfD, but since my wrist would also get slapped for immediately going to AfD before considering a merger, what can I do? I am firm in my opinion that these articles in their former state don't need articles. I have no prejudice against recreation of articles whose notability gets established, but that hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it will for most of them. Keeping/Restoring the articles now is pretty much redundant to the information in the LoE.) – sgeureka t•c 13:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A 150 episode list cannot contain any information and still be practical due to page limits size. My 300 baud modem just can't take it. WilyD 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Season articles would solve this problem pretty easily. You could also divide this LoE into two LoEs, because they are two shows. Either way, that isn't really a reason to keep individual episode articles. – sgeureka t•c 14:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err, maybe. Either way, to satisfy the GFDL you'd have to keep the individuals as redirects, so merging isn't an AfD outcome anyhow. It's a "regular editorial decision". WilyD 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you read the nom? As for the second part of your reply, per WP:AFD mergers are a legitmate AfD outcome, and GDFL would also be satisfied by moving the episode articles to subpages in talkspace (although I don't think that's necessary). In this case, the only "problem" is that merger has already happened but is questioned now. – sgeureka t•c 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Xe is quite right. I suggest that you read the notice that is right at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as well as Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. AFD is not a big hammer, and is not the venue to come when an adminstrator hitting a delete button forms no part of what one wants. As far as deletion discussions are concerned, merger is just a variant on keeping an article. No deletion, or any other administrator tool, is involved. Any editor, even one without an account, has all of the tools required to perform an article merger. It is an ordinary editorial process. Uncle G (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per the nominating editor.Theseeker4 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really shouldn't have been brought to AfD, but merge per nominator. Agree with WilyD, however, in concerns of scope; better to split the list into sections for each series rather than mash them all together. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the article given in the nomination is now inaccurate. I also note that although article talk pages are there precisely to discuss controversial mergers, Talk:The Galaxy Being is currently nonexistent and there is zero discussion at Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes. AFD is not for discussing mergers. It is, as the name Articles for deletion says, for discussion of deletions. Article merger does not involve deletion, or AFD, at any stage of the process. This is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment or even Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Do not nominate articles for deletion unless you actually want an administrator to delete an article and its entire edit history. Uncle G (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; however as there is a move afoot to banish individual episode articles, this is not necessarilly completely an improper AFD because there are those who want these articles removed. Which brings me to my vote... 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Outer Limits. Like Twilight Zone, the Outer Limits is considered a major, notable, and widely covered anthology series featuring productions of short story adaptations and original works by notable SF authors. Each episode has individual notability and merging into season lists would be illogical and unhelpful as this is not a series with continuing characters. I support the notion of some series having their episodes combined into lists when the individual episodes are not notable (Mission: Impossible being an example), but The Outer Limits is an example of a series that demands individual treatment. (Note: this refers to the original 1960s series only, and not necessarily the later remake series; a separate argument would need to be made as to whether the revival established notability on its own). 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I endorse the noms WP:BOLD editing and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia should continue with their good work. My impression of the nomination is not for AfD but should have been a request for comment or a 3rd opinion to the editor that was questioning the noms actions. It appears that the nom is following WP:EPISODE.--Pmedema (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger - regardless of the formatting of the discussion and regardless of whether this particular article has been improved, I support the initiative of merging individual episode stubs into either a single list of article or by-season series of lists. If any individual episode has received substantive coverage in reliable sources then I have no objection obviously to undoing the redirect and establishing an actual sourced article. No series "demands individual treatment" for each of its episodes as a matter of course and I wish more editors took the view of the nominator and didn't rush to create individual articles for every episode of every series. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Outer Limits. User:Sgeureka not only merged all 150 episodes into one single page. He just removed all episodes, without any discussion with community, and removed all links to these episodes from this List of TOL episodes. May be, adding a short summaries to this list is a good idea, but my position is that all these articles must be recreated. Most part of these articles were created 2 or 3 years ago, but most of the users (who created these pages) are not still writing at Wikipedia, - and I cannot to bring them to this discussion to vote for re-creation. Krasss (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you elaborate why these article must they be recreated? The fact that the last TOL episode aired 6 years ago and that these stubs were created 2 or 3 years ago yet still don't contain anything non-plotty or notability-establishing is kind of a sign that recreating them now doesn't solve any of the problems they've had for years. – sgeureka t•c 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) Note, that the last TOL episode was aired 6 years ago at first time. And it is not a reason to delete any articles about films. 2) "...Doesn't solve any of the problems they've had for years" - what concretely problems do you mean? There was no any problems with these films. 3) The articles about episodes contains not only a short summaries, they contains detailed plot of these films, and other information - for example, nominations, awards, influence on culture & science etc. Krasss (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Outer Limits, per 23skidoo. Notable show. This program has had major impact on most of the science fiction anthologies that followed it as well as major motion pictures such as The Terminator. --Captain Infinity (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD is about what to do with stubby episode articles, not a deletion attempt for The Outer Limits, so the notability of the show is not really important here. – sgeureka t•c 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is really important, - so as The Outer Limits is not a multi-serial film. TOL consists from different episodes based on different stories of different authors. For this reason, each episode of TOL has its own notability. Krasss (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, there are alternatives to AfD, but I considered AfD to be the quickest and most objective process to discuss merged stubs. If someone objected to my bold-merger of a (hypothetical) Marriage and family life of Albert Einstein stub into Albert Einstein#Marriage and family life, I'd bring the stub to AfD just the same. – sgeureka t•c 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "quick decision" is not necessarily a correct decision. And AfD is not necessarilay an "objective process". By adding the deletion option to what otherwise would be a discussion between keep vs. merge vs. redirect, it creates bias from what can be called the "decoy effect" (an additional but inferior option may bias choice towards one that is clearly superior to the new option but not necessarily superior to all other options), or the "compromise effect" (by taking a position more extreme than what one desires, "compromise" is encourage towards the real desired outcome). DHowell (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I keep finding excellent Outer Limits articles in Google's cache, but when I click on them, all I get is a near useless list. The details that these articles provide are useful and informative. What on Earth is the rationale for deleting them? I also note that delete is the correct term here, since much of the information contained in the individual articles is not present in the episode list, i.e., it is deleted as a result of this "merge". For this reason, this mass deletion almost seems like vandalism to me. Vttoth (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Outer Limits episodes. The sources that Uncle G has added to this article prove that this, and most, if not all, Outer Limits episodes are individually notable. Articles at the season level make little sense as this is an anthology series where each episode is an individual self-contained story, with different actors, characters, writers, etc. The only "contintuity" here is the opening narration and closing narration and general format of the show. Further, as Uncle G points out, this should never have gone to AfD in the first place. I don't know what we must do to squash the misconception that AfD is the place to go to get a consensus on merge or redirect decisions, but I believe these type of nominations are a waste of time and do more to encourage factions, stifle consensus building, and drive away productive editors, than to encourage collaboration towards a true consensus outcome. DHowell (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism under WP:CSD#G3. Born in '89 with Oscar nomination in '50? Looks like deliberate misinformation to me. Dlohcierekim 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James McArrow[edit]

James McArrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

hoax article with info copied from Sam Jaffe. removed prod Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all the articles created by the user are apparently bogus (see User talk:Need126 and are based on a crude copy and paste from one or more existing articles. (Emperor (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Duffbeerforme and Emperor. Hoax. The user should be blocked. Oda Mari (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eniaptycha[edit]

Eniaptycha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Art concept related to one individual artist, and that gets two google hits, one of which being this article. The Greek text for the concept and the artist (Ενιάπτυχα, Ρέας Μπέιλυ) gets a single google hit, Wikipedia. There is an article for a Rhea Bailey, but it's a totally different person. Please Delete. roleplayer 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this terrible mess is not a Wiki article. More seriously, no reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Eniaptycha (polytech) is a term coined by Leading Cypriot and International Artist Rhea Bailey to describe her new works divided into 9 panels. This is the first time that an artist make a contribution to the form of art work. this way it is importnat to keep this article left at User talk:Megrafik 12:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC) -- roleplayer 13:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the preceding comment, by the nominator, was changed from "note" to "Keep" by the IP 2 comments down.[25] I have changed back. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's see, WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, etc. I could come up with more. DARTH PANDAduel 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks great to me. I believe several people would be interested in that. and this a real contribution to the form of art work. it could be improved by adding links and images about the process and the art work.--217.29.240.34 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that external links about the artist work and images of the eniaptycha could be included later. I am sure that this term is now in use in the art circles.--Megrafik (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same person of the keep vote posted by user Roleplayer above. Dekisugi (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to vote more than once, please. Dekisugi (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Coca-Cola#Advertising. Kudos to Uncle G for the rewrite.  Sandstein  17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coca cola christmas advert[edit]

Coca cola christmas advert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable advert with a single reference being listed as a facebook-page. Lacks context to identify exactly "which" advert this article is in relation too (as Coca cola christmas advert are annual events spanning tv channels, globally). Fails WP:NF, (WP:NOTSOAPBOX - for promotion of a facebook page) Flewis(talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite; Coke's Christmas advertisements are a notable cultural phenomenon spanning many years. If nothing else, there's their popularisation and spread of the red and white garb for Father Christmas - though not its invention, a notable urban legend which could also be covered. There's plenty here, and I'm sure there are external resources - newspaper reviews, histories of advertising, histories of Christmas in popular culture - which could be used. Shame the current article is so poor. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this article does not focus on Coke adverts in general - rather on a single non-notable Coca cola advertisement. --Flewis(talk) 11:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we already have such an article, this should redirect to it; if not, this could be the beginning of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure why it wasn't put up for speedy.Paste (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coca-Cola#Advertising which does mention the urban myth about Santa Claus. That section could definitely include more information about CC's advertising around Christmastime. --Bonadea (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Devoid of substance, no subject matter. A general page, covered elsewhere, containing no notability, verifiability or anything else, pretty much. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It looks great to me. I believe several users had immature and malicious intent when they marked this article for deletion, so glad that it has now been so thoroughly improved. 163.1.212.48 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Holidays are coming!" advertisement by the Coca-Cola Company is an advertisement for Coca-Cola[clarification needed] that to some people[who?] marks the beginning of Christmas.[citation needed]"

The advertisment [sic] was created by U.S. advertising agency Doner,[clarification needed] and have been part of the company's global advertising campaign for many[peacock prose] years.[clarification needed]"

Keith Law, a producer and writer of commercials for Belfast CityBeat, was not convinced by Coca-Cola's reintroduction of the advertisement in 2007, saying that "I don't think there's anything Christmassy about HGVs and the commercial is too generic."

This information can easily be incorporated into Coca-Cola#Advertising --Flewis(talk) 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is definitely an entity in its own right. I am pleased the wider wikipedia community generally has more sense than the users who maliciously marked this page originally (Flewis and Bonadea in particular). Thanks. I am new to wikipedia but it is good to see not everyone lacks integrity. Simon2239 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember to assume good faith - the article as originally written was almost entirely content-free, and its only source was an unreliable one. It's remarkable that it's been repaired even as well as it has; don't think people are 'malicious' or 'immature' just because they have a low opinion of low-quality content. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just thought that it would be much more in the spirit of wikipedia for a note suggesting the article was expanded were to be added, not an instant move to deletion. Simon2239 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Whose Is It

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Personal Trooper Type-3[edit]

Real Personal Trooper Type-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional robot of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, there is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable source for notability outside Super Robot Wars, per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Personal Trooper Type-2[edit]

Real Personal Trooper Type-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional robot of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, there is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable source for notability outside Super Robot Wars, per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Dogs Allowed (disambiguation)[edit]

No Dogs Allowed (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disambig page consisting of one link and one redlink. Seems unnecessary unless/until the other article is created. [roux � x] 10:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Personal Trooper Type-1[edit]

Real Personal Trooper Type-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional robot of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, there is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable source for notability outside Super Robot Wars, per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield drive[edit]

Mayfield drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band who haven't released anything, no significant coverage in press. Delete as fails WP:BAND Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting/Praise: Spring Fist Order[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Everlasting/Praise: Spring Fist Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

High school band who haven't released anything, played three gigs, and are now "on haiatus". Delete as failing WP:BAND Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Rossney[edit]

Harry Rossney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks to be part of User:Britishlocalhistory's campaign to promote some organisation called British Local History (see user's talk page, and user's edits, most of which have now been reverted as link spam). Seems to be non-notable ("one of over 10,000 refugees from Nazism who took the unprecedented step of swearing allegiance to King George VI..." - why does this one of over 10,000 deserve an article?) with so many unsourced biographical details that it MUST have been written by a family member or something. The only thing that might suggest notability is that he wrote "an extraordinary collection of poems", which is "a tribute to his self-strength, and dedication to preserving the memory for the sake of humanity", but again this is shameless self-promotion - this "extraordinary collection" was published by "British Local History", the name of the original creator of this article, making this whole piece a lengthy advert, IMO. Pince Nez (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure), as consensus has clearly determined its notability. Okay, who's buying the next round of Guinness? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's No One As Irish As Barack O'Bama[edit]

AfDs for this article:
There's No One As Irish As Barack O'Bama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, references don't really emphasise the song requiring its own article as with WP:SONG. The claim of notability based on youtube views isn't really valid considering 50000 views on youtube is on the low side. –– Lid(Talk) 07:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • The claim isn't based on youtube views, however if it were, the other version of the song has 606,416.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for goodness sake, I create this and it is afd'd, 6 hours later and without warning or discussion. Why? It is neutral and verifiable information that is best organised in an article rather than merging. Forget youtube this song has featured stories in a number of national Irish newspapers, the Boston globe, and the BBC - how many folk songs do that these days. That's multiple "non trivial" media outlets, if you want some jargon. There is no reason to delete this, no improvement to the encyclopedia by doing so, just the satisfaction of people who like to delete things...Keep--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC mention is a near empty page just displaying the youtube video, it's verging on trivial "look at this oddity". I made no arguments about the articles quality, but just because an article looks nice and is even verifiable does not make it notable. As for merging, I ask the question as to where could this article even be merged to even if we were to accept that the information is, in some regard, notable? The ending statement, about a deletionist agenda, is not an argument at all for its inclusion - it's an ad hom attack that ignores that if wikipedia were to accept"its not doing any harm" as an inclusion criteria then wikipedia would be inundated with "this is my friends new song about Obama". –– Lid(Talk) 09:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has notability for that controversy surrounding it. ViperSnake151 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information is verifiable from good reliable third party sources - so why remove it. That's the deletionist fallacy, to which you have no good answer. Your strawman fails as such would not have good third party sourcing. I ask again, given that this is sourced, neutral and verifiable, how does the encyclopedia benefit from deletion?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The information is verifiable to the point that "there is a song about Obama's Irish heritage", not that the song is notable nor evidence the song requires an article on wikipedia. Your second question, the benefit of deletion, isn't an argument at all - the article fails to meet the requirement for inclusion on grounds of notability, yes it is sourced, yes it is neutral, yes it is verifiable, but that's the trees that fails to see the forest. The foundation of the article does not exist, and doing up all the bells and whistles of what good artcles require does not mean that the prettier an article gets the more it should be included on wikipedia. –– Lid(Talk) 10:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm keep per WP:GNG. These sort of nominations are quite unnecessary; tagging the article with {{note}} would have resulted in a much quicker and less drama-inducing resolution. the skomorokh 10:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not following - how does the GNG blatantly illustrate the article is notable? –– Lid(Talk) 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - tick.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The coverage has been trivial; the MSNBC coverage was "twenty seconds" of the video; the BBC te is a youtube embed of the video; the Irish times coverage amounted to "Hardy Drew and The Nancy Boys made an appearance early to sing There's No One as Irish as Barack Obama which has brought them a measure of fame and also an invitation to an inaugural ball in Washington on January 19th." which leaves the Limerick Leader. The Limerick Leader's coverage is the only one that can be considered neutrally to be significant coverage, but as it is an isolated Irish newspaper article about possible plagiarism of the song rather than showing the song has independent notability for the song itself I fail to see how that can be used as significant coverage the song itself is notable. –– Lid(Talk) 10:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is this for real? American coverage aside, the song has been covered by most of the most popular radio shows (and all major radio stations), all three national newspapers, the leading Limerick metropolitan newspaper, the nation's most popular chat show (and its least reputable), both television news services (RTE One and TV3). The song has been the exclusive focus of articles in the aforementioned newspapers as well as the Kansas City Star, Irish Voice and Irish World. But of course, you know all this already. the skomorokh 11:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem to be of the impression we are all from an Irish background... ignoring which the claims you just presented aren't found in the article (aside from one source stating it was on Ryan Tubridy's radio show) –– Lid(Talk) 11:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[indent] No, I am of the impression that we are all able and willing to Google a topic up for deletion. Unlike Scott I have not got a drop of Irish blood in me; I am merely willing to give a topic the research it deserves (and which I wish you had done WP:BEFORE). Though I know you mean well, to nominate an article created by an experienced user for deletion without first discussing it, tagging it or researching its potential is simply sandcastle-kicking. I hope this AfD is brought to a swift close and we can all move on. Sincerely, the skomorokh 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

              • Well the article is new (6 hours at time of nomination) - but had you asked for more rather than nominating, this could have been avoided. Anyway, now you know do you wish to withdraw the nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The massive influx of peripherally Obama related articles whose only reason for existing is any peripheral relationship to Obama has caused my threshold for article patience to slip away into the nether. (E.G. at the same time I nominated this I nominated Obama Derangement Syndrome, both had existed for the same period of time but lying in wait on articles that "may" indicate notability in days, or weeks time, is in my opinion a self-viewing form of WP:CRYSTALBALL). –– Lid(Talk) 11:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If your patience has slipped to the level that you are not willing to express concerns and ask if they can be met, then I suggest you desist from NP patrol until you recover. But, now you know, is there any need to continue this nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This has nothing to do with patience, and was more a gripe with select other articles. I must state, however, that the significant coverage isn't supported (currently) by the references in the article, only by the comment here by Skomorokh, and trying to portray this as some sort of deletionist agenda is just as invalid at the start as it is now. –– Lid(Talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That other crap exists is even worse as a deletion reason than as a retention argument. I ask again, knowing what you now know, do you still think this article should be deleted, and if so, why.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I wasn't citing other crap exists, if I was I'd be pointing at Obama Girland be voting for keep, and your passive aggression isn't particularly helping matters. All I know now is that a pair of Irishmen believe this is notable in Ireland, but haven't displayed that information in the article itself and the current articles state does not illustrate significant coverage even within Ireland. A geographic bias is in play here, where to the Irish this is blatantly notable while to a outsider they are failing to grasp something about this. My question back to you is whether these groups have just been playing the song, or something else, because playing a song isn't an indicator of notability to... every other song in existance really. –– Lid(Talk) 12:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Em? I am not Irish. (Well, on my great-great-grandmother's side.....but I've never been there). But how would my nationality be relevant, if I were?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I didn't say nationality, I said geographic - this appears to be a localised divide between the information available to you who believe this article is so obviously notable, and me on the other side of the world is still trying to comprehend why this song is notable enough for its own article and can not find it in the article, nor in the sources provided. –– Lid(Talk) 12:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I give up. The information is verified, the sources provided, if you're stuck in in your American incomprehension of said non-american sources, it really isn't my problem.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I've read all the sources, comprehended all of them - none of them illustrate significant notability of the song that would require an article for its existence, only trivial mentions and a slight diplomatic row over copyright that would seemingly make the Black's who "copied" the song the more notable ones (and don't backtrack back to the argument about the articles existance doing WP:NOHARM). As for "the information is verified, the sources provided" I point to WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I am not attempting to make this difficult for you, I am only acting with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind and that the standards of the encyclopedia are kept. –– Lid(Talk) 12:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The coverage has quite evidently not been trivial, more to the point you can be certain President-elect Obama is going to visit Ireland at some stage and have his pint in his village, the existence of this article will be valuable at that stage and undoubtedly the article will be legitimately extended too. JohnHarris (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The second paet is less to the point, it makes the argument a case of WP:CRYSTAL and seemingly a WP:COATRACK for Obama's Irish heritage rather than simply ignoring the Obama connection and focussing on the song itself being notable. –– Lid(Talk) 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to those who claim that the media coverage of this song has been "trivial", please note that it has been in the top five articles of the BBC News website's "most popular stories now" all day, giving it prominence on the BBC News frontpage. Hardly "trivial"! Pince Nez (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and here it's the number 1 editor's choice from the BBC News video and audio articles. Sure, this may be more of an internet meme than a classic track, but it's unarguably notable in terms of the amount of coverage it's getting. Pince Nez (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral, verifiable, sourced. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets usual inclusion standard. No need to make an exception in this case. WilyD 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, keep per Rootology and Wily D. MookieZ (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Multiple independent sources=notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- Also am adding it to the Internet Memes category. Tris2000 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's well referenced, the range of independent references illustrate notability, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- roleplayer 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Patently meets WP:MUSIC and no valid reason given by nom. – iridescent 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons above. Deletionism vanity example. Moncrief (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Citizens for a Canadian Republic . That article has survived its AfD. Content under the re-direct for whoever wants to merge. StarM 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freda[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tom Freda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vanity page for self-styled republican advocate of CCR. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO. There are no reliable third-party sources to justify the article. Notability has never been established - Google hits don't establish notability, valid, reliable 3rd-party sources do. A couple of protests and newspaper articles does not make one notable. Since the article has gone through 2 AFDS no valid sources have been added to establish notability. One of the executive members of this CCR has also serious conflict of interest, created Citizens for a Canadian Republic, vanity page for personal website, Filibuster Cartoons, and his own page J.J. McCullough (User:J.J.. All of these fail WP notability guidelines miserably. I am suspicious that User:J.J., who is a member of the CCR "executive commitee", has been using sockpuppets and what have you to promote the organization on Wikipedia. This behaviour should not be tolerated and User:J.J. should be sanctioned. Delete all once and for all and let us send a message to those who try to abuse WP for fringe promotional efforts. Laval (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PanFx, Wikipedia is not fair; it is neutral.  Sandstein  17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Derangement Syndrome[edit]

Obama Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable extremely recent neologism. No evidence of usage outside of a select view right wing blogs. –– Lid(Talk) 07:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete politically biased protologism. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fringe neologism. Should the original of this snowclone, Bush Derangement Syndrome, be deleted too? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete as dicdef of a neologism. Will revise my position if significant coverage in reliable sources is found. Google News results included these: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], but I'm not sure there's a reliably sourced article to be written from them. the skomorokh 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion-stupid topic and same with the bush derangement syndrome article, no such thing exists in real medical term.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Appearance in a medical dictionary is not a requirement for inclusion in wikipedia. See Tennis Elbow for a example. Dman727 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The obvious comparision is to the article Bush_Derangement_Syndrome. The Bush article has survived two deletion attempts based on notability and sourcing. (not suprisingly a 3rd one has now been proposed) This article, however does not seem to have the same benefit of being well sourced and notable. Certainly if "OBS" gains significant coverage then an article should be created and maintained. That's not the case now and keeping this article simply because a similar article exist is good example WP:OSE Dman727 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am willing to acquiesce to the deletion of this entry if the Bush_Derangement_Syndrome is also deleted. Neither are medical terms, yet both have plenty of search engine entries. I have seen it used more and more in political discussions, especially as the new President-Elect Barack Obama is about to take office. So in the interest of fairness, if Obama_Derangement_Syndrome is going to be removed, so should Bush_Derangement_Syndrome. PanFx (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)— PanFx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is delete, despite a mass-used comment whose veracity has been questioned. StarM 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makuta Teridax[edit]

Makuta Teridax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot section of various Bionicle articles. as such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toa (Bionicle)[edit]

Toa (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was recreated and should not have been, as it has all the issues the old version of the article had, the chief one being lack of reliable sources and notability. This article has none, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The main character article is way too long, spliting it seemed wise at the time. If you delete it, I'm fine, I've saved the page and can reintigrate into the main Bionicle character page. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - sources given not independent or sufficient to establish notability outside Lego Bionicle universe, per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Looking at the Bionicle article, the Toa appear to be very important the the universe, being quote "Mata Nui's destined heroes and the main protagonists of the franchise.". I think that plenty of secondary sources could be found if anyone tried. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The so-called WP:FICT is an essay about which there is total disagreement. Many months of work have failed to find consensus for any version of it as a guideline, whether the more dogmatic versions --in any direction-- or the more reasonable. Many of us would be very willing to have some version adopted as a guideline, as a compromise to end this dispute, but that hasn't happened. Let's be realistic--whatever our own views, there is no general consensus. I may wish my own view on fiction had real consensus, but I can't say it really does, either. So at this time, arguing on its basis is exactly equivalent to ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. It might perhaps be taken to show an unawareness that the matter is disputed, except for the extent of the dispute at these afd discussions. DGG (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article asserts notability through reliable sources should not be deleted. It has to stay per WP:FICT.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are reliable sources, but they are not reliable secondary sources, which is the main problem. All of the sources are somehow related to Lego. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absent a verbatim argument that has been posted to multiple AfDs and whose veracity has been questioned, consensus is this is not notable. StarM 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matoran Universe[edit]

Matoran Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot section of other Bionicle articles. As such, it is simply repetition, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Mata Nui (Bionicle)[edit]

Order of Mata Nui (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, just like the last version of this article that was deleted. This one should go as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable independent source to establish notability outside Lego Bionicle product line/fictional universe, per WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was skeptical of this article from the start, and have to say, no one will look it up. Sorry, but it has to go. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as article asserts notability through reliable sources should not be deleted. It has to stay per WP:FICT.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Contrary to the IP comment above^, it cites only primary sources, which are insufficient to support a stand-alone article per WP:FICT. Secondary sources are required per WP:V. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filibuster Cartoons[edit]

Filibuster Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Utterly non-notable website run by User:J.J., who created an article for himself J.J. McCullough and Citizens for a Canadian Republic (both conflicts of interest, he sits on the executive of the latter, also utterly non-notable)and may have had some input in this one considering the self-serving nature of the content. According to the history, JJ has also edited this article. He is knee deep in his own vanity. See WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:WEB. Notability clearly cannot be established as no reliable 3rd-party sources can be found to justify the article's existence. Strong suggestion to delete. Laval (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Houghton Ltd[edit]

Bob Houghton Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Says he is a "Ferrari specialist ", I assume that means he is just some sort of mechanic. The article says that he "has a very high reputation within the Ferrari world" but this is not reflected by an availability of reliable sources. There are many company listings but none that contain really any encyclopedic information at all. Icewedge (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Bob appears to be a classic-car collector and restorer... the limits of notability for this profession escape me, but even by the usual standards this fails. That is, however, if you take this as a biographic article; one look at the "history" entry on Bob's website (and, more obviously, the article title) shows that this really is a blatant advert, not to mention that it veers towards WP:COPYVIO. onebravemonkey 11:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: reads like an advert. Even with rewrite, probably fails notability. --skew-t (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N. I did a Google News Search, a Google Book Search, etc. and there aren't any reliable third-party sources. DARTH PANDAduel 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per G11.Theseeker4 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. while I recognize there are those who think these aren't notable, and I don't 100% agree that all high schools are notable, there is an overwhelming consensus that they are. No point in prolonging this AfD and the inevitable outcome. Regardless, merging doesn't need an AFD . StarM 03:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redbank Plains State High School[edit]

Redbank Plains State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG lacks significant third party sources establish notability or existence as a separate article. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I have no opinion on whether this school meets the notability criteria or not, I keep seeing this comment that consensus says all high schools are notable. It seems to me to be a bit of a circular argument: "this school should be kept because consensus says all high schools are notable", followed shortly by "since high schools are in the main kept, therefore consensus must be that they are all notable". It does not matter how many times the first argument is repeated, it does not make the second part true. Nor have I seen any general consensus about this notability other than its constant repetition. A school, high school or otherwise is notable if it meets the general notability guidelines. If that is demonstrated, then arguments about a perceived consensus are unnecessary. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the talk page for the essay Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). It is very clear that high school articles are not ever deleted on the basis of notability. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Redbank_Plains,_Queensland. Even with the sources, seems to be just another unremarkable SHS. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Whilst "local in scope" there is some "verifiable information from reliable independent sources" in the article per WP:ORG. Assize (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the question of "remarkable", there are 108 hits of various types in Factiva on the school. Assize (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article passes WP:N and is WP:V. Looks a valid High school stub to me. Most High school articles are kept per WP:OUTCOMES.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets usual standards, plus usual precedent. WilyD 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as high school article, which through a very well established precedent is a subject area that can be generally assumed to be notable. See the very short project space essay at Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), as well as its talk page for further explanation of this concept. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I reverted a non-admin closure of this AFD because the closer used his/her own opinion as the basis to speedy close the discussion, contrary to the consensus guidelines, deletion policy and WP:NAC. I am sure this was a well-intentioned closure, but I think it was not appropriate. Closer's comment provided below. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), because (1) high schools are considered notable on Wikipedia and (2) Eastmain has added proper references, thus cancelling the concern about lacking third party sources. Okay, class dismissed! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The admin who disruptively reopened this AfD clearly did not bother to read my NAC decision, which cited two reasons -- the second, which was ignored in his decision to reopen the AfD, involved the fact the AfD nominator complained of a lack of third party sources, which was quickly addressed by Eastmain's excellent additions to the article. I stand by my NAC decision as being correct -- and since this AfD is obviously heading for the preservation of the article, it appears the reversion serves no practical purpose whatsoever. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Hitler family. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Hitler[edit]

Gustav Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ida Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Otto Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Edmund Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Group nomination. Subjects are four siblings of Adolf Hitler, all of whom died of natural causes before age six. Only Edmund was alive in Adolf Hitler's lifetime. No notability other than famous relative. Current articles are unreferenced stubs that contain pretty much all useful encyclopedic information on the subjects. Rklear (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be worth listing or integrating a brief version of this information into the Adolf Hitler article, with these articles redirected to the relevant section the information was contained in? The most likely location would be somewhere in the Adolf Hitler#Childhood section. It could read something along the lines of "Adolf was one of Alois and Klara's six children. Only Adolf and his sister Paula reached adulthood: Gustav, born in 1885, and Ida, born in 1886, both died of diphtheria in December 1886; Otto was born and died in 1887; and Edmund, who was born in 1894 and died from measels in 1900.", but would likely need to be tweaked to best fit in the article. Three of the articles list the same text as "literature" (I assume "reference") - "Marc Vermeeren. "De jeugd van Adolf Hitler 1889-1907 en zijn familie en voorouders". Soesterberg, 2007, 420 blz. Uitgeverij Aspekt. ISBN = 90-5911-606-2. " - I assume this could be used to source such an addition to the main Adolf Hitler article. However, in the articles' current incarnations, the only content is that summarised above: the articles repeat and summarise each other. I do not believe that these for children pass the notability inclusion guideline, as the only coverage they appear to have received is what is presented here, and this coverage only exists because they share the same parents as Adolf Hitler. -- saberwyn 06:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would equally support a similar merge and redirection with the article Hitler family as target, per below. -- saberwyn 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information has a place on Wikipedia, but it's doubtful that we will ever be able to expand the individual articles beyond stub level. I suggest grouping them together in a single article. How about Siblings of Adolf Hitler--the individual articles of the more notable siblings could be linked there, together with the information on the ones who died young. Everyking (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hitler family unless expanded. I agree with the sentiments above, but I cannot see any real reason to establish an entirely new article just for the siblings. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see the family article. In that case, yes, I agree that merging with the list and giving each family member in the list one or two paragraph summaries—with links to the more notable family members—is reasonable. Everyking (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hitler family, which should be rewritten to have some info on everyone and be more than just a list of links.--Boffob (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hitler family because they are not notable enough for their own articles.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge--though I do not really see what harm they do as separate. Normally i would strongly argue that siblings of such figures are notable due to their influence on the main individual, but for those who die in infancy at a time when the main person is either unborn or still an infant,, it's harder to make such an argument. any effect would be indirect, and would be much the same for each of them. There are probably psychological speculations, but they can be discussed together DGG (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus appears to be that the subject is notable, whether it's to be merged is a discussion for the talk page StarM 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Direct Models[edit]

LA Direct Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted as A7 and endorsed at DRV and then recreated with sources. I don't think that they are enough being mostly trivial mentions in the course of discussing other things or reading like reprints of press releases. Therefore the article should be deleted as covering a non-notable company. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Looks okay I'm afraid. They are apparently notable within there ummmm... industry... *cough* *cough* ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as above. or Merge with Derek Hay. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Largest pornographic talent agency in the world. Frequent coverage by the two main trade journals of american pornography, AVN and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts. Epbr123 (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in reviewing the sources, the question for me comes down to whether XBIZ is a reliable source. The XBIZ article about the agency is the only substantive source in the piece that is about the agency that wouldn't run afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS. The rest are press releases and/or mentions of the agency in conjunction with another event with which the agency is in some respect involved. If XBIZ is a reliable source per our guidelines then keep. Otherwise delete for lacking reliable sources and thus failing WP:N. I don't know enough about XBIZ to judge whether their reputation for editorial standards meets our criteria or not. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out that I think you're misunderstanding WP:NOT#NEWS. It doesn't mean that news reports can't be used to establish notability; it means that news reports only establish notability if the coverage goes beyond the context of a single event. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that news reports can be used to establish notability. I was referring to sources like the AVN article discussing possible FBI interest in the company, which I don't believe does go toward establishing notability for the agency. I'm also concerned that a large number of the sources appear to be of the press release variety (reports of the agency moving to a different office space for example, or the activities of various models). It really is for me hinging on the XBIZ reference. Do you have any feedback as far as their standards for reportage? Otto4711 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS states "How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." As well as reporters, XBiz has an editor-in-chief, a managing editor, an editor & puplications director, a news manager, copyeditors, and a proofreader [36] p.12. XBiz is also often used as a source by other publcations [37]. They also indicate whenever an article is a press release, eg. [38], so not all their news reports should be treated as such, eg. [39]. Epbr123 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cracked.  Sandstein  17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gosar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott Gosar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual of questionable notability. The only external link provided looks like a personal web page, and the only user to add any content to the article shares their name with the article itself. roleplayer 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the first nomination for deletion was over a year ago - I am running this again as I don't know if the individual in question has got more notable in that time. -- roleplayer 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity piece for utterly non-notable person. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and obviously WP:COI issues as well. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not an issue that requires deletion when there's no fluff language in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I cleaned up the article. What's left is thin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The guy was published in well established humor magazines. It's no longer a vanity piece. It would be okay to keep it, but if the consensus is delete, I think that's reasonable. I did clean it up and then add back in some stuff.ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS my nominating opinion is that it should be deleted, just in case that was unclear. -- roleplayer 11:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, meaning not delete. Future merge subject to editor's discretion. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifi Le Fume[edit]

Fifi Le Fume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Fifi Le Fume article should be deleted at all. Tkerekes13 (talk) 4:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, which main article do you mean? Please let me know. Tkerekes13 (talk) 4:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer This discussion should be included in the group nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babs and Buster Bunny. - jc37 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very well written and just needs more references. It includes obvious information that are know by anyone who has seen the series. The character has too much of info to be deleted. If it was deleted please send me a copy of the source so I may work on it till I find enough sources to post it again as an article. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetie Pie[edit]

Sweetie Pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, meaning not delete. Future merge subject to editor's discretion. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold the Pit Bull[edit]

Arnold the Pit Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and you're wrong for the following reason;

Arnold is one of the few characters on "Tiny Toons" not directly modeled after another existing Warner Brothers character. Arnold was named after Arnold Schwarzenegger and speaks like him as well, whom was at the height of his popularity as an actor at the time.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 World's Finest. StarM 04:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Finest[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The World's Finest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete since its a blatant vanity page for a seemingly popular DC Animated fansite. I personally don't think any fansite is merit of such recognition and the only sources of its importance are from affiliate sites, which is a clear conflict of interest. Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Giving appropriate weight to likely sock/meat puppets, consensus is to delete StarM 04:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam Mukhopadhyay[edit]

Anupam Mukhopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable poet. Claims to have only 1 award. Article promotes his next book to be published next year E Wing (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Non-Notable poet. No reliable sources have been provided ... most of the content seems to be self-promotional, and perhaps written by the subject or people associated with the subject. Fails WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete.-important young poet of West Bengal,India --user:Sudesna Majumdar5:08 , 12 November —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete no reliable source to establish notability, also heavily promotional.--Boffob (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a single purpose account which had also created a vanity page on herself. (speedied by now). --Ragib (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • how could you think about deleting Anupam's page !-- Anupam Mukhopadhyay is the most popular young poet in this decade . There is no important Bangla magazine which does not publish his poems . he is an Important critic . It seems he is going to give Bangla poetry a new shape .--user:prabhat chowdhury —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhat Choudhury (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Another single purpose account that has only added promo text to this article, or links to this article in 2 other articles.--Ragib (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete.-- anupam is the most gifted among the young bangla poets of today .--user:ibrahim_khan_ali —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete:Non-notable poet. It seems some editor is creating a number of accounts to oppose deletion. Can someone check for puppets and block them all? Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Ibrahim_khan_ali --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this, and redirect Will Sinnott to The Shamen. There is pprobably an article to be written here, though, and I'll add it to my to-do list. Black Kite 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Sinnott (musician)[edit]

William Sinnott (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per Request: Lacks notability, it has zero sources, therefore I Nominate this article for deletion. Jayson (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A few sentences from his page could be incorporated into Shamen page, but otherwise, there is no warrant to keep individual page for him. Far more famous musicians don't get to have their own pages, so why this one was even created in the first place? 98.228.245.206 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that this page was created to... pay respects to the guy. Nothing against that, except is there really any notability that warrants a separate page for him? 24.11.153.42 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Does not appear to be notable outside of the group. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. still limited participation, but calling this a fifteen-day PROD as there is no dissent. StarM 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Billion Silhouettes Project[edit]

One Billion Silhouettes Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB et al, no reliable sources to verify the significance of the project. Long-term problem. Deiz talk 09:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Solsberg[edit]

Albert Solsberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, non-notable person. Zero Google hits for "Albert Solsberg" Israel (outside of this article). ZimZalaBim talk 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. High schools, per precedent and consensus, are inherently notable. Keeping this AfD open for any longer serves no purpose. Additionally, there is already a clear consensus to keep this individual article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masuk High School[edit]

Masuk High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, non-notable school article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established consensus is that high school articles are sufficiently notable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-keep — It has been established that high schools are inherently notable. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't happen to agree with the consensus that high schools are notable by definition, but until the tide shifts there's no reason to delete this one. If the mood changes, though, I'll be nominating the vast majority of high school entries, including my alma mater!--otherlleft (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like otherleft, I don't agree with this consensus but it is and has been the overwhelming consensus that high schools are notable. StarM 03:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable, meets notability per longstanding precedent. WilyD 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I reverted a non-administrative closure of this AFD. THe reason was that the closure rationale was not provided, and the recommended period of time for due process has not occurred. The majority of opinions expressed in this discussion are likely to be countered and so closing the discussion this early is likely to affect the outcome, contrary to the guidelines at WP:NAC. I have provided the closers comment below: Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner (New Wave Band)[edit]

Sumner (New Wave Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable; autobiography; suspected violation of WP:COI -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I declined the speedy deletion because G12 can't be used when parts of the article, like with this one, were not copied from such a source. SoWhy 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two delete votes right after the first keep? Remarkable. Why, it's almost as if you had a watchlist! 86.44.21.224 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Couldn't it also be mere coincidence, especially since the anon IPs are totally different locations? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it could be. Could also be 1 meatpuppet of 1 sock of 1 reg already in the discussion. Could be me. Could be all sorts of things, I have no idea, just commenting on the timing and i suppose the nature of the content. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alexnia (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution prep[edit]

Revolution prep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertisement; suspected violation of WP:COI Identical article was speedied previously for CSD G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since it has substantial coverage. POV and tone of the article need attention though. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the "media coverage" section. Seems to have reliable 3rd party sources. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the reservations noted above. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep How they managed to get two respectable newspapers to spam on their behalf, I don't know, but the LA Times and the Financial Times are reliable sources, and the coverage is significant. RayAYang (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability well established the usual way. No problems exist anymore, seems to have been cleaned up a bit. WilyD 14:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Four[edit]

Five Four (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertisement; highly questionable notability; violates WP:NPOV and likely violates WP:COI. Surprised that CSD G11 was declined. Still believe it should be speedy deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD G4 as a substantially identical repost to content previously deleted after debate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Kaguya (cruise ship)[edit]

Princess Kaguya (cruise ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a new article on a concept for a projected cruise ship, which appears to be a concept of its promoter, and lacks financing, a start date, and an operator. A prior article on the project was deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (ship) The deleted article was sourced to the official website, and to another website which apparently allows anyone to submit content; the cited page of that source copied text from the official website, but with elementary errors (such as equating gross tonnage with weight). In the present article the only sources are the official website (last updated in 2007) and the Thai Wikipedia. The project is an unrealized idea, and nothing more; as with the prior article this one fails WP:CRYSTAL, as there is nothing to indicate the project is "almost certain to take place". (While the article indicates that the piece is in the middle of further work, its basic flaw cannot be remedied by expansion.) Kablammo (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--nice work by the nominator. WP is not a crystal ball, indeed. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CRYSTAL per nom. Wouldn't this be a violation of WP:G4 as well and therefore eligible for speedy deletion? DARTH PANDAduel 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The ship has been ordered, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily be built. Recommend deleting this article until at least the keel is laid, at which point it should be recreated (there should also be more references at that point). Parsecboy (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G4) — Yes, this does meet G4 as this is blatant recreation of deleted material. It's only an asinine attempt to shirk the deletion process by recreating it under another name, in which I say 'nice try.' MuZemike (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no independant, reliable sources at this time to support the article (one source is the project webpage itself, which is not independant, and as mentioned above has a cobweb problem, the other source is a Wikipedia article, which should never be used as a source for another article). I have no qualms about the article being recreated at a later date, as if a cruise ship of this size and design is actually laid down, its going to generate a fair amount of media attention, from which the new article can be reliably sourced. -- saberwyn 06:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons outlined by Saberwyn above. However, I would not nescessarily hold the fact that the ship is not yet in construction or that she might never be realised as a reason for deleting the article if enough verifiable sources are available. There are cases where an article on a never realised ship might be called for; a case point would be Cunard Line's mid-90s plans for a new ocean liner that preceeded the QM2 project. This has been documented in at least two publications (more are likely to exist) and had the project been realised it would have had such a large impact on the company that a page might be called for. Obviously this reasoning—even if acceptable—does not apply to Princess Kaguya; I merely wanted to mention it. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this, which quotes Lloyd's List:

Thursday 29 March 2007
A NEW cruiseship giant could be in operation by 2012 if detailed negotiations on a massive financial package now under way is finalised by the end of this year.[42]

I can find no indication the financing was put together by the end of last year, or that the vessel has been ordered. Kablammo (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio.  Sandstein  17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bechtold[edit]

Amy Bechtold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Her only claim to notability is that she is a member of the United States Court of Military Commission Review a marginally notable government commission. The first reference in the article only includes her name in a list of appointees and the second reference will not load. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete and removeComment Consider moving content to stub United States Court of Military Commission Review; this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK.It also lacks contextually important biographical data (Is it WP:BLP that allows for the omission of biographical data from so many BLPs, basic things like birthdays, hometowns nationalities etc?), which would otherwise be redeeming as is the case with Frank J. Williams or Griffin Bell. Actually several of the other judges' articles should be deleted according to this criteria.Synchronism (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)(refactor-Synchronism (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
"People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges."
If the wikipedia encodes official policies and guidelines, isn't it a mistake to ignore them? Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the article asserts her notability as being based on her membership in a commission. There's too little info. there to justify it as a stand-alone article; a redirect maintains it until someone expands it. The minimal info. on her can be merged to the target article. JJL (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Bechtold isn't just a former JAG officer -- She was the Chief Judge of the Air Forces Court of Military Review. in other words -- one of the USAF's very most senior JAG officers. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- One of the justifications offered for deletion was that the nominator had found one of the article's reference had gone 404. Since when has a references going 404 been a justification for deletion of an entire article? Anyhow, multiple sites hosted that article, and the article now cites one from Harvard since the one from MIT went dark. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this nomination calls the United States Court of Military Commission Review a "marginally notable government commission" -- as if everyone agreed that this was an established fact. Well, heck no. When did everyone agree to this? What I think we all need to recognize is that complying with WP:NPOV both prevents us from inserting biased material into articles, based solely on our personal point of view -- it should prevent us from deleting material from the wikipedia based solely on our personal point of view. The Bush administration, in its defense of its Guantanamo policies, have very strongly pushed the interpretation that everything that happens at Guantanamo is mundane, ordinary, predictable, and fully consistent with both the USA's own laws and the USA's international obligations. Congress didn't agree -- that is why it passed the Detainee Treatment Act. The Supreme Court didn't agree -- that is why it over-ruled the Presidency in three separate cases. Many respected experts don't agree. The wikipedia is not the GeorgeWBushopedia. We are not supposed to only cover the Bush administration version of things. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- So, is the background of the individual judges on the Commission significant, worth coverage? Sure. How independent are they? Critics challenged their independence. Critics mocked the unpreparedness of the Court of Military Commission Review. Brownback and Allred surprised everyone when they dropped the charges against both captives who faced charges on 2007-06-04. No one had expected that any appeals would be made to the Court until after sentences had been handed down. The full set of judges for the Court hadn't been appointed. And the Court's rules of operation hadn't been established. Critics ridiculed newly appointed members, members appointed solely because Brownback and Allred had dropped the charges on procedural grounds could used rules of operation that were not yet established and still reach a demonstrably fair decision. Just as this is not the Bushopedia, we shouldn't be taking a stand on the credibility and character of the judges. But, I suggest, what we know about the judges definitely is not of marginal importance. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, historical notability of the Guantanamo military commissions rivals that of Nuremberg and {{Nuremberg Trial judges}} shows that each of them was given an undisputed Wiki article. Often people judge "current" events as though they are less "historic" than past events; and in this case I think it is a mistake. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of notability mostly. I do hope the article will be expanded though. -Synchronism (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The practice for US judges is fairly well established. At the federal level, all US district court judges and their specialized equivalent are notable--there are only a few hundred of them total at any one time. These people here are the approximate equivalents of US federal appeals court judges, who are certainly and unquestionably notable. Bio details can be found and added, but the important part will be their decisions. I don't think judging this depends upon ones political viewpoint even from the Conservopedia standpoint, these people would be clearly notable--especially notable even. From the postulated GWBushopedia, even more so. I wish GeoSwan had not raised that argument. The US judges who are not notable are the ones at the level of US Magistrates. (At the US State level, the practice is that judges of courts of appellate jurisdiction are notable--what they are called varies from state to state & onecannot go by title.) DGG (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Cuts 2000/2001[edit]

2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-released album that fails WP:MUSIC Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Wolves[edit]

The Den of Wolves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be something that was just made up rather than an ancient fable Filceolaire (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gillum[edit]

Andrew Gillum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A local city commissioner is just not notable, IMHO. But I'll AFD this instead of CSD to give a chance for me to be proved wrong. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references, both from his time as a city commissioner and from his days as a student politician. I think that notability has been established. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage in RS is not deep enough to warrant an article. Were Tallahassee a larger city, I would argue inherent notability. But it does not cross the threshold. The mayor would have inherent notability, but a council member for a city this size would need to be more extraordinary to be notable. The references added by Eastman are not sufficiently non-trivial. (Betcha- this closes as no consensus because enough people won't agree to delete.) Dlohcierekim 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep Tallahasee is a city of 159,012, and we've usually considered that in the range where the city councilmen might be notable. DGG (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources establish notability the usual way. Published biography already exists, reliable if not third party, so no concerns about ability to write. No reason to override the usual standards here. WilyD 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Boronczyk[edit]

Timothy Boronczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable author. Very little information apparent except for his having written a book. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Je just "passed the PHP5 Zend Certified Engineer Exam in June, 2008." The books have just been published, are are only about to be, and are not yet in any libraries. He has some coming from Wiley next year, so when they are reviewed, he might conceivably be notable. At the moment, he isnt, and the article is purely promotional. Considering the dates, I would probably have considered it a G11 speedy. DGG (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although we lack clear guidelines for book authors, I'm not convinced that a byline for a single book about PHP in Wrox Press, and one to appear next year with long list of co-authors, plus some acknowledged reviews for a few other books, and some technical articles make someone a notable technical writer. The article also has promotional content, which is not sourced. VG ☎ 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. still limited participation, but calling this a ten-day PROD as there is no dissent. StarM 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Falaschi[edit]

Tito Falaschi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable musician. Tavix (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. still limited participation, but calling this a ten-day PROD as there is no dissent. StarM 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StaRLit[edit]

StaRLit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims to be a bestselling book and fashion brand, but gsearch isn't turning up evidence of this. (No gnews or ghits showing notability for name+author or name+pen name.) Because there may be language issues hindering my search, I'm taking to AfD instead of prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is not enough evidence to assert the topic's notability. SilkTork *YES! 00:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. still limited participation, but calling this a ten-day PROD as there is no dissent. StarM 04:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centis[edit]

Centis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable surname. The article exists only has a "dictionary" definition. With no notable people using the surname, it cannot be used as a disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - now that I removed the spam, it appears to be unsourced original research, and I agree with other arguments given by the nominator.--Boffob (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_10&oldid=1081072679"