Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

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 No consensus. There are a number of difficult issues to tackle in this discussion. Firstly, whether SBOBET is a notable company in itself. Secondly, whether the company's recent-acquired status as a sponsor of a (very) notable sports team is an acceptable reason for notability—and therefore an acceptable justification for inclusion on Wikipedia. In both cases, this discussion has failed to produce to a satisfactory extent a consensus on either side: no general agreement seems to exist as to whether this subject is notable or not, both ignoring and taking account of which teams it sponsors. I would feel uncomfortable, therefore, closing this discussion as "Delete" on the basis of a consensus to do so (as none exists), and would feel equally uncomfortable closing as "Keep" as the assumption therein is that consensus here has concluded keeping this article on Wikipedia is justified—again, which it has not. I am defaulting to "No consensus," therefore, without prejudice to re-filing a fresh discussion in the relatively near future in order to re-attempt the evaluation of community consensus on SBOBET's notability.

On a peripheral note, I would encourage all attempts at cleanup to improve the prose and reliable sourcing of this article; complaints on both notes have been consistently raised in the course of this discussion. AGK 21:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBOBET[edit]

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

Blatant, linkspam advert whose only claim to notablility is advert text of "leading". basically isn't even any text except linkfarm links and a laundry list shared by literally thousands of similar sites. 2005 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This isn't some fly-by-night operation but West Ham's new shirt sponsor, and their logo will shortly be gracing every beer-belly in east London. Poorly written ≠ non-notable. – iridescent 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you are joking. Being a shirt sponsor is not listed under WP:N! The article is 100% blatant spam and obviously should be speedied, but at afd... it has no relable media mentions, aside from a cursory mention saying it is a shirt sponsor, which again is not one of the WP:N criteria. The only reliable sources are governement ones saying it is licensed, which is not a criteria either. If the poorly written parts of the article were removed it would say SBOBET is a licensed betting company sponsoring a football team. But there would be no sources to say it should be listed in the encyclopedia because of that. If they ever exist, then a non-spammy article can be written. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not assert the notability of its subjectMozzie (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not demonstrably notable company. Sponsoring a sports team doesn't automatically establish the notability of the sponsor. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not assert notability, references are very very weak, needs 3rd party coverage detailing more than paid sponsorship. DustyRain (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sponsorship is relevant to the importance. A team like that normally does pick appropriate partners. At least The Times thinks so, and there is evidence it's a major betting firm in its geographic area. Statbrain has it as [1] "126,672 visits per day" with the description " SBOBET is Asia's leading online Sportbook. SBO has a license by the Philippines Authorities to operate as an international sports bookmaker" I consider them a 3rd party RS. I have no experience with this subject, so I am not sure how reliable Inside Bet is considered, but they cover it too, and they are certainly 3rd party in what they say about it, & I see also another less-than-complementary story but which does indicate some importance. that's just from the first 40 ghits. DGG (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The Times shows notability in sports sponsorship. FA match-fixing inquiry hits wall of silence, |FA to investigate match-fixing allegations in game between Norwich and Derby and [FA probes claims that gamblers tried to fix match between Norwich and Derby show that the FA considers SBOBET significant enough in betting to ask for its co-operation in a match-fixing inquiry. The list of bet types and sports could be shortened or eliminated, as it looks rather like advertising and is probably not stable. However that's a reason for editing, not deletion. IMO this AfD request should be closed per WP:SNOW. -- Philcha (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article isn't about sports sponsorship. Two editors have supported keeping the article while posting links that do not meet WP:N, since they either aren't about the subject or are not reliable sources (the review sites review every betting site there is, so obviously they are worthless, otherwise we'd have literally 1000 articles on every minor online sportsbook). The guidelines clearly suggest this should be speedy deleted, but suggesting a snow close when there are Four for delete and Three for keep is pretty puzzling. 2005 (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you miss "the FA considers SBOBET significant enough in betting to ask for its co-operation in a match-fixing inquiry", i.e. the FA thinks SBOBET is notable? --Philcha (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? It doesn't matter. The article is not about SBOBET. "Significant" is not our criteria for articles. You should read WP:N and WP:V. Just being "significant" or being mentioned in an article about some larger topic is not a criteria for having an article. 2005 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Horridly written, but still keepable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:10, 28 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 Bradley effect. SoWhy 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fishtown Effect[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. It does not seem even to be an "effect" to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep its a frequently used neologism and it has been the center idea of some articles in reliable sources (e.g "The Fishtown Effect — Can you be racist and vote Obama?".) Icewedge (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to have been the central idea in one article. —Dominus 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not yet know if this effect will come to prominence, or fade to obscurity. I say delete it now, and if it is still notable in a year or more then somebody will recreate it. Then again, if it is kept and fades to obscurity, someone can renominate for deletion at a later time.Mozzie (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. I'd heard of this so-called effect before in the past few weeks, and I hadn't read any of the cited sources at that time. Although this is but an anecdote, I feel that the term has been mentioned sufficiently in the media to warrant inclusion. Should the term turn out to be but a fad among political columnists, however, then I'd advocate its deletion at some point in the future. More importantly, however, I'm aware of no other term to describe this hypothesized electoral effect. Did such a term exist, I'd vote for this article's being merged with the article covering that term. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bradley Effect, on second thought. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article seems to be saying that some white people who don't like black people in general voted for Obama since they thought he would do a better job as president than McCain, especially for the economy. I'm happy to hear that they did, but I don't see how this is remarkable enough to have its own name as an "effect" or a WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism made up by political talking heads because their polls were wrong. There is no way of knowing whether this term will catch on yet or not. If this term is ever used again after this election cycle, then it can be recreated. -Atmoz (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Bradley effect. The claim that this neologism is "frequently used" or "has been mentioned sufficiently in the media" are unsubstantiated, and probably false. Google News search, for example, produces only five citations. Three are from the inventor of the neologism. Of the other two, the last one was on November 3, before the election. If the "effect" is so widely-discussed in the media, where are the articles analyzing its effect on the election? I suggest that this nonceword has had its fifteen seconds of fame. The article on the Bradley effect already says everything that this article does, more succinctly. I tried replacing Fishtown effect with a redirect to Bradley effect earlier this month, but the article's creator reverted the change. —Dominus 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a frequently used neologism. Philly jawn (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Bradley effect per Dominus. The term appears to be a non-notable neologism, it was never widely discussed by the media during the election, and I don't see any proof that it is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Also Atmoz brought up some good points. Khoikhoi 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Fishtown effect" was mentioned in Bradley effect more people would read about it there than will ever find this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned there. —Dominus 18:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be the opposite, but is it notable? Zero hits in Google Books, and only four hits in Google News. Per WP:CRYSTAL, if it later becomes notable, we can restore the article, but you say that it's too early to be sure how long this term will endure in political analysis. This could possibly also violate Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as well. Khoikhoi 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khoi, as you kindly point out, Google News shows that the Fishtown effect is notable enough to have been written about ("significant, direct coverage)" in the Irish Independent, i.e. on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. If WP can't have an article on the Fishtown effect until it shows up in Google books, perhaps we should delete United States presidential election, 2008 until it's been written about in a book by a WP:RS political analyst, rather than a catch-penny hack the day after the election. Hmm, I wonder what other articles we'd have to delete if we used your Google Books criterion. Perhaps most of the scientific and medical discoveries, tunes, movies, novels, etc., etc. of the last two years. --Philcha (talk) 22:00, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de Sitter relativity[edit]

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

    This doesn't appear to be notable. Chasing citations from the papers/preprints mentioned in the references, I found no independent critical review of this work. Most of the citations were from other papers by the same group of de Sitter relativity proponents. The few exceptions mentioned the papers only in passing in a survey of related work, or (in one case) in support of a true but trivial statement about the infinite-curvature limit of de Sitter space which isn't central to the papers' main claims.

    I should probably add that the papers appear to me to be nonsense; the authors don't seem to understand special relativity or cosmology. I'd expect any well-known cosmologist who did review the papers to reach the same conclusion. This puts Wikipedia in an impossible situation if the article is kept—pointing out flaws in the paper would be original research or synthesis, but not pointing them out (as our article currently doesn't) creates the impression of a scientific consensus that doesn't exist. I think that the notability requirement exists to protect us from just this kind of situation, and so the article ought to be deleted as non-notable. -- BenRG (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :Unfortunately most of those Google hits are about earlier work on de Sitter spacetime and are not about the modifications to special relativity that are proposed here. Delaszk (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually a lot of those hits are ok, I was thinking about a search I had made with the words de,sitter,relativity not joined together with dashes. Delaszk (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that the theory is basically nonsensical in that anybody ever having done FRW cosmology and studied the deSitter solution knows that this doesn't really require any modification to GR. But unfortunately, that is no reason for deletion.
    However, the theory has little to no notability which might be reason for deletion.
    If the article is kept, it needs a major rework, because currently it has major NPOV issues; it reads like an infomercial for the theory. (TimothyRias (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    In ordinary SR/GR you don't require these changes, however if you make the modifications to SR that are proposed here then there are corresponding modifications to GR to be made. Delaszk (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have added this to the article: "This is a recent theory which has yet to be tested experimentally" Delaszk (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Well I'm not an expert on relativity, but this articles reads like a POV-push. This, combined with the obviously unnotable character of whatever's being said here, and lack of references (6 out of 7 are arχiv preprints and the other I can't access) makes me say delete.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :*Keep I've made some changes to the article to address these issues. Also there are still more references, yet to be added, about de Sitter relativity in the limit as v<<c. Delaszk (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still a delete from me.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes aren't nearly enough. De Sitter relativity isn't just new or untested, it doesn't even make sense as a theory. "Modifying general relativity to make it locally de Sitter instead of locally [Minkowski]" doesn't mean anything on the face of it. De Sitter space is the Lorentzian analogue of a sphere, so it's like saying that one should modify surfaces to be locally spherical instead of locally flat. Most surfaces are neither. The use of flat tangent spaces in general relativity doesn't involve any assumption about the manifold except that it's differentiable. Maybe one could study manifolds using tangent spheres instead, but it would be the same theory (since the manifolds are the same), just expressed in less convenient language. The only nontrivial meaning I can think of for "locally de Sitter manifold" would be a manifold whose curvature at every point was purely scalar, but that can't be what they mean; it wouldn't reproduce the most basic features of Newtonian gravity.
    Their motivation for using de Sitter space in the first place—that its isometries preserve an invariant length—also doesn't make sense. The isometries preserve the radius of curvature, just as rotating a sphere preserves its radius, but that radius doesn't lie on the manifold. To the extent that one can define a notion of Lorentz contraction in de Sitter space, an object with a length equal to the radius of curvature still Lorentz contracts.
    One of the main predictions they claim to extract from de Sitter general relativity (if there is such a thing) is that the dark energy density is about the same as the matter density, which they claim as a success since it agrees with ΛCDM. But in ΛCDM the densities are only similar in the present era. At the time of decoupling, for example, the matter density was about 109 times higher while the dark energy density was the same as now. This isn't necessarily fatal—the WMAP team's analysis rules out any major variation in the dark energy density in the context of ΛCDM, but (not being familiar with the details) I can imagine that a completely new analysis based on a completely new model might agree with the data. I would expect this major disagreement with ΛCDM to be the centerpiece of their paper. That they don't even mention it suggests to me a pretty low level of understanding of the branch of science that they're trying to revolutionize.
    Either they've done a lousy job of explaining and motivating what they're really doing, or they're not really doing anything. I suspect the latter, but in either case the Wikipedia article needs to be rewritten from the ground up if it's going to stay. The article won't make sense as long as it echoes the papers. -- BenRG (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "One of the main predictions they claim ... is that the dark energy density is about the same as the matter density, which they claim as a success since it agrees with ΛCDM." - I can't find where they say this, could you tell me where this claim occurs? Thanks. Delaszk (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry about the delay. I was referring to section 4 of arXiv:0711.2274. -- BenRG (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No prejudice against recreation if the physics community takes notice at some later date. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Proposal Consensus seems to be heading for delete. If it comes to that, then I propose that the page be redirected to doubly special relativity since it is a form of doubly special relativity. That way all the references I've gathered could be restored if need be. Delaszk (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. I agree with most of the critcisms by BenRG, but we cannot delete articles on these grounds. This article should be rewritten, the promotion of the theory as an explanation for dark energy etc. in the lead should be made much less prominent, because this has yet to be scrutinized by the physics community. A reader who doesn't know this, should not get any other impression about this theory.

    Nowhere in the article could I read anything about the de Sitter algebra, which is strange as this is what everything seems to be based on. So, I think it would be much better if Delaszk rewrites this article as a mathematical physics article and explains in detail the de Sitter algebra along the lines of sections 2 and 3 of this article.

    Of course, the article would then look like a very technical exposition of a mathematical physics subject but that is what it i.m.o. should be. What you can do is mention later on in the article that this theory has been proposed to explain dark energy by the proponents. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, but the theory that this wiki article is about seems to be founded on some Lie-algebra described in the link I gave above. I think one can have a wiki article that explains this formalism in detail and then mentions that a few physicists claim that the theory can account for dark energy. Count Iblis (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • New proposal: Redirect to de Sitter invariant theories because the idea goes back at least as far as Dirac (1935). Each of the phrases "de Sitter invariant", "de Sitter invariance" and "de Sitter gravity" get plenty google hits, so this seems notable. Delaszk (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The new article will have a broader scope. de Sitter special relativity is just part of that. Delaszk (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Over 1000 hits on Google scholar for new topic: "de Sitter invariant" OR "de Sitter invariance" OR "de Sitter gravity" Delaszk (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete An article on de Sitter's contributions to relativity might be useful, but this article is not that. If you remove everything that doesn't belong from this article, as far as I can tell there is nothing at all left. The article doesn't even reference any publications by de Sitter! An article should not be kept merely because the topic is valid -- it needs to have at least a small amount of useful content. Otherwise it is best to delete with the option of re-creating later with different content. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Relevant enough. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete looks unsalvegable. De Sitter universe is fair enough, though not very good either William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 28 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. SoWhy 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Christmas Parades In Michigan[edit]

    List of Christmas Parades In Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Even if this list linked to the events listed or provided useful information such as dates and so on, it would still fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ros0709 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Another indiscriminate list. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand that this is the first article from a new editor, and we want to welcome everyone to Wikipedia. I hope that you keep contributing, even if this first article is deleted. The first article I created was nominated and deleted, and although I was mad at first, it was simply my introduction to the guidelines for articles. I don't think that this will be allowed to stay, even though it is information that is accurate and that hasn't been put in one place before. "Wikipedia is not a directory" means that, as a matter of policy, it doesn't maintain articles about scheduled events, or lists of addresses and phone numbers. It's not that those things are unimportant (indeed, I agree that the annual Christmas parades are an important part of each of the communities listed). It's only that the creators of Wikipeida concluded that it would be a mistake to open the door to that type of article. People might disagree about whether this is an indiscriminate list (which is a fixable problem), but the rule against directories applies here. Anyway, I'm sorry if it sounds like we're a bunch of Scrooges; we're more like Bob Cratchits trying to keep the business working smoothly. I hope that you'll keep contributing. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mandsford. Is there a good place to transwiki this content? It's not appropriate for Wikipedia but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included somewhere. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 29 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. No references are provided as proof that this person exists.  Sandstein  18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I[edit]

    Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hoax please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite. Related article's up for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan bin Mohammed bin Faisal I, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed bin Faisal I - dwc lr (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment are there any grounds for believing this to be a hoax? I am not definitely in favour of retaining this article, there are a bit many of these articles on minor royals, but I suggest that we ought to have a consistent threshhold of notability in this area. If we delete this person then do we delete all grandchildren of monarchs who are not otherwise particularly notable? PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes why is this person not included in any genealogy on the Iraqi Royal Family. - dwc lr (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If this person does exist, but his claim to be a grandson of the king of Iraq is a hoax, should we add him to the category "Impostors"? Notable hoaxes and impostors can be encyclopedic, we have a lot of articles on them. PatGallacher (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this person is remotely notable. - dwc lr (talk) 12:49, 25 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. No references are provided as proof that this person exists.  Sandstein  18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed bin Faisal I[edit]

    Mohammed bin Faisal I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hoax please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite. Related article up for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan bin Mohammed bin Faisal I, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I - dwc lr (talk) 22:43, 23 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. No references are provided as proof that this person exists.  Sandstein  18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adnan bin Mohammed bin Faisal I[edit]

    Adnan bin Mohammed bin Faisal I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hoax please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite. Related article up for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed bin Faisal I, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I - dwc lr (talk) 22:43, 23 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 1995 kidnapping of western tourists in Jammu and Kashmir. May be merged from history at editors' discretion.  Sandstein  18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans Christian Ostrø[edit]

    Hans Christian Ostrø (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Thoroughly fails WP:ONEEVENT. Delete and redirect to 1995 kidnapping of western tourists in Jammu and Kashmir. Punkmorten (talk) 22:06, 23 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 all. Badagnani's comment discounted as disruptive.  Sandstein  18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    British Dominicans[edit]

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

    Article is about a non-notable group of 523 people. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strongest possible keep and block nominating editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to only 328 people:

    Cape Verdean migration to Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to only 963 people:

    Uruguayan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible keep and block nominating editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- this is yet another of these random Foo Barian articles that just combine two countries. No notability asserted. I'm looking forward to Austrian Australians and North Korean South Koreans. Oh, and Badagnani, you you you only only only have have have to to to make make make your your your point point point once once once. And calling for a block on a nominator for a good faith (and totally accurate) AfD nomination is not cool. Reyk YO! 01:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All for failing WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources to be found. gnfnrf (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all for no evidence of notability and (as noted by Reyk) this is in line with plenty of recent precedent for deletion of random mixtures of people and localities. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all as per nom. What's next, an article on Asian Americans born in South Africa? RayAYang (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note — excess !votes have been struck, and user warned for not assuming good faith. MuZemike (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no reliable source to establish notability of this particular group.--Boffob (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to only 595 people:

    Salvadoran Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ummm, maybe you should start another discussion, rather than adding on to this one after significant contributions have been made? gnfnrf (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete 523 people, that is really small. Not notable. I also support the deletion of the other non-notable groups listed. Lehoiberri (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Like the majority of these articles these contain no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 11:53, 28 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 05:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Gilbert Tower[edit]

    Ed Gilbert Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There is not enough content to identify the subject. The article specifies that this tower hasn't been designed yet. It does not tell us anything about the tower(s). It fails notability and looking on Google I could not find any sources that covered the subject. Nominating here because speedy delete tag was removed saying there was enough information to identify the subject of the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:SNOW I removed the speedy delete tag placed by A new name 2008 upon the article. However, I believe the article should be deleted, because I have found no proof that a tower called "Ed Gilbert Tower" is being planned for construction at all, from a reliable source or otherwise. I have employed SNOW, because I believe that this article is an obvious case for deletion. Terrakyte (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — Too short to identify subject properly, no references, nothing shows up with Google. Basically, per the above. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No information, does not meet basic WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) guidelines. It would also classify as a WP:CRYSTAL case, since there is no real information provided. Charles D. Ward (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The speedy call was the right one. There is not sufficient information about the structure. All of the reasons provided by Charles D. Ward apply. - Mgm|(talk) 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also fails WP:V. This is a building that hasn't even been designed yet. No location is given. Nothing to indicate that the tower project is real, never mind likely to get built. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a probable violation of WP:BLP. The author is not doing a favor for either of the two persons mentioned in the article. I cannot imagine that either of the two would make an article like this. The article is analogous to a drawing on a cocktail napkin, not a blueprint. Unfortunately, by throwing a person's name in the title, the author has compounded any problems. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of context and sources. An article about a building which has apparently not yet even been designed, and doesn't say where it is supposed to be built, is not what we are looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This thread is about 20 times as long as the article. --Lockley (talk) 22:40, 26 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  18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Boysen[edit]

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

    This person does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements at either WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF. The awards and accolades he has won are either on the University level or non-notable. Likewise, his work as a composer and conductor seems to be regulated to the University level as well. His position at the University of New Hampshire is also an under position and does not meet the requirements for notable professors. Further, the only reference given is from his publishing company which is not an independent source. Nrswanson (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note. When doing a google search there are several individuals with the name Andrew Boysen including a politician, a criminal, a photographer, a different composer, and two men with the name David Andrew Boysen to name just a few.Nrswanson (talk) 08:44, 24 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. SoWhy 13:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aksyon Radyo Press Conference[edit]

    Aksyon Radyo Press Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    lacking notability, event of a local importance Beagel (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete — Fails WP:NOTABILITY, as per the original nomination. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It is unsourced original research, with no verifiability. While in this case even local notability fails, I do not think local only notability should be reason enough to delete. Local notability, if highly notable in the given local area, and the local area is highly notable itself, is good enough for Wikipedia. If not, we should start deleting all those sports teams. After all, they are local. Slippery slope is slippery. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 29 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. SoWhy 13:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suburban Express[edit]

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

    Appears to be a small, non-notable company... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - With all the work done on this article (as well as the good quality refs added), I feel that it is beginning to show both notability as well as verifiability... without a clear consensus one way or the other I do not feel comfortable with a non-admin closure, but no longer feel so strongly about deleting it, therefore, I would like to change my decision to Weak Keep... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agreed with original reasoning. --Techpro5238 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    so let's keep new authors from posting anything. chicken, egg. egg, chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.143.193 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    please step away from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.143.193 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Notability not established, unlikely to be established, no verifiable secondary references, fails primary criteria for WP:COMPANY hugely. SlubGlub (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep References being added. UIUC has a student population of something like 50,000, and this is the most popular transportation in and out of campus. It also serves other significant universities and is known to the hundreds of thousands of students who have ridden it in the past 25 yars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.173.49 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC) — 75.16.173.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    You might be confusing importance with notability. Notability has a specific meaning here at wikipedia, and we need independent, reliable sources to show it. Any chance you can find some and add them to the article?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    98.212.143.193 / 75.16.173.49 may be a double vote see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fairmont-m19. Both appear to be Champaign, Illinois area IP addresses with no edits outside this topic. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as it doesn't satisfy WP:ORG guidelines for notability. It's another transportation company. I'm sure it is important to the users of their services, but as Fabrictramp points out, the objective importantance of a subject is not a means to meet notability requirements. Charles D. Ward (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Dual Freq (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added the {{Not a vote}} template, as it appears that this article is attracting several SPAs. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Charles D. Ward (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Small niche bus company among at least two others that exclusively serve Chicago-Champaign routes. As a former UIUC student, I can attest to their non-notability; they're mostly memorable in people's minds for their smear advertisements against their competitors. As to the above SPA comment, it wouldn't surprise me if the subject were trying to fight this; I haven't ridden with them since 2003 and am still getting unsolicited emails from throwaway email accounts advertising their services. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An employee tried to create a link and an article and got herself into a jam, tried to fix from another computer. I decided to try to make something of her idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.173.49 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ps it seems like her initial contribution to illinois terminal page was reasonable, and like she got slapped down unreasonably. all she did was to try to add links to the carriers that serve illinois terminal. the current illinois terminal entry really doesn't include much information. it's not an isolated entity - it's a hub of activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.173.49 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep -- minor notability and an unusual history. Possibly just about enough to warrant an article, though I am not certain. It still needs to be better referenced, preferably with more independent sources, but that suggests tagging it for improvement, rahte than deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I've usually opposed articles on transportation services on individual campuses. This seems to be more than that, and it seems to have somewhat more distinctive notability and possible general interest. There are still substantial elements of promotional or at least nonencyclopedic content content DGG (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, mainly because I found a 3/4 page story from 1985 in the newspaper archive which I feel establishes notability: Fare wars - Bus service run by student butts heads with Greyhound. Dan Rozek. Daily Herald. Chicago, Illinois. Sunday, October 20, 1985. Page 20. According to the article, the company started as a student run underdog that Greyhound tried and failed to pound into the dirt by lowering fairs from the mid-$30 range down to $15. Greyhound also had UIUC refusing to allow S.E. ticket sales to discourage competition with Greyhound. Greyhound also requested two separate investigations of S.E. by the Illinois Commerce Commission. It's interesting that 25 years after forming and being the underdog, it is probably thought of in the same way that Greyhound was thought of back then (at least based on the "smear competitors" comment above). Kind of a grass roots company started to "fight the man", but now it is "the man". Certainly it's not a story as big as the founding of Microsoft or Federal Express, but it's still noteworthy. The article is a COI right now, but it really isn't an over the top advertisement, in an attempt to provide balance, one of the original authors even provided names and links of competitors. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup, preferably with a chainsaw. I believe notability is established through multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. Kudos to the above user who overcame FUTON bias and dug up a source all the way from 1985. I will also note that the last couple of comments in this AFD is certainly how an AFD should be conducted — in a constructive manner and not through any underhanded trickery or anything like that. MuZemike (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as it has now proved to be notable. Please help the rookie editor to cleanup and Wikify this article, rather than just blindly delete. FairFare (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Although this will never be a major work, it can now be moved into the non-fiction section and will also supplement the university articles without being buried within them. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Too little in-depth coverage by independent sources, not enough here to pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:51, 26 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. MBisanz talk 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discordian calendar[edit]

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

    In-universe aspect of an obscure religion. No outside references to establish notability. Pcap ping 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. How can a religious calendar be in universe? I'm an atheist myself, but it's real. Plenty of gHits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Try gBooks too. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can be in-universe because nobody else takes it seriously. The links you've provided are not even close to reliable sources: some are admitted copies of material from Wikipedia etc. There are only two Google books hits for "discordian calendar" [7]. These are about the computer program, and mentioned in jest. Pcap ping 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • By definition in-universe is for something fictional and no mattery how fringy it is, Discordianism is real and based on the list of sources in that article, at least some people take it seriously. - Mgm|(talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody takes it seriously? That's opinion, buddy. Also, I'd point you to WP:FRINGE. Oh, and there's 9000 other hits for you to choose from on google. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't delete this just because it is a fringe theory. The google book hits are from ones that aren't entirely free to preview. For all you know they could spend 3 chapters discussing the theory. - Mgm|(talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is oddball, perhaps, but it's part of a real (albeit not very well-respected) religion. Avram (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Disproportionate coverage of extreme fringe. I'm reluctant to call any religion extreme fringe, but I think this is one case it applies. Even the main article discusses prominently that it has few adherents. I am not completely sure it is a real religion in the sense of actual believers. DGG (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are indeed actual believers - read the appropriate chapter of Drawing Down The Moon. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep An important real world aspect of Discordianism that has ample notability. Remember DGG Wikipedia is Not paper. RMHED (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Assuming that it's a real religion, which I don't think should be up to question, this is an important aspect of the religion: Discordianism is already a rather large article, so it seems reasonable to have this as a split-out section. Just being known really little outside the religion isn't a criterion for deletion: how many people outside the faith are familiar with the Bahá'í calendar? Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Atheists would claim Discordianism is no more or less made-up than any other religion, and since there is no one "true" calender and every religion makes up its own calender ("our" calender is based on Christianity with some Roman/Greek Gods thrown in), the calender of Discordianism can/should be covered as well on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep could be well referenced, easily sourced. The criticism of "in-universe" is meant for fictional works, not sincerely-held religious belief, so it's utterly spurious. Discordianism may have relatively few serious adherents, but it has a verifiable cultural impact. I see nothing in this article that would indicate a violation of wiki policy. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Not 'in-universe', and notable due to ddate's presence in virtually every Linux machine. Alpha Omicron (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep no more "in-universe" than the Hebrew Calendar. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, googling "Aftermath YOLD" or "Bureaucracy YOLD" reveals that the calendar is genuinely in use. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:35, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Soldier's Poem (song)[edit]

    Soldier's Poem (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced; non-notable; extremely badly written and set out. Andre666 (talk) 19:38, 23 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  18:27, 28 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 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert Wang[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BIO. May be re-created when he is well known across the world for his incredible talent, not only known for his friends as now. Beagel (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • speedy delete as no plausible indication of any possible encyclopedic notability. DGG (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As the article mentions no reliable sources, and I can find few beyond a few notices of concerts he has played at. The article's claim that he is famous for "for playing/recreating Franz Liszt's "Transcendental Etude no. 4, Mazeppa" is a claim I can find no external evidence for, and I really doubt someone could become famous for playing what is a very famous piece. FlyingToaster 07:06, 26 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 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Buff[edit]

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

    Subject is non-notable; blatant self-promotion -adavidw (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, although this could have been speedied. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article as stands reeks of vanity. Very little on google news to assert notability (especially since the subjece should have been covered in the news during the recent political campaigns). Themfromspace (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I have to wonder why these autobiographers make it so blatantly obvious that they're writing about themselves.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, I can smell the stench of vanity from way over here, from across the room. My secretary is typing this comment in for me in fact. JBsupreme (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. COI stench is overpowering. --Oscarthecat (talk) 11:03, 24 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rahul Raj[edit]

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

    Falls under WP:NOT#NEWS Beagel (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nominator. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS, an article about the incident in question which mentions this person may be acceptable, but I don't see any notability of this individual outside of the one event. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I have changed back the article title from Rahul Raj to Rahul raj encounter. Rahul raj encounter is an important event. Manoj nav (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: As per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, I have changed back the article title from Rahul Raj to Rahul raj encounter. Rahul raj encounter is an important event, which has led to many debates in Bihar as well as India in general and has led to resignation of many MPs. The article is under construction, and the political debates would be included soon. I don't support a merger because it would unnecessarily lengthen the parent articles, as the topic is expended. Manoj nav (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The Rahul Raj encounter case was an important event, and watershed, in the reactions of Biharis to the events in Maharashtra; from passive to violent. It was the first filmed armed hijack of a bus in Mumbai.. Significantly, as reported by the media, Bihari politicans attented the funeral of Rahul Raj, despite claims of the police of his attempts to muder a politican. His body was brought to Patna was the IG of Bihar. I say, keep this entry as it;
    • important event in Mumbai. important media event realted to MNS campaign and Bihari reactions/
    • first highjacking of a bus in Mumbai ever
    • first filmed highjacking in India ever
    • first time a middle class youth from Patna reacted to events that did not effect his social strata
    • first time Bihari politicans united against events in maharashtra
    • led to racist attacks on innocent Marathis in north India

    All in all a sad story, but one that needs to be outlined carefully.Not-Ashamed (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Are there sources that provide verification for the multiple "firsts" that you mentioned here? LeaveSleaves talk 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be better to discuss the multiple "firsts" verifiability in the article discussion page, rather then in an Afd thread. Manoj nav (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read/ Watch

    On Political unity and Sub Nationalism http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=78&task=view&id=19042&sectionid=4&Itemid=1 (India Today)

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GgYFfESiLrg For the first time ever, Mumbai city has seen a shootout inside a public bus. At around ten on Monday morning, a passenger shot at another inside a BEST bus. The gunman was later shot dead by the police. He has been identified as Rahul Raj. He boarded the double-decker bus that runs between Andheri and Kurla. (NDTV site on YouTube)

    http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081104/jsp/nation/story_10060017.jsp Marathi students at Mahanand Mission Harijan PG College in the capital’s satellite town were attacked, allegedly by an Uttar Pradesh student leader and his goons. Police sources in Ghaziabad confirmed the victims stated in their FIR that the attackers “mentioned Rahul Raj and Dharam Dev” while kicking them in their hostel rooms. Telegraph, Kolkata

    Not-Ashamed (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The person has been shot unlawfully and case is being investigated. It is on TV channels. Tell me how I can prevent a delete? --Kokar (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed This user has double voted. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I think there is a need to evaluate the necessity of a separate article here and evaluate the notability of temporary media hype generated around a single event. It is necessary to consider if there are any long term effects of the event; particularly in light details or any sort of investigation of the event or more protest/comments from non-political organizations. Otherwise the article would only comprise only of political reactions, after effects and other such things that are connected to the event.
    The "firsts" mentioned above should be verified here since they are necessary in deciding notability of the subject as a stand-alone article. Otherwise, I would suggest we follow Docku's advice of merging the article with other related article. Regarding the sources mentioned above, you'd need a better hard-coded source for such claim than a Youtube channel. Plus political unity on this topic can hardly be considered as a groundbreaking fact. Has there been an event against Biharis where one of the political party from Bihar protested and other did not? LeaveSleaves talk 15:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NDTV (also available on youtube) is a highly respected Indian News channel. I am sure others can verify that. They utilise Youtube as part of their internet strategy. Telegraph and India Today are high noted and respected Indian paper and mangazine. I am sure Indians here can also verify that. I hope that clears matters.Not-Ashamed (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of reliability of your sources. I'm merely questioning the medium in first case and significance of content in the other. LeaveSleaves talk 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Notashamed provided those links to make people aware of the incident. Many a time users vote their opinion on wiki even without knowing much about the topic. It could unnecessarily lead to deletion of genuine contributions as it has happened here. Manoj nav (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep: Rahul was shot by Mumbai Police, camera moments before killing were shown live on all news channels, 3 State chief ministers involved gave sharp reactions, an official statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and probably an investigation by CBI is going to happen. The killing is at center stage of a much debated controversy brewing up in India. You think this article should be deleted? When was the last time a killing of single person by Police prompted the Prime Minister of India to intervene? Doesn't this very single fact show the utmost importance of this incidence and it's political implications? School shoot-outs in USA and Canada by psycho, drug infested, maniacs which have no impact later on move to become FAs on Wikipedia while an Indian article on shootout with tremendous political repercussions is up for deletion? Rahul Raj was asking to meet Raj Thackeray. He is not Raj Thackeray so no merge needed. His encounter (Rahul Raj encounter) deserves a separate article. Look at the incident, it's political implications and title before considering deletion. Just because the sources are all news sources or article is written as news doesn't mean NOT#NEWS apply here. Never should an article be deleted because of poor content or style but should be judged by the title. Content can always be improved. Title is more than 100% deserving here. --GPPande talk! 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- A bio on Rahul Raj is WP:1E. The incident on the other hand is notable. The appropriate place for this information would be in a =fallout= section of the 2008 attacks on North Indians article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is no longer a biography. It's Rahul Raj encounter. I believe length of an article is never a criteria for a separate article, but the importance of the subject. Manoj nav (talk)
    The incident is a direct fallout of a greater incident. We can opt for merging if the content is too little. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The content wouldn't be too little. It would be atleast more then 27 September 2008 Delhi blast, as the article expends. A brief summery of the event have already been mentioned in many of the related parent articles. Keeping in mind the importance of the event and also the space it would require, it is better to have a separate article. Manoj nav (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra and Racism faced by the Bihari community in India are already too lengthy and are slowly becoming unreadable. Manoj nav (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Nichalp: The article title has been changed from Rahul Raj to Rahul Raj encounter. This is now bigger than a bio. As I have mentioned earlier, merge with Thackeray article is not in question here. 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra is already such a huge article with more than 100k in size that it needs to be broken in smaller articles. So merge with it is also overruled. I don't understand - how can a prominent shooting incident like this does not deserve to exist on WP? What is the problem? Which rule of WP states shooting incidents are no-no. I think Delete vote above should be reconsidered.. --GPPande talk! 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it encyclopedic and not newsy? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am helping to rewrite the article Rahul Raj encounter as it is should be more of a article relating to the incident than the biography of a person . I have just started and lots of work has to done. I am researching on the incident so I may take some time to rebuilt it to fit Wiki standards. As far I am concerned, the article fits our verifiable and notable policies and should be included in Wikipedia.-- Tinu Cherian - 11:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly review the AFD again based on my changes in an attempt to make it into a NPOV and Wiki style article based on the references -- Tinu Cherian - 14:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still say this doesn't meet WP:NOT#NEWS. Are there any sources that arent from newspapers or other news sources that discuss the encounter in detail? Themfromspace (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources do you look forward too? Would you like to AFD the following pages in the today's mainpage ? 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks , 2008 Santa Catarina floods Guinea-Bissau legislative election, 2008 etc ?. The policies are here to guide us to common sense and do What is good for Wikipedia ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - per Tinu Cherian, if school shoot outs in US can be on WP, why can't 'lesser mortals' in India? (me too aware of WP:OSE!). Also, Tinu Cherian did a good-quality work here. Renamed & copy-edited. I don’t find any issues at the present and only some minor cleanups may be done. --Avinesh  T  06:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Seems notable to me. There seems to be good coverage in media regarding this matter. It would be appropriate to rename the article to "Rahul Raj encounter" and describe the encounter itself (in a larger context), than just the person. --vi5in[talk] 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Don't see how this was NOTNEWS? Brainfart. What I meant is that I don't see how it's just NOTNEWS. I think it's important in a larger context: Sources. --vi5in[talk] 17:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Yes, Vivin, it has already been moved to Rahul Raj encounter and copy-edited to make it an incident article than a BIO article -- Tinu Cherian - 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: forgettable one-event with limited notability. Dubious list of firsts provided. --Deepak D'Souza 05:19, 28 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DiCE & k9[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    DiCE & k9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I don't think this meets notability guidelines of WP:BAND adavidw (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment — There are an awful amount of ghits on this artist for it to be dismissed entirely. I'm going to do a little more research to see if I can find a decent source but my initial reaction says theres more to this than it may seem at first. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting some unreliable sources showing Mobbstarr listed under Warner Music, and some like the article saying 6000 GOONZ (not a notable label). —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added the AfD tag to this article after seeing it wasn't properly placed. Themfromspace (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — Further research has shown no reliable sources to indicate this article should be included. They may well be a genuine, Phillipines-based group but I can't find a source to back that up. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, notability not established as per WP:MUSIC. Like Cyclonenim, I couldn't find anything remotely like WP:RS for notability.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, no DiCE with regards to WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above : notability not established as per WP:MUSIC. --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:55, 24 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. Redirect may be editorially created.  Sandstein  18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Varney[edit]

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

    This article does not appear to quite meet the WP:BIO notability guidelines. It is currently unsourced and the bulk of the pages that I can find through Google that mention this doctor are online medical directories. Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete — Per failing of WP:BIO's basic criteria. Google searching and PubMed searches shows this person to have published his own material, but there is nothing notable on him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete - Appears to fail notability concerns as well as WP:RS... the inclusion of third party sources and/or some sign of notability would certainly help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Jim Varney (know, what I mean, Vern?). No reliable secondary sources establishing notability of this person per WP:BIO. Plausible search term for the late redneck comedian of the same name. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — fails under WP:BIO and short of refs etc that might convince Victuallers (talk) 23:28, 23 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 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Labour Party of America[edit]

    Labour Party of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This appears to be a hoax. A U.S. party wouldn't use the spelling 'Labour', and the free-hosting website doesn't seem to be that of an actual existing party. Soman (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete — I'm with the nominator on this one. Sounds very much like a hoax. The 'fact' it was established this October isn't particularly convincing either. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Redirect to Socialist Labor Party of America - Even if its not a hoax, it fails notability guidelines; created a month ago and no independent coverage I could find. As for whether to delete it or redirect it as I suggested, it doesn't matter that much to me, but just a thought...it might not be a bad idea to redirect someone who may be using British English to find information on a Labor Party of America to something that falls along those lines. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Redirect - as stated above BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — Not a hoax, I cannot find any verifiable secondary sources establishing the needed notability for inclusion. Also note a clear conflict of interest with the article's creator; I also suspect possible spamming as a result (i.e. Wikipedia is not the place to primarily let people know about a new party that you created yourself; that must be established outside of Wikipedia first). MuZemike (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This group, even if real, is in no way related to the Socialist Labor Party, and that would be a inappropriate redirect. Personally, I doubt its reality altogether. The use of the spelling, incidentally, would be possible in any actual organization that might date from the 19th century,or might be deliberately used as a distinctive name, and does not determine it as a hoax. DGG (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't find evidence this party ever existed + Soman makes a very good point for "Labour". The fact that the image linked in the article uses British accent it's a strong sign that we are dealing with a hoax here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 24 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 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Durham Barons[edit]

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

    This secret society is too secret for Wikipedia. I looked for sources, just to be sure, even though the article outright tells us that no sources will exist, because it's all "secret" and "unknown". Note that there were barons in the Durham palatinate in the 12th century. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this. Uncle G (talk) 18:37, 23 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. Xclamation point 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Past Sarawak FA players[edit]

    Past Sarawak FA players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Little encyclopedic use, it's not normal use to have such an extra article for sports clubs and finally there's an identic section in the main article. DavidDCM (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The article needs some serious wikifying and reformatting, but the team is part of a notable league so the article should be kept. And there is precedent for this kind of sports article, see New York Yankees all-time roster. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to main article. There is precedent to split off sections to subarticles if doing so means saving space. The main article is short enough that such a split is not necessary.- Mgm|(talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nonnotable list. A link to the roster from the main article is fine enough. Themfromspace (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Contrary to what the nom states, there is plenty of precedent for such lists, many of which are in fact Featured Lists (eg List of Ipswich Town F.C. players, List of York City F.C. players, List of Aston Villa F.C. players). However, this list, while purporting to be an "all-time roster", is just a random selection of a few names (I would venture to suggest that a club in existence for 34 years has used more than 46 players in that time), with none of the expected additional info on number of appearances/goals or even what era the players played in, so it is of no real encyclopedic use -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - while, as ChrisTheDude rightly points out, there is precedent for football teams to have seperate articles about players, this list is unsourced, and doesn't provide any additional information that could be covered in a category. GiantSnowman 12:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have to agree with the pointers and I see no articles for any of those players which pretty much says non-notably in its self. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per GiantSnowman's comments. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:31, 27 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  18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Garbage Collected Filesystem[edit]

    Garbage Collected Filesystem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Note: Prodded but contested by anonymous so taking here instead.

    Article does not indicate that this sort of filesystem is notable in any way whatsoever. Theory given sounds very speculative and I can't imagine production code written to the vague notions described. Only example given is an obscure research project. That seems more than likely to connected to the original author of the article.

    Furthermore, I don't see any need or tangible benefit for a file system to be garbage collected, even without taking into account the probably hairy and delicate implementation of a garbage collector on a fragile block-level mud brick. An interesting idea, but hardly practical... ~ Jafet•work•play•watch 12:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for notability reasons. Nobody uses GCFS, and the author (David Madore) only wrote it for fun anyway. NTFS and Unix file systems do use reference counting garbage collection, but the term "garbage collected filesystem" is never used to describe them, to my knowledge. I don't think this article would serve any purpose even as a redirect. -- BenRG (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an idea that has not escaped from its creator and gained traction in the world at large, to become part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, things don't belong here unless they have been through a process of fact checking and peer review, and have been published. Reading the LKML for when Madore announced this idea, back on 2000-01-10, it is clear that it failed at the peer review and fact checking stages (with one person pointing out that Madore had his facts wrong, for example, and others observing several flaws). The idea was peer reviewed, fact checked, and found wanting. This is a novel idea that didn't catch on, and there are no reliable sources documenting it that have been peer reviewed and fact checked. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:28, 18 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, Black Kite 18:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Interesting idea, but the theory has very little notability outside of a research paper on someone's website that is eight years old. The author admits that it's experimental and may not be efficient, which doesn't detract from its encyclopedia-ness; it's the lack of peer review and notability. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. Based on a single primary source, poorly written, and misleading. Due to lack of discussion in third-party sources, no criticism is presented. This is exactly why we shouldn't have articles on marginal topics. I'm going to indulge in some of my own crticism here, but adding this to the article would be WP:OR. The original presentation [8] gives (i) hard links to directories, and (ii) background deletion of entire trees as the advantages. Regarding (i), it incorrectly clams that these are not possible in a traditional Unix (read FFS and derivatives) file systems. Actually, hard links to directories are possible in most Unix file systems, but there's no mechanism for preventing loops in the graph. So, in most Unix systems only root can create hard links to directories. GCFS is a complicated mechanism for enabling something useless: loops in the file system. The second claim to novelty (ii), is also not really new (except for doing it on graphs that have loops). Practically all versioning/checkpointing file systems that eventually delete old versions (e.g. WAFL) also have to garbage collect entire trees, except they do this for a much better reason. Pcap ping 12:40, 27 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 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Libby Hudson[edit]

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

    An actress who appears to have had a few roles that have not been covered in RS (ghits are primarily mirrors of imdb type sites and blog mentions). Does not appear to meet WP:BIO for creative professionals. StarM 16:57, 23 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) Icewedge (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mo-Ranch[edit]

    Mo-Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Seems not notable Beagel (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep text needs improvement but there seems to be material from which to expand it. Possibly could be merged somewhere. StarM 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as StarM has noted there appears to be enough sources for it to meet the notability standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable subject, even if the article does a poor job of defending it. Here is a source to start off expansion. Themfromspace (talk) 19:44, 23 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. Clear consensus to delete as lacking the necessary reliable, independent sources for an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SimGirls[edit]

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

    obviously unencyclopediac, reads like an ad, nonnoteable Teh Rote (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note it's currently a copyvio of the creator's MySpace, but I'm not digging through the history to find a clean version. StarM 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:NN--Macrowiz (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: no independent or reliable sources found to verify notability.--Macrowiz (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • this version makes some wild assertions. If they can be proven, the game is notable for being the framework of the games that came later, but seeing as this is one big fanfic game, I doubt this is the case. - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article needs a lot of work to say the least, but it appears to be a popular part of Newgrounds which is a notable website. Merge with Newgrounds may be more appropriate, but outright deletion isn't warranted here. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Newgrounds is a host site for the game rather than an independent reference source. Are there any independent sources for this? --Macrowiz (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if it's truly the first (or first English) dating sim on the web, then it is notable because of that. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why are "dating sims on the web" notable enough for this one to also be notable? Nifboy (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the SimGirls content on newsgrounds appears to be submitted by the game's author [9] [10] and forum chatter; remaining web search hits are the usual online hosts. Thus the subject fails the general notability guideline requirement of independence (WP:GNG), not to mention that the article is borderline Speedy G11. Marasmusine (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No independent or verifiable sources and fails WP:NN Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable third-party sources and so this fails WP:N. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. This article is most certainly not a copy of anything. I know this because I wrote a fair portion of it myself, along with the rest of the Simgirls team. Besides this, any "wild asertions" you may be refering to (I assume you are speaking of the number of plays (which is clearly visible on Newgrounds) or the fact that it was one of the first western online dating sims (we do not claim that it is either the first western nor the first online, nor even the first that fits both, simply one of the forerunners). This too is fairly evident. If you do not believe it, look at a few of the more preeminent ones and check the release dates. Such a thing is clearly outside of the scope of the article, and thus was not mentioned. I see no requirement for third-party references when nothing involving third parties is mentioned. I would appreciate it if you could give more specific mentions of any possible violations the team has affected so that we may remedy them. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CerealKlr (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted to reword the entire article in a such a way as to remove as much casualness as possible. In specific, I targeted 2nd person pronouns, various unnecessarily positive adjectives, and toned down any objectionable materials as best as possible. It is my sincere hope that this measure will clear up the issues. If you have any more complaints, please let me or another member of the team know.CerealKlr (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No reliable sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of reliable secondary sources offering significant coverage of the game. In plain English: video games need reviews from unaffiliated sources whose video game coverage is held in high esteem. WP isn't a video game database, articles need more than information on how the game plays and this information needs to come from vetted sources because wikipedia contributors are not themselves 'reliable sources', nor are website comments from average joes (anyone can leave comments). It's always advisable that those with a conflict of interest (like developers) allow other contributors to handle articles on their creations. Hope this helps to clarify things CerealKlr. Someoneanother 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said the article consists almost entirely of the development history and future plans rather than gameplay (which is useful information), but it all needs framing with outside opinions on the project itself. Take a look at the video game project's list of Good Articles for examples of reception sections and how these sources are used in articles. Someoneanother 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, thank you for the pointers. I can certainly fix the lack of gameplay information, but as you said yourself, that in and of itself apparently isn't sufficient. I suppose that means that our best bet is simply to hold tight until the 5.0 release, which ought to garner enough attention to merit a decent 3rd part review from an esteemed source, unless you have any better suggestions. Thank you again for trying to work with me on this matter. Also, in response to the various "nonnotable comments" if 42.5 million plus plays isn't considered notable, i'm extremely confused as to what is. Note that this is only the number that I can guarantee from Newgrounds, the game is also listed on dozens of other flash game sites. Finally, at Macrowiz's comment about "wild assertions." I followed the link you gave. As you yourself noted, that was an old version, not written by anyone on the team. Citing that as a reason for deletion would be similar to attempting to delete the Evolution page because religious fanatics flame it at random. CerealKlr (talk) 18:50, 28 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  18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hydraulix[edit]

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

    No evidence this label or it's red-linked owner are notable. For the same reasons I'm including its collective:

    • Note lest some see it as removing possibly relevant content, I'm just commenting out (with explanatory comments) of why the "notable artists" aren't -- in most cases they're about something wiht the same name. StarM 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC and is in no way notable.203.192.80.31 (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non notable. No indication of how it meets the notability requirements for the music industry or businesses in general. Nuttah (talk) 11:22, 28 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  18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beganto[edit]

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

    Reason The article was already tagged; now a load of external links have been added, making me think this is advertising. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I was about to notify the creator of the article but I see he has been clocked indefinitely for spamming. Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:33, 19 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 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A google search returns plenty of hits. Unfortunately they all appear to be press releases, trade listings or tytpos where people have run began & to together. The lack of reliable sources implies a lack of notability. Nuttah (talk) 11:19, 28 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. Already deleted per A2, just closing AfD StarM 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    இராவுத்தர்[edit]

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

    I am unsure how to nominate this. I am pretty sure it is a translation of Rowther though cannot read a word of the language it is in. This leads me to believe that it is "an article in the wrong place" or "an article that is not relevant here because we have one already" or something a more experienced editor may determine. The answer is probably not a simple redirect. It may be that transwikiing it to the right place, redirecting this to Rowther is the right answer. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I pasted and posted it as a new article on ta.wikipedia.org, the Tamil language version of Wikipedia. If anyone can verify [11] that this has been done correctly, that may be the proper course of action. Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it has been identified as being written in Tamil. StarM 16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to the Tamil Wikipedia and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki and delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki and delete as no one has bothered to translate this for the English Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki and delete It is Tamil and the English article is available see Rowther.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Isn't this already transwikied as Mandsford mentioned? I believe the only further actions needed is to place redirect or transwiki boiler plate and copy & paste the talk-page and changes to the transwikied page. --Macrowiz (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (A2) — non-English article that already exists in another non-English Wikipedia, assuming that this has already been transwiki'd as noted above. MuZemike (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A2 added - — neuro(talk) 22:36, 23 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2006 in CASCAR[edit]

    2006 in CASCAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn season of a developmental racing league, not much in sourcing, and I doubt reliable sourcing will be found, prod removed because of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason, but I know the subject Delete Secret account 13:21, 18 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 15:40, 23 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Plans & Apologies[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BAND. Apart from one unsourced mention in NME and a Radio 1 Session (shared), there really is nothing to make this band notable- except maybe in Derby. Rodhullandemu 15:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per failing of WP:MUSICBIO points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... I think you see where I'm going with this. It could perhaps be notable under point 11 but that states rotation. To the best of my knowledge, this band didn't get 5-15 plays per week on BBC Radio 1. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As already mentioned there is nothing to show that this band meet the notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 11:09, 28 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ontology and essence[edit]

    Ontology and essence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Original research of the Obdulio Banda Spammer, see also [12] and [13]. Harald Krichel (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This appears to be completely original research, with no citations or references to reliable sources. A Google search for "Ontology and essence" comes up with nothing related. --Macrowiz (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, original research; any text of merit seems to be redundant to ontology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 24 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 to delete, also as copyvio.  Sandstein  18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Francesco Frasca[edit]

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

    This person may well be notable. However notability is not asserted despite the lengthy bibliography. The roles he has assumed do not confer notability (Major, analyst, research fellow, teacher--whether full professor or otherwise--and lecturer), nor is the reader given any context of the nature, scope, or reception of his written oeuvre. There has been ample opportunity for this article to be improved, but the creator (who appears to be the subject) hasn't returned to it in nearly a month (the last edit by the creator was three days after the first). Bongomatic 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The delete isn't because it's not being worked on; rather, the delay of nomination was because it might have been. Bongomatic 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep looks plenty notable to me, we need to be careful about systematic bias against non-english centric articles. this article should have been marked expert and needs improvement, not delete. --Buridan (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "looking notable to" an editor is a criterion for inclusion in the notability guidelines. The subject generates an absolutely low number of hits on google, and after reviewing many pages of them, the only person who has the name of the subject who appears notable appears to be a different individual. The biblography alone doesn't demonstrate that he's generated significant coverage, and the lack of readily obtainable references. "Expert" attention has already been brought to bear by way of the subject himself, who appears to have created the article. Bongomatic 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    try changin the language specificity of your google search, i gave up on the notability guidelines years ago as they tend to just generate lawyering and not analysis of notability. tell me, on what basis do you think he is not notable? is it because of coi? that doesn't make him not notable, or is it that you can't find enough verifiable material? if it is the latter, then you want it improved by someone who can, if no one improves it in time, then afd it again. It was twice speedied, twice declined, once declined on sufficient notability. the article hasn't been up long enough to get improved in the wikipedia mixingbowl, give it time. --Buridan (talk) 13:38, 21 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, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete First off, the article might be able to be speedied as a copyvio of this old geocities page. Furthermore, there is no assertion of notability in the article, so any discussion his notability must involve any external sources found. If the subject was truly notable, his works would be commented upon in English as well as Italian sources. None of this crucial commentary can be found in Google or Google news. Google scholar shows the general papers excpected of an academic but nothing to hint that he is a pioneer of any specific field of research. Themfromspace (talk) 19:57, 23 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. Macrowiz (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SMEmail[edit]

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

    New software with no evidence of notability. Sole reference is to a presentation by the software's creator. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This article is original research, all content is taken from the sole source that is listed in it. Wikipedia is not a scientific or technical journal, and it does not publish research reports. The title of the article is also misleading, because it exploits a well known abbreviation SME, which can mean different things (Small and Medium Enterprise, Society of Manufacturing Engineers or SME Server etc). Ruslik (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only source is a presentation not yet given and it appears no email program is using the encryption. -Mgm|(talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I would recommend a Speedy Deletion, in fact...(CSD:A7?) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Appears to be self-promotion. The only source referenced is simply a presentation schedule; it has no information to back up anything mentioned in the Wikipedia article. --Macrowiz (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete (G11) — purely processed meat from Hormel. MuZemike (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • G11 added --Macrowiz (talk) 00:21, 24 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 3[edit]

    Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hoax, Fails Notability. No such game is announced. SkyWalker (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - No reliable sources, even if it isnt a hoax then there is still no need for a whole article on the game until its released. A mention on the need for speed page should be enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete -Only info I found on this pertains to a 1998 version? [15] [16] Anyway, WP is not a crystal ball.--Macrowiz (talk) 19:50, 23 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. John254 01:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Webjay[edit]

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

    Non-notable website, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It's defunct so it doesn't really have a chance of becoming notable. The only claim to fame is that it was bought by Yahoo. Luckily we already have a Yahoo! article. Delete and redirect (in that order).

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. inclement weather (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 13:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    R.J. Bartley[edit]

    R.J. Bartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Being the Lord Mayor of Sydney does not automatically assert notability. Article presents no new info other than that found in the main article. No WP:RS either. Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - being mayor does automatically assert notability, thus why it should never have been a CSD candidate. THere is a distinction between asserting some sort of notability and passing WP:N. Now here, passing WP:BIO will require multiple WP:RS that are independent of the subject that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, being the mayor of Sydney, the largest city in Australia, certainly qualifies as "Major local political figures", per WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that there are few sources on Google is probably attributable to the fact he was mayor in the forties, before Google was around. I would be dead-set sure there are significant newspaper sources on this person lying about somewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Speedy keep. Being a mayor is not immediately notable, but being the mayor of the biggest city in Australia is. Also, nominator doesn't seem to have tried looking up reliable sources which, based on the edits since his nomination, clearly exist. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As per arguments of Lankiveil. —SlamDiego←T 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Being Lord Mayor of Sydney does assert notability. The references are quite good, I don't know why this article was listed for deletion at all. TopGearFreak Talk 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notability confirmed and consistent with WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 13:11, 23 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  18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bach Cantatas Website[edit]

    Bach Cantatas Website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable website with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It has been around for a while and has good information; that has nothing to do with notability. Some articles may even use it as a source, which is great. However, just because it has information on notable topics does not make it notable. Similarly, if I have information on canaries that does not make me a canary.

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Merge with Johann Sebastian Bach. TopGearFreak Talk 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Where's all this "good information" the nom mentions... the article looks like a stub to me. Furthermore, I can't see how this type of website could be notable in the field of music or JS Bach and everywhere I've looked has failed to give a discussion of the website. Themfromspace (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong keep: per nom: It has been around for a while and has good information. that's exactly what makes it notable. the scope of the website goes far beyond what is suggested by the title. the site has extensive information the actual cantatas including translations, tranpositions, sheet music; biographies and histories the groups individuals who not only perform the 200 or so catatas, but a wide range of classical music not specific that period. that its catering to a niche, or subgenre contributes to its not being as popular as imdb or gutenberg, can be debated, but given the depth and breadth of the information found there--and no where else as a collection--it certainly rises to the level of notability. --emerson7 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NN, WP:WEB ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      your point is not made simply by listing a policy, that in my mind does not apply. no specific claims of non-notabilityness have yet been offered. --emerson7 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the first sentence on this page would count, no?~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge With Johann Sebastian Bach. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, but merge what? And how? What little text there is in this article would not be useful in the Bach article, nor would it be appropriate. It would perceived (and rightly-so) as linkspam. I don't see any benefit of a merge. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do. When the time comes to merge it, ring me up and I'll do it for you. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm sorry, but i don't get the argument for merge. it would be like merging the article on imb with harold prince, or broadway theatre. --emerson7 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. But a link to this website would make a worthy addition to the page List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article is at odds with criteria linked above. A merge with JSB would be out of place with the rest of that article, and in any case, BCW is (justifiably) already present in its external links section. It would indeed also make sense as an external link on the List of Cantatas page. JCHall (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: agree with nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 28 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 Malaysian British.  Sandstein  18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    British Malays[edit]

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

    No assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 23 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. General consensus is that none of the provided reasons for deletion apply. Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hilary Teague[edit]

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

    Non-notable BLP, with absolutely non incoming wiki links from other articles. Google yields little. Essentially fails WP:PEOPLE Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep member of Liberian senate, qnd thus meets WP:BIO. The nominator was told this on his talk page by another ed. after he put a speedy tag on the article, but brought it here anyway. DGG (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, meets the WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria on account of being a member of the Senate of Liberia. Hard to see how this is a BLP when the article states, with reference, that this person died in 1853. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. Clearly notable, and an admin should really take a look at the nominator's recent edits.--Michig (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Senate member, Liberia's first secretary of state, drafter of the country's declaration of independence... Looks like a very notable person to me. Chamal talk 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - has nominator read WP:PEOPLE? The first line under "Politicians" includes People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 23 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. None of the reasons provided apply. Lack of incoming links is not a reason for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mario Fernando Hernández[edit]

    Mario Fernando Hernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Un-notable bio that attained notability only for one event "WP:BLP1E". Fails all three criterion on WP:POLITICIAN, and the lack of incoming wiki links and few WP:RS only worsen the lack of WP:V Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 10:15, 23 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable website, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nominated twice before, and one deletion review. The DRV was because of an invalid speedy (it had already seen AfD), so this has no real bearing on anything. The first AfD isn't really valid by current WP:WEB standards, rankings have nothing to do with why we keep pages. The second was subject to canvassed keep !votes that had no basis in actual policy. "Notable in the dance community" and such. Closing admin please rate the validity of the arguments and not the number. Bottom line, while it might be popular and well-known, that isn't notability.

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It has too many issues. Nothing comes up on Google for it, so verifying all those unreferenced parts will be next to impossible. TopGearFreak Talk 13:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I invoke List of electronic music genres and the linked sub-articles as a reference (checking a few of them and being familiar with the site, its descriptions are mostly OK) and would like to say that, despite not being as properly sourced as Wikipedia, Ishkur's is the single best compendium of electronic music style samples. There are tons of recommendations of the site among Google hits, and only one or two articles mentioning a few inaccuracies. MaxVT (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't quite follow. What does List of electronic music genres have to do with anything. Notability is established by reliable secondary sources, not by how accurate something is. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Referenced article on an extremely notable subject. Continual renomination on AfD will not make it less so. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The burden of proof lies with those who wish to keep this article. If you would like to have this article survive this and future AfDs, simply edit the article to show that it is notable. The facts seem to show that it is not notable, and simply stating that it is referenced and notable does not make it so. Just like how Barbara Streisand insists that she is pretty - some people may believe it, but that doesn't make it true. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The default position for any WP article is keep. The burden of proof lies on those who assert non-notability/verifibility as a justification for attempted deletion - not vice versa. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realize how silly it is to say that it should be proven that it is not notable and verifiable? How do you prove there is not a needle in a haystack? Should we assume that every haystack has a needle until proven otherwise? It can easily be shown if something is notable, if it is not shown, then it is not notable. That is how notability operates on Wikipedia. BTW, the default position is exclude (not include), which is why things like my grandmother do not have articles. Notice we have basic criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia:Notability), not criteria for exclusion.
    I will say that as far as reliable sources go, I don't think it's very hopeful when the only one found is a one-line mention in a book. [17]~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one who nominated this article for deletion on the basis of alleged non-notability. The burden of proof therefore lies with you to justify a position which contends that even though the article subject is popular and well known in its field, even though it has been the subject of scholarly attention, even though it has been considered a serious interview subject - it is somehow not "notable". --Gene_poole (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong keep firstly, the onus of proof is not on the page's defenders to show how it comports to policy, but on the nominator to show how a wiki policy is violated. Specifically Notability when it comes to deletion. It's not up to the page's defenders to prove it's a good article. Secondly, multiple renominations are rarely, if ever, appropriate, in fact it's my personal belief that they are never appropriate, unless something happens to demonstratively change consensus. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More appropriately, it is up to the article to show that it is worthy of inclusion. An article should, at any given time, contain evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article does no such thing. Further, at the time this article was created, notability was an essay. [18] [19] It makes sense that an article on a non-notable subject would survive AfD at a time when there was no guideline about notability. We no longer value Alexa rankings over cultural impact, so this article's status will be re-evaluated as well. And articles that fail to fix the problems that got them listed in the first place will be relisted over again. Unfortunately, the problem is that this topic is simply not notable. The fact of Wikipedia is this, if a subject is notable, the article proves this. If not, the article is not here. If it can't be proven, it isn't notable on Wikipedia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Most references I find to the site are blog posts and forums, however, the sheer number of them tells me this is a very popular, and thus notable site. Just because a mainstream media hasn't picked it up doesn't mean it doesn't carry any notability; It's popularity makes it notable. And since this is it's 3rd nomination (which, I mean, really?) and nothing has degraded the article, it should be kept. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 04:29, 27 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. per WP:SNOW, the general consensus is that the reasons provided for deletion do not apply. Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendra Smith[edit]

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

    Non notable WP:BLP, with very few internal wiki links and relatively few WP:RS for WP:V. All unsourced statements effectively constitute WP:OR, and the article should be deleted as a result. Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The article was in good form when the nominator tagged it for speedy deletion, in bad faith. The subject is covered by mainstream press, like Vh1 and Allmusic, etc. --Efe (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as meeting WP:MUSIC criteria #5 (released multiple albums with multiple notable independent labels--in this case three of them). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not proper criteria (wikilinks have nothing to do with notability), and did the nominator search for any coverage prior to nomination as required? See WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC for proper criteria. This has several sources that appear to meet WP:RS (they are offline so I cannot verify) and several others that appear independent as well, so should be enough for notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. Notable musician who released lots of records as a member of Dream Syndicate, Opal, etc., as well as two solo albums, one on 4AD. Plenty of internal wiki links in contrast to the claim above. Also sufficient reliable sources. There is no WP:OR in the article whatsoever, and there are several Google news hits - these articles not included as references as they are only available by subscription. The nominator attempted to get this speedy deleted(!) prior to bringing it to AfD.--Michig (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, clearly meets WP:MUSIC through appearing on multiple notable music labels, including Warner and 4AD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Speedy keep as Michig. Count Blofeld 10:53, 23 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. its snowing - this clearly isn't going to be deleted Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carter Career Center[edit]

    Carter Career Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Un-notable high school, that instantly fails the google search notability test. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. This article blatantly violates both. Fails all four criterion of WP:SCHOOL. Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 09:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First, WP:Schools says "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community." Second, I hold the position that most high schools in the United States are notable. Second, I feel that it is possible to write an article with reliable sources as I can access the Houston Chronicle archives. Third, if the result is "delete" it will be in fact a merge to List of Houston Independent School District schools - Also, while the Google test isn't really used for judging notability, just as a mental exercise I determined that the string '"Carter Career Center" Houston -wikipedia' generates 2,910 Google hits, mainly from school directory sites. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your position is biased. Why the US, other high schools are just as notable even if they are in Europe, Asia, Africa or Australia. (I would consider any schools on Antarctica instantly notable :) ).- Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not WP:SCHOOL failed to gain consensus is a moot point. This school is completely un-notable and can easily be merged with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal!ty (talk • contribs)
    the merge would almost certainly have been reverted, as we normally merge elementary schools and junior high schools only. FWIW, high schools outside the US are equally notable if the article gives enough information.DGG (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Since the school is aimed at pregnant girls, it is set apart from the thousands of other schools in the US. - Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Anyone who wants to expand it is welcome to it, but there isn't enough information there to keep it at the moment. TopGearFreak Talk 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Previous concensus and the WP:SCHOOL proposal both hold that high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Why go against longstanding precedent? There's nothing to say that this one is less notable than the tons that have been nominated at AFD but been kept. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not only a high school but one that contains a highly unusual program. I'm travelling at the mo' but will add some more content tonight ... TerriersFan (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 11:41, 24 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. (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of town tramway systems in Asia[edit]

    List of town tramway systems in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Indiscriminate list that may never be complete Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 09:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, indiscrimate how? and so what if it *may* never be complete? let's delete wikipedia too, on that basis. Juzhong (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why are you picking on the Asian tramsways anyway. Go delete the American trams too Juzhong (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. I found it quite informative. And Juzhong's comment about deleting Wikipedia on that basis is spot on. TopGearFreak Talk 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- One function of lists of this kind is to idenifiy articles that are needed, usually by the article having redlinks. This one just has blank spaces at present. Because tramways require rails, the list is potentailly finite. However there are many lists in WP tagged "incomplete list", and there is no reason why this one should not be so-tagged: tagged for incompleteness and improvement is all that we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep has clear inclusion and exclusion (i.e. Japan) criteria with links to the related content in other regions. Seems a perfctly acceptable use of a list unless I'm missing something. StarM 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 16:21, 23 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Magmator[edit]

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

    Incoherent article about someone's own, unpublished, work. Written in the third person (except the last sentence, which gives the COI away), this is simply a vanity page. No speedy category seemed to be appropriate, but clearly this should be speedily closed. Ros0709 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - this kid's unpublished comic is not notable. Somno (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - as WP:Vanispamcruftisement --Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 09:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete. Some kid has written a comic book…. —SlamDiego←T 11:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete'. There are no sources to back this up. Not a single mention on Google (which is a suitable place to look since comics generally have a large web presence. Also, not yet released crystal ballery. - Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete. Is this whole thing a joke? TopGearFreak Talk 13:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete and possible G1 as I can't read it. Pretty much per everyone else above. MuZemike (talk) 22:42, 23 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  18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    United States Senate elections in 2014[edit]

    United States Senate elections in 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Way too early for this. The Senators elected this year aren't even sworn in yet. The article says "Going into the 2014 election, the Senate consisted of 40-42 Republicans, 56-58 Democrats, and two independents". How can anyone prediect what will happen in the next 2 senate races, before 2014. CTJF83Talk 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete concur with nom. At this point, we don't have enough information to write anything substantial here, so this would probably just be an example of crystal ballery. Bfigura (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing !vote to Keep. At some point, this will definitely become an important page. When that happens is a bit debatable, although it's probably not now. Still, since we have the page, there's nothing really to be gained by removing it, since it will need to be recreated eventually. --Bfigura (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, this election will be almost entriely dependent on the results of the preceding election which is yet to happen. Icewedge (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This appears to be a modified copy of United States Senate Elections 2008, and an unnecessary one at that. The premise is that the Senators who were elected two weeks ago will be up for reelection in six years. That can be explained in one sentence in the original article. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate has been reinstated by request after a quick closure .
    • The page was recreated and moved to United States Senate elections in 2014. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the AfD header so that people don't ignore it as a redlink - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 23 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, Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It is very highly likely that these elections will occur and that they will be notable. To the extent that this article assumes certain things (that the currently elected senators will still be alive and in office, etc) the article can be de-crystal-balled. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying the article won't be notable in the future, but it isn't needed 6 years in advance. We have no idea how many of these 33 or how ever many were elected this year, will be alive, and in office in 6 years. CTJF83Talk 09:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While it is important that the article not attempt to be a crystal ball, there is already notable activity directed at influencing the outcomes of these elections — G_d help us! —SlamDiego←T 12:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete. Come on! What is the point of an article predicting the US elections 6 years into the future? TopGearFreak Talk 13:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. While a case can certainly be made for keeping the 2012 article (and indeed has on 2 previous AFDs), this one is simply too far ahead. All this article consists of is rehashing information available elsewhere -- basically, who got elected in 2008 or was in office, and a load of unsourced speculation. There's no way to know at this early stage who listed here will be running again in 2014; given the law of averages a few of these folks may not even be alive, or may have retired, by then. Obviously this should be recreated when there is substantive, sourced information available, but that won't be for a couple of years yet, at the very least. WP:CRYSTAL does not always apply when an article is on a guaranteed event, but it does apply when the event has absolutely no information beyond speculation which enters into other areas such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. 23skidoo (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted earlier, this is just a modified version of the 2008 elections article. Sure, it is very highly likely that these elections will occur. The same can be said about Congressional elections in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 and 2022 etc., so that's not a reason to keep. If there is, as stated, "already notable activity directed at influencing the outcomes of these elections", then all I can say is that it isn't notable enough that it's being reported anywhere. This was a cheap article with no effort involved, other than a copy and edit. I see it not so much as crystalballing, as it is someone's wish to be the first person to create an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. United States senator terms are six years long, and there are multiple articles which set precedent for creating articles for future elections. Anything beyond this is too early (at this current time, of course), but I see no reason to delete a perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic article which would be shortly recreated anyway. As usual, content in these articles may be imperfect and crystal balliness should be avoided, but that doesn't warrant deletion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep While I don't get the appeal of writing about an election 6 years from now, when everything is almost entirely speculation (even if it's sourced enough to get around the "crystal ball" clause), the article exists, and at least we know who the incumbents will be (if they don't die or retire in the next 6 years). The article's there... this is as good a point as any to allow it... if we delete it now we'd just have this AFD again every 2 months or so till it finally got kept. Might as well just save the hassle and keep it now. --Rividian (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the elections will almost undoubtedly be held, and people will start planning for them well in advance. Since it is quite clear which seats will be up for election at that date, it is predictable what contest will occur, though it is much les predictable who the candidates will be. The present article is a framework to exapnd. I note that Google News "Inhofe cites seniority in win, looks to 2014 race" as an actual headline (& I only checked the first 10 hits there) By our usual standards, that should be sufficient evidence. DGG (talk) 02:28, 24 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warsow (game)[edit]

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

    Non-notable freeware beta video game. No reliable secondary sources (don't make the game or offer it for download), no significant coverage. Some people play it, which means it might be popular, but that doesn't mean it is notable.

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's quite a good atricle. Just needs some cleanup. TopGearFreak Talk 13:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It is a decent article, and it is probably even a good game. But please read WP:NN, these things have no bearing on whether it should be here. Similarly, a badly-written article on Elton John should be kept because he is notable. The content of the article can change easily, the subject is the point to focus on. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because of a distinct lack of independent sources. There's plenty of primary ones, but those can only be used to prove that what's in the article is accurate, not that it is notable. Reyk YO! 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Warsow was featured on Good Game as one of the best free games available. See reference provided ([[20]]). PaulWay (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) In addition, Reyk is completely wrong at this point as there are several references from e.g. German TV programs, thus providing both notability and independent reference.[reply]
      Sorry, but what references? This one? Good Game did mention it, does that qualify as significant coverage? I think it qualifies as mentioned once. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I went back through all the sources listed in the article again, and there's nothing substantial. There is no trace of the coverage in German TV shows that you claimed. The only source of the seventeen provided that's good for anything is the Good Game review, but I do not think that alone is sufficient to establish notability. Reyk YO! 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      PS. You might want to go over the other references yourself, since several links are broken or (like the one JohnnyMrNinja pointed out) don't seem to say anything at all. Reyk YO! 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While there may be little in the way of verifable sources on the article at present, the subject and the interest there appears to be for the game indicates that there should be sources out there - we just haven't found them yet. The answer is to work harder on the article. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - The Good Game coverage is semi-substantial; not enough on its own but acceptable in conjuction with other good sources. For me it all rather hinges on the significance of the GIGA TV channel appearances; the article says the game was "featured", but considering the other (slight) NPOV slips, I have to wonder. If that contributor could explain a bit further on the nature of this coverage (and provide a full {cite episode}), that might help. Marasmusine (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. Independent media coverage of free software is rare because it doesn't generate advertising $$$. Hence I'd regard the favourable coverage in The Best Free Games Around as worth 2-3 reviews of commercial games. --Philcha (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If it generated money it might be notable, but I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't confirm that. Notability is a flat-tax. There's no rule that says notability is lessened for those too poor to achieve it. Are you suggesting that hummingbirds generate advertising revenue? Or centaurs? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Period (full-stop, if you prefer). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe he is suggesting that he believes the provided references do constitute "significant coverage". Whereas you are suggesting that the coverage is not sufficient. The suggestion is, and I agree, that there is sufficient coverage for me to be satisfied that this game is notable. However, the article needs some work. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:52, 26 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CD Freaks[edit]

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

    Non-notable website spam with no reliable sources. Previous AfD arguments (2005) are no longer relevant as WP:WEB doesn't rely on rankings, just notability.

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The amount of traffic to this site is more than enough, as I said in the previous debate three years ago, almost all sources are not independent. The best I could find was a very brief mention here, but it was really a quote from someone related to the site about Obama. Not site related. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete'. Non-notable article with statements of biased views. Delete as per WP:V and WP:N. - DustyRain (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The lack of reliable sources makes the site non notable . Nuttah (talk) 10:49, 28 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. Nom-withdrawn. Pcap ping 13:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Gulotta[edit]

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

    Non-notable DA, except by association with Francis E. Dec. No sources in this article. Pcap ping 08:19, 23 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Audiojunkies[edit]

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

    Non-notable website, COI SPAM. The website was created by the same person that wrote this article. A few brief mentions in blogs in relation to footage they filmed of a protest. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm just seeing one blog in the sources, and it is by no mean unreliable by any stretch of the imagination (Perez Hilton is a very well-known blogger, he's even got an article). Blogs can be used as sources, just as long as they're no the home and garden variety. And COI is not a valid deletion criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether or not Perez Hilton is reliable (keep in mind it's a gossip/rumor blog), the blog post mentions nothing about the website, just the protest. It has the YouTube video linked that this website produced, but that isn't significant coverage of the website. The entire text is "Hundreds of angry British youth gathered outside the offices of the Daily Mail in London on Saturday to protest their negative characterizations of their favorite band, My Chemical Romance, and the paper's story that one Emo teen killed herself because of their music. This is the protesters' story and their video from this weekend's rally!" [21] No mention of Audiojunkies at all. By "brief mentions in blogs" I meant things like this, that do nothing to establish notability. The best source is the NME link, which is really not significant at all. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete: It appears to meet criterion 3 for WP:WEB, as the video produced by the site has been mentioned and credited at other known and reliable websites. But whether or not this is sufficient for notability is debatable. As mentioned in nom, there is strong sense of WP:VSCA both in terms of creator of the article and its tone. LeaveSleaves talk 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that means regularly-created-and-distributed content, like a webzine or online newspaper, or a vlog. If someone were notable for the fact of creating one YouTube video that was linked to on a blog or forum... I shutter to think. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: insufficient notability WP:VSCA. JamesBurns (talk) 01:38, 28 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. I didn't salt, but if recreated again let me know and I'll do so.Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquarium Drunkard[edit]

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

    Non-notable website. COI SPAM re-created deleted article (see the logs). Mentioned on a few lists, nominated for one obscure award (that it didn't win). No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The closest thing is an interview from the beta version of Yahoo Picks. Please see the related logs of this "label side" of this website. Please delete and protect from re-creation.

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

    The result was Speedyily deleted by Thingg (non admin closure) - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TweetyCoaster Little Lady Baby DDoS Shield[edit]

    TweetyCoaster Little Lady Baby DDoS Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article has been tagged as a copyright violation, but it may not be. Although the place where it has been published (code.google.com) has a copyright symbol at the bottom, the program and its code has been released under GPL. However, the article remains dreadful. The text is very poor writing. The code may not be notable enough for inclusion. For the technically inclined, the description does make some sense. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:20, 23 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 Jack and Jill School. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JJS Karate Dojo[edit]

    JJS Karate Dojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable karate school with conflict of interest present as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable school. A Google search returns only 6 results, all of which are from Wordpress, Flickr, or Wikipedia. There are no sources in a Google News Archive search either. The references listed in the article are all from websites affiliated with this school. The only exception is a link to a government website that doesn't even mention this school. For a karate school to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, it must have coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to merge/redirect per RHaworth and TerriersFan. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be a great help if you could please consider the changes i've made or help develop and improve this article this article. Thankz a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjskarate (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to improve this article. The Jack & Jill Karate Kids would have a great time if they could see their dojo in wikipedia. i'm hoping that somebody who has the expertised in this matter will rescue my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjskarate (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do Not Merge/redirect

    I have included Philippine Karatedo Federation to testify that JJS Karate Dojo is a notable karate school in the Philippines.

    Jack & Jill School is an institution in Bacolod City, Philippines. JJS Karate Dojo is martial arts center located in the school campus of Jack & Jill School. When joining the karatedo competition JJS Karatedo is the official team of the school.(Jjskarate (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

    Please read Wikipedia's official policy on notability. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For now I have included 2 reliable sources like Visayan Daily Star and Sun Star Bacolod Newspapers. I hope you could help me or give me some more tips so that this article will survive.(Jjskarate (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

    • Kindly Consider

    As of this moment I've edited and make some changes in JJS Karate Dojo articles (to the best of my ability)... The following changes are:

    • Omitted the school info box
    • Added more reliable sources
      • Daily Star Newspaper (3 articles sports news)
      • Sun Star Bacolod where our dojo is the featured photo in the front page
      • Add more karate links and website
      • and etc
    • Included our Karate Code of Honor
    • Included our Black Belts

    Hope my little knowledge regarding wikipedia will be able to save my article fron deletion. (Jjskarate (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge & redirect if the school is notable. To me both of them read like adverts and I'm dubious as to the notability of a pre-/elementary school, & the karate club of said school defiantly dose not pass.
    School seem notable form comments here, this would make good setion of that article. --Nate1481 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see WP:MANOTE for thoughts on the notablity of martial arts, artists & schools. --Nate1481 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge - merely locally notable. Not Wiki-notable. -Teancum (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and rd. JJL (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment about sources I am more worried that the first source causes Firebox to barf and This web site at www.visayandailystar.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. and that some of the other sources may be broken (I didn't try over a long period). At best, this is a merge into Jack and Jill School to be a paragraph. The only reason Jack and Jill School passes notability is that we give a pass to High Schools, as it is not properly sourced itself and wouldn't make it as a stand alone article without more work. Interesting, but interesting isn't a criteria. Merge. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge A 30 year history and well reported results suggest the school shouldn't be deleted outright. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete clearly fails WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other Dojo Articles
    • Comment: Just wondering why some other dojo pass the standard...
    like for example: Ichikukai Dojo, Noma Dojo, Yoseikan and other category related to dojo. I may say some deserved to have a place in wikipedia for their dojo are awesome. JJS Karate Dojo is also a martial arts center that somehow if all admin will permit deserves a little space in the wikipedia. Looking forward for your support in saving this article from deletion. Thankz a lot guys!!! (Jjskarate (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    They may be because no one has looke at them for deletion yet, from a first glance they need a clean up & may need deletion. --Nate1481 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some collected magazine articles that already published in our region regarding our karate dojo but for sure it will somehow fails because its not in the internet or you can't locate the details/info because it's only local not as big as "Sports Illustrated" magazine. Our dojo was featured in BYLINES Magazine 2005 Edition, some of the famous news and feature stories was the 2005 South East Asian Games sports that was played in Bacolod City as 1 of the venues of the games like for instance Football, Weightlifting and Beach Volley Ball. I'm very much willing to send an email copies of the said magazine for those interested wiki admin. We may be a very small karate dojo compared to some dojo in Japan and USA but for sure we exist and hundred of karate kids in our school will be delighted to see their dojo in WIKIPEDIA. Looking forward for a little support concerning this matter. THANKZ A LOT GUYS!! (Jjskarate (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    A local magazine is better than nothing, it may not demonstrate notability but they are still sources and the more 3rd party sources the better, (but 2 or 3 are the mos that would be needed in most cases) --Nate1481 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge. Clearly not notable beyond the local area. A school organization should at least have achieved something that will make them stand out beyond their own community (and by 'community', that would also include the student's and employees parents, relatives and professional relations, and also the city/town where the school is situated). Some examples of Philippine school organizations whose notability is well-secured are Alpha Phi Omega, the Philippine Collegian, The Varsitarian and this year's UAAP finalists (that is, the Blue Eagles and the Green Archers). At least aim for something like a national newspaper, if not Sports Illustrated. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added sources

    I have added more sources today like the Junior Inquirer of Philippines Daily Inquirer distributed every Sunday, also an article in BYLINES Magazine written by a respected journalist NONOY ESPINA "Way of the Kids" during the 2005 SEA Games held in Bacolod City, Philppines. I included also a press release and official fliers by Milo Sports Clinic as one of the Karatedo training center in the Visayas and the latest newsletter of Negros Occidental Private School Sports, Cultural, Educational Association (NOPSSCEA) in which our team highlighted the sports opening ceremony.Jjskarate (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to inform everybody that our dojo/team is not a world class dojo for the reason that we are included in the grassroot level of sports program in the Philippines. Most of our karatekas are ages 6-12 years old (children division) that why its not easy for us to established records because the spectators and sports officials focus on the collegiate level such as UAAP, NCAA, SEA Games, ASIAN Games up to World Championship / Olympic. Few organization included children in the competitions. But if given a chance to compete our kids are doing their best to established a personal record.Jjskarate (talk) 07:07, 23 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, Cunard (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This page is not listed under the archived section of WP:AFD so I think the admins missed it when they closed the other discussions. This discussion should have been closed or relisted three days ago, so I'm relisting it so that an admin will notice it. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: Please take into account the references recently added by the creator of this article and determine whether the deletion discussion should continue for 5 more days to reevaluate the notability of the school or whether it should be closed immediately as merge/redirect. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. For me, "The Jack & Jill Karate Kids would have a great time if they could see their dojo in wikipedia" is not enough basis for notability. The dojo would be served far better by a Google Pages or other free website or even by its own site and could be then linked from Jack and Jill School. As for other dojo articles, some of them are clearly notable: Noma dojo "The original hall had long been one of the most celebrated kendo dōjō in Japan." MaxVT (talk) 15:44, 23 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; multiple refs shown. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I Right[edit]

    Am I Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable website. Advertisement edited by the founder (User:Chuckyg80s) and possibly other COI parties (see User talk:68.97.44.33). A brief mention of the site in a blog entry about reader's response to a list (the entry entitled "50 best Web sites: readers on Arts, Kids, Info") is not significant coverage by a reliable source, nor is a blurb from Askmen.com, from a feature that promises a "new site every day". The entire text of this source is "Description: AmIRight.com offers visitors a collection of misheard lyrics and song parodies. What We Think: This site has tons of music-related information like misheard lyrics, cool band names, etc. The song parodies are hilarious -- if you like Weird Al, you'll appreciate these. Best Feature: The "Music Parody" section."[22] (sidenote: Can WikiNews articles be deleted? n:Am I Right webmaster interviewed on radio show)

    Keep - This article is as "non-notable" as Jump the Shark. ----DanTD (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note - The article itself was not created by Chuckyg80s, but by User:Iamhungey ----DanTD (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "edited", not "created". I assume you are comparing this site to jumptheshark.com. Jumptheshark.com does not have an article. The link you provided is to an X-Files episode. Besides, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the X-Files episode referred specifically to the website. While it's true that "other crap exists," sites like "Jump the Shark" and "AmIRight" tend to have greater significance. ----DanTD (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Well-written article which cites multiple reliable sources. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non notable. The supplied 'sources' either do not mention this website or are user submitted content. No reliable sources appear to exist. Nuttah (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Ask Men reference is a tiny blurb, the other Chicago Tribune page links to current reviews [23]. Fails wp:web "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." and to a lesser extent it smacks of a vanity page. Add the website as an external link to Mondegreen. --Faradayplank (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Article has several references. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It passes WP:WEB criterion #1. The Entertainment Weekly citation, for example, is a review of the site, the USA Today article includes a brief review of the site, and the Lincoln Journal Star article includes information about the site's founder and how he got it started. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:25, 29 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Myra Greene[edit]

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

    Notability not established. No major publications. No major exhibitions. No independent sources cited. Page reads like an extended resume. Evidence of conflict of interest, non-neutral point of view. Doesn't meet criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Shelly No (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    COI is not a valid reason for deletion and you provided no evidence that you tried to look up sources. Deletion is only the proper course when such sources cannot be found (which would negate the keep arguments below). - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Extensive Google and Yahoo searches turn up nothing notable. Some blogs, a few solo shows at minor venues. The MoCP "review" cited is not a review, but rather a description of some pieces in it owns, more or less an advertisement for its collection - it has apparently not been published. And even if it were, a single review does not establish notability. While the subject may in fact be a very good artist, she has, to date, not met the criteria for notability. Please see WP:CREATIVE . Author fails to establish notability per these guidelines. No evidence exists that she is "widely cited" , has received "significant critical attention" or represented in the permanent collections of "several notable galleries or museums." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly No (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Well, if you really read what the google results give, you'll see that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. I don't really know about photographers and arts, but here what I've found (and according to WP:CREATIVE):
      1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
        • The subject is an Assistant Professor in the Photography Department at Columbia College Chicago. That's what I read from her bio here.
        • An essay about her work written by Carla Williams (an independent artist). I found the copy here.
        • Another essay about her work written by Jeffreen Hayers & Bennie Johnson (curators). I found the copy here.
        • The subject was one of the judges for the 2007 Light Work Grants in Photography. I found the press release here.
      2. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Here's the list of her exhibitions that I've found from google:
        • 2006 Maryland Art Place exhibition: press release.
        • 2008 Portfolio review event by the Santa Fe Center: here. This what the event is about: Review Santa Fe is a juried portfolio review event. It is a two-day conference for photographers who have created a significant project or series and are seeking wider recognition. Up to 100 photographers meet with esteemed curators, editors, art directors, publishers, gallery and agency reps, and alternative market professionals.
        • And of course her exhibition at the MoCP Chicago: here.
        • Was in the exhibition gallery at the New Jersey City University Art Department in 2008. I got it here
    I think there are more, but those are enough to show that the subject is not only just a new artist. However, as I said below, the current article needs more inclusion of reliable sources (I gave examples I found above). It needs also a major revision, because the article still looks like a portfolio. Dekisugi (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I really read them. Please don't be offended but your assertion that you don't really know about photographers and arts is evident in your reply. It makes it difficult to for you know what is a significant achievement, and what is a typical credential for an emerging artist. Additionally many of your citations are from the subjects own website, which can't be classified as an independent source.
    The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Being a professor is not evidence of notability and isn't relevant. Can two essays that have not appeared in major or national publications really constitute wide citation?
    The subject was one of the judges for the 2007 Light Work Grants in Photography. Academics are frequently asked to participate in this kind of judging.
    Maryland Art Place is not a significant venue. If the exhibition had been significant, it would have been picked up by other venues, and widely reviewed.
    2008 Portfolio review event by the Santa Fe Center: Review Santa Fe is a juried portfolio review event." This is an event that emerging artists pay to attend. Emerging. "nough said.
    And of course her exhibition at the MoCP Chicago. Once again - this is not a review, it is a catalogue page for their collection. The subject never had an exhibition at MoCP. Please read more carefully.
    Was in the exhibition gallery at the New Jersey City University Art Department in 2008. Again, a typical credential for an emerging artist, but not a significant venue or exhibition.
    Being "not only just a new artist" is not the same as being notable. Would you really expect to see this person in an encyclopedia? If so, I can provide entries for about 4000 artists you've never heard of with similar credentials. There are thousands of artists who have had a few non-profit, and university shows. But my understanding is that wikipedia doesn't exist to provide information about good artists with lots of potential. But rather those who already have made significant contributions. I think the issue here is the meaning of the word significant in this context. With all due respect, Dekisugi, your professed ignorance of the art photography scene makes it impossible for you to know what is and isn't significant. (Shelly No (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Good argument, but I still on the keep based on the verifiability policy. Dekisugi (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep but please improve its verifiability. It meets notability guidelines, especially a small review from the MoCP Chicago (one of the references there). However, it really needs more reviews, articles, and other reliable sources; not from its own website. It also needs a major rewrite. It looks now like a portfolio, not an encylopaedia article. Dekisugi (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do those reliable sources exist then? You gave no indication. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference in the article: here. I don't know for other reliable sources, that's why I'd ask for more. Dekisugi (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Persuasive argument by nom has changed my mind. What appeared notable is simply transient fame. Keep per Dekisugi - Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per meeting the general notability guidelines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I found only 8 news articles mentioning Myra Green as photographer, with a few appearing to be false positives. Generally, they are not about Green, and mention her marginally. The apparent absence of news articles featuring Green's work as a photographer suggests lack of enough notability to pass WP:N.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Despite the length, there is nothing in the article which establishes notability. The lack of evidence for notability extends to accessible potential sources. Nuttah (talk) 10:08, 28 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Album-a-Day[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Album-a-Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable website. Only two reliable sources, one only briefly mentions Crap Art (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crap Art), and nowhere in the article is "Album-a-Day" mentioned by name. None of this counts as significant coverage.

    • Delete - I found it very difficult to find significant 3rd party coverage as per WP:N. I would consider changing my vote if sources could be found. - DustyRain (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: insufficient coverage WP:N. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 28 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. This article, in its current condition, is a rather poor specimen. While there is a clear consensus to keep, once it's cleaned up to be compliant with policy I doubt that there will be much content left. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis E. Dec[edit]

    Francis E. Dec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    While this guy is dead, so no BLP violations occur, practically the entire article is based on unreliable sources (blogs and other personal web sites with no discernible editorial policy). The only reliable sources used are government records (primary sources), and these are used for trivial facts like his date of birth, army enrollment etc. This biography is also full of original research an speculation about the guy's mental condition, with virtually no reliable, third-party source to back up the claims. The entire article is written from an obvious POV in tabloid style, promising further "revelations", etc. I started deleting the most egregious parts of article, but then reverted myself, and brought this AfD because I don't see salvageable material due to lack of reliable sources. Pcap ping 06:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, since the fanclub is obviously not independent it cannot be used as a source for contentious material. On the other hand: primary government sources are perfectly acceptable for basic stuff like birthdates because most publications don't mention them (even today). The biggest reason to keep is that his life has been turned into a play and he's been the author of several notable works of writing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gimme a break, that play, "The History of Heen" has exactly 4 google hits. [24]. His writings are notable according to who? A couple of fan sites? Pcap ping 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No third-party, reliable sources. II | (t - c) 06:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. This page has problems, true, full of original research and speculation and problems with an unecyclopedic tone. But the material seems valid, and Dec was notable enough to have an article. Just a shorter, better article. --Lockley (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. This page has a lot of original research, true, but that's because 99.99% of the research on the man is amateur research. Mr Dec is notable enough to have an article of his own. Freddiefreelance (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. See how many google hits this writer gets. His works have been used as lyrics by a number of very well-known groups including Psychic TV. Really, how can anyone even THINK OF deleting the article on Francis E. Dec? Who's next? JRR Tolkien? Juryen (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He gets a few thousand ghits (a few hundred distinct ones); that's nowhere near significant. The comparison with Tolkien make me think you're trolling. Pcap ping 06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kenneth Anger only gets a few thousand hits on Google, too, and you may be unfamiliar with his work as well; does that mean you should mark his entry for Deletion? Just because you have no direct knowledge on a subject does not mean it isn't notable. Freddiefreelance (talk) 15:12, 25 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aimé. M.[edit]

    Aimé. M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Has been deleted via PROD but restored upon request. While there are false positives that come from the french language phrase j'aime... there is scant evidence (false positives) that this singer is notable. There are some blog mentions and other trivial mentions (other name as well. He has released an album but there's no evidence the label is notable or whether his single charted. Unsourced "popularity" does not necessarily indicate notability. StarM 06:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I cleaned this up while it was being considered for deletion via a prod. During the clean up I searched extensively for sources and could find nothing indicating notability. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 13:43, 23 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. While sources were added during the AFD, the consensus thereafter as well as overall was to delete this page. Contributions of new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Rafalowicz[edit]

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

    I actually deleted this article because of a lack of available reliable sources before I realized how long it's page history is and the fact it had survived an AfD back in 2005. (apparently I was looking at another page's history in a different tab...) I thought I'd better restore the page and relist it here. Thingg⊕⊗ 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep - While most of these don't qualify for WP:RS, I'd argue that they can confer notability if there are enough of them. For instance, he turns up several times in a Google Book search, he has a Rotton Tomatoes page, and he has a New York Times page. However, he really hasn't acted in any other major roles, so his notability is shaky. DARTH PANDAduel 05:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - All of the aforementioned pages could easily be (and I would submit indeed were) authored by the subject himself. This person is not a well known figure, the movies that are included are not of notoriety, and the references to various posts that the subject holds are not noteworthy (i.e. a president of a students association - there are 100000s of these in the world!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.80.31 (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, PLEASE before nominating to keep of delete - look at the WP:BIO page. This page does not satisfy that critieria, (and may I point out that "Google hits" do not satisfy that criteria either. 203.192.80.31 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Ah, but WP:DEL stipulates that an article that can be improved should not be deleted. I'm trying to look at the best-case scenario here; if the article can be saved, we certainly do not want to delete it, even if it fails WP:COI (as that is not a deletion criteria). DARTH PANDAduel 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Totally agree with you re the WP:DEL policy and potential for improvement, but in this scenario I would respectfully submit that there is no potential for improvement! This person is not of notoriety, has not achieved anything which someone on Wikipedia would want to read about and does not meet other relevant guidelines. It is an article created by the subject presumably to support a case for future acting endeavours. And, at that time, if successful, it would be appropriate for him to have his own article! 203.192.80.31 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG DELETE I cannot believe that there is people who suggest we should keep this article. If someone looks at the "long history" of edits, it is nothing more than an editing war between (presumably) the subject himself (or a close friend) and other, rational people who do not believe he deserves an entry. As has already been said, it does not comply with ANY of the wiki guidelines for articles of this nature. 203.122.242.126 (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure if I should be insulted by this comment, but please refrain from attacks on editors during an AfD. I'm entitled to my own opinion just as you are to yours; there is no need to comment in such a manner that I am "unbelievable." Furthermore, there is also no reason to vote more than once. You can append your new opinions after your old one. DARTH PANDAduel 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sincere apologies, I assure you that my comment was in no way intended to be a personal attack on you, notwithstanding that is how it came across. I'm new to this. And I have only voted once... not sure what you're talking about there. Sorry again!! 203.122.242.126 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Bah, there goes my eyes... Misread your IP and confused it with the IP above. You folks should create accounts >_<... It's too confusing with numbers, heh. DARTH PANDAduel 12:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added eleven reliable sources. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notwithstanding the reliable sources, they do not make the subject a person of notoriety. It is not disputed that he was educated at those places, appeared in those films and is involved in student politics. However, each of these things on their own, and together, fail to meet various Wikipedia Policies, eg WP:BLP, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO 203.122.242.126 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He does not necessarily have to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, as I think he passes WP:BIO. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How exactly does he meet the WP:BIO criteria? That is, how is the subject, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded?" The "reliable sources" (which I agree with you, they are) do not satisfy this point. Johnson8776 (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of the 12 references in total, five are reviews of the film "Shine" with all but one (Time) making no comment on his performance. Together with the Seattle Times review of Look Both Ways, these six references do not substantially advance his claims under WP:ENTERTAINER, which seeks "significant roles in multiple notable films...". The remaining references largely align with his United Nations Youth Association activity, although one is not independent of the subject. On balance, the independent coverage of his UNYA activities now slightly tips the balance for me and I have altered my vote above. Murtoa (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CLEAR DELETE Subject is not notable. Merely appearing as an "extra" or getting a passing reference in a movie review does not suffice under WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, subject's student activities are not notable in line with WP:BIO. As the talk page for this article suggests, there are thousands of students across the world who hold positions in student/youth organisations and this does not warrant a Wikipedia article. In fact, many members of the actual United Nations do not have a Wikipedia entry, and I do not see why a Youth Ambassador ought to have one. As noted above, noone disputes the veracity of this article, but that is not the point. Not only must the entries be true, they must also be noteworthy, which, in this case, it is not. Johnson8776 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't debate the fact that his participation in a youth organization is not notable. However, his roles in films are and that is why he should be kept. If the page can be cleaned up and/or improved, WP:DEL stipulates that it should NOT be deleted. DARTH PANDAduel 13:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The films in which he has appeared may be notable but that doesn't make him notable on that basis alone. WP:ENTERTAINER seeks "significant roles in multiple notable films..." which I'm not convinced he satisfies. The question for me is whether the combined impact of his film and UNYA activities gets him over the line. Murtoa (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed with you Murtoa. The fact that he has appeared in one film, and had passing mention does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO. And I would argue that the "Combination" argument is not sufficient for this reason: Someone who fails one category, and fails another category cannot, by those categories combined be said to be notable. This is especially so where those categories are different things. For example, if they are multiple films where he fails notability, then together they may get him over the line. But a film and participation in a youth organisation cannot possibly, together, equate to notoriety. I dont think that the drafters of the Wiki policies would envisage that a non-noteworthy actor, coupled with his non-noteworthy activites makes him noteworthy! Johnson8776 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Johnson8776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: I note that Michellecrisp has added this "Single Purpose Account" notice. First, this is not my single purpose, and a look at my history will verify that, second, Michellecrisp, rather than try to discredit my point of view on this item, why not engage in the debate (I refer specifically to my above question asking how he satisfies WP:BIO) and third, please declare your bias to this subject (of which I have none). Johnson8776 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have zero connection with Alex. Secondly, the Single purpose tag also says few other topics. An account that was initially created solely to participate in this discussion and very few other articles falls into that. I am not required to answer your specific questions, especially from someone with a short history of editing. How a new account suddenly goes straight to a deletion discussion is interesting. Perhaps you need to declare any interest you have. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I'm not sure how this page could be "improved" to show greater notability. Considering the long edit history, and the long period of time since his appearance in the films, surely any true notability could already have been established. It seems that any improvement of this article would come from the subject securing a major film role or otherwise doing something that established actual notability, but that would then make keeping the article a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--98.233.11.61 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — 98.233.11.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I know him so keep this he's an awesome actor!!! And he's propbably going to get some new role which will make him famous! Dont delete it before he gets them!~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.130.104 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC) — 129.96.130.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    SUMMARY Putting aside all of the rubbish that is going backwards and forwards on this article, I am keen to reach a consensus. Can I propose to summarise what are the issues here:
    1. Whether the subject's film appearances are sufficient to get him past WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER;
     2. Whether the subject's United Nations Youth activities are sufficiently note worthy under WP:BIO; and
     3. If "no" to 1. and 2., whether the film and UN work together get him over the line.'
    In making these decisions, can I encourage respondents (nominating both keep and delete) to have reference to the relevant Wiki criteria, and refrain from comments like "I think he passes/fails WP:BIO". I wont repeat my above discussion, as it is clear I think the answer is "no" to 1. 2. and 3. But please, if anyone feels the need to add to those questions above do so, so that we can reach consensus rather than merely "voting": WP:AfD Johnson8776 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why such the the strong interest in this topic? Why not accept the outcome of the discussion no matter what the decision? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your question Michelle. I'm more than happy to accept the outcome of this topic, although with various personal attacks flying backwards and forwards I just thought it was worth summarising where we were at. You will notice that this is the first major discussion I've been involved in, so that is why I am interested in the outcome. Johnson8776 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen such good knowledge of Wikipedia policy for a first timer in a deletion discussion, perhaps you want to declare if you have any association with Alex Rafalowicz? Michellecrisp (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your question, I do solemnly declare that I do not know Alex. I'm relatively new to this, so I have taken quite some time to read all the various policies. I think its important for other newcomers to have their attention drawn towards these policies so that this does not become a "vote" but rather, a proper consensus, with reference to the policies. Its far easier to accept the outcome that way, dont you agree? I would like to refer you to the "Good Faith" policy, and also, once again, ask you to refrain from personal attacks, and finally, give your opinion as to why you think he satisfies the policies. If you are correct, then so be it! Let the article stay! Johnson8776 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My questions and comments are not personal attacks but in my time as an experienced editor, I must admit I do have concerns about the way you are trying to push an outcome in this deletion discussion. When someone closes this discussion, the strength of each person's arguments is taken into account, simply forcing people to answer your queries won't work. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not trying to push an outcome. I am just trying to facilitate reaching a consensus. See above, where I inserted the summary, each quesiton posed with no bias whatsoever. I am merely trying to encourage adherence to Wikipedia's policies.
    then you will accept the outcome. note if no consensus is reached the article is kept. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not much claim of notability. Rebecca (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Almost all of the sources cited in the article are in the forms of press releases etc. Sources should be

    "Independent of the subject" [which]excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

    References 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 (and possibly others fall foul of this. The others, while independent do not confer notability.203.192.80.31 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article reads like a resume listing a bunch of activities that, while verifiable, do not confer notability (various positions in student organizations). The sources are pretty flimsy as well. That covers the WP:BIO claim. He fails WP:ENTERTAINER by a mile or so, I won't bother to detail that. Pcap ping 14:21, 29 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. Notability not shown. If it becomes notable, contact me and I will be happy to userfy it so that it doesn't have to be re-written from scratch. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We R One[edit]

    We R One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Prod removed by IP - This song fails WP:NSONGS - It has not been released, nor has it charted anywhere. The song itself is non notable and was only performed for the first time on 22nd November, due for release 23rd November. Article does not indicate full significance for this song to be included in Wikipedia. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - TBD charting? Give me a break. Come back when it places well. DARTH PANDAduel 05:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - newly-released song, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs as it has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, ...won significant awards or honors or ...been performed independently by several notable artists. JohnCD (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The song is most probably going to make the singles chart in the next week, so what is the point of deleting, and therefore reopening the article? IT already fulfil this part of the criteria "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Song writers, Lyricists, Producers etc. are found on this page, therefore, in my opinion making it more than a stub. Plus, if the {{future single}} tag is used, then it overrides the need to have charted already.Peterwill 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - I have removed the {{future single}} tag from this article, since it is, according to the dates you listed at the infobox, no longer a future single, since it was on general release as of 23rd November. This means that the requirement for the single to have charted is still in effect. I am now withdrawing from this AfD, since I have modified the article. My nomination of it, however, stands unaltered.' --Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - Therefore, if any single has the waiting to be released tag, and is then released, it can be deleted within the week it takes to chart? That defies the point of having the tag in the first place? It hasn't had a chance to chart yet, therefore, in my opinion, it is ligitimate to keep the article. If it does not chart this sunday, then obviously it warrants deletion. Peterwill 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We shouldn't let Wikipedia process override common sense. If the guidelines say that it will meet the notability criteria if it charts this week, then it would be silly to delete the article only so that someone has to recreate it in a few days' time. Whether there is (or is likely to be) enough worthwhile material about this single to merit an individual article is another question, of course. Matt 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.150 (talk)
    • Taking into account "Matt's" comment, I say delete. There isn't enough here--just the promise that it will chart by someone I don't know. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:45, 28 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 01:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Micah Kesselring[edit]

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

    Non-notable teen guitarist. He has recorded an album titled Dobro Blue, but it hasn't charted or received much coverage. This article isn't speedy-able since it does have one reliable source that goes in depth about his biography, but IMO one reliable source is not enough to confer notability. The article was mostly about him releasing an album, getting his Myspace page featured on Guitar Heroes, and a non-notable contest he won. The other references in the article either don't mention him or mention him in a list of other guitarists. I've done searches on Google and Google News Archive but haven't been able to find more sources. Cunard (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Stay Micah is listed in the Diamond Bottlenecks list as an endorsement, and in the Plains Drifter Slides list. Those should count as two sources, as Kesselring isn't related to either of them. The music contest he won was a worldwide competition, and they selected the 4 best songs received out of millions of entries. That's not a very easy thing to win. He was featured in Guitar Player Magazine, which is a Nationwide Magazine. He is going to perform at the World's Largest Blues Competition, the International Blues Challenge. He is getting some National Attention, and I believe this should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.245.42 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC) — 75.105.245.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Stay - As noted in WP:MUSIC, "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." Kesselring has been the subject of "The Columbus Dispatch" Newspaper, "The Athens Messenger" Newspaper, and is broadcast worldwide by "Arizona Jeans Co.". Those are at least two reliable sources.
    • Stay - Also as noted in WP:MUSIC, "A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts.". Kesselring has been featured in Guitar Player Magazine, a nationwide magazine. The Columbus Blues Alliance is also a professional organization [1]
    • Important The previous two "Stays" were from User:75.105.245.42, who also did the previous "Stay". Just so people aren't under the impression that these are different people.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm don't even understand why this is considered non-notable or anything... I've provided enough information, and reliable resources. I've received Nationwide attention for my music. What do you people expect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.245.42 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have provided a decent amount of information but one reliable source is not enough to confer notability. For a guitarist to pass WP:MUSIC, he has to have received more third party coverage (preferably 5 or more reliable, third-party sources). The other sources in the article either don't mention you or mention you only in passing. These sources are from companies that have endorsed you, so they do not count as suitable sources. Since you are writing about yourself in this article, I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself. It's better to let other people write about you because then the article will be neutral. Feel free to contribute to other music articles on Wikipedia. For example, here's a list of topics in music that do not have articles. You can write about these articles but be sure to find several reliable sources to confirm their notability. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you're not sure about an article's notability. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 00:28, 28 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 America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11. Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheena Satana[edit]

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

    This article (at least a more detailed version of it under the alternative name Sheena Sakai) was already deleted once before following a notability discussion. LegalFiction (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete If the nom were true it would probably qualify for a speedy deletion under criteria G4, but I cant verify this. All the same, the subject appears little in google news. Outside of the notability issues, she has problems being a neologism and violating WP:NOT#NEWS since she hasn't had adequate time to be written about or discussed. Themfromspace (talk) 04:45, 23 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Horror movement[edit]

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

    The band The Horrors might be notable, but a movement called this is not. No ghits about this. Clubmarx (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or merge to The Horrors there is no evidence that this 'movement' is notable or widespread enough to stand alone article. Icewedge (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - WP:HOAX and WP:OR. In the case that this truly does exist (which I greatly doubt), follow Icewedge's suggestion and merge. DARTH PANDAduel 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Likely a WP:HOAX or a misreading of an article. I'm a fan of the band, and have rarely if ever heard/seen this trend, and even if it actually existed, it isn't notable enough to have its own article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--this is not a difficult decision: clearly a hoax. Or less, just a joke. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 26 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Favorite Highway[edit]

    My Favorite Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unencyclopedia-ish and somewhat POV. Rtyq2 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, band is signed to Virgin Records, a major label company. They seem legit enough to be on Wikipedia. M1ch1n00 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. One of the criteria at WP:BAND is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." They only have one full-length album, so they're either one or two albums (depending on the stature of their indie label) away from that criterion. Nothing in the article shows they meet any other specific criterion or the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, band has been featured in several issues of notable magazines including both the July '07 and February '08 releases of the Alternative Press Magazine as required by WP:BAND M1ch1n00 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Almost all of the bands signed to Virgin Records have their own Wikipedia page. Virgin Records is part of EMI which is one of the four big record labels. This gives the band incredible notability, the band was able to get signed to the biggest record label only three years after forming. Rabidsoccerball (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, This band is on the verge of attaining notability, but as of right now this article does not comply with WP:MUSIC.--Baselineace (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: fails to establish notability as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as no notable and failing WP:BAND. Being signed a record label, regardless of size, is not an indication of notability. Hundreds of bands get signed and disappear from view every year. Nuttah (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete After reviewing the available sources, I don't think the band is not notable now but may be in the future. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:54, 28 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 (A7), courtesy of Thingg -- thank you, Thingg! (Non-admin closure for this discussion.) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mime Movie[edit]

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

    possible hoax, no sources, no Google hits Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete as vandalism since nothing can be found. This is beyond crystalballing. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete any other ghits are based on this (both of them)--odd for a movie to air within the next six weeks. JJL (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Hoax. Includes such claims as a fictional character from a television show on another, competing network as voicing a character, and that Pat Morita will be voicing a character, which will be rather hard because he's been dead for three years. Mentions a "Canadian Dub" involving an American actor voicing a character. This is vandalism through and through. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:22, 23 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spokane Chiefs (W.I.H.L.)[edit]

    Spokane Chiefs (W.I.H.L.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Non-notable amateur hockey team. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The article lists a book as a reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (blinks hard) "The article lists the book as a reference?" So ... does that mean I get to save every article on AfD by putting a book title in the reference section, without taking any pains to find out whether this book is about this particular subject - which given that Spokane hockey history goes back a century, and includes a major professional team and several major junior teams, is highly unlikely - or whether this book is itself a reliable source? Seeing as the only Google hit I get from "A History of Hockey in Spokane" is from the Spokane Public Library, quite possibly not. Delete.  RGTraynor  07:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Listing a book as a reference is not a valid keep argument. --Smashvilletalk 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for lack of context. A book might mention this senior team, but without any detail of the team's history, the level it played at, etc, the reader is left with "They were a hockey team". Based on the info presented in the article, it's hard to argue the cited book as including anything more than a trivial mention of this particular team. Resolute 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to Ice Hockey Wiki on Wikia. Powers T 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Resolute. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Resolute. --Smashvilletalk 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non notable. There is no indication in the article and no obvious sources that establish how this team meet the notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 09:44, 28 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 G3ed by Thingg.. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack fitzpatrick[edit]

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

    No references, probably a hoax. No ghits for the Vogue cover. Clubmarx (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Unreferenced, and is either about a non-notable person or a hoax.--Ashbey…whisper… 02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added G3 - Blatant G3 material. — neuro(talk) 03:35, 23 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. John254 01:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Lee Riches[edit]

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

    The reason I think that this entry should be deleted isthat Jonathan Lee Riches is merely a prisoner in the federal prison system. Nothing more. He's done nothing particularly of note. The many lawsuits that he has filed are merely a desperate ploy to get attention, and, anyone is able to do what he did. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is merely giving him what he wants by giving him an entry. All that he has done is wasted time and taxpayer money by inundating the judicial system with lawsuits. Kyleandrew1 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did someone else before Wikipedia give him the attention you claim he is seeking? To the point where he became notable? Then he is notable and the article stays. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the Wikipedia notability guidelines,

    • "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability."

    Jonathan Lee Riches has achieved notoriety ONLY because of the many frivolous lawsuits he has filed. Those frivolous lawsuits are merely tools of self-promotion. Without those lawsuits, it is unlikely that he would have become known. Hence, no one "independent" of Riches considered him notable. A district court judge opined that Riches' lawsuits were merely tools of self-promotion. If a judge had actually entertained his claims, perhaps Riches would meet the notability guidelines. But, in my opinion, he does not meet these guidelines. The notability guidelines say that biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations do not prove notability. My point is this: the American court system guarantees anyone, who files a lawsuit, access to the courts. Thus, the American court system is akin to a dictionary that accepts self-nominations. Simply because a person has filed many lawsuits does not mean that he is notable, just as the self-nomination of a person to a biographical dictionary does not guarantee notability.Kyleandrew1 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What makes you think this article is an autobiography? Plus, the fact you say he reached notoriety "only because" is not an argument for deletion. What matters is that he did reach notoriety. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There seems to be significant press coverage of him. Clubmarx (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Previous nomination resulted in a keep and this nomination's reason simply does not seem like a good reason for deletion. Just because you dislike the guy doesn't mean he should have his article removed. Since it was previously established that he has notability, there is no reason to believe otherwise now. Furthermore, even if he is "self-promoting," if he receives coverage in several major news sources, he is notable. DARTH PANDAduel 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. He's getting all the attention because the people he is suing are well-known. Not because he himself is noteworthy. "Notability is not inherited" applies here in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The threshold of notability for a biographical article is widespread coverage in reliable sources. In addition to what the article already has, from 2008 alone Google News produces this from NPR, this from Madison County Record, this from Fox News, this from Hartford Courant, this from Rocky Mountain News, this from (subscription required)Philadelphia Inquirer, this from The Observer, this from (subscription required) Herald Times, and this from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. His notability is not temporary; coverage in reliable news sources stretches back over several years beginning with coverage for the crime that actually got him incarcerated on CNN and The Houston Chronicle (both already in the article.) I don't believe inherited applies here. I'm sure it's true that his being a celebrity stalker (of a highly unusual kind) is what gets him most of his press coverage, but doing something to celebrities can itself create notability. Not in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but simply to call to mind some other people who have achieved notoriety because the people they did stuff to were well-known: Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, Jr., and Margaret Mary Ray(I can't believe we have an article on her! Tempted to AfD that one myself.) He easily meets the coverage criteria. The only reason I can see to delete the article would be following the spirit of deny—not recognizing his actions for fear of encouraging more—but I think adopting such an approach could lead to our policing an awful lot of articles to govern social impact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't see anything here to suggest grounds for overturning the previous AFD keep decision. Plenty of good sources -- in fact perhaps more so than is needed for an article of this length, though there's no policy or guideline on that. The only concern I have is it goes without saying that WP:BLP needs to be adhered to very closely due to the subject matter. I am curious how the nominator came to the conclusion he did nothing notable, even with all the sources showing to the contrary. 23skidoo (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Because I've heard of this guy, and the only reason I've heard of him is that I've read many articles about him in many reliable news sources. Basically, many reliable sources = notability, no? -adavidw (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm pretty sure it's less about 'get attention' than 'kill time'. His lawsuits make me and many others laugh which is more than most comedians can say. Chris Croy (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Like it or not, people keep writing about this guy. Lots of news sources. Over a long period of time. Avram (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Significan press coverage, meets WP:RS and WP:BIO. Nominator's rationale is invalid, too. — neuro(talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The lesson we learn here is that sometimes self-promotion works. And you have to admire anybody willing to sue Plato. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Aside from everything else noted, this article itself has received press coverage, according to the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 24 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Popeye the Sailor (Warner DVD series)[edit]

    Popeye the Sailor (Warner DVD series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not only is it filled with speculation and bias, virtually all of the useful information is already present in the main Popeye article. By linking the information on the DVD sets from the main article - which has now been done - this article becomes irrelevant. I suppose the authors figured that, with an article on Looney Tunes Golden Collection, there was a reason for this article, but that article handles specific information unique to it, and an article on the Popeye DVDs has no need for, say, something unique like a list of released shorts, because they're being done in chronological order. FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Speculation can be dealt with in the usual way and I can't see any bias. This looks like a spinoff article detailing the release of those videos in more detail than the main article. The individual video articles don't seem to mention all the legal stuff this one does. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the main Popeye article, specifically the "Home Video" section. All of the "legal stuff" mentioned in this article is already contained in Popeye and Fleischer Studios (under "Copyright status"). A third article with an arbitrary title is unnecessary. The actual releases on the DVDs themselves are already mentioned in the same detail in the main Popeye article and in the article for each individual DVD release (which I already spent some time removing speculation, POV, personal reviews, etc). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This series is similar to the Looney Tunes Golden Collection series in its importance and both series are from Warner Home Video. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full House DVDs are from Warner Home Video too, but I bet an "article overview" on the DVD series would be deleted. Unlike the Looney Tunes DDVDs, the Popeyes are being released in chronological order, so there's no need for an overview article like this. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are also articles about the chronological Three Stooges DVD's, and in all cases there are specials and features that don't exist anywhere else, that could stand to be discussed. The nominator clobbers everything from the articles and then complains that there's nothing in the articles. That's pretty offensive. Instead of clobbering it, some better citations are needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead of arbitrarily hanging citations onto it - a poor editing practice that should have been nipped in the bud years ago - it should be re-written so that it's informative rather than reading as biased. There's not much of a reason why an article on a DVD series needs to discuss the entire litigation history of the Popeye cartoons, especially when all of that information is already in the main article. I didn't touch this article, but yes I "clobbered" the other two because the "background" sections were filled with POV, colloquial language, and were, from an informational standpoint, useless. An encyclopedia article on a DVD release - which, to be honest, I hardly see a need for in this case - should discuss the DVD release. It's an encyclopedia article, not a critical review. We don't need a "background" for what's on it; we already have articles on Popeye cartoons and the histories of the studios that made them. Notice how the Looney Tunes Golden Collection articles discuss the DVDs, the restoration process, the content choices, etc. There's no overwrought sections on the histories of the Looney Tunes, or long discussions about Associated Artist Productions (topics already covered in detail elsewhere). In short, if you want to keep it, rewrite it and make it sound worthwhile. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, there's no article about the Three Stooges DVD series, and the individual DVD release articles remain concise and on topic. I didn't nominte the articles on the individual Popeye DVDs; I nominated this one. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Popeye article - the series is notable, the DVD series is manifestly not. Creating article pages for every boxset and repackaging of content is not appropriate; relevant information should be merged to the appropriate topics. Also note that AfD precendent with regard to DVD sets has generally been to merge to the main topic, and the existence of other articles is considered an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". Some of us in WikiProject Films have already identified these other articles for upcoming merges or AfDs as appropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge any useful content that is not already detailed in Popeye#Home video. This seems like an unnecessary duplicate of a section of the main article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:03, 26 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC) This should not have been deleted![reply]

    The Wellington Underground Poets definitely existed and deletion of this page looks disturbingly like an attempt to suppress their existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.108.28 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Wellington underground poets[edit]

    Wellington underground poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability, obscure, original research, reads like a rant by a fan Haxidor451 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Might you point me to the masterfully gathered and ordered references and links? I can't see them... DARTH PANDAduel 12:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • - The people, the places, the publications, the dates: they fit! - 192.190.108.28 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, Darth Panda, XLerate, SimonLyall, and Michellecrisp.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:28, 24 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Murray Haddow[edit]

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

    Non notable performer, original research, Vanispamcruftisement Haxidor451 (talk) 00:31, 23 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 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgian British[edit]

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

    Article is about a non-notable group of 551 people. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This article was previously part of a mass deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British, which closed as "no consensus". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wondering, what makes a group of humans notable. 551 thousand? million? But the article as it is now can be deleted without remorse - for context issues. It does not explain if "Georgian origin" refers to Georgian ethnicity (itself a mosaic picture) or just "being from there" (Abkzazes, Russians, Jews, Armenians etc.). The country broke up and shrank through ethnic conflicts, causing emigration among all factions, so at least some definition is required. NVO (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. For several months, we've seen a series of ethnicity articles which were written virtually without content. This is one of them. The typical article goes something like this: "Fooian Barian refers to persons in the country of Bar who are of Fooian descent." It is accompanied by an infobox which identifies the religion of the Fooian Barians as the most common religion in the country of Foo, the languages they speak as the languages of Foo and Bar, and the place where they can be found in Bar as the most populous regions of Bar. In other words, the article tells the reader virtually nothing they couldn't have guessed from the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete With 200 nations on Earth, I guess the random combinations would be 40,000 -- which would include such "man's man" articles like "American Americans". Metro90 describes it correctly. The ones that I'd really really like to see are "Georgians in Georgia" (which would be about foreign residents of Tbilisi and Atlanta); Romanian Panamanian; Guinean French Guianian; and Irish-Iraqi-Iranian. Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible keep and block proposing editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, you're saying that I should be blocked for suggesting that an article might not be notable? I'm also worried by your use of "our project". There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per the hilarious and very good reasons given by Metropolitan90 and Mandsford. I'm not sure when an immigrant group passes into notability, but what's in this article falls far below that threshold. RayAYang (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should probably note that my description of the typical poorly written Ethnicity Nationality article was inspired by another editor's comments on a similar AfD, although there have been so many of these articles up for AfD in recent months that I wouldn't be able to locate which one and who to credit. Also, I want to be clear that I have no objection to articles like Irish American or Italian American, which deal with notable ethnic groups and contain actual sources, information, and paragraphs of prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mandsford. Inclusion would mean inclusion of all other such combinations, and adds no value to WP. --lightspeedchick (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- Metro90 and Mandsford said it all, really, and said it so well I "borrowed" their arguments and used them here. You can't just take two random countries, put them in a blender, pour it all into a mould and call the resulting mess an article. Reyk YO! 04:26, 24 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Bigelow, IV[edit]

    John Bigelow, IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article was prodded after I declined a speedy a while back. Since my declining the speedy obviously means the deletion is not non-controversial, I'm writing this procedural nomination so the article is properly discussed. The person who prodded it said: "No citations, not particularly notable at that age". Based on the content of the article, I believe references can be added. And with Connie Talbot turning into a featured article recently, age clearly isn't an issue. Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When I came across this article it was in a very bad state. But I added references and cleaned it up. WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". How does that equal deletion? I see no contentious issues here, just the question of what he already did being notable enough to warrant inclusion. - Mgm|(talk) 00:33, 23 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, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Procedural keep for lack of nomination deletion rationale. Nothing personal. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:15, 23 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 Denise Quiñones. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Puerto Rico 2001[edit]

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

    Notabilty uncertain. Say Headcheese!--hexaChord2 22:49, 15 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) 00:04, 23 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. John254 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Home of Angels[edit]

    Home of Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable film - although sources have been added, these only prove its existence, not its notability. Fails WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on the basis of the movie's notable stars Abe Vigoda and Sherman Hemsley.--DrWho42 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC):[reply]
    • Delete Under the criteria for films by notable actors sometimes meriting their own article, (see here), it also states "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.". That's not the case with this film, as far as I can tell. I can only find bare mention of this film on the New York Times website [27], Rotten Tomatoes [28] and Variety [29]. No reviews or substantial press or reviews. The film is already mentioned in the filmography section for Abe Vigoda and Sherman Hemsley, and since there's not enough additional information available from outside sources, that's sufficient enough mention of the film on Wikipedia in my opinion. Raven1977 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Keep. After seeing the sources found and added to the article, I think the article now meets notability criteria. Since it's now obvious it's been reviewed by at least one reliable publication, I think that's sufficient. Raven1977 (talk) 18:58, 24 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, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Have cleaned up per Film MOS, added sources, expanded, and wikified. Notability is now apparent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per improvements in sourcing, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 25 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Petr Chaadaev (ski jumper)[edit]

    Petr Chaadaev (ski jumper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    In Notability category since December 2007, No notable results and its very much information in this article who isnt at all notable The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:58, 18 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, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep But i agree its very mush useless information that is totaly non-notable. Zoggoemila80calgary (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, but the competition he reached the final in, was very windy and many good jumpers dosent even qualify for the final round. You havent competed in olympics or WM if you were out in the qualification or was included in the start list but never started. The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Strong keep Contrary to Camel's statements, you've definitely competed in the Olympics regardless of what round you've reached. Notability is guaranteed for those who have competed at events such as the Olympics, and if you've competed even in the bottom round, you've competed. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but he didnt start. He was disqualified BEFORE his jump in the individual competition and didnt start at the teem. I dont think that is to have competed in olympics. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Strong keep for competing in the World Cup in two different years. Contrary to Camel's statements, the wind during an event doesn't affect whether he was notable for competing in it, unless the World Cup rejects the entire race; and that doesn't even address the fact that he competed in another one. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to say... The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:51, 24 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) — neuro(talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    R. T. Crowley[edit]

    R. T. Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    a) Subject does not appear to be notable; b) Appears to be self-promotion: the substantial edits came from an IP in Cary, NC (network:Organization;I:RESEARCH-TRIANGLE-SOFTWARE), very similar to his company, Research Triangle Commerce. Specious (talk) 20:32, 18 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, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per new Businessweek source and comments by WikiDan61. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep-even if it needs to be referenced, expanded-heck, even if it needs to be rewritten- the topic looks notable enough for a keep. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep-Needs to be rewritten and much better sourced, but the sources are available: [31] [32] Typically goes by "Bob Crowley" --Macrowiz (talk) 19:59, 23 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.
    1. ^ Gregory, Kevin. http://www.columbusblues.com. Retrieved 2008-11-23. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_23&oldid=1081072498"