Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Popularity.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

This article is nothing but an extended definition. It might be appropriate for the Wiktionary, but not for the Wikipedia.Leland 23:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. It includes more than just a definition. ☞spencer195 23:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The social phenomenon of "popularity" is of widespread interest and has almost certainly been the subject of academic study. -- Seth Ilys 06:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
If no one can cite one of these academic studies, I'd say it's a pointless entry. Leland 12:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I say let it go. After giving a wide open definition of popularity as many people liking an “entity/object,” it goes with what look like personal observations on popularity, but only as it applies to people and not other “entities/objects.” Seems a bit trivial. Nathan 13:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's already more then a definition and has the potential to be expanded into a fuller article. Add a stub message if you'd like, but keep. --Starx 04:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It has promise. -- Stevietheman 00:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_administration_tool

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

The result was delete. still limited participation but I'm calling this a 13 day PROD. There's been no dissent. StarM 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Stanislaw Stories

Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 08:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was baleeted per G3. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Home For Christmas (AACT album)

Another hoax Chipmunks album. No sign of this thing anywhere. —Kww(talk) 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination by a blocked user. If you wish to actually consider this for AfD, please file another. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Frushi

non notable sushi genres John McObama (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3. Cleaning up all hoaxes, one step at a time. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alvin And The Chipmunks (album)

Yet another hoax album. No sign of this particular album anywhere (careful, there's a 2007 "Alvin and the Chipmunks" soundtrack, but that's not what this article claims to be about). Purported "cover" is actually a wallpaper. —Kww(talk) 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding purported singles:

(God Must Have Spent) A Little More Time On You (AATC song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tearin' Up My Heart (AATC song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Kww(talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax per the nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
G3 all as hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G3) — These songs do not exist. I think they would also meet A9, but that's beside the point. MuZemike (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Even if the "God Must Have Spent" song really had been recorded by Alvin and the Chipmunks, we would just want to mention it in God Must Have Spent a Little More Time on You, not give their version a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. StarM 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uemura Masakatsu

This is a recreation of a deleted article back in June. I can't speedy it because it is slightly better than the last time but nothing concerning notability has changed in respect for this person. Still no verifiable references and written as OR. Tavix (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep There's a source, so its probably summarized from it and not OR, though I am not able to tell. Buit considering the material cited previously, there are other sources also. DGG (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Response Yes, there is a ref but is it verifiable? Tavix (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In a word: "Yes". I've verified it just now. Wily D 12:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Notability demonstrated the usual way. I see no reason to plead for a special exception to the usual practice in this case - individual is notable both in the regular sense and the jargon sense. Wily D 12:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Mentioned in the book The Cambridge History of Japan on page 163, preview on Google books here.--Boffob (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Per Boffob and the fact that this page passes WP:N. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill Hammons

Sub-minor party political candidate in Colorado, ran for Congress and lost with no significant amount of votes, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. Only RS coverage is passing mention of a few paras in general coverage of the race. Previously prodded (by me). Prod removed with rationale "Gave 3 reasons why Bill Hammons candidacy is noteworthy; ft: Hammons was the only Congressional candidate in the State to successfully petition onto the ballot in 2008; 92% increase; more $$ than Rep" (presumably the edit summary is truncated). gnfnrf (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. PROD was removed by User:Boulder1. If he wins, I'll be more forgiving. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Although there are plenty of sources, they're incidental (for example, his ballot listing on the elections board website) or self-published. I can't find any sources yet for this district, but everything I find seems to say that Democrats or Republicans won every seat in the House: therefore, he lost, and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- He lost. He didn't even get enough votes to make CNN's percentage tracking. [1] gnfnrf (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - notability demonstrated the usual way. The guy founded a party, for fuck's sake. His notability extends well beyond just losing the election. Wily D 12:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Founding a non-notable party doesn't make him notable. Nor does his being a non-notable party founder make that party notable. Rklear (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Err, the party is notable because it's the subject of nontrivial coverage in reliable third party publications. Same as Hammons here. Wily D 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Anybody can start a political party, the party and the founder of this one are non-notable though. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. StarM 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Solbourne Computer

Deloitte owns this name and has acquired the assets of Soubourne Jairiley (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Just because they were sold doesn't mean they should go. Needs refs, but being sold is not a reason for deletion. --Terrillja _talk 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Businessweek and a Google Book Search all seem to have turned up notable results. If we delete purchased companies, we'd lose articles like Digital Equipment Corporation. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep' - Notability demonstrated the usual way. No reason to make a special exception here. Wily D 12:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Nice job DP. Schuym1 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unexpect

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or merge to preserve redirect. Ghits do not demonstrate notability, and in looking through Google searches and online print databases I was unable to find sources needed for notability.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Barsaive

There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional setting. This page seems rife with original research in the comparison of the fictional Barsaive to the Ukraine (with no references to verify this). A redirect to an obvious merge/redirect target of Earthdawn was attempted, but was reverted (twice), so here we are at AfD. I personally don't see anything worth merging to this target, so I am suggesting deletion or, at best, a redirect to that target. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Some fantasy universe settings are independently notable, but Barsaive does not appear to be among them. The article is entirely original research or lists of fantasy nations, and I don't know what it would be replaced with. gnfnrf (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Earthdawn. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Major article for a major role-playing game. It's not some minor trivia, it's the setting - like Middle-earth for LOTR. 17k Google hits not counting Wiki and mirrors, including 2k hits on pages without "Earthdawn" keyword.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Google is easily bombed, and notability is not established by quantity of hits but quality of the sources. You need to have reliable sources.--Boffob (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FICT, as there are no source to establish that Barsaive is notable separately of Earthdawn.--Boffob (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to create an article geopolitics of Earthdawn, and merge this article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theran Empire there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. StarM 04:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Momentem

Referenced, but the product has only just launched - and the reference for that only says "reportedly". I don't want to assume a conflict of interest, but surely an article can wait a few months. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep notability demonstrated the usual way. I see no reason to deviate from the standard practice here. Wily D 12:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the nominator is stating that the article is referenced, so I am unclear on the rationale for deletion. A conflict of interest is an issue for cleanup through editting and not deletion -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3 -- actually, blatant hoaxes count as vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mookjook

No ghits on the subject. Looks like a hoax - for that reason it can't be speedied. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 04:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Princesses

Unencyclopedic in present form, no references or reliable third party sources, mostly unusable in present state. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Redundant to other Nintendo articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep — I was thinking of what would happen if this was to, say, become a character list, but it still might be too overcategorized, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it needs cleanup and referencing as opposed to outright deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Totally unreferenced - may well be MADEUP. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- They are characters from games made by Nintendo. Maybe you meant original research? MuZemike (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - these characters have already been written about either in their own article, or on the article for their respective games. Marasmusine (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - redundant with other articles.--Boffob (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - redundant and is an indiscriminate list. --MASEM 15:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, information on these characters is found elsewhere, there is no need to have this page. Pagra shtak 16:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete out and out original research. JuJube (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - all entries have their individual entries, no need for this article -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Wholly unnecessary list. It's an arbitrary idea - why Princesses? Why not Princes, or Aliens, or Frogs (which would include Wart, Save Frog, Frog Suit Mario, Jam, Prince Froggy, etc.)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - redundant, unnecessary cross-categorization. Randomran (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 04:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Gunfire (mixtape)

Another mixtape article - this one not even referenced and ends mid-sentence. WP:NALBUMS: mixtapes are in general not notable; fails WP:V Ros0709 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums—little or no significant media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:JANNMT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete because of no notability. But I just gotta ask--what the heck even is a "mixtape" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- See mixtape#Mixtapes in hip hop for all the gory details. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nom withdrawn per dekkappai's work on the article. Dloh cierekim 05:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Hex

Not notable book which does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS for general notability guidelines. Cat finds in 46 libraries. Dloh cierekim 21:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator for reasons given below. (NAC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anton Loeb

There is a claim of notability for this person which could very well be valid. That being said, this fails WP:V miserably. Google turns up a few trivial mentions and not much else. The author's request "if you know anything about Loeb, please share the information" under the career heading is what does it for me. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep and improve a quick check reveals that his book illustrations received glowing reviews. And that he illustrated many books and movies. Admittedly, the article as it stands is very poor quality.Historicist (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Slow down a bit i've only just started the page - I'm not sure why you're so keen to stop a thing before it starts - the world wont end. Make your mind up and I'll wait until you do as I'm in no mood to waste my time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob247 (talk • contribs) 18:20, November 5, 2008

Dear Mr Senseless, Since the user who put up this page is new to Wikipedia. And since, as you say, the subject is apparently notable. Perhaps you could consider taking down the AFD and posting on the new user's page some advice about how to compose an article.Historicist (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Keep. A Google Book search turns up numerous results. Really doesn't pass WP:BIO, but because of WP:BK and the fact that he is a fairly prolific illustrator, I'll vote keep. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Though hardly passing many criteria, as the above user mentioned a book search shows multiple sources mentioning this man. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G3) by Ckatz (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

3 tan

Supposedly had a hit record for 21 weeks (no indication of where, mind), and toured many countries (including "Freezland, wherever that is), and yet I cannot find any reference to the band or the singles. Certainly does not appear to meet notability requirements and I suspect this may well be a hoax. Ros0709 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax. You know its not a good sign when the first thing that comes up when you search the band name on Google is an urban dictionary refrence and a product listing for a briefcase. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:SPAM, WP:HOAX. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Clear hoax. Spikydan1 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I agree with the hoax assessment. --Stormbay (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"Freezland" could be "Friesland" misspelt. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 04:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Stan Grossman (character)

Original synthesis connecting two fictional characters of the same name in two films, Fargo and Little Miss Sunshine. Character name was used as a reference. Independent notability not established through non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - For a host of reasons. No non-trivial coverage. The connection between these characters is tenuous; one is an allusion to the other, neither warrants independent coverage and there's nothing to suggest they warrant joint coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete The article appears to be based on a misreading of a single line from an interview. The quoted line does not say that the character was re-used, just that the name was. Neither character alone warrants an article. gnfnrf (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. His brother plays for the Chicago Bears and if you delte his article I think Rex might lose hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.222.8 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was G11'd. lifebaka++ 01:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian Fitzgerald (producer)

The article appears to be written by the subject of the article, and the author wrote it after being warned of COI. Advertising in article, giving the agent's phone number. Listed in IMDb, but does not appear to have had any significant roles in any movies, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Terrillja _talk 20:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Been speedied as an A7 twice. Mostly a vanity page/resume. Not the subject of significant independent sources. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete via G11 - Blatant advertising. ("Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.") An article having phone number for S.A.G and an agent along with the wording of As you can see from his resume or on IMDB, Brian has already appeared in numerous commercials, industrials, TV spots and Films. A self-proclaimed risk taker, success driven Fitzgerald not only wants to conquer the world of acting, but also has started to create and produce…..So watch out world! is clearly "blatant". Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather just let this AfD take its course, that way we can salt the page and G4 recreations. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Same thing I was thinking, if we speedy it, it will keep getting recreated, this way we will hopefully stop it once and for all.--Terrillja _talk 01:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. StarM 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Renee Williams (person)

If I'm reading the article correctly, this person has received minor coverage as a result of being overweight. While not an event per se, I feel that WP:BLP1E definitely applies and there is no other coverage of this subject that I can find on Google News archives that would suggest reasonably notability for a biographical treatment. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The policy you refer to does not apply; it is for biographies of living people, but this person has died. As a world record holder as "the world's biggest woman", as well as the heaviest person to have a gastric bypass, this person is sufficiently notable to have an article. At worst, merge and redirect to List of the heaviest people. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Our own List of the heaviest people refutes this article's claim of her ever being the heaviest woman (see Carol Yager), which pretty much leaves her as an extremely obese woman. I think her being the heaviest person to have gastric-bypass surgery would be more notable if she'd actually survived the experience. Matt Deres (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

- Dispute: Read the dates - Carol Yager died 1994, Renee Williams in 2007. The source may therefore be correct that she was the heaviest woman at the time. The article does not say "heaviest woman ever", and I don't see why only the heaviest person ever or to date would be notable. Keep. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Keep You have convinced me it meets the criteria. Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Matt Deres, aside from the WP:BLP1E this person is not even trivially notable, the List of the heaviest people article should go as well. JBsupreme (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why? --Pwnage8 (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. If her only notability is being heaviest person alive at a certain time (not ever as of that time), then that notability expired when she did. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Challenge: where does it say that in WP:BIO? That asks for multiple independent non-trivial sources. This woman was the subject of at least two separate television documentaries, plus a biography in at least one daily newspaper in country other than her own. Wikipedia's notability criteria therefore appear to be satisfied. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Switch to keep per WP:BIO. Looked at the refs, they appear to be substantial/in-depth items, not just human-interest news filler as they had sounded. DMacks (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Based on the references in the article already, clearly satisfies WP:BIO as per Fayenatic and others above. Wikipedia notability is permanent.John Z (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Obviously notable and BLP1E does not apply as there is no other artcle for the supposed one event. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Imaginationland Episode I. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Imaginationland: The Movie

I would like to clear something up, this is not about an actual movie, it is about the DVD release of three episodes of South Park (all of which have their own page). Any plot/production info would just be a recreation of those three pages (BTW, I also proposed a merge of them) and any DVD release info could easily be merged into one of the episode pages. So the question is, do DVD releases or special editions deserve their own page? Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

merge does not appear notable on its own. merge any sourced info to the episode articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete and set a redirect to the first episode or merge if there is any relevant information. The topic is not separate from the single episodes (which should be merged together), so having another redundant article is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Leave and put additional references as well as corresponding section for differences. It is direct-to-DVD movie that deserves it's own page. It's notable for being the first movie in years by South Park creators. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really a movie, it's a DVD release of three South Park episodes which was titled "Imaginationland: The Movie". -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, it in no way deserves an article of its own. Merge what little information there is above that which is in the episode articles. As Scorpion0422 rightly points out, there is no new content on screen, merely three episodes shown together. Alastairward (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there are about a dozen (mostly minor) changes, but not nearly enough to be individually notable. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per TTN. --TheLeft orium 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete/Merge - per above. Gran² 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to Imaginationland Episode I. A so-called "movie" article would be a non-notable collection of the three episodes with next to no new information those articles do not already contain. Oppose merger of the separate Imaginationland articles: three episodes detailing three different sets of events deserves three separate articles. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to the first episode. Titling a DVD as a movie does not make it one, this is just a compilation DVD, which can be mentioned on the pages of the individual episodes.Yobmod (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Even though this is a compilation of the original three episodes, it is nevertheless notable on its own due to reliable source coverage, covering both the DVD release and the airing (as a complete movie rather than as separate episodes) on Comedy Central. See "Comedy Central Takes Another Trip to ‘Imaginationland’" (Broadcasting & Cable), "South Park: Imaginationland" (PopMatters), and "South Park: Imaginationland" (Metro Silicon Valley). There is no need for this article to duplicate (much) content, as anyone interested in more details can click on the links to the episode articles. In a sense, this article also functions as a set index article, and as a more sensible redirect target for Imaginationland. DHowell (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mayra Rosales. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terenure#Schools. Per normal practice. Content under the re-direct if anyone wants to merge something. StarM 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

St pius x girls school

Article about an apparently non-notable primary school, cites no third-party references. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Merge to Education in the Republic of Ireland or Education in Dublin. Note that the school has had some famous (and blue-linked) visitors. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Notability is not inherited. Just because some famous people went there doesn't mean that it is notable. Tavix (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article is not verifiable and I was unable to find reliable sources to fix that. Without reliable sources, this should not be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The existence of the school is verifiable. A page on the site of the President of Ireland, http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=6&engagement=199818&lang=eng lists a visit from the school to the Áras an Uachtaráin on Tuesday, 28th April 1998. Note that the school's full name is St. Pius X Girls National School, and if the article is kept, it should be moved to the correct name. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable primary school. Not any more notable than the millions of other primary schools, 99% of which don't have articles. Tavix (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Tanix. I see nothing notable about the school. Matt Deres (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure my name is Tavix. =P Tavix (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Terenure#Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect if reliable sources can be found to show this school exists. JBsupreme (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep* I will change the name of course but the is no reasoon why it should be deleted. It has plenty of references and is a notable school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking-pink (talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the problem is that it doesn't have "plenty of references". Please see WP:ORG and WP:RS for what is required. If you can provide independent, reliable sources (possibly after a local library search, for example), please do and I should be happy to support its retention. TerriersFan (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete For an elementary school to be notable, there has to be something notable about it. DGG (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Terenure#Schools per TerriersFan. Thinking-pink, I recommend moving the article to Wikipedia:Userspace, or even better a text editor like Microsoft Word until notability /references can be established. --Jh12 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect normally we don't keep primary or elementary schools without a significant reason. I see no reason why this partricular school is more notable than any other at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. And redirect to Spa then. Sandstein 18:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Spa bath

WP:COATRACK article created entirely as vehicle for original research analysis that mines primary sources with the aim of proving some kinds of Galvano-spa-bath are toxic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Mikoyoxa (talk · contribs) has added a reference to a newly-published paper [2], which reduces the original research angle. However, it still leaves the whole topic of spa baths a coatrack for what appears to be exposition of the contents of one paper. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - May as well reference WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Spa. Per above, redirect because people may actually search for this term. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete to remove the (egregious) original research/synthesis stuff. Then recreate it as a clean redirect to Spa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment — maybe we should disambiguate. When I first saw the title, I thought we were giving these Spas baths :) MuZemike (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, as a side issue, there's distinct sock activity around this dissertation. Robi123 (talk · contribs) posted very similar stuff to Talk:Aqua Detox - which it's still cluttering up (WP:MFD?) - and has conversation with several other SPAs, Alljerry (talk · contribs), Mikoyoxa (talk · contribs) and Alphamay1 (talk · contribs), who have remarkably similar English and typography. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur - this looks very socky - see the post immediately below for another example. Time to report? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact the article is so close in content to Zierer, Otto, 2008, "Galvano-Spa-Bath and Health Risks Due to Incorporation of Chromium, Nickel, and Platinum Released from Electrodes", The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2008, Vol. 14, No. 4: 349-350 that COI looks on the table too. And WP:NPA - see the repeated allegation that "deletors" want it removed because of commercial interests. [3]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

COI, or copyvio? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. It's subscription-only access see here; going by the intro, it looks like shared author(s) expounding the same research. I notice it isn't even a paper, just a letter to the editor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - activities around spa bath are not surprising because of economic interests of "deletors". Galvano-spa-bath is a name used in alternative therapies and people might search for this in wiki.Mikoyoxa (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Our economic interests? What on earth might you be talking about? If this is about Galvano-spa-baths, why is it under the title Spa Baths? If you can establish WP:N for these Galvano-spa-baths, I would then suggest a Move. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ensemble Theatre Community School

It's nominally a "school" so I didn't speedy, except it's not. It's a six week program, and there's no evidence whatsoever of notability. StarM 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe we can call it a school (it seems like a small one to me), but it's definitely not notable, so delete. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
To be or not to be? Hmmmm....fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Not to be! Delete Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. what it's name should be is an editorial discussion. StarM 04:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seven Oaks (community)

No evidence that this is anything more than a non-notable subdivision. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. A little bit of coverage in third-party sources [4] and [5], and it appears to be marginally notable with regards to BRAC. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I added GNIS data and the references found by SheepNotGoats (talk • contribs • count) -- Eastmain (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Mixed feelings on this one. Normally, I would have said to merge to Odenton, Maryland, but this appears to be more along the lines of a poor man's Celebration, Florida. I'm most definitely against making articles about neighborhoods, but this one is pretty thoroughly planned, with regulation by a homeowners' association. Feel free to boo or hiss any of these observations; no !vote here. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep As Odenton is only a census-designated place, it's not a municipality, so Seven Oaks isn't like a neighborhood in a city or town; and the GNIS source shows that it's not a simple little subdivision. Therefore, this gets treated as any other unincorporated and named populated place, which is considered inherently notable. By the way, I've moved the article to Seven Oaks, Maryland, which is the standard naming format for all unincorporated communities in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep enough information to make it clear it's a place of the sort we cover, not a neighborhood.DGG (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Seven Oaks, Maryland, which Nyttend has already done, with all appropriate links and categories. --Lockley (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) by Ckatz. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridge landing

Disputed prod. As for the article: No coverage in secondary sources. Article is basically an advertisement. No notability. There currently isn't a guideline for notability of airports but going by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability, Ridge landing wouldn't make it. Dismas|^(talk) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/AfD record Dismas|^(talk) 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G11 spam. Jeremiah (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Delete as obvious spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Airpark, albeit without the real estate agent bullshit. There are quite a few of these fly-in "residential airparks" in Florida, and most of them could be described in the main article. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:G11 (per above). Tagged. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Clone High. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleopatra (Clone High)

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Clone High through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge this and the other articles into Clone High. Way too much plot information on a short-lived TV series. Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I've never been a fan of this show, and I was originally going to vote to merge them all into a single character list, but since there's a great deal of plot info as Mandsford mentioned, I've changed my mind about that idea. ----DanTD (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Mandsford. McWomble (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Mandsford (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Mandsford and WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge this and all Clone High character articles into Clone High. The show itself is barely notable as it is. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Clone High. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

JFK (Clone High)

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Clone High through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge this and the other articles into Clone High. Way too much plot information on a short-lived TV series. Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Mandsford. McWomble (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Clone High. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Cinnamon J. Scudworth

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Clone High through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge this and the other articles into Clone High. Way too much plot information on a short-lived TV series. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
'Keep he seems to be a fairly central character, and entering information form the primary source when its obvious is not OR, and has been clearly explained not to be in repeated consensus at the RS & OR noticeboards. When I joined years ago there were still some people saying its better to take plot form reviews and tv guides and the like, but the greater reliability for non-interpretative matters of using the actual source has now been recognized. DGG (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Mandsford. McWomble (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Clone High. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lynn Butlertron

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Clone High through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge this and the other articles into Clone High blah blah blah. Probably wouldn't have hurt to nominate all these articles together. Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

it looks like they are of various degrees of notability, so I don't think that's a good idea unless that is carefully checked first and the groups are small & appropriate. What would help, of course, is to discuss these merges and pursue disppute resolution in the proper manner. Most of the opposition to them will vanish ifthere is a practice of keeping the material. its the material that matters. DGG (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge per Mandsford. McWomble (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Clone High per Mandsford (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else merge this? I'm totally unfamiliar with the series and have no idea what is pertinent or what isn't. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret Board of Shadowy Figures

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Clone High through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Clone High. McWomble (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Clone High. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Clone High per other editors suggestion which seems sensible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus to delete, merge or keep doesn't require AfD StarM 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dizzy Devil

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Principle character, 3 sources. Good enough. Any article can be improved, and I don't think in the least it has to specifically assert it. (we could always add tags for expand and improvereferences across the board, but I don't exactly see the point of doing so. Does the nom mean perhaps that the show is not current? If so, all the more likely that there will eventually be academic sources, as for Disney in general. DGG (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Tiny Toon Adventures. The references only prove the name of the voice actor. They do not establish notability of the character independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons given by DGG. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Tiny Toon Adventures as this is clearly not a reasonable topic for an independent article per WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT and will likely serve as little more than a magnet for fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blow Ball

I don't see any relevance for this article --D-Kuru (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete. Non-notable bar game with no references provided. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Revised recommendation 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment and Suggestion - I might be inclined to agree, but the image for it had to come from somewhere. I recommend adding it to a future list of drinking games. ----DanTD (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes, the image was created by the same person who started the article. Circumstantial evidence, but it does suggest that the game just isn't that notable or widespread. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

*Merge with Beer Pong. Never heard of this myself, however, it seems to be a variation on the game. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If there were a hint of it being played outside of one instance, I'd consider a merge. However, I don't think Beer pong needs inundated with every local variant. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
DELETE Per the information presented in the comments below... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a NEW game! invited at a party after a team beat everyone at the party in beer pong...The game is played at local bars, The drake (Jekintown, PA ) www.draketavern.com and The kitchen bar.(Abington PA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgl5030 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up after class one day. —C.Fred (talk)

The game also isn't even mentioned at the Drake Tavern's web site or forum. If it isn't even mentioned at the alleged playing site (and I won't even go into the health code violations the game presents)... I'm changing my recommendation to a strong delete (see above). —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

After class? This was at fraternity's party. Its the same fucking game as beer pong cept you use your mouth! Why is beer pong aloud to have a wikipedia site? Just cuz Blow ball is a new game and isnt all over the news doesnt mean it wont be in a year. Half the shit on wikipedia is bullshit anyway! But hey if you guys are that against the game being on here, then take it off! it wont bother me, we will still play the game. I tried figured other people that like drinking games would like to know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgl5030 (talk • contribs)

One key difference is that there are many independent sources provided in the beer pong article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Fails notability, lacks sources. Game over. JNW (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Delete, NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgl5030 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable, original research and original creator Sgl5030 has also asked for article to be deleted. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Banjo Possum

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not even present (and not missed) in the character list on the main article. Forget independent notability, this character isn't even dependently notable. gnfnrf (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Merge to Tiny Toon Adventures. McWomble (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Create a list of characters and merge it there. Everyking (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweetie Pie

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

Merge to Tiny Toon Adventures. McWomble (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete Non-notable character, no out-of-universe info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen

Doesn't seem to say anything that their individual articles don't say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to deal with [[Wong and McKeen]

The timing for this nomination for deletion is quite timely. I am in dialogue with another editor concerning this article ... who proposed that the article be merged with Haven Institute.

This dialogue is on the Talk page for Haven Institute. I will copy it here so that others can see how this has been developing.

MY PROPOSAL: I would like to work cooperatively to edit this article so that it meets the Wikipedia standards that are eluding me. William Meyer (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Merging Wong and McKeen into Haven Institute

COPIED FROM TALK PAGE FOR Haven Institute

Sent to Sticky Parkin

You suggested merging these two articles. This is an interesting idea that I have contemplated in the past. When I first created both of these pages, I considered having only one entry, but I had difficulty in keeping what seemed like two topics clear of each other ... it seemed to be an excessively large sweep to try to include the Wong/McKeen development into the Haven Institute current state. As the the Wikipedia pages have developed, I can see how they could indeed be part of one entry now. However, I strongly recommend that this not be done for the following reasons:

1. Wong and McKeen have now retired from the Haven Institute, and have passed the ownership into a nonprofit charity (The Haven Foundation). So, as such, Wong and McKeen are now at "arms' length" from the Foundation and the Institute. There could be some possible confusion created by merging the two entries, implying that the Wong/McKeen collaboration is entirely within the scope of the Haven Institute. Wong & McKeen are "Emeritus Faculty" but are not part of the day-to-day operation or decision making of the Haven Institute or Foundation. The Haven Foundation/Institute functions on its own with its own Board of Directors. So, in many ways it makes sense to keep them separate. Wong and McKeen continue to be active on other fronts, with occasional input into the Haven Institute/Foundation.

2. The Haven Institute is only one of the contributions of the long association of Wong and McKeen, albeit a significant one. For example, their current work with Hua Wei University in China and Hua Wei Global Corporation worldwide is outside of the operation of the Haven Institute, and this chapter of their collaborative career is still unfolding.

3. Their books are being translated into other languages separate from the Haven Foundation, and they have been travelling and working in many other countries, but not on behalf of the Haven Institute.

So, in summary, I recommend against merging Wong/McKeen into the Haven Institute page on the grounds that they are now quite separate endeavours. They relate to each other, but one does not fall inside the other. I am interested in your responses to this.

William Meyer (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen both have their own articles so there's no need for an article on 'wong and mckeen'. You'll find nothing like that on wikipedia IMHO, unless it's a law firm or something. It's not encyclopedic in tone or nature. All of it can be covered in their own articles, or the haven one, and probably most of it already is.

Sticky Parkin 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually,there is a similar situation with Simon and Garfunkel. There are separate articles for Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and then a separate article for the duo. Indeed, I followed this prototype when I created these separate pages. In the Simon and Garfunkel situation, this works well to keep a clear distinction of their activities separately and together. Then, the parallel continues when Wikipedia deals with the creative contribution of the duo of Simon & Garfunkel. There is a separate page for the Simon & Garfunkel discography, which points to a "Main Article" on a separate Wikipedia page Simon & Garfunkel discography.IMHO, this works very well indeed.

Wong and McKeen is a unique duo, in much the same way Simon and Garfunkel is unique. The Wong/McKeen teamwork crosses the borders between art, science, and philosophy. If their work were simply subsumed into the container of one of their contributions, this wider significance could easily be missed.

If the main reason for considering merging is "duplication" or "overlap" I believe this can be handled with some clear and sharp editing, which I would propose to undertake. As an initial action, I would propose to remove almost all of the section from the Wong and McKeen article entitled "The Haven Institute" .... this is adequately covered in the Haven Institute article and should not be duplicated.

I want to deal with this respectfully and cooperatively. Will you give me the chance to clear up the duplication and edit it as I propose, and continue this dialogue? Sincerely, William Meyer (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel were a well known band or duo, these aren't. If you see how often this phrase is mentioned, you'll see they are not notable independently of their own articles, which already exist.[6] compare to simon and garfunkel [7] They're mentioned 10,000 times more, and about 5000 times more in newspapers [8] [9] so you can see it's not at all comparable. Let's turn the question around. I'll see what is not already mentioned in the other articles. That way we can see how much this article is needed.:) Oh and the pic, I would love it to be changed, it's just cheesy, but that's my personal preference and I have no other reason for it.:) Sticky Parkin 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course Wong & McKeen are not comparable in terms of sheer numbers. But the structure of the articles is surely what is at issue. They are well known (although not superstars) and the references that are cited in the Wong and McKeen page prove they are notable; if you follow the list of references, the topics covered in these media articles are on many topics, not just what they have written ... and they are third-party. Indeed in the WM article, the references are from independent news and reference sources for the most part. Even though your Google search does not come up with a lot of "hits", The Alan Thicke show [Alan Thicke Show Archives] shows that they have been well known for decades.

I get your spirit of cooperation in your willingness to see what is not mentioned in the other articles to determine how much this article is needed. I appreciate your willingness to investigate like this.

In the meantime, it is clear to me that the mention of the Haven Institute in the WM article is a duplication, and I will deal with this forthwith.

I will await your reply. William Meyer (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded. Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky Parkin 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen Decisions

To Sticky Parkin: You wrote: delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded.

Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky

I yield ... you are intent upon deleting this page. I will not resist this further.

Will you put a redirect so that other links to Wong and McKeen will be redirected to Haven Institute? Please advise. William Meyer (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete in practice it duplicates. As for the Haven Institute page, that could use some serious editing, as could the articles on the individuals. WP is not a bibliography of local newspaper articles. DGG (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen Major Editing Completed

I have completed a major editing of the this article to respond to the criticisms from the editors (above), who are discussing deletion or merging of this article.

I believe I have addressed the criticisms of the different editors who have written about this article, and request that this article be retained, or merged with the Haven Institute article. William Meyer (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Tone 14:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ABC Language

WP:Neologism and original research. No coverage in third-party reliable sources. Article was PRODed but declined. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Three guys named c0n, Guvna and Tony apparently talk like this. Someone thought that we would care. We don't. Mandsford (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is real language used by real people, hence why the language was documented. It's important to point out the original users and inventors of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC Language (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC) — ABC Language (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy, and get the language that you have just made up documented in depth by multiple independent and reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, first. This project is not a free web host for documenting the heretofore undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per the various policies cited above in nom & Jclemens. A Google search throws up many hits for other uses of "ABC Language", but not this one. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A Google search is not a valid point for an argument. Google is a search engine, not an encyclopedia. In this case ABC Language is related to an urban street language that is unknown to some, but used a lot by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC Language (talk • contribs) 2008-11-05 20:50:36
- Let me guess, unsigned comment from the article author. Yes, Google is a search engine, and it's a good start for verifying whether something is notable enough that it has been mentioned elsewhere. A lack of confirmation is a valid point to raise; on the other hand, if you can use a search engine to find verifiable sources that refer to ABC language, then that's a valid point in your favor. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete- Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. c0n, Guvna and Tony Brown (aged 14) made up some silly words one day. Big deal. 86.133.242.139 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Myth (computer game series). Cirt (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Trow (Myth)

No reliable third-party sources on this topic can be found, and thus the topic fails WP:N and WP:V. (However, there is coverage on Trow (folklore) that is distinct from this video game. But that doesn't help this specific article.) Article also inherently fails WP:PLOT, because there is no information on the reception or impact of this in-game race, which would probably have to come from reliable third-party sources anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

redirect/ no merge to Myth (computer game series), where there is a decent description. The page title must exist, however, since they seem to be a non-trivial element of the quite notable game, and hence the term is searchable. `'Míkka >t 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Gamecruft in its purest form. Not a useful redirect, but amend the entry on Trow (disambiguation) to point to the game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Crimson Skies. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial states of america

No reliable third-party sources on this topic can be found, and thus the topic fails WP:N and WP:V. Primary sources are insufficient for a stand-alone article. Article also inherently fails WP:PLOT, because there is no information on the reception or impact of this in-game nation, which would probably have to come from reliable third-party sources anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Entirely in-universe spinoff of the video game Crimson Skies. If there's anything not in that article, feel free to merge it. Mandsford (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge appropriately. (even if there's a reference, as there seems to be) and, people, --if you mean merge, say so. Merge is still considered a version of keep, not delete. DGG (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, DGG, I do say merge when I mean it. The reason I did not say "merge" is because this articles looks substantially like the Crimson Skies article. I won't discount that there are a few sentences with new information, but I don't endorse creating separate articles for the settings or characters in a video game. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Crimson Skies. This is that game's setting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect. The game should (and does) have a brief plot synopsis; this is probably too detailed to include within that. No useful out-of-universe context to preserve. Marasmusine (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep WP:PLOT is disputed. This topic has been noticed by major news media such as the Chicago Sun-Times. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- And until a change in the policy occurs by a consensus to do so, it still needs to be followed. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  - No, per WP:NOTLAW, we do not have prescriptive rules. WP:PLOT attempts to mandate a certain style but does not reflect our actual practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    - A currently-disputed policy is not equivalent to an immediate moratorium on every article at AfD due to failing said disputed policy. MuZemike (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    - Copy that. A few people disputing it is not the same as "consensus to remove it / change it". The policy has been there for two years. Randomran (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    - We also have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). If the Chicago Sun-Times has an article on this subject, it may provide some interesting out-of-universe material. Is there a link to an online copy? Marasmusine (talk)
- Source please? And since when is WP:PLOT significantly disputed? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Right now at WT:NOT. MuZemike (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    - "You're going to have a hard time building a consensus to remove it. Okay, a few editors are disputing it. But that's not the same thing as a consensus to remove it, after it being used here for two years. Unless they have a new proposal that will have consensus, we should leave it as is." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
KEEP - Topic in current media. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- What current media? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment from nominator Seeing as the two "delete" comments also support merging/redirecting, I'm willing to accept a merge/redirect to Crimson Skies#Universe to build a consensus. Randomran (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. StarM 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Green and White Army

Fails notability for organizations. Neelix (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article about a book that covers this subject. Here's a separate article about the subject. If the book is reliable, then I think it passes notability. Jeremiah (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Jeremiah's sources seem to establish notability per the usual rule. I see no cause for exception. Wily D 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the sources presented. Having a book published on the subject by a non-vanity publisher is a clear sign of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep — nomination withdrawn after discovery of a very recent good source for articles. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Kerio MailServer

Article lacks significant reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. In addition, article also fails WP:WEBHOST or WP:ADVERT (depending on how you look at it) because of the structure of the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also nominated the following similar articles for deletion for the exact same reasons I have stated above:

MuZemike (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep for Kerio and Zimbra: Both are major players in the turnkey mail & groupware server market. Both widely reviewed in mainstream IT publications as serious competitors to MS Exchange. The articles could be improved but neither is remotely spammy.
Weak keep for Scalix: Not as high profile as the other two but I have heard of it and it is used and taken seriously. Its HP pedigree surely counts for something? It isn't some random piece of non-notable freeware.
If I was looking to delete articles on non-notable software I certainly would not have started with these pretty major packages. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep for all Only yesterday were Scalix and Zimbra seen in the news [10] and Kerio MailServer is industry recognised. The articles need improvement to bring them in line with the wikipedia guidelines. Deletion is not the answer. --Hm2k (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional source. I gladly withdraw the nom. MuZemike (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11. Mattinbgn\^talk 09:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Science Stuff Network

Not notable, I only found about 11 distinct hits on Google, and no news coverage Crowsnest (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete G11 spam. Jeremiah (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G11) because the network doesn't do any scientific research on SPAM. MuZemike (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G11) indeed, marked a such. If G11 is declined, mark with A7; fairly spammy article of a 2.0 site with no indication of notability. Either way, delete. VG ☎ 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Tone 14:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Boeing (1960 film)

could not find any evidence a 1960 film by this title exists emerson7 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. http://www.spout.com/films/Boeing_Boeing/3994/default.aspx ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment I know the article cited refers to the 1965 Jerry Lewis film (which has an article Boeing Boeing (1965 film)). Are you certain that this refers to a 1960 screen adaptation of the Camolleti play? That's what's in dispute, and I agree that there's nothing to confirm that there was a French film. Mandsford (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can offer compelling evidence a film version of the play was made in 1960. If the article creator intended to start an article on the Jerry Lewis film (did anyone ask the creator about this?) then this can be filed as unintentional duplication. The link cited by Redmarkviolinist is for the 1965 film, which as noted already has an article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete I cannot locate any evidence of a 1960 film. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per 23skidoo, but I'd also like to offer a suggestion; Move any info of the alleged screen adaptation of this into the article Boeing-Boeing (play) and hide it, until somebody finds evidence of such a screen adaptation. For now I'll assume that this alleged 1960 screen adaptation was a rare telecast. ----DanTD (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. A Francophile friend is certain there was a performance of the play (possibly live) on French television before the 1965 film. DanTD's suggestion is a good one. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I was the creator of this article. At the time the information was added by someone into the Jerry Lewis film's article and someone suggested splitting the 2. I didn't think it had anything to do with the Lewis film, so I moved it here so that I could remove it from the Lewis article without anyone's objection. I heard that there was a TV adaption, but also could find no reference. I was still new to Wikipedia at the time, so I added this article without real research. After 2 years there has been no proof this exists...so let's get rid of it.! Donaldd23 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Malmesbury Morris

Non notable local folk dancing troupe. Tenuous link to 17th century group that died out in 20th century and restarted in 2004. No significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Mfield (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete, weakly and without prejudice. A general article on Morris dancing in Malmesbury might work. To the extent that it's focused on a specific, local club re-founded in 2004, not sure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Can't find any good references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Antispy

While the spyware program exists, results are limited to removal tips and forum discussion, nothing indicating notability of this software. Note that if this is deleted, the following re-directs also will need to be deleted:

Drantispy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DrAntiSpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) StarM 14:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Just another spyware program. Nothing notable about it. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete no source for notability of this particular spyware program. --Boffob (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of School Rumble characters. Black Kite 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Kenji Harima

No evidence of notability independent of the series. The article consists entirely of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Tenma Tsukamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eri Sawachika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yakumo Tsukamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oji Karasuma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mikoto Suo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akira Takano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haruki Hanai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Kenji Harima, Tenma Tsukamoto as main characters in a manga and anime. Merge the rest to List of School Rumble characters. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That does not make them notable. Notability of a series is not inherited by the characters. There is no evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This isn't so much a question of notability as a question of whether there is enough real world information. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) specifies that "If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia. Such coverage may be placed as part of the main article on the work of fiction, or if better suited, an article on another, notable fictional element. If this makes the main article too long, per Wikipedia's article size guidelines, then there are several steps to consider" - IF the pages listed in this AFD can be consolidated without making the mother article too large, then we can do this. On the other hand, if there is enough real world information, non-notable characters can get their own articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge all into List of School Rumble characters per every version of WP:FICT. None of the characters establish independent notability, but deleting them is not the appropriate way to handle character articles. I see that the nominator has failed to seek alternatives to deletion such as starting a merger discussion on any of the talk pages or place merge tags on any of the articles. --Farix (Talk) 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing as TheFarix, but since he did it first, I'll just point to his comment. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Farix and Quasirandom. I personally think the 2 protagonists should stand on their own, but I don't entertain much hope of that proposal surviving deletionist attitudes. --Gwern (contribs) 16:58 5 November 2008 (GMT)
Delete or merge, maybe, if no consensus to delete just being a manga character is hardly notable. There needs to be some demonstrated real world significance, household name status, not just in-magaverse stuff. However, a merge into the parent article is a reasonable alternative, after some judicious trimming. Some reliable, third party sources would be nice in any article. This is just too in story, in universe. Dloh cierekim 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Renominate individually where i will then say to merge the minor characters, & keep the major ones separate. If the fiction is major, the main characters are. It would be wise to sort out group nomination like these into articles of equal notability. Its not even actually necessary to renom the minor characters, if agreement can be found to merge, but there does not seem to be agreement here to treat them all equally./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 03:31, November 6, 2008 (UTC)
Keep all the nomination is too vague and unsubstantiated to delete so many articles outright. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Reject out of hand per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring Mao 208.245.87.2 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all. Per policies regarding in-universe characters with no outside notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No Address

No assertion of importance or notability has been made to this article. The only "notable" band member was Randy Lane until a recent AfD resulted in a delete. The entire line-up in the band are now all non-notable band members. Besides the mentioned charting (which is, btw unreferenced), fails WP:MUSIC - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 14:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep They have charted with this, satisfying WP:MUSICBIO #2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikepie2221 (talk • contribs) 22:05, November 5, 2008

Keep. Just because it's unreferenced doesn't actually stop you from going out and trying to find some, see WP:BEFORE. Passes WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn. I wanted to withdraw it last night when I added the billboard data in, forgot to do so. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ali Alborzi

This article fails in being notable and is an advertisment Ericg33 (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep – Yes, the article needs expansion and cleanup. However, there are enough in-depth – reliable – verifiable – and creditable sources, as shown here [11], to meet Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion under Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep notability is established, per above. I see no reason to deviate from our usual standards here. Wily D 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep as notability shown with the most cursory of searches. With respects to the nom, did he not read WP:ATD before making the nomination? The article should certainly been tagged for expansion and sourcing... but sent to AfD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Snowball Keep. Suggested withdrawal of nomination. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Reliable sources are a little thin, but enough exists to demonstrate notability. Tag and keep. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anders Lundkvist

It seems like little more than a fan page, especially due to what is on the discussion page (which I am assuming was written by the author) I4Insomniac (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable, fails WP:CSD#A7. Also contains weasel words and has obvious WP:COI. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete If this is the most skilled person in the world in whatever it is he does, he could be notable, but the sources provided in the article fail WP:SOURCES and I'm unable to find anything that is verifiable. --Bonadea (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment The sources do not fail. Why don't you try clicking the links and then you will see that he has won 4 world championships back to back. That is verifiable. You have not even given this enough thought to say you even know what it is he does. It's chip tricks. Did you read the article? --Reingold (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm sorry, I was being unclear. When I wrote "If this is the most skilled person in the world in whatever it is he does, he could be notable" what I meant was that being the most skilled person in the world in something may mean that a person is notable - I was talking in general terms. Because I have been looking for good sources for this article, I am very well aware of what this particular guy does. And obviously I'd checked the existing sources before commenting on them :-) --Bonadea (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment What you said does make sense that you understand what he does when I look at it in that light. Thank you for the reply and consideration. --Reingold (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.122.25 (talk)

Keep – But just barely. I understand there are virtually no English language references to Mr. Lundkvist. However, in my opinion, Wikipedia extends beyond just language and is chartered with the dissemination of knowledge and information regardless of culture – language or location. With that said, there is enough Swedish coverage from reliable – certifiable – creditable – and verifiable sources, as shown here [12], to meet the criteria for inclusion under Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment All the search results provided in the search above are about other people called Anders Lundkvist - a common enough name in Sweden. --Bonadea (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep - notability established. No reason to deviate from the usual standards. Wily D 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established unless evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources is forthcoming, at which point I will reconsider my opinion. Deor (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There are links to 3 profesional websites which establish notability and there are verifiable references as well. The reference links establish that he was chosen, because of his proficiency, to be the check mechanic in comercials. He has won 4 back to back world championships in check manipulation. Something no one else came close to. He has the best rated check manipulation videos on youtube. I am a professional in the casino business. Do you know a world class check handler when you see one? I know that I do. --Reingold (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Three professional sites? I see one discussion forum, one YouTube film, the subject's own website and one other site, 21ace.com which the subject of the article appears to be affiliated with. If he has won world championships it seems likely that he is notable - the article does not mention this. It mentions a series of contest sponsored by the 21ace.com website. Is that the world championship in chip tricks? And can that fact be sourced? --Bonadea (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment He won the Chip Tricks VI, VII, VIII and IX contests sponsored by the 21ace.com website and they are the only site dedicated to tricks of chips, pinspinning, and cards that there is. The members of the site say that whoever holds the title is the world champion and therefore the best in the world. I have read this myself. It seems like kind of a given. Here is a search that may help to substantiate the title of "World Champion In Chip Tricks" [13]
Comment The website that is in the search is the same one with the contest and that it is the company that sponsored the worldwide contest known as the Poker Chip Tricks World Championship. I was completely unknown to to the forum website before this article and became aware of the guy by way of youtube videos. I have been around chips and people doing the tricks for 10 years and have not saw anyone better than he is upon seeing his videos. --Reingold (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian Sherwin

Entry is non-biographical in nature, conflict of interest, obvious self-promotion, blantant advertising and lack of content neutrality. Content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Nemjersatyr (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment If this AFD should go ahead and someone established wants to endorse it, fair enough; but I'd be inclined to scrap this as a bad-faith nomination. Nemjersatyr (talk · contribs) has made no previous edits. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep per very full debate last time. Nom seems er, inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Debated in depth last time and the article improved considerably during that debate. Nom's reasons are either inaccurate, dubious or editing concerns not deletion reasons, even assuming they are correct in the first place, which I don't think they are to any substantial degree. Does the nom have any explanation to reassure other editors about this AfD being his first and only edits to wikipedia? Ty 02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep I get the feeling that I've been here before...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Passed AFD with a substantial keep decision not that long ago. 23skidoo (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Snowball Keep. Passed previous AfD which nom seemingly ignores. Lack of edits scares me, but even assuming WP:GF, the article has enough sources for me. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hey guys, way to divert attention away from the reasons why the articles does not meet wikipedia's content policy and that the article was in fact clearly authored by the person it is about.. You did this by pointing out my lack of wikipedo experience. Well good for you. Also, I will go as far to assume that some of you are probably even friends or associated with the article's main subject or the free advertising contained within the article linking to subpar art websites and other unremarkable "curators" (i.e. dolts who like to think they are important enough to be notable in an online encyclopedia). If the users who asked to keep this article are not part of a biased little army then you are all just stupid, plainly put, as it clearly shows by you lack of reasoning to keep the article. Thanks for unveiling yourselves as morons. In closing, I don't really give a shit if this article is deleted or not because now I know who's who and what's what in the scheme of things and it was pretty fun to see other people's weak retorts and attempts to stifle a wikinoob the likes of me. Thanks faggots! lol :D 207.225.250.46 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Course (education). MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Elective

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:DICT. I do not see any scope for any of the three definitions provided to be expanded into an encyclopedic article. If more than one can. The page should become a disambig, and seperate articles for different topics created. An entry explaining three uses for an item of vocabulary is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. ZayZayEM (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete – Sorry to say, I elect to delete based on both the nominators explanation and that the word is already included in Wikitionary. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep and focus on the academic/educational sense. Common in middle schools, high schools, and colleges. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep In the academic sense at least there is an immense amount of educational literature. But the best place might be as Elective system -- see the the 2440 entries in Google book search, about 95% of which are the educational meaning. Of course, it would have helped if some of them had been sued in writing the article in the first place. DGG (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it enough to maintain its own article?? I would consider building that content in Tertiary education. I do not think the elective system is standard enough across institutions within a single country (let alone international) to allow a comprehensive and accurate global article to be developed. It seems too specific a fork really--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Course (education). The topic requires context to be sensible and so should be a section in a larger article. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. to delete. Merging or keeping it where it is-editorial discussion StarM 03:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jockin' Jay-Z (Dope Boy Fresh)

I am nominating this for Afd as the article lacks of substantial independent coverage, thus failing our notability guideline. I'd also propose a redirect to The Blueprint 3. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why does Twinkle keep messing up automatic Afd's? —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Also no reference as a single. SE KinG (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect: to Jay-Z. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Vote changed to keep: Nice Job HC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a redirect to the song's album The Blueprint 3 be better? —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Charting single—meets WP:MUSIC#Songs (refs added). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I should also mention it's a currently charting single. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, WP:MUSIC#Songs says that songs need to meet notability guidelines of substantial coverage, which is no-where to be found. And it is 100% irrelevant whether it is a single or not. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 21:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    - Actually, it doesn't. It does, however, say "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable." I never said that it being a single makes it notable, it's that it's a charting single. I point out that it's currently charting because it could easily climb ever higher on the chart. Whether it does or not is irrelevant, because it has already been ranked on two national music charts. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      - How can you deny the truth? The first sentence from the guideline is "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This goes above any general rule of thumb as the one you mentioned, hence why your quotation ends with "…probably notable". Dismissing my statements as false when they clearly are true really is not helpful to the discussion, nor it does any good in the support of your position. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge into The Blueprint 3. While it has charted, it fails to meet the criteria to allow a stand alone article; "notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Hello Control. --Baby G. (talk to me) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to The Blueprint 3 per Esradekan. It's a ~~two~~ three sentence stub. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete- The song will never be released as single due to too much leaking so now it is just defunct even though still charting.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Webb (architect)

Michael_Webb_(architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete. This article is unreferenced and does not clearly assert notability. There also appears to be a conflict of interest in its creation. Boleyn2 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep – Let me see, numerous articles in Time Magazine – Los Angeles Times – New York Times – Architectural Review – Architectural Record – Seattle Times and several more creditable – verifiable – reliable and trustworthy sources, as shown here [14]]. Yeah I would have nominated for deletion….Not. An article that needs a rewrite is not a reason for an AFD but rather a reason to apply some TLC. 14:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)ShoesssS ^Talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. Referencing and COI aren't reasons for deletion. Archigram and Webb were hugely influential in the 1960's and still hae relevance: I'll have to go home and find my copy of "New Directions in British Architecture" from the 1970's and add some references. Acroterion _(talk) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep another example for why we should require a search before submitting articles here for lack of notability. Alternatively, if AfD is going to be used for cleanup, change new article patrol into a systematic system for group consideration of the 2000 articles a day , divided up perhaps by subject. It might actually be simpler. DGG (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. renaming and updating are issues for editing, not AfD StarM 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Parallels, Inc.

Besides the promotional nature of this piece, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP, and the majority of the refs are to the company's own material. However, if the consensus is keep, it should be renamed in keeping with MOS. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep – In-depth coverage from InformationWeek – PC World – ITworld even the Jewish World Review has an article on the company, as shown here [15]. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Given the several references in the article that are independent & additional references listed above, it seems to meet the burden. --Karnesky (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
If keeping is the consensus, perhaps someone should update the article's references. Currently, most of the references are from the company's Web site or press releases. Just a thought... Azsumrg1rl (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Carlson (singer)

Steve_Carlson_(singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Blatant self-promo. Does not meet notability guidelines for bios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobHutten (talk • contribs) 2008/11/02 03:59:04

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I simply could not find sources that would allow him to pass WP:MUSIC. Simply put, his official website and official MySpace are not reliable third-party sources. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tha Carter III: The Rebirth

This album's release date is not yet known. There's only two confirmed tracks so far. I originally proposed deletion, but the tag was removed because the remover didn't see anything in WP:CRYSTAL that disallows referenced albums. --Baby G. (talk to me) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Against deletion - This article is being hyped like crazy everyday new references have come up and this article can grow as time and new information comes up.Xx1994xx (talk)

Stongly Against deletion - this is a important article and to delete this would be depriving people of information it is well sourced and we know it will be released sooner or later henry (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The album has been confirmed by MANY sources and more information is being released every day. SE KinG (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- ~~Agaimst deltion~~ - I was the one who found up to 22 refences for the article but due to redundancy they were all removed but 5 which I can not argue but this article should not at all be deleted.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
- Please do not !vote twice in an AfD. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - People on this site are too quick to delete pages. The same thing happened when I created a page for John Legend's Evolver. It was deleted twice, but guess what? It's there now! 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan789 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it's here now—the album's been released, it's charted internationally, and been reviewed in numerous important periodicals. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep because the article is referenced and the subject is notable. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep — Has the sources to meet the WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete — per WP:MUSIC#Albums: albums need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I would argue that the coverage is neither significant (all short blurbs, or interviews with Lil Wayne where the album is not the primary focus) nor independent of the subject: it's all taken from interviews with Lil Wayne, or comments he's made onstage—primary sources. Nothing he's said is verifiable—indeed, there's a fair amount of contradiction: the album's going to be a reissue with bonus tracks; no, it's going to be all new songs. Crystal ballism and fails notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was possible bad faith nom. I'm closing this because user ProfessorX86 nominated this and another article for deletion with no deletion reason, no edit summary, and did not finish the deletion process. These were the only contributions by that user in over a year. If someone really wants this at AfD, feel free to bring it back. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Book Depository

The_Book_Depository (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This is a major UK bookseller, and one of UKs fastest growing companies. It also owns the Trademark for The Book Depository in North America and Europe. There is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallydickens (talk • contribs) 2008/11/04 20:52:22

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Kershaw

Non-notable teen musician. The article is written by the subject, so serious conflict of interest is present.

I am also nominating the following article, the band which Kershaw is in. This article was speedily deleted three times, but for some reason the fourth speedy was denied.

Delete both Wikipedia is not myspace. The references lists are clutered with myspace and livejournal links. The one semi-notable link in question, from NME dot com, is nonexistant. The musician fails WP:BIO and both fail WP:MUSIC. Themfromspace (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment User:Kershy Babes just tried removing the AFD tag (as well as the one for COI) from his article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete them both and possibly salt the band name. If it's been created four times, it's likely to be created a fifth. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This clearly fails WP:COI and I can't find anything in a Google News source about him. Further, everything that may point to notability simply doesn't add up. The clothing line is total bogus (i.e. not supported by a large company). DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're Not Sorry

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You're Not Sorry

Fails WP:NSONGS. Source does not relate to anything about it being a future single. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete For God's sake, what's the big hurry? Love Story isn't even done yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep and expand now that it's actually charted on the Hot 100. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete: A non-notable single. Schuym1 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Vote Changed to Keep: per TPH. Schuym1 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per The Hammer. Like he said, what's the rush. Keep :-) Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's not even an official single.--Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep it's at #11 on the Billboard Hot 100 which should make it notable now. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I'm not sorry But feel free to bring this back if Taylor Swift's release makes the top ten on Billboard. Mandsford (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Now that's debuted at #11 on the Billboard Hot 100 (a notable chart), that should make it meet WP:SONGS and notable. Holiday56 (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Of course it's going to be a keeper, and I think this demonstrates the problems in both creating and nominating articles too quickly. What's the point of creating an an article before a song is released? On the other hand, if it's a single from an established artist like Taylor Swift, why assume that it's not going to be noticed? I must foolishly stick to my principles of course, for I said to come back when it makes the top ten, not the top eleven! Sorry, just missed the cut. Mandsford (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Song is in the Top 20 of the Billboard Hot 100, therefore it meets WP:SONGS. Eric444 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted as G11. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

VirtualAutoBuying.com

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Blatant advertizing. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete G11. McWomble (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete G11 Blatant advertising. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant vandalism. Following the external link in the article leads to the Cretan Matter-Waves / Bose-Einstein Condensation group of the Institute of Electronic Structure and Lasers IESL on Crete, Greece, where I find one Paul Condylis and one Wolf von Klitzing listed as group members. Given that the creator of the article was Paul.condylis (talk · contribs) documenting a measurement called the "Condy", and edits from 79.130.159.96 (talk · contribs) documented a measurement called first the "Wolfy" and the "Klitzy", it's pretty apparent that what we have on our hands are two people at a research facility who are abusing Wikipedia as a public scribbling ground for their own internecine rivalries and amusement. This is a project to write an encyclopaedia, and such activity is vandalism, plain and simple. I have deleted the article and revoked the editing privileges of the account and of the IP address. People with Ph.Ds should not be acting like schoolchildren who have just discovered a pack of crayons and a blank wall. People who behave like adults and who make positive contributions to the project are welcome here, conversely. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Condy Scale

User has written an article on a completely non-notable term he made up (violates WP:MADEUP). Aricle was PRODed, and the author removed the PROD, so here we are at AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The user did not make up this term, since it is used in experimental physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.condylis (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite ANY reference to this term in any published Experimental Physics journal, you might have a case, but since you claim that the first reference was in a lab notebook, this constitutes the definition of "something made up one day". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete as prodder. Not a single Google hit. And I did take care of asking Google to ignore hits on cindy, which, for some reason, Google regards as the correct "spelling" of Condy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - The claim is that it is being used in experimental physics but a Google search only comes up with the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and is probably a WP:HOAX. --Pmedema (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Violates policy. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Dim the Lights...Permanently I remember seeing this on New Page Patrol this morning -- WikiDant61 got to it before I did. A hoax, for sure. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment This article becomes more and more hoax-like with ever edit the author makes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik Rush

AfDs for this article:

Not notable. Not discussed in secondary sources. Article seems to be self-promotion. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE. The link provided by the page proves his existance and serves as a secondary source. However, I tagged with {{npov}}. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I'm no rugby fan, but Eric Rush' name is a familiar one on the national airwaves here in New Zealand. He was an All-Black and has represented NZ at the Commonwealth Games and in the Rugby Sevens tournaments. He is the subject of a book - albeit partly authored by himself. In what possible way could he be not notable? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...let's see... Winner of two Commonwealth Games gold medals... captain of a world championship winning Rugby sevens team...capped nine times in full internationals in the national sport of arguably the world's top rugby-playing nation...link to reliable independent source ([16]...quick google search finds BBC article... I think this is a pretty clear strong keep. Doesn't so much clear the bar at WP:ATHLETE as pole-vault over it. Why anyone would even think of suggesting otherwise is beyond me. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WHOOOOAAAAHHHH!!! hoooold the bus. There seems to be some big confusion here. The nomination's title lists Erik Rush - and that's where the AFD notice is; the article linked is Eric Rush, which is what my comments and presumably those of Darth Panda and Beeswaxcandle are referring to. Which is this for? If it's for Erik Rush, then all the above votes look suspiciously wrong, since this freelance author doesn't come close to anything resembling being an athlete, let alone passing WP:ATHLETE. That article also arguably looksdeletable. Can we have confirmation of which article has been nominated, and - if needed - start the discussion over? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow. That certainly is a grievous mistake. Speedy keep on this particular AfD. One of us should go open a second AfD that points to Erik Rush. Thanks! DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and relabeled AfD. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No opinion - Now that we're looking at the same Erik Rush I have no opinion on what should happen. I see that the previous AfD resulted in Keep. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete from me. If no secondary sources can be found, then it seems deletable - and it's been around long enough for that to seem possible. Previous afd did result in a keep consensus, but it was scantily debated and wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement. The only secondary sources I can easily locate via google seem to be pocket bios of him attached to columns he has written - hardly objective, independent secondary sources. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Undeletable The guy (columnist, not the athlete) broke the Barack Obama / Rev. Wright story on the national news. Deleting that would be Stalinist-Orwellian. Seems nominator is a pro-Obama individual... littleseizure... —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
- Hardly. If he did break the story, then he should be covered in any articles relating to that story, but still classifies largely as a WP:BLP1E. And with no secondary sources that deal with him (which is surprising, if he did indeed break that story), he still doesn't qualify for an article. Find secondary sources, and things change, but until then, this remains borderline, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete this? It's simply fact that the guy is a Christian columnist and happens to disagree with Obama on certain issues. There may be a need for citations but to delete this would simply be censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.241.32 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It may well be deleted because it is an unsourced article that seems at the moment to qualify under WP:BLP1E. His political stance is totally irrelevant, and to assume that it is the reason why this is being considered for deletion is insulting to the editors commenting here. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am pleased. Most Obama supporters think I am for McCain. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep I copy the argument from the previous AfD: "The guy certainly has a large buzz on the conversative blogosphere, although it seems that 99% of it is in response to his attacks on Barack Obama. Certainly enough for the "cult following" criterion of WP:BIO." Explosive political commentary is, after all, a form of entertainment. RayAYang (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep – Just based on the prolific amount of publications and the variety of publications Mr. Rush has written for and sourced on Google News as shown here [17] lead me to say Keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Subject is probably notable by non-Wikipedia definitions, but I can find no third-party reliable sources that treat the subject in a non-trivial way, and so it does not pass WP:N. Yes, there is buzz, and yes he's a "prolific" writer, but until subject is personally written about more extensively, the article cannot be appropriately sourced to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. Jeremiah (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed M Osman

CV of a bog-standard engineer. Makes very small assertions of notability, so technically not a speedy deletion candidate. Created by User:Ahmed M Osman, who is busy creating articles about himself and his employer. CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I would personally consider this to be a violation of WP:A7, but since the nom says there are small assertions of notability, I will not tag it. However, this blatantly has issues with WP:COI. I'd like to point out that he is fairly well published, but even then, fails the basic WP:BIO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment based on the results of that search, I suspect that it's not the same person--it would be unlikely that a civil engineer is also doing publishable research in biochemistry and toxicology. If that is him, or he's also the musician, or the ex-prime minister of Morocco, well, that would be different. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that being the first non-european award winner of the global ECIS prize is of value and recognition. Moreover, research in Infrastructure Asset Management for developing countries remains a very important contribution from the developed world to the less fortunate. (This was added by User:Ahmed M Osman, who accidentally put it in the wrong spot and overwrote some AfD templates here in the process. Readding this to fix the discussion -- no opionion (yet) myself--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)).

Comment. If that user wrote that message, could you use a {{unsigned}} to clarify (or rather, would you mind me replacing your signature with the unsigned template)? Thanks. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Are his other vanity pages up for AFD as well?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Only reason Im commenting is to indicate that I think it would have fallen into A7--I have no hesitation in speedying articles like this. DGG (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Rabobank. MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RaboPlus

Similar arguments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UBank. RaboPlus is merely a marketing arm of Rabobank - content should be left there and this be a redirect. There is nothing especially notable (at this time) about RaboPlus. Ext links are generally self-references. Per WP:PRODUCT, "information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself" Moondyne 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect then. F (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect per nom and response Satu Suro 12:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, but technically, an AfD is not the right type of discussion for this.--Boffob (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect and as per Boffob this wasn't the right type of discussion - why not use the {{merge}} tags? --Matilda ^talk 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There nothing of substance to merge. –Moondyne 11:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
keep. ING Direct was a "keep" and is itself "ING Direct is a marketing name for a branchless direct bank...". let's be consistent here ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) 10:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete then redirect nothing of substance to merge Gnan garra 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. None of the opinions actually address the relevant criteria of the notability guideline or other relevant policies or guidelines, causing me to discount all opinions and to find no consensus. Sandstein 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HP Pavilion dv4

Non-notable computer series. Article appears as though it belongs on the Hewlett Packard website to advertise the computer's features. [Phlygh t] 10:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite Exacly what do you mean by a 'non-notable computer series' - the brand or the 'Pavillion dv' computer series? I think the article is legitimate and should be kept and improved, but rewritten to prose, looks like a copy off the site. The series isnotable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as below, easy to establish notability. Wily D 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete as written appears just to be datasheet information. No real textual description or history. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HP Pavilion dv5

Non-notable computer series. Article appears as though it belongs on the Hewlett Packard website to advertise the computer's features. [Phlygh t] 10:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: In retrospect, I should have bundled dv4 and dv5 (and dv7, which I just found) together because it is inconsistent to treat such similar articles differently. Hence, I am also nominating the following related pages:

   :HP Pavilion dv4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :HP Pavilion dv7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that HP Pavilion dv4 has a separate AfD nomination already, but since this is the first page nominated, I'm bundling it here. [Phlygh t] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite Exacly what do you mean by a 'non-notable computer series' - the brand or the 'Pavillion dv' computer series? I think the article is legitimate and should be kept and improved, but rewritten to prose, looks like a copy off the site. The series is notable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I meant the dv4 series of computers: they are widely sold, but aren't notable in terms of computer history, such as by representing some great advance in technology. Hewlett Packard is notable and the Pavilion computer line is notable, but having an indiscriminate collection of information about the configurations of the numerous dv models of Pavilion computers is excessive. The information in the article could be better integrated into Wikipedia if it was summarised and merged into the HP Pavilion (computer) article. Apart from that, rewriting the table as prose is likely to result in an article that reads like an advertisement: "The HP Pavilion dv4t can be built with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor with a clock rate of up to 2.8GHz, up to 4GB of RAM and has a 14.1" HP BrightView High Definition widescreen display" is informative but boastful. [Phlygh t] 13:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep notability can be established with any nonzero effort, see [18] WilyD 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Clarification of "non-notable": I meant the article does not establish the significance of the series. Are they somehow exceptional compared to other computers, accomplishing something new and important? The CNet review says the dv4 series is lighter than the dv5 series, but since it's smaller that is expected. If it was, perhaps, the lightest in its class, that would be notable, but I don't see why that can't be mentioned in the HP Pavilion (computer) article. Please note I'm arguing for a merge rather than a delete, although I suppose I expect these pages to be deleted after merging. [Phlygh t] 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but you can't delete and merge - the GFDL requires accreditation of the author. If the result is merge then these pages would become a redirect to keep the editing history. Pedro : Chat 16:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep all Nominator wants to merge the content, not delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete as written appears just to be datasheet information. No real textual description or history. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cecilia Gaudette

A case of WP:ONEEVENT, the articles statement of "most known for" is truly "only known for". It's simply not notable enough to require a seperate biography. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Not really notable at all. Not only is she only known for one event, her part in that event - voting - is not particularly distinctive. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete – First off, I referenced the piece. However, I agree with the nominator, in that the individual is just not notable on several levels. First, she is not the oldest voter in an America election. I believe that now belongs to a 110 year old young lady in North Carolina. Second, as the nominator pointed out, One Event, in that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Maybe next election Sister Gaudette will make the cut. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a very brief article without meaningful, substantive content, and also as not having a snowball's chance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of black presidents of the United States

A "list" of one that has zero chance of expansion for the next few forseeable years. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete although you might want to rethink the way you phrase your nom. ;) JuJube (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, touché –– Lid^(Talk) 09:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I think what he meant was that since Presidential terms are four years, the list would could not change until 2013 at the soonest (barring any significant vacation/succession of office measures)--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I think the creator was carried away by election excitement. [Phlygh t] 10:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above, seeing that it's only two words long, crystal-balled (a few hours left?) and amateurish. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Nice try, but just as we don't have lists of female or Jewish British Prime ministers, female Keepers of the Privy Purse, female heads of the Austrian state, or abdicating Holy Roman Emperors, we also don't need this list. (We also don't have the complements of all those lists, so we equally won't need a list of white US presidents either.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Lists of "one" would be stupid, and Barack Obama will not officially be president until his inaguration January 2009.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete After removing the unsourced entry (which remains false for a few months as I understand American politics) there're zero entries - no potential entries - unnotable. Consider recreation in January or February, if it comes up. Wily D 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete As Senator Obama said during his acceptance speech in August, "I get it." However, celebrating is not a reason to create an article. You might as well make a list of Pennsylvania-based baseball teams that have won the World Series during this century. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete- I admit that I lol'd when I saw this. But aside from the chuckle factor, there's really no need for this article. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Funny, but not needed right now. Lists of 1 aren't viable. 23skidoo (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was redirect to McKenzie Wark. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Republic and Third Nature

Two neologisms from the same book. No evidence that they have acquired any usage or are notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

keep Virtual Republic. WP:Deletion policy repeatedly says "improve rather than delete. "Culture in Australia" chapter 7 p161 ff. (2001) is a good start, see also the review of "Virtual Republic" by an Aussie academic at "A Review of McKenzie Wark's The Virtual Republic: Australia's Culture Wars of the 1990s - a quick Google got me both of these. I recently got Precambrian rabbit from AfD to DYK. I'd have a go at Virtual Republic myself if I wasn't already so WP-busy. --Philcha (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
open separate AFD for Third Nature - combining 2 articles in 1 AfD can only cause confusion. --Philcha (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: No, I think they're related enough to warrant combining into one AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete both. Not enough evidence to prove that these terms are not neologisms. There is not widespread usage of these terms, at least not yet. No prejudice against re-creation if either or both catches on later. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to McKenzie Wark, which provides useful context for these two concepts. (That article does not mention "Third Nature" yet, so a small amount of merging would be necessary.) FreplySpang 00:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete both, no widespread usage. ff m 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Everything but the nomination and Phil Bridger's contributions is too confused for me to take into account in closing this discussion. Sandstein 18:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cris Owen

2nd place winner of the 1989 Eurovision Song Contest. No notability can be established beyond that. See this Google search for one attempt. And a search for info on the song he supposedly wrote. The book "My Life, A Lie" is in Swedish, but doesn't make him notable. This person does not meet WP:N on any level. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the following was an edit *of* my comments, rather than an addition *to* them. I've left the users comments as they wrote them, but returned my original above this line

2nd place winner of the 1989 Eurovision Song Contest. No notability can be established beyond that.[19] ...No notability can be established haha,- sorry, but ohyes, 1000 of them.

See this Google search for one attempt.Yes I did and found the song emediately on YouTube...and?

And a search for info on the song he supposedly wrote. Did that and found emediately on Eurovison page...and?

The book "My Life, A Lie" is in Swedish, ( NO, it's in Finnish) but doesn't make him notable. This person does not meet WP:N on any level. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If he had come second at the 1989 Eurovision Song Contest that would have made him notable under WP:MUSIC criterion 9, but he didn't. According to Youtube he came second in the competition to represent Finland, not the contest itself. I can't find any other evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment If to delete this producer then Frank Farian should also be deleted.

No one, not even the record compnay knew that Miisa wasn't the singer when signed to Us label. That makes Cris Owen as notable as Frank. I don't know who started this article but it is far from complete. Cris Owen write songs to both Britney, Madonna,Kylie and many many more but always under fig names. Cris belonged to the "foxroxies" as they were called in Sweden. A finger in every project around. Maybe he/she doesnt want this kind of publicity . Why don't you write and ask him.

Comment. Some of what appears to be part of the nominator's opening statement was actually added by User:Ressu ka, i.e. the comments, "...No notability can be established haha,- sorry, but ohyes, 1000 of them.", "Yes I did and found the song emediately on YouTube...and?" and " Did that and found emediately on Eurovison page...and?". I would also point out that User:Djunijam removed the word "Delete" from my previous comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

CommentDjunijam (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete or remove anything on purpose.But reading your comment - so what if Ressuka wrote some comments before actually log in. Maybe he's young and and frustrated. And it is difficult when not using your own mother tongue. My opinion in common when it comes to delete pages and determine whos notable and whos not shrinks the whole idea of Wiki. Thou I'm Swedish I use the english version of Wiki and I dont' think I'm the only one. Also deleting pages of different kind of pepole and celebs i general I think is bad. Isn't it interesting to get information and maybe find people or things you wouldnt come across otherwise? I spent most of the night for fun going thru Scandinavian people on the english Wiki. Some hot some not. But since the subject is how notable you have to be to occur on the english Wiki theres' gonna be a whole lot of removing pages if you start with this one. --Djunijam (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not delete!

Maybe not so famous in Ameica.But he is one of the most famous people in Finland. Ofcourse not delete!

Comment I'm so sorry for accidentally removong or deleting your comments or whatever important notice you gave. try to have a good night sleep anyway!ressu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ressu ka (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Oh it wasn't me, it was somebody else.people do make mistakes.

maybe you shouldn'tbe sucha crybaby!!! i've donated lots of money to wiki. but no f' more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ressu ka (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

CommentNotable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janina_Frostell

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedy, snow, whichever. StarM 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr.beer

This is a contested speedy, and I want to err on the side of caution. This company may not be notable enough for inclusion. The article may also read too much like an advertisement. Richard Cavell (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think it's notable either, and is sure reads like an ad. I found no independent sources, just blogs and websites that sell the product. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Aside from advertising problems, all it has for sources is the company's website and a Yahoo Groups page. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, blatant advertising with no independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete no independent coverage, blatant ad.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. The unnecessary '©'s and '®'s give it away as an ad and make it way too hard to read. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete spammity spam spam. JuJube (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G11) — Mmmmmmmmmm. Beeeeeeerrrrrr. And Spaaaaammmmmmm.MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Extech Instruments

This article was first written in 2006 and although challenged over COI issues and prodded at least once, it is still unsourced, unverified and probably not notable. JodyB_talk 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I added two references from newspapers in Massachusetts. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Eastmain. Article now meets WP:N and WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning towards delete - The article looks legitimate now, it has several references. But if it is to stay, it needs much more info to verify that it is a real, established company. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It has been verified that this is a real, established company. The issue is whether it is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notability now established the usual way. I see no reason to give it special consideration. Wily D 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I don't feel inclined at the moment to wade through all of the 819 Google News hits and 83 at Google Books but I think that it's highly unlikely that any subject could get so many such hits and not turn out to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and Speedy Keep. As the nominator I am withdrawing and keeping this article. Editors are reminded of the policy at WP:V which puts the burden for sourcing and verification on those who add the material in the first place. JodyB_talk 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Liu Wai Hung

No sourcing or attribution here to substantiate notability. No way to verify the minimal claims that are made. This article is over a year old and nothing significant has been added since creation. JodyB_talk 03:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I added some references. Note that the article has an interwiki link to the Chinese Wikipedia, and the Chinese article at zh:廖偉雄 has a list of films he has appeared in. I fund some English-language references by searching the Google News archive at http://news.google.com/archivesearch I would encourage any editor who is considering nominating an article for deletion because it lacks references to first check the Google News archive. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Chinese lnaguage article appears substantial and is not recent.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep per refs added by Eastmain. Meets WP:N and WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 06:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - but can we get someone with native English and some Chinese skills to have a go at this? - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Enough sources have been added to prove his notability. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't address this article's failure to conform with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people. Sandstein 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of debaters

This list should only consist of people notable as debaters, according to the guideline for stand-alone lists. However, no notable debaters can be found to list. Past consensus has been that even winning the highest level of university debate doesn't automatically confer notability - see AfDs such as this one. Research has not uncovered any debaters who meet the general notability guidelines as debaters. Therefore, there appears to be no appropriate content for this list. See article talk page for discussion leading to decision to list here. Suggest deletion without prejudice against later re-creation if evidence is found of individuals who are notable as debaters. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DeleteShould go like the other lists of debaters that were killed. Real efforts to find agreement and discussion were made. In the end notability is not only illusory, but unmaintainable on this list. The winners should just be listed on the pages for the IVs in question.JJJ999 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep but rename to List of notable debaters. People such as Bill O'Chee and Adam Spencer are from my country, were heavily involved in debating once upon a time, and have achieved notability not for debating, but for reasons related to debating. I'd draw an analogy with a list of notable freemasons. Hardly anyone is notable for being a freemason, but plenty of notable people are freemasons. Some of them have been at least helped along by freemasonry. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to WP:stand-alone lists "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist". Therefore only people who are notable as debaters should be in this list, and we can't find any. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Some people who are notable atheists are not notable for being atheists, but their atheism is notable. We have a list of atheists, and sublists under that list, but nearly everyone on that list is notable for something other than atheism. I hope that makes sense. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment Respectfully, WP:OtherStuffExists is not a good argument for keeping. If there are any people on the list of atheists who are not notably athiest (i.e. they could have an article on them regarding their athiesm alone), they should be removed. What matters is the consensus-built guideline (in this case WP:SAL), not any examples of mistaken practice. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely do not rename Quoting again from WP:SAL: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member (e.g. List of people from the Isle of Wight obviously does not include all people from the island). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by [the WP:SAL criteria]. Because of this, "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article." We have finally eliminated almost all lists with "notable"; let's not backslide. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Question Couldn't we agree to treat this like List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and do it as a combined alphabetical list forthe winners of particular championships? DGG (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Those people all appear to be notable baseball players, given that they all have articles. Quite a different scenario. The few notable people on this debater list are notable as lawyers, politicians, etc, not as debaters. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SAL.--Boffob (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep notability established, clearly encyclopaedic topic. Unsourced entries should be sourced or removed, which is not an AfD issue. Wily D 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is just silly, now. A list of people not notable for their achievements? Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. If neither the achievement nor the people on it are notable, then there shouldn't be a list of the aforementioned. RayAYang (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete The quote from WP:stand-alone lists applies here. We aren't writing articles about people who get their notability for being famous competitive debaters, so we should delete this list. Perhaps a category would be suitable. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think a stand-alone list of debaters – which is in fact limited only to university-level competitive debaters – is needed on Wikipedia. University debating is an amateur competition, and people who are successful at it cannot reasonably be compared to members of the Baseball Hall of Fame whose members have a far higher public profile. All the major university debating events have Wikipedia pages, and champions and finalists from those tournaments can be listed at those pages (many already are). A stand-alone list is unnecessary. Singopo (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep A summarized international list of official championship winners is worthwhile. HHR (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that another reason for deleting (though not an especially good one) is that the list is completely unmaintainable. The very people who created it and edit it don't recognise wikipedia definitions of notability, and would not maintain the list in anything approaching the form people here want to salvage it in. Since people here can't spend all their time policing it, it seems easier to let it be removed.JJJ999 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I've contributed to this list, but now it's been nominated for deletion and, on reflection, I don't think Wikipedia really needs a page like this which merely lists university debating tournament finalists, only a very small percentage of whom are notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia pages which can be linked to. As Singopo has pointed out, all the tournaments have their own pages, and those pages are a better place for these people to be listed as the context is more clear. Purple Watermelon (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, that much is certain. The "merge" or "keep" discussion may continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wars of national liberation

Wars of national liberation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled upon this very odd page and attempted to improve it before posting this for discussion. I really do mean discussion.

The page already has a neutrality tag. Entirely appropriate, in my opinion.

Problem 1) The chief problem with this page is that the category is vast: Wars of national liberation. Wars, both successful and un- that fall under this rburic have been going on since antiquity. We could, of course, have a page that would list them all. I began an attempt to improve it by listing more wars, but, what would be the point? Is there a page that lists all civil wars? or all wars of imperial conquest? Why should there be a page merely listing all wars of national liberation?

Problem 2) As it was when I found it an hour ago (perhaps the proper etiquette is to put it back as it was?) It was far from scholarly or objective. It was, rather, a tendentious piece of work in which Wars of liberation from certain empires were privileged and from other empires omitted. It was full of broad, unsubstantiated generalizations. And contained little of substance beyond lists of wars linking to articles already on Wikipedia.

I am new at this. I don't see the use of this article. I am eager to hear the opinions of others.Historicist (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Keep - work needed, to be sure. That's not a criterion for deletion. Otherwise, notable concept with good information (though incomplete and poorly organised). I could believe there's a merge target, but that's not an AfD issue. Wily D 14:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete/Drastically Cut to Stub As a list, this is going to be indiscriminate and should be deleted, or we're going to list every ethnically-driven civil conflict in history. The concept of a war of national liberation, in the context of political justifications for war, as it's emerged in the last 200 years or so, is notable and worthy of an entry. But the article's current content is of the list variety, rather than a serious exploration of the concept. RayAYang (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge to War of Independence. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge as suggested by Mangoe. This will need a new section for "Continuing Independence Wars". However the present article is poorly constructed and most of it must be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Mergeas suggested by Mangoe.Historicist (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Keep as suggested by Wily. This article could use plenty of work, and as Historicist mentioned, it has an appropriate neutrality tag. It also has some historic errors and omissions. ----DanTD (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has an article on War of Independence, listing the wars of national liberaton. And an article on Decolonization, addressing the relevent concepts. I am puzzled to understand what an article on Wars of National Liberation should include that is not already on those pages. Historicist (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Yes, I saw that. I'm not so sure all those wars belong on that list. The term "War of National Liberation" is a common one that is sometimes used appopriatley, but not always. Having said that, I'm perfectly willing to consider a merge or even a split. ----DanTD (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WilyD and DanTD. It needs work yes, but it's a notable topic in its own rights. The article on Wars of Independence seems to be a list linking to other articles and not a discussion of the subject. Besides which, not all national liberation movements wage wars for independence in the form of state sovereignty. Some do solely for autonomous self-rule within an existing federation. In other words, I am not sure that wars of "national liberation" can always be synonyms for wars of "independence". The fact remains that there are numerous scholarly sources discussing the subject and a good article covering the topic would benefit the encyclopedia. Tiamut^talk 12:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are confined by the current state of wars of independence to leave it as lust a list. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, that does not address the second point I raised which is that not all wars of national liberation have as their aim independence (i.e. in the form of a nation-state). The definition given in this source for example, notes that a state may be the goal or that it may "involve resistance by various peoples against domination, exclusion, persecution, or dispossession of lands or resources, by the post-colonial state," without statehood in mind. Wars of Independence have independent statehood as their goal. Wars of national liberation may not. A state is not necessary to the pursuit of self-determination in every case. Tiamut^talk 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wladimir Soto

Was tagged as speedy, but he appears to have written something that could be notable in the field. Taking it here instead because it is still suspect Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. We need some specialists here. We're dealing with a language barrier - at least, so some folks who can suss out sources and ensure what titles we have is needed. We need some anthropology focused folks to help once we know what is being asserted as this subject's notable work. It seems it has been deleted off one of the sister projects[20]. -- Banjeboi 10:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete--perhaps there is a language barrier, well, really, there's two. First of all, the article is in barely comprehensible English (even despite Benjiboi's editing efforts), and the difficult claims in the article are not verified or referenced; second, there's the Spanish issue of course. But even in Spanish, the number of sources found on Google are hardly impressive, and really none of them come from what seem to be notable (academic, for instance) websites. So, unless a rescuer comes along who translates this whole thing, and explains it, and references it, and claims real notability, I'm voting delete. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. not sure of notabilityy. Spanish-language article appears to have been scrapped.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I believe it's a hoax, because there's questionable references and a Google search returned not many results about the actual guy in question, and are just either Facebook, Youtube or jobseeking sites. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete I started out to assist in a rescue and came away reasonably certain that notability was lacking. --Stormbay (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert G. Allen (author)

AfDs for this article:

No known notability- source it or delete it. It's in the category Confidence tricksters, so can't just be left hanging around. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep. There's a long edit history on this page. Mr. Allen's notability is pretty clear, and the real issue appears to be whether or not he belongs in the 'confidence trickster' category or not. So I'd keep the page, and retain the existing neutrality tag. --Lockley (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I've expanded the page, included some criticism, and removed the POV tag. --Lockley (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is still absolutely no indication of RS or notability [21]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Here (http://www.hawes.com/1983/1983-11-06.pdf) is a New York Times best seller list for 1983 that shows not one but two Robert G. Allen books on the list. I'm not a fan of Allen's, but I do still believe he deserves an entry. --Lockley (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Shot info (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Lockley's comments, and the fact that Allen has an entry in Gale Contemporary Authors. [22] Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This might be another useful source. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep notability established the usual way, so concerns seem to have been addressed. Wily D 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - By my Google News search he is clearly notable. The articles does need more references. gidonb (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloodaxe (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC; yet another black metal garage band. No releases on a notable label (White Legends releases Bloodaxe exclusively, and is a redirect to the article on Wikipedia), and no significant coverage in independent third party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't find any significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Only independent coverage is interviews in fan-published magazines. Record label is not independent from the band. Wronkiew (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Still not significant participation but relisting again isn't likely to change consensus. StarM 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Joesph Monti

BIO1E for a non-notable crime. Verifiable: ~~Detroit~~St. Louis man kills a tavern owner in 1994 over a 38-year-old grudge. WP:RS coverage found in 1994-1995. The rest of the bio this alleged mob associate is unsourced and smacks of original research. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Move to Killing of Frank Parrino on the principle of cover the event rather than the person. Is there any evidence that the nightclub was notable itself? -- Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The killing has to be notable. This one fails WP:NOT#NEWS. The killing made the local papers when it happened as most crimes do, but only a passing mention since. This appears to be the settling of a low level gangland score. Little evidence of long term interest or impact. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be full of articles on everyday crimes. ThePointblank (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Hoax, bad reference and too short. I have a suspicion that it's just a recreation of a article which was AfD'd several days ago. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable, no reliable citations offered for reference.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Smoke

Fails WP:MUSIC; never released a full-length album, certainly never released anything on a notable label, no significant coverage in third-party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I was hoping I could save the article. After all, "the first grindcore band from Slovenia." is certainly a claim of notability. Problem is, that that info comes from an unreliable source where visitors can submit their own entries and we have no idea where the info came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete – Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Canniba loki 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. and no, being a fan of Big Blue doesn't cloud my judgement either :) StarM 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the Dallas Cowboy quarterbacks

Page is orphaned; all information on page can be found in the players' respective pages (Troy Aikman, Roger Staubach, Eddie LeBaron, Don Meredith, Tony Romo, Quincy Carter, and Danny White). I also don't see any pages like History of the Detroit Lions quarterbacks or History of the San Diego Chargers quarterbacks. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant information found elsewhere and appropriately accessible from the Dallas Cowboys article. Disclaimer: I hate the Cowboys (but this isn't affecting my judgment here, honest!). --Quartermaster (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sacked with a forced fumble, defense recovers (Delete)- Nothing here that isn't, or can't, be in the articles on the QB's themselves. Disclaimer: I'm an Eagles fan, but like Quartermaster, this isn't affecting my vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I'm not a Cowboys hater (but I root for the Colts), and I think Troy Aikman is damn goodlooking (more so than Peyton!), but this page has no use. It's all under the respective QBs; this is a hobbyist's labor of love, but has no place on WP. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Diamond Cutz Vol. 2 - Villainz vs. Heroz

No evidence of notability for this mixtape. None in the article and nothing I can find via Google. StarM 01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete--there's not even a real claim to notability here (besides 'more of a fun vibe'), let alone verifiable notability. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete No context, resembles a Facebook/Myspace page and seems to be cruft. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I'm tempted to speedy it as an advertisement. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - A9, non-notable musical recording. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuru (shoe company)

No assertion of notability, only source is the company's web site. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:N and may be eligible for a speedy for no context. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete--indeed, no notability for this small company, and that first source, which might look like a real source, is just a press release from the company. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no notability shown, and why would a shoe company name itself after a brain disease spread by ritual cannibalism anyway? Koro would have been better. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you find it necessarry to link "Koro" through "Penis panic"? A bit disgusting, if you ask me... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Koro is the most common name for penis panic. You can catch it just by knowing about it, too. :) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is also koro... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Treating this as essentially a ten-day PROD. Low participation but no dissenting !votes StarM 03:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

EatingWell

Company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The links provided only confirm that some members of the advisory board exist, but don't indicate the notability of the company. However, I do believe that the magazine it publishes does and would be happy to see an article on it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - It's too short and a hoax. No links of any sort and the generic-sounding title give it away. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 03:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Humanology

Neologism and probably a copyright violation Wronkiew (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I can't confirm the copyvio, but this sure is a neologism, and the article, which is completely unsources, reads like a freshman comp essay on an almost imaginary topic. No sources either. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. NFT. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete article has no references or layout. The tone if it is way too inappropriate and belongs in a magazine. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete - it's related to this guy. Notability is not established. It's a commercial neologism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As usual, I discount opinions who appear to be motivated by their writers' ethnic or national background instead of Wikipedia policies, particularly the last four "delete" opinions. A merger discussion, taking into account the concerns highlighted by Fut. Perf, might be worthwhile, though. Sandstein 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian language naming dispute

WP:OR. WP:POV. WP:NEO. The article is based on personal ideas over an imaginary Macedonian Language Dispute. There are neither sources from the acclaimed disputing party nor it is stated in what instance is this dispute taken precisely. It is a mainly POV article, constructed on Original Research and personal thought and beliefs. Some unrelated arguments are used (Like the Republic of Macedonia constitutional name dispute) to add a more convincing tone to the POV expressed. WP:NEO.WP:OR In the article are presented some original ideas as alternative names for the Macedonian Language and Republic of Macedonia, with a clear intent of defamation and spreading disinformation. As seen on the talk page reactions, this creative terms are pretty offending: "Skopian Language", "Bulgaroskopian language", "Bulgaro-Macedonian language", "Slavic Dialect language" and "State of Skopje". This article is in clear contrast with the cardinal content policies of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research and should be deleted. Alex Makedon (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep but consider some merging with other articles. I'm not too convinced of the nomination above. Although I do agree that the article gives some amount of undue weight to polemic and derogatory naming preferences (such as "Skopian"), the bulk of the presentation is useful and NPOV. But we have simply too many articles in this domain than can be usefully maintained. Besides the obvious main articles such as Macedonian language, there's also the overlapping Macedonia naming dispute (about the country name), another Political views on the Macedonian language, and then even a dedicated subarticle Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language. Can too much coverage of an issue become a problem on Wikipedia? Yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It becomes a problem especially if it's a fringe view (Bulgarian thing) or some largely ignored "disambiguation" issue. Sure, some Greek scholars (apparently not linguists) have said that the language should not be called Macedonian, but the Greek government hasn't complained to the UN (which lists it simply as Macedonian) like it has with the name of the country. As you once said FP, 99% of the time the language is called "Macedonian" full stop. This looks like a glorified list of alternate names accounting for 1% of reference to the language. Balkan Fever 08:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect Can you state in what manner this immaginary "language dispute" overlaps with the constitutional Macedonia name dispute held by the UN?

Keep this article serves to keep extensive and tedious discussion of the name of the Macedonian language out of the main article on said language. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to rid Wikipedia of these fringe views, so it makes sense in this case to have them isolated. - Francis Tyers · 12:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- you are basicly admitting that this article is full of inaccuracy, POV, personal opinion and unverified facts but suggest that we should keep this false information on a Wikipedia page just for the disruptive editors to vent their tedious unargumented discussions on it!?

Keep Notable (if stupid) conflict. Sourced, no problems there. WilyD 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- What is stupid? The fact that the Macedonian Language is recognized as such by the UN, The European Council, and all the major international bodies, and we have an article that is calling it with names at pleasure? Or the fact that this invented "language name dispute" is at most un unofficial personal opinion of some individuals? Sorced!? Some insignificant web page [23] and other few cherry picked dubious sources will correct the European Council [24], the UN[25], and the Macedonians[26] that there are alternative "names" for this language and that it is disputed!?
  - I don't follow your questions. It's a stupid subject for a dispute. But the dispute is real and notable - just goes to prove people are dumb. WilyD 15:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    - "But the dispute is real and notable" what is "real" and "notable" about it? A single web page and few cherry picked (non linguist) greek scholars? Can you support your clames by any evidence or they are just your personal opinion on the matter? (I also inform you that its the second time you use personal offences, first "stupid" now "dumb" correct your statements or you will get reported)Alex Makedon (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
      - He's telling you that the language naming dispute is stupid, not you or your arguments, stupid but notable. Got it now ?--Zakronian (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
        Yeah, if anything it's the Greeks who should be pissed off, not you. Think about it a little, and stop seeing nothing but enemies all around you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - definite. The subject is presented quite NPOV in my view. It's not like this is not a major issue, now is it? Next you someone might nominate the Naming dispute article and state there's no such thing - will this be the case then? --Laveol ^T 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge. There is no such thing as ,,Macedonian language naming dispute‘‘. Even the Greek officials have clearly stated that the dispute is over the country's name, and not language or identity: The name of the state is of decisive importance. Negotiations are carried out on this. There is no negotiation, as Skopje would want or as it seemed they wanted, on other matters that would divert negotiations from our objective. Bomac (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I will not even vote here. It is however no coincidence that this user started an AfD virtually as soon as another AfD had finished and did not go his way. Sounds like WP:BATTLE. And this not a long time after his disruptive push to change another article from status quo [27] which basically was based on the same principle as this AfD, that anything "Macedonian" refers only to things related to the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonian Slavs. --Avg (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have in mind that WP:NOT_YOUR_OR_FRIENDS_INVENTION. Bomac (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The same can be said of you. Balkan Fever 01:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- What did I invent? The people which were exiled from their homes? Bomac (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- @Avg, apparently you haven't even bothered to read the talk page of the article, othervise you would have seen that the deletion is proposed since 27 February 2008 and I have been involvedd since 22 September 2008 and as such has nothing to do with the proposed deletion of the Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece aticle from 29 October 2008.Alex Makedon (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: What is the point of this article? What is it trying to show? That some people call the Macedonian language as something other than just simply, Macedonian? The article just waffles on and uses outdated and offensive language. Unless some one is willing to actually turn this into an encyclopedic article then i cannot see why it shouldnt be removed. Also we already have another article to deal with this issue: Political views on the Macedonian language. PMK1 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I find it personally offensive when someone tries to dispute what I call my own language. The same goes for my nationality and my country. Crnorizec (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Fundamentally Rewrite There is no such thing as Macedonian language dispute - the Macedonian language exists and it is studied at many universities around the world. The above named article is mostly composed of ultra-nationalistic bias and POV from both Bulgarian and Greek sources. The article contains mostly hate speech. It is the same as if there was article that purports to seriously discuss the origin of such terms as 'Nigger', 'Chink', 'Wop', etc. 'Skopian', 'Bulgaro-Skopian' etc. is hate speech used in Greece by the ultra-nationalistic circles. Not even the Greek government-controlled media uses it. It is similar to the the hate speech used in R.Macedonia by the ultra-nationalists like 'Christian Turks' or 'Gypsies' for the Greeks and 'Tataro-Mongols' for the Bulgarians. None of that language has any place in an encyclopedia. Capricornis (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that none in Greece refers to the official language of FYROM with the name "Macedonian language". It is not only the Greek ultra-nationalistic circles; it is all the people, politicians and media. It is all the Greeks, either in Greece or in the diaspora. No Greek media uses the term "Macedonian language" referring to this this language, either government-controlled or commercial ones. The dispute over the name of this language is a real one and exists. --Hectorian (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm very interesting, how about you raise an AfD on Grecomans then?--Avg (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And I can assure you that Macedonian is codified and studied at universities around the world, one example being |Macquarie University which offers a complete undergraduate program since 1984 (most other universities offer graduate programs). The Greeks disputing its existence is like the Chinese disputing the existence of Taiwan - it doesn't change the truth. Capricornis (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Any content of value can be merged to Political views on the Macedonian language. It simply is not acceptable to keep a bad article as a place to sweep all the fringey stuff. Jd2718 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

*Comment Agreed. Much more appropriate title. Crnorizec (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep The dispute over this language's name is an ongoing one, as is its status as a distinct language, whether my fellow neighbours like it or not. The nominator believes that terms like "Skopian Language", "Bulgaroskopian language", "Bulgaro-Macedonian language", "Slavic Dialect language" and "State of Skopje" are offending. I would like to remind him that when the term "Macedonia(n)" is used in reference to the people and state of FYROM is also a matter of offense for the Greeks (but I -nor any other Greek Wikipedian- have ever nominated the respective articles for deletion). As I have said in the past, if they believe they have the right to call themselves, their language and country "Macedonian", the Greeks also have the right to refer to them with any name they feel is appropriate; and this name for long has been "Skopjeans", "Skopjean language" and "Skopjean state". The article in question is sourced and its existance is clearly justified. And since the last current trend in Wikipedia is to point at editors this, allow me to point it at them. --Hectorian (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Any disputes should go in this article: Political views on the Macedonian language (as proposed by Jd2718), because that's what they are - political. Why they are political? Because the dispute on the name of the country, language and nation go in hand with the policy of denial of the right to existence of my nation. So it's politics. A racist one, for that matter... Since at least 120 years ago the language has been referred to as Macedonian, even by its adversaries. So there is no serious dispute on the name, except the one recently invented by our nice neighbours. Crnorizec (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

*Merge or Delete anything that can be discussed here can always be put into Political views of the Macedonian language. The article really doesnt have a point. PMK1 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I find it offensive disputing about a nation's language. Patkica (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Much of this article seems to be an excuse to include pejorative terms of ethnic Macedonians on Wikipedia. The rest can be merged into Political views on the Macedonian language. --Local hero 1:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete First off, there is no "Macedonian language dispute." The Macedonian language has been officially recognized by UN and other organizations, and I have not heard Greece speaking about anything other then a Macedonia name dispute. Also, there is hatred on this page used simply to express slanger towards Macedonians, including statements like "Skopjans" "SlavoBulgarian" and etc... its equivalent to having an "African American ethnicity dispute" where White radicals state they are "niggers" and use b.s. sources. Mactruth (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No comment needed, wikipedia has become a play sand for the Greeks. They are simply for ignorance.Vlatko (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep No brainer. Given the comments by both sides and the numerous historical complexities I think its pretty obvious there is indeed an existing and ongoing legitimate dispute over the language name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.240.216 (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. _Gb^T/c 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Meat Is Murder!

This book does not seem to meet the notability requirements (WP:NOTE; WP:NB). Sam (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Likely redirect candidate to The Smiths' album Meat is Murder. The slogan may be independently notable. This book about cannibalism is not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence that the book has sold more than 5,000 copies or otherwise achieved notability. Redirect the title to the album, or perhaps vegetarianism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - it has too many redlinks. Also the article is very stubby and there isn't even an article on the author yet! So delete per WP:N and WP:V and should've been speedied a long, long time ago. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Meat is murder! : [an illustrated guide to cannibal culture] is listed by WorldCat in 61 libraries. This is enough to not meet exclusionary threshold for Wikipedia:Notability (books). However, I do not see that it meets inclusionary criteria. Dloh cierekim 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
change to keep per dekkapai below. Apparently there is notability and sourcing not found on the internet or by other editors. Dloh cierekim 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The other books in this series (~~Hollywood Hex~~ and Killing For Culture) might be non-notable, too. I'm not too bothered about it, though. Sam (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Hollywood Hex article is now much improved. Sam (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment The book is by a professor, a well-known author and lecturer on cult cinema. I noticed that her Hollywood Hex was nominated for deletion, and came out of retirement to do some of the work that should have been done before attempting to erase it. Now I see the same here, and that Naked Lens-- another book in the series I own and could have easily sourced and improved-- has already been deleted. So should I spend a couple more hours working to improve this "encyclopedic" project that so many of you people would rather dis-improve? Fuck it. This is the reason many of us editors leave. Dekkappai (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Dekkappai has really improved the article now. It is now clear to me that it is noteworthy. Can I withdraw the nomination, or do we let it take its course? Sam (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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