Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 16 October 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete for now. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¥120 Stories[edit]

¥120 Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable, Japan-localised game which isn't sold or marketed abroad and the article is a stub which doesn't even include a plot and detailed info about it.
Summary ( some stuff I said may be repeated again):

  • Game is marketed only in Japan and nowhere else
  • Game's name contains a character non-standard to the US keyboard layout
  • Non-notable, not mentioned in any game reviews, magazines, news, etc.
  • Not enough information to verify existence (plot, rules are missing, article about the game's creator is not yet created)

Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And if point 2 was a reason we would have to delete the nominator's user and talk pages.Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - warey of WP:BIAS, I've had a scout around for sources to indicate notability. The Japanese Wikipedia has an article [1] but unfortunately does not cite any sources. Some of the more reliable Japanese gaming websites have directory entries for the game, but no substantial coverage ([2], [3] etc have basic information and "guest reviews".) Has probably had some magazine coverage but I think the article will have to go until something turns up. Marasmusine (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Maybe Japanese sources exist, but if no EN:WPian can find them, this should be deleted as unverifiable, with nothing against recreating if/when sources are found (and appear at the JN:WP page).Yobmod (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (independent notability not established). Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Park (witness)[edit]

Allan Park (witness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep- I found this page organically, found the information on it useful, and would not have found it without the page. I'm sure plenty of other people could say the same, and if that isn't pertinent to "Wikipedia's guidelines", then perhaps the guidelines need revision. This page should stay. -dave, october 21 (wikipedia novice obviously) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranatoro (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, even if he were it's in connection with a single event. Contested prod. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. His testimony is clearly notable, as it received abundant coverage. The article could be moved to Testimony of Allan Park. The rationale for a separate article for Allan Park's testimony is that O. J. Simpson murder case is already quite long at 35 kilobytes. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonslayers (AdventureQuest)[edit]

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

Non-notable webcontent/fictional content. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, completely lack source.--Freewayguy 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of sources on its own isn't a reason for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should stay, because it describes a class on a popular game called AdventureQuest. Players could use it to get a heads up on what a Dragonslayer is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regocji (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything salvageable into AdventureQuest. This "class" does not merit a separate article. MvjsTalking 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page should stay on because classes are a very big thing in AdventureQuest, and this article describes the pros and cons of Dragonslayers. I play AdventureQuest, and if I had seen this article beforehand, it would have made things a lot easier on me. Regocji
  • Merge This page could be merged with the AdventureQuest page. Regocji
    • You have already !voted twice to keep. This is not a ballot; votestacking is useless here. MuZemike (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. As not notable outside fictional world. Is nothing sourced to merge, and the title is unlikely search term due to dismbig parantheses.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taboogle[edit]

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

non-notable game; apparently it's on urban dictionary, so that makes it alright. See WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google images might be notable.--Freewayguy 23:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ehh, no, it's a game using the google imager. It's like saying the "get from point X to Y on wikipedia in the shortest length of time" is notable because wikipedia is. Ironholds (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not assert notability. MvjsTalking 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources writing about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks made up because it is. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Researched this and it strongly appears to be un-notable, I also couldn't find reliable sources. Eatabullet (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MadV[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Full of peacock terms, sources are either primary or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Youtube is probably not notable. What's peacook term?--Freewayguy 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:N - Selfless promotion but entertaining none the less - DustyRain (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found [4] and [5], but the coverage is not substantial, so it doesn't quite meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not enough notability to warrant an article. If notability increases in future, the whole thing would be better written from scratch anyway.Yobmod (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I believe it to be self promotion, not notable. Eatabullet (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 (Short Film)[edit]

3 (Short Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable amateur film Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could be. Without source how we know it's factual. I thuhgt Bioliving things is like I write an article about my idols.--Freewayguy 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the BLP guide is a set of rules setting out how to deal with potentially libelous/dangerous content in articles about living people. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: maybe per WP:MADEUP. If it does exist, it's a non-notable amateur film. Schuym1 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Verifiability issues, along with original research. Probably could be a7 with no assertion of WP:N. XF Law talk at me 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might exist, but if it does it's a non-notable amateur film that fails WP:MOVIE anyway. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all, mere existence is not enough. Lacks the verifiability needed through reliable third parties. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Soundtrack to a non-notable amateur film Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Frankfort[edit]

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

questionable notability; advertisement -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The guy is a musician, we can keep it if we find addittional sources. --Freewayguy 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    eh, no? If it reads like a PR ad then all the sources in the world make no difference. In addition, just being a musician isn't enough to keep something; please see WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is notable and the tone seems promotional, then the solution is to remove the promotional tone rather than to delete the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two CDs, according to this: "In his off-hours from working with other bands, Evan recorded his first full-length, self-produced CD entitled Appreciation, under the band moniker Melodine. His band played locally, and was included in the Trampoline Records, Vol.1 compilation CD, the brainchild of Pete Yorn, Marc Dauer and Rami Jaffee. Shortly after, Evan released his second record entitled Out of Your Hands, which was distributed internationally by Atenzia Records." See also http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml2006_library_auth_tt.pl?item_id=0286-22896326 (you will need to enter your library card number) -- Eastmain (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't remember off the top of my head what WP:MUSIC says, and I don't have time at the moment to look it up, but I could swear that self-produced CD's generally don't "count?" After all, I could self-produce a CD of my own and claim notabilty, and I can't play an instrument past a couple of songs on the piano and I can't sing without killing anything within earshot...including plants. :-) Does the Atenzia Records release satisfy WP:MUSIC?-- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Self produced don't count, no, they have to be 2 on the major indie/Big Four labels to count. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Carla Bley and Ani Difranco are not notable? That would be a sad conclusion to draw, and indicates your stated position is not sensible. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-produced CDs are fine as long as they are released by a major label or a notable independent one; self-released CDs generally are not. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • ?: Can anyone confirm he won an Emmy? That might help. XF Law talk at me 13:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is rather randomly proposing deletion, often speedy deletion, of clearly notable entertainment industry figures. Last week he proposed speedy deletion of an Oscar nominee. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Comment on the article itself rather than the nominator otherwise your "keep" is completely moot. Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly true. Minos could be suggesting that the nomination is pointy. XF Law talk at me 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Pointy" is close, but it implies some sort of rhyme or reason behind the nominations, which I cannot discern. One fairly common theme seems to be that any article which does not contain derogatory information about its subject may be deleted as "advertising," but even that is not consistent. I was not joking about the Oscar (as well as other awards) nominee, where the justification was that the factually accurate, verifiable article appeared to have been created by someone affiliated with one of the many films the subject had worked on. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could find no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The Emmy claim is not backed up by the sources I found. The IMDB page for the awards in question verifies that The Guiding Light won an award for Outstanding Music Direction and Composition for a Drama Series, but the 14(!) names credited with the award do not include Frankfort.--Michig (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Michig's comments. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fade In[edit]

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

Questionable notability; advertisement; likely WP:COI violation -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis is a name of magazine,and it's made commonly in Hollywood. We have two sources.--Freewayguy 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep washington post article shows notability. COI is not a reason to delete. Cleanup needed.Yobmod (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italo-Brazilians[edit]

List of Italo-Brazilians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Fails general guidelines for lists. JBsupreme (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up the list, and find some sources.--Freewayguy 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is a debate, not a vote. Please give reasoning. Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have names and what the actors occupy. But we have to cite some source so we know those is true.--Freewayguy 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And at AFD we determine whether such sources exist in the first place. You haven't yet helped with this process. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually hard to find sources that confirm that anyone is an Italo-Brazilian. So far, the only things that I've found sources stating to be Italo-Brazilian are the AMX International AMX — which probably isn't really what the creators of this list were hoping for — Joao Francisco Muzzi and Felix Bernardelli — neither of which were on this list in the first place. The latter was in Category:Brazilians of Italian descent, however. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G (lack of sources) and JBsupreme (does not meet WP:LIST, too broad). coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Seems a random obscure intersection of nationalities. not all dual noationalities are notable (most that include American have at least something written about them), and this one is not.Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leaning towards delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therese Hughes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Ms. Hughes, a hairdresser, was awarded an MBE for specialising her services on cancer patients. According to the Order of the British Empire article, 1464 MBE may be awarded annually. So there are probably around 50,000 of them, which means, that having been awarded it, cannot prove notability on its own. Since there is no substantial coverage about her in reliable sources other than a few reports of her now being an MBE, the article's subject lacks notability. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:HAIRDRESSER guidelines as well. JBsupreme (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. Someone has imrpove this article a little bit prior to the tag.--Freewayguy 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Members of orders of chivalry are inherently notable. Blueboy96 04:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree that an MBE by itself is automatically notable. A CBE yes, but MBEs and OBEs are pretty commonplace and often granted for worthy but very mundane achievements. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - prior to the awarding of the MBE, there was this article. More coverage would sway me from the weak position. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. MBE's are clearly not inherently notable, per the nom; they can be given purely for local government or charity work, stuff that would never be written about (ie noted) outside of local press. There are simply too many of them to be notable. If other sources appear showing this particular MBE holder is notable, then i'd be ok with keeping.Yobmod (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Guida[edit]

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

Does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Not notable at all. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS as a non-notable unreferenced unreleased album. Millbrooky (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plunit[edit]

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

Unremarkable, unsourced WP:OR. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. PROD tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think a Scoville unit is, genius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunpeoples (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EVERYTHING is made up one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.221.166.2 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, Rome was made in one day. I'm sick of clever Dans. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Devised three days ago. Unless the original author can come up with reliable sources, then this fails notability standards. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the geniuses who came up with this: you can't talk about the perception of time without at least nodding to Henri Bergson. Also, scientific units should be written up in carefully edited prose. Moreover, author has deleted a WP:OR. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Complete fabrication by (seemingly) two non-notable individuals with apparently too much time on their hands, imho. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - creating a measure for something that is non-measurable doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But that may be a matter of perception too. Whatever the case may be, this neologism is not notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - made up one day -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City on Fire (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

City on Fire (Desperate Housewives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The episode article fails the WP:EPISODE policy, and lacks sources besides his own paragraphs. A talk 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Today it's October and this episode is for the next month. It's WP:RECENTISM since the episode, until now, has no notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the material is not supported with citations from reliable sources, delete per WP:CRYSTAL as this is an episode that is yet to be aired. No objection to recreation after airing or coverage in reliable sources (not fansites or spoiler sites). B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FastAnt[edit]

FastAnt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Biruitorul Talk 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Taylor Bloxham. If Google news is right they are the "the facilities management division of Leicester printer Taylor Bloxham". There are some ghits about them, but they're too weak for a separate article. Even their parent company has some trouble establishing notability on Wikipedia. VG ☎ 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5-1-0[edit]

5-1-0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Either made up or non notable, choose one Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--I could add a couple of reasons for a delete. It's full of spelling and grammatical errors; it's got COI issues, I imagine; author has deleted a PROD, etc. Oh yeah, it's gibberish. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borders on WP:CRYSTAL, since little is "non-about it"--> mostly speculation, no sources, so this could be seen as WP:OR. And it nearly impossible to figure out what the article is about because of the horrendous grammar.--Terrillja (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Future speculation - particularly twentieth century fox picking up an unknown work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, specifically "only the most tenuous connection to reality" and that's being generous. MadScot (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kascha Papillon[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people), WP:PORNBIO: No awards, no indication of unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, and not featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Also unsourced and tagged as original research since January. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree, there isn't much here. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete--Kascha appeared in several R-rated films and was one of porn's top starlets while she was active. She was easily the largest Asian star of her time, and the first Asian with fake blonde hair and silicon implants. She still has a significant cult following. LaughingLion
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Granny 3[edit]

Super Granny 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game. Unreferenced. This is the third game in the series, yet no articles about any of the other 3 games yet exist. Game is only casually noted in news sources related to the producing company. Millbrooky (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — lack of verifiable sources establishing notability. At least I stopped looking after three straight pages on a Google search with nothing but sites saying download our free trial now! MuZemike (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Delete per MuZemike. Nifboy (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with Jane's Hotel, there's a Gamezebo review, which is not unusual but is usable, but no second quality source to back it up, notability not demonstrated. If Jay is Games also reviews a game then there's a chance, but if it's just Gamezebo then it's snookered. The casual sector is stagnating and additional review sites just aren't happening. Someoneanother 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Osbourne Variety Show"[edit]

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

Bringing this to AfD instead of PROD because it's not clear-cut. From the sources, it appears there's been a bit of buzz about this, as one would expect with this family. However this indicates shooting has not started and that a final title has not been determined. While a film at such a stage would not be notable, we don't have a similar guideline for television that I can find.

So, is the buzz alone enough for notability, or should we wait until shooting begins for an article? Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Del Strangefish[edit]

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

Advertisement; violates WP:COI -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--besides the COI, there's also a distinct lack of relevant sources. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A member of several notable bands, but I couldn't find much in the way of coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is rather randomly proposing deletion, often speedy deletion, of clearly notable entertainment industry figures. Last week he proposed speedy deletion of an Oscar nominee. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this particular nomination, do you have any reason to believe the article being discussed here meets or could meet the guidelines? I couldn't find any real coverage of him beyond coverage of the groups he has been in - if you could find some I would be happy to keep the article.--Michig (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Crisp[edit]

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

A previous prod, the reason was Very minor poet and philanthropist, not notible (sic). I feel this fits to afd more. No opinion from my side. Tone 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 22:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak keep--I am sympathetic towards the article but have not been able to find any material to support it. Also, it is not very well written, full of problems and fluff, but I can't help but think that someone with some local (i.e., NZ) knowledge should be able to beef this up. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This. makes no sense whatsoever: The prod would have expired today and no one had contested it. By removing the prod you almost seem to be suggesting that the deletion should be challenged? I didn't find sources for her donating anything other than the telescope, so uncontroverial delete for me. dramatic (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete - Delete , only one book of poems published after her death. Estate donated money to Telescope and possible other stuff like this school prize, below thresholds. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing on NZ Herald or TVNZ websites, few Google results mainly in context of telescope. XLerate (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homocore (zine)[edit]

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

Non notable publication, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 17 years ago a zine existed for seven issues. Not sufficient notable by a long way. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does read like an advert. No doubt. There may be sources available for cleanup, but search will be difficult because of a punkrock band by that same name. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of third-party sources that reveal anything substantial about the subject--there's some COI issues here also, as the language reveals. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is lacking for this less-than-fabulous bygone zine. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and set a redirect to List of pornographic magazines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That list literally has no information about this magazine except a link to the nominated title. A redirect should not be put in place without merging first. Propaniac (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And see page Homocore. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references and another link and expanded on notability issues in the article. As well, it should not be redirected to a list of pornographic magazines, since it wasn't a pornographic magazine: it contained no pornography, and it was a zine, not a magazine Intheshadows (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm convinced, in part by the recently added information, that the topic is notable. Propaniac (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick cleanup for any COI or advertspeak is all this article needs. The notability of something is not defined by how long ago something existed, nor by how long it lasted. The zine helped to spawn a notable and influential underground music scene, sources are present in the article, and there was absolutely nothing remotely "pornographic" about its content unless you're in the "any mention whatsoever of homosexuality is inherently pornography" camp of belief — and Wikipedia kowtowing to that interpretation of reality would violate WP:NPOV. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep Article could be improved, but support for notability should be findable.--Larrybob (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CJCurrie (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What needs to be included is INFLUENCE AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. Although the zine was short lived, its connections to Pansy Division (for instance, I am guessing), the homocore movement, and so on make it important. Links to articles about its influence and cultural significance would make the page relevant to the encyclopedia format. Jdubowsky (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional source material is available and will improve content. This zine was hugely popular during its initial publication and has historical significance in the development of queer zines as a genre. Was political in nature with music reviews and reader submitted content, was not pornographic. --ChrisQZAP (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecover[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. They're a great company and I use their products, but I just don't see the encyclopedia notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Significant primary references are available including [6], [7],[8] including sponsoring a well reported yacht [9] and the Chelsea Flower Show sponsorship [10]. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for neutral sources, as even I found one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added an award section which should illustrate notability more clearly (?). The company has over the past 20 years been very much a recognised pioneer (manufacturing and detergent development), and the article could do with some work to illustrate this more clearly. I also removed some of the PR talk. The article should not be a promotional site (listing only products and sponsorships) and I guess one reason why it has been nominated is because it still reads a bit like that. So in short, I say keep, but the article does need some work to bring it in line with wikipedia criteria and standards.--SasiSasi (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable as the world market leader in its field. I've added a couple more of the hundreds of sources available via Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. . In addition to the points raised in the discussion, his most popular book is held by only 31 libraries. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford Holst[edit]

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

a non-notable author whose books appear to be self-published. They are the only books published by Sierra Sunrise, which at least has a website. I can find nothing about the existence of 'Cambridge and Boston Press'. No reliable sources in the article (phoenician.org has Atlantis, etc stuff). The 'research papers' are just presentations at conferences it seems. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a history researcher, he clearly fails WP:PROF. That fact is considered an expert by the publisher of one of his books is hardly surprising. One quotation on tsunamis in nationalgeographic.com doesn't make him an expert on Phoenicia either. VG ☎ 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I just came to the same conclusion as Vasile. One quote, that's all, and this press (which of course hails him as an expert) is a really, really small press--they've published two books. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The subject looks like an amateur who has begun writing research papers and books on his retirement. Since no evidence is given of the publication of his research papers in a reputable academic journal, I am unable to judge their merit; they could merely be typescipts sitting in his desk. Unless the article is substantially improved during the AFD period, it must be deleted. I am not suggesting that the subject may not have published valuable work, merely that the articel does not establish that it is valuable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be something defective in the nomination, as this page is a redlink in the notice on the page itself. 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, that's just the way MediaWiki works sometimes. Purging the page with the AFD notice on it or simply waiting will fix the problem. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-OCVM[edit]

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

Article is extremely confusing, issues haven't been addressed in a year, only two incoming links, zero references. Prince of Canada t | c 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonnotable; furthermore, I can't imagine why we would have an article written like this, unless it were a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an essay, possible copyvio. VG ☎ 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's not a COPYVIO then the author should apply for a job in the EU or some similar bureaucracy, because they are obviously a natural. I work in the aircraft industry, and I'm overwhelmed by the ratio of acronyms to plain text. To specifically justify the delete !vote, it's basically advertising for a EUROCONTROL project. MadScot (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was already userfied by creator. — xaosflux Talk 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Buzz[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no sources. Google News test turns up mostly copies of one article, and does not appear to determine notability. Tone looks a bit spammy as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this should be speediable as recreation of deleted material. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:ADVERT with no assertions of notability. Search difficult because of rock band with same name. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFirst of all it has 433,000 google hit's so it's notable, trust me, in the Energy Drink world it's notable, of course I'm going to expand it to "B" class when I get the time. SteelersFan94 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as unverifiable. Editors have been unable to find any sources at all. As a last-ditch check, I tried to find some sources myself, and couldn't find a thing. The explicit statement by the article's creator, 888vbox888 (talk · contribs), that there are no sources is the final nail in the coffin. This is not what Wikipedia is for, 888vbox888. As it said next to the edit box when you created the article, encyclopaedia content must be verifiable. If you want to document a chess variant that you or your friends made up in University, get it documented through the proper channels, outside of Wikipedia, first. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's Chess[edit]

Gentlemen's Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A chess variant. Somewhat more serious than the average NFT article but the lack of references and Google hits suggest that it is not notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -Delete - I am suggesting keep on the assumption this chess variant is legitimate and can be sourced. The article is by a new editor and this is their first and only article edited just ten days ago. The variant is listed and linked in the Chess variants. Talk:Gentlemen's Chess kinda shoots my logical down. I tagged the article for sourcing.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)--Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Afraid this wreaks of WP:MADEUP. "Gentlemen's Chess" returns a whopping 82 ghits. Sounds like a lovely game that is not yet ready for Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I managed to knock it down to 0 Google Hits. -Verdatum (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Chaturvedi[edit]

Alok Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that he help a significant political office, and he's managing a non-notable company. Being the brother of another politician does not make him notable either. VG ☎ 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As article says he is prospected candidate for forthcoming MP elecction. What is the loss if we wait till election which is 1 month later. Aminami (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
because "being an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability". IF he is elected then it will not be difficult to re-create such a short article. He is not notable now, so does not warrant an article now. WWGB (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly non-notable. If he wins in the election and becomes and MP, then he becomes notable, not until then. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fight for a Child Aruba[edit]

Fight for a Child Aruba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally, completely fails Google tests. No clear explanation of what the group is, highly promotional, borderline vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The listed references just linking to holding pages. No independent sources with content available. Even if there were this looks like a brand new totally non notable organisation. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lawsuit makes a claim for notability, but it's unsupported by third-party references. VG ☎ 22:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons already mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The law suit is a news event, and not that big a deal. --


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Merge to Collatz conjecture ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness (mathematics)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Useless neologism for the Collatz problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless - already covered in Collatz problem. At the very best it should just be a redirect, but I'd prefer a delete. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mathematical content of this is already covered in Collatz problem, as QuiteUnusual says (and as I previously stated in the prod that was removed). A Google scholar search reveals that "oneness" is not a standard word to use in this context, so it would be pointless to try to merge what little content there is here into the Collatz article; I think it should just be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Salix (talk): 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Collatz conjecture. For the benefit of those who will wonder what the discussion is about, Collatz described an operative procedure starts with "if a number is even then divide it by 2, if a number is odd then multiply it by 3 and add 1"; eventually, you will reach the number 1, after which the sequence "4, 2, 1" repeats infinitely. The conjecture is that no matter what positive integer you start with, you will eventually reach one; however, the conjecture remains unproven. What's described here as "oneness" is the number of steps it takes to reach the number 1, and a link is given to suggest that that pattern can't be predicted. Thus, for numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the number of steps is 3, 4, 7, 2 and 5 respectively. Mandsford (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Collatz conjecture. The material is already covered there, except possibly the terminology, which is almost all that is in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Master spells[edit]

Dungeon Master spells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE for including unnecessary detail about gameplay, which is clarified in WP:GAMECRUFT. More importantly, violates WP:N and WP:V as there are no reliable third-party sources that cover this topic with any significance. Randomran (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus Leslie Qwark[edit]

Copernicus Leslie Qwark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game series itself is very notable, both for design and gameplay innovations, and as one of the leading video game series on the Playstation consoles; and with this character being one of the three most well-known characters in the series, it seems a tad hasty to toss out the character page. As for sourcing, the article notes Electronic Gaming Monthly in at least one case, and references several of the games (which are all notable enough to be in Wikipedia). Keep for now, and hopefully get some more sources in there. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trim away the OR from the lead and you're left with 100% plot summary from the games he appears in. No sense writing the same thing twice. Nifboy (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series as this article is totally lacking in citations from reliable sources (per Wikipedia policy, another Wiki is not considered a RS). B.Wind (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to weak keep Some gnews hits exist for the Captain Quark text string. Article can be sourced, but should be trimmed of extended plot info and OR. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clank[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clank IS notable since he's in pretty much every ratchet game as Ratchets' friend. And if it doesn't have sources try to find them or put up a template, but don't you think deleting it is extreme?--Megaman en m (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above in the AfD for the Quark character, the game series itself is very notable, both for design and gameplay innovations, and as one of the leading video game series on the Playstation consoles; and with this character being one of the three most well-known characters in the series, it seems a tad hasty to toss out the character page. The article references several of the games (which are all notable enough to be in Wikipedia), and even notes that the character is famous enough to have made cameo appearances in other media. Keep for now, and hopefully get some more sources in there. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JasonDUIUC. Major chracater appearing in multiple notable games. Edward321 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename - Important character in a very popular series, per JasonDUIUC and Edward 321. My argument is basically the same as my one for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank) (sorry if it's too supportive or biased). For the rename, as per 70.55.200.131. Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series. There seems to be too much OR in this article to stand alone, but Clank is clearly a significant character in a popular game series. In addition, a second redirect, Clank (Ratchet & Clank) should be created (with the same target) in preparation for dabifying Clank. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Clank is a major character that appears in multiple videogames. Since Clank only exists in its series, it's impossible for it to be worthy of notice "independent of its series." WP:N is not a policy. And it's not original research to summarize a fictional work. I can only assume that this is a disruptive (cut-and-paste) nomination by a disgruntled Pokemon fan, and child. --Pixelface (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ratchet & Clank (series). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep main character in a notable multi-generation game series. JuJube (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not to repeat myself too often, but, as with Quark and Clank characters: the game series itself is very notable, both for design and gameplay innovations, and as one of the leading video game series on the Playstation consoles; and with this character being one of the three most important characters in the series, it seems a tad hasty to toss out the character page. The article references several of the games (which are all notable enough to be in Wikipedia), and even notes that the character is famous enough to have made cameo appearances in other media. Moreover, while the author of the article neglected to provide a link, he (or she) did include a reference to the Game Informer review of one of the games. Keep for now, and hopefully get some more sources in there. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The mentions in other media are trivial. As for the reference... what reference? Even so, was it a reference which covers the character in detail, as per the general notability guidelines? No, not the game. The actual character. Presumably Game Informer is reliable, but I'm not sure it can be used in this case, as I'm willing to guess it covers the game and not the character. --Izno (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JasonDUIUC. Main character appearing in multiple notable games. Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ratchet and Clank. Just as I mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clank, if the character is notable, then prove it using reliable sources. Otherwise, it's nothing but unverifiable original research. MuZemike (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect instead of R&C, it should probably be redirected to Ratchet & Clank (series) (as the character is recurring), but am otherwise in agreement with MuZemike. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Needs cleanup, but as JasonDUIUC points out, its notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's the main character in a long, successful and popular game series who has become nearly a household name beacuse of his renowned voice actor. The article says a lot about him and his role. TTN, I don't know what you were thinking at that time, but if you thought he was 'not' notable and the article contained 'no' original research, think again, because he is one of the most famous names associated with the PS2 and PS3 by his series and there are many game sites, reviews and news that speak strongly for the game series and that it is impossible not to have seen any mention of Ratchet and Clank - ever!, (basically, anything good about Ratchet and Clank on it speaks for itself and the series. unless you don't know what a PS2 or a PS3 is. Please, please do a bit more research and have a neutral point of view before you slap that ugly deletion discussion template on the page - Typing 'Ratchet and Clank' into Google brings a lot of positive reviews, praise and the like about the series. I have no intention of harm or offence, but please don't express your opinion or attitude against Ratchet or his associated game series. Sorry for the lengthy vote, but thank you. Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the character itself or about the game? Also mind ad hominem attacks and civility. MuZemike (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if my argument was a bit too opinionated, but I understand now. About my previous comment now, it'll be the same for any Ratchet and Clank articles undergoing deletion debates. And MuZemike, if I said this before, the aricle does reveal a lot about the character and the game. Thank you for reminding me. - Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're very welcome. And thank you for making the strike. MuZemike (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to game series page. I am a huge fan of the R&C game series, but I will easily admit that the depth of coverage of the fictional side of this is very limited due to lack of usable sources. This page basically restates the plot of each game in the series and has nothing about the character's developement (again, something I've never seen when looking through sources) or critical reception, and what does need to be stated is already in the main series article. --MASEM 11:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without reliable third-party sources, this can't meet WP:N or WP:V. Mind you, this character probably has at least a few mentions out there. The problem is the article is almost entirely a rehash of information in other articles. Absolutely no new information, let alone referenced information. Redirecting will ultimately allow readers to see the same content, without putting it in separate articles. Randomran (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Randomran. No sources == no article. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Some people here seem to think that fame = notability. The fact that sources discussing this character in a non-trivial way cannot be found shows that outside of the series he is non-notable, so he should be covered in the game article.Yobmod (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ratchet & Clank (series), as above, there do not seem to be any reliable, independent sources about the character itself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Wing_Commander_characters. MBisanz talk 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralgha nar Hhallas[edit]

Ralgha nar Hhallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure by the skomorokh 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Pettersson[edit]

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

I love Opeth, but I'm not sure being a member for part of a year, without any performances on albums is enough to establish notability. Marti786 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madōgu[edit]

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

This is a trivial list of weapons that does not attempt to establish notability. It is just made up of trivial details and plot points. TTN (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Though I contributed major edits to this article, I do agree that the notability of the subject matter and the necessity of a separate article for it is questionable; I think that the only bit of information that needs to be retained is the explanation of what madōgu are, and that can just be easily included in the main Flame of Recca article. --SilentAria talk 02:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fictional weapons with no notability. -- nips (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of O-Parts in O-Parts Hunter[edit]

List of O-Parts in O-Parts Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of minor plot elements that does establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and trivial details. TTN (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom since I was going to do this myself for the same reason. « ₣M₣ » 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems original research to me. -- nips (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i guess. prior to the entire stripping of large amounts of text, images and what not it was actually a decent article but it has sense fallen into disaray... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review
  • Delete per nom. Minor plot elements that have no notability nor need for a standalone list. At best, a brief mention in the individual character sections in List of O-Parts Hunter characters for their "owners." The concept itself is already covered in the main sufficiently. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Recognize Real[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased album with bad sources and little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Meister[edit]

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

Reason: Delete Total lack of notability. Subject has never held any political office and his sole political achievement to date has been being one of a thousand candidates in the 2003 California governors election, where he got a total of 2 votes (not a typo). Meister has not received significant press coverage. The main coverage in the local paper has been to say Meister is 'is utterly unqualified to be sheriff.' [11] According to notability guidelines for politicians (wp:politician) he isn't notable enough for an article. And most of his vague information that can be found is from his own campaign site. Nothing from NPOV sites. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wow, talk about a nonnotable person: if every candidate for little local offices were notable, our biographical notability guidelines would be turned on their heads. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This person is a legitimate and legal candidate (his name is on the official Lee County ballot for the upcoming election). Those who are seeking the deletion of the article about him are doing so because they are aligned with his political opponent. His political qualifications have no bearing on whether or not he is notable. The fact that he is an official candidate on the ballot makes him sufficiently notable. In addition, the fact that he is running against a politician (Sheriff Mike Scott) who is currently the center of a national brouhaha over his use of Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein) during a political rally for Sarah Palin, makes Mr. Meister nationally notable as the sole challenger against this incumbent. This is no longer a "little local election" matter. Mr. Meister is now part of a national news story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.31.226 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the notability standards for politicians, you will see that being a candidate is NOT one of the standards. Actually being an officeholder IS. Meister has never been elected to any office. And Meister is not getting any notability on his own. His notability, which is not national (only local papers), is based on someone else, not on his accomplishments.
  • Delete - Unsourced, fails WP:N, probably COI material as well. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was as both claiming no notability, but also as copyvio. SkierRMH (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craobh Rua Camloch[edit]

Craobh Rua Camloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article that serves no purpose but to detail the works of a non-notable subreligion and copyright violation of http://www.geocities.com/camlochcraobhrua/clubhistory.html ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


Delete. Hasn't this article been speedily deleted several times already? Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim (rapper)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. `'Míkka>t 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, given that this exists. The article could probably use some work though. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw: The Ride[edit]

Saw: The Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A roller coaster not constructed yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not a promotional billboard. `'Míkka>t 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The sources/links provided assert it's in fact coming, so it's not exactly WP:CRYSTAL, but it may need more "reliable" coverage. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The construction may be delayed, the company may go bancrupt... Things happen. The coverage is mainly promotional non-nondependent. Wikipedia is not vehicle for promotion. `'Míkka>t 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable ride: as notable as, say, Colossus (Thorpe Park), Stealth (roller coaster) or Nemesis Inferno. Whether it's built yet or not is fairly irrelevant - the hype and notability is still there. Granted, this article requires a tonne of clean-up, and referencing, but it's not a candidate for deletion. TalkIslander 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This ride is a track completed build, the only thing left to complete is the buildings, therefore it gets an article. Stop bullshitting and actually provide a good reason for deletion you moron. Citedcover (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Note: This account has been blocked for harassment of editors. TalkIslander 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well publicised ride, the track's already complete and the theme is known - in fact it's based on a movie franchise. If this goes, then Colossus and Nemesis Inferno have to go too - which would be daft. The article does need refining, though. Makron1n (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: The article says: the real name and details of the ride being revealed on 13 October 2008" -- and in wikipedia already ??? THis is a shameless promotion. Well, whatever. `'Míkka>t 15:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment why does that matter at all? Notability is not dictated by how long something has to go until it's released, or how long since it was released. Your argument doesn't stand up. A film, if notable enough, may have a Wikipedia article six months or more before release. No different here. TalkIslander 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is dictated by independent sources. So far the only references are promotional stuff from interested parties. `'Míkka>t 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], to give just a small few. How's about a Google search to prove it even more. I haven't checked out all of those links carefully, but the first five at least are reliable third party sources which demonstrate notability. Heck, the first one alone is enough to demonstrate notability, following which facts can be cited from primary sources. Not to mention the fact that as a major new ride of a completely notable theme park, there is probably inherent notability here. TalkIslander 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are credible links about the ride, and I also found this, don't know if anyone else has found this http://www.rcdb.com/ig4162.htm Rollinman (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This ride is actually real - why get rid of this page? People use this page daily for info on completion status etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theface102 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Savenson[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-existent fictional piece that the editor is working on. No suggestion of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Character from an unpublished work with no indication of notability. (Presuming article isn't an outright hoax.) Recommend adding Tony Monterelli by the same editor to the Afd as well, with no prejudice towards recreation when the book comes out if it features these characters. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unpublished and won't be notable when/if it is published. The article Tony Monterelli states: "THIS ARTICLE IS INCOMPLETE THE AUTHOR IS STILL WRITING THE BOOK" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. JNW (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Misery of Sound[edit]

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

Article has numerous problems, main one being blatant advertising. My comment on the article's talk page contains further detail. Phlyght (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Axis of Time. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

82nd Marine Expeditionary Unit[edit]

82nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unreferenced, no evidence or even assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Axis of time and delete. Unlikely to be a search term. VG ☎ 09:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing there. No notability outside its fictional world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Axis of Time. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNPROFLEET[edit]

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro (lich)[edit]

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

Fictional character, prod removed. I cannot find any evidence that this character satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Pagrashtak 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Pagrashtak 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete provided that someone politely explains the problem to the new user who created this article - a character with extremely marginal backstory and plot significance. --Kizor 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N guidelines - not even a likely search term. Marasmusine (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Kizor has a point about trying to help people understand, though. Randomran (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Akradecki per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother UK (2009)[edit]

Celebrity Big Brother UK (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a duplicate of the deleted article Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK) which is currently protected from being re-created. Too early for an article, months away. Series not officialy confirmed. 12bigbrother12 15:28, 17 October 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 advertising. When the producer of a film writes an article about it in such glowing terms, this clearly is a promotional piece. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best laid plans film[edit]

The best laid plans film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • The movie is neither amateur nor home-produced. It is a legitimate movie, being sold in many surf shops, and websites (including amazon.com). It has also won several awards from Eastern Surf Magazine. The reason for deletion, detailed below, was made while a \{construction} and \{hangon} tag was on the page. I am a producer on the movie and have all the rights needed for all content
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TN‑X-Man 13:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Sean Kelly (Canadian musician)[edit]

Sean Kelly (Canadian musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Member of two red link bands and of a third that is up for deletion. Sources don't seem to cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - The article is cites one source, an aggregation page of musicians. The article was also created by the subject himself. However a search on Amazon music shows that they have released three albums by a reputable publishing house. Not quite a vanity page, but too weakly cited to keep in its current state. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not to be confused with clearly notable Australian musician Sean Kelly Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – has received sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Just now I've added references to several Canadian publications, and one US newspaper. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Bigfoot[edit]

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

Non-notable bigfoot legend variant. Just 8 non-wiki ghits, most of which are not about this creature; zero gnews hits. Source given in article is a TV station homepage and doesn't mention creature. Prod contested with no reason given. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but preferable Merge Delete- I've added some more references to it. Google news hits are low, true; but I've added some notable local media covering this story. This article is a mess, but I'd say if anything, merge into primary Bigfoot article, but it may be able to stand on it's own, as I am currently working on it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I'll work this into the primary article. I've researched more into it, and doesn't seem enough to stand on it's own as an article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - An article based on one report of one citing of a creature is not necessary, and the quality of the article is very poor. However, as Paranormal Skeptic is willing to take ownership of the issue and proposes to merge the article if it cannot stand on its own we should give this editor a chance to work on it. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As hoax. This page would be acceptable only IF all the material written with a belief in the hoax -- for instance "Learning to Adapt" and all that other gibberish speculation -- is cut out, and the page is rewritten to report on the 2006 hoax. (A hoax page like Mel's Hole, for instance.) Even then we're left with notability and source problems. Let's just make it a quick death. --Lockley (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Wright and the Wrongs[edit]

Luther Wright and the Wrongs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pink Floyd redone in bluegrass? Interesting, but no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Keep per below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is one valid secondary source on the article, and they have published several albums. A Google news search shows several articles directly involving this band (beyond club listings) from reputable newspapers. Needs editing, but certainly qualifies as notable. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself" is the first criterion in the WP:NMG guideline, and full length articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and several dozen local papers clearly meet that standard. <eleland/talkedits> 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references establish notability. Nominators are requested to do a search for sources before nominating an article for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHPOpenbiz[edit]

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

Another obscure PHP framework with only a few thousand ghits. I cannot find any reliable, third-party references to support notability. VG ☎ 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance of the Gladiators (radio drama)[edit]

Entrance of the Gladiators (radio drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:N. A quick Google search shows no particular mention outside something about one of the voice actresses. All content edits were done by what appears to be the writer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

although i can see melodia's point that this has been put up by the writer, it is not self publicizing but rather a simple factual account of an event.
i have seen dozens of far worse examples of this that have been extant for years (i generally suggest editing rather than extinction) it seems to me that this policy is not being carried out evenly and that is very easy for some people just to go round tearing down other people's work - if it had not been for my careful disambiguation, melodia's interest in circus music would not have even led her here - no-one else seems to think the article inappropriate and deletion rather that reworking seems a bit harsh as a first step - perhaps she does not consider the work of lesser-known artists worthy of inclusion here or perhaps i am mistaken in thinking wikipedia a democratic forum. i hope melody's articles stand up to equal scrutiny - i shall have fun looking - the use of english grammar on her talk page suggests that there is plenty of scope for improvement.
i agree that this article may not be of interest to great number of people but that is not the point of wikipedia - anyone interested in british radio drama that is not mainstream will tell you that it is a struggle to find online information regarding audio theatre not output by the bbc
is it not customary to inform the author if his or her work is being considered for deletion? obviously not --kyle mew 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's customary, but I figure you'd easily see it within short order. But anyway, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it doesn't matter 'why' I found it. I waited quite a while before listing it on AFD, and if I'm wrong, others will note it. To ME it seems like someone trying to get their unnotable work on WP -- in fact, it could probably have been speedy'd, but I skipped that step since I knew you'd probably remove it right away. And if you're going to call someone out on their grammar, using horrid capitalization isn't the best idea. Plus, I never claimed I was a good writer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


all fair points - --kyle mew 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemew (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - fails to establish notability through reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability, no citations from reliable sources. This borders on speedy deletion territory. B.Wind (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliana Benador[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. The two references include on "personality" piece and one minor quote in an article unrelated to her. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding my new article about "Eliana Benador" , please take a look at the fuller list that will show her "notability" as per your standards. Hope this will now be acceptable. Thank you. Patmar04 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC) The preceding comment was left on my talk page (as the nominating editor). I have copied it here to become part of the AfD discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Amongst the references listed on the page are these that have significant coverage [20][21][22]. There are some more news sources [23][24][25][26][27] and some book sources [28][29] available. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated by Phil Bridger, the primary notability is established by significant sources discussing her and her work as an international spokesperson. Unfortunately, it was obscured by the current presentation. The article certainly needs to be excised of the resume language, peacock wording and extraneous personal notes. — CactusWriter | needles 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror, Mirror (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

Mirror, Mirror (Desperate Housewives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no real-world info, no sources, nothing. Absolute NOTHING besides a paragraph he as well may have made up himself. A talk 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for Mirror, Mirror (Desperate Housewives). Now will you please take the episode off the Articles for Deletion list? Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It fails several policies.A talk 20:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: Per WP:EPISODE. This particular episode fails notability. In general almost all of the 100 or so episodes fail this test and should be merged back into their respective Desperate Housewives season # list per Wikipedia guidelines. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was made on the 15th, why didn't it show up in the log until today? Someone forget to transclude? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with most other Desparate Whore's Lives Housewives episodes because I hate Desperate Housewives there are no sources and they fail WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Delete or) Redirect to LoE, mainly because of WP:NOT#PLOT, and some WP:NOTABILITY concerns. – sgeureka t•c 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and non notable. Not a viable redirect term.13:12, 21 October 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 (fails WP:N, as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has not been demostrated). Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Chinen[edit]

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

WP:BLP violation. You can check in Japanese or in English and you won't find any non-trivial sources in reliable publications to establish notability because she and her family had specifically asked the Japanese government to remain anonymous and they respected her wishes. A research body, however, dug until they discovered her name and age and published it over the Internet. As a marginally (if it all) notable figure, WP:BLP recommends deletion in this case, to respect the privacy of the individual. Even if there were no BLP issues, however, this article would still fail a basic notability test because, as I mentioned, there are no non-trivial reliable sources out there. Cheers, CP 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's actually not factually accurate. The government of Japan published this woman's name online in 2004 and earlier, and she was featured in local Japanese newspapers in 2001 when she was 105. Beginning in 2006, the Japanese government decided to ask individual persons before publishing their names in the annual Japan lists. This person is not listed by name since that time. However, that does not mean the earlier information is not publicly available...by the concept of "ex post facto" you can't put the cat back in the bag, so to speak.Ryoung122 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the practice of listing centenarians anonymously started earlier than that. In fact, if you check the 2003, 2004, and 2005 lists, you will find a number of anonymous centenarians on all the lists. In this case, this person was publicly identified in 2003 and 2004 but was kept anonymous from 2005 onward. There are several other cases where specific individuals were publicly identified in some years but not in others, but the practice was in place long before 2006. TML (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion on this, however the article provides for information about the supercentenarian. All information on the article was allowed to be displayed on other websites, therefore making it valid. Please keep this article for the sake of information. Thank You. ~~tennisdude92~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisdude92 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. BLP issues aside, where's the notability cut-off? Oldest person in the world? Oldest 10 people? Oldest hundred people? Stifle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not a good argument. What if we were to apply the same standard to sports figures? Only the top ten touchdown scorers in the league are notable? I don't think so. Anyone who's major-league is notable. If a supercentenarian gets press coverage outside their own local community, then notability can be established. Note that may not necessarily apply to this case, however.Ryoung122 02:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of lack of reliable sources. If reliable sources are provided, this should be recreated: surely such an old person with reliable sources is notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another false argument. The world's leading world authorities on a subject are reliable sources.Ryoung122 02:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Once Kama is notible enough she should have an article even if she wants to be anonomus. For lack of a better example: Steve Bartman. --Npnunda (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the sources provided by the meet the stringent reliable sources required or any WP:BLP (I no nothing about the article's sources), notability per WP:BIO has not been established. The article does not represent that she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources" as need to satisfy WP:BIO. Therefore, the failure to meet the pertinent policy/guidelines combined with the request to remain anonymous makes a very strong case for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Depth of coverage does not appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Kama is gradually gaining more importance due to her increasing age and possibility of moving up on the list. Please leave this article as is, so it can be used as more information is released. Thank You Tennisdude92 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)tennisdude92[reply]
Comment.Kama is gradually gaining more importance due to her increasing age and possibility of moving up on the list. Please leave this article as is, so it can be used as more information is released. Thank You Tennisdude92 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)tennisdude92[reply]


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

The result was Speedy close I should point that I found this page while patrolling CAT:SD. It had a hangon tag but no speedy, so I thought it was a contested speedy. Self-trout for not checking the history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behgjet Pacolli[edit]

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

Horribly messy page, sources don't seem to cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Care to look at the page history before the nomination? [30]. It wasn't messy. AfD is not an appropriate venue to settle such issues. Colchicum (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated Media Foundation Movement[edit]

Affiliated Media Foundation Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has existed for more than four years now without any citations and without any development beyond a stub. This is not a notable topic. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Shock (band)[edit]

Future Shock (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Remember the Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Focused (Future Shock album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Art of Xenos - Entertaining Aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fisheye the E.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Head Hunters E.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well, I'll give them credit for at least being on bluelink labels, but a.) one of said labels is at afd., and b.) I can't find any sources for any of this. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzy (rapper)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. Both albums are non-notable, online only afairs. No other source of notability provided or found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Motown number-one singles in the United States[edit]

List of Motown number-one singles in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial intersection of information. No other label has a similar list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable list from a notable record label. I will be happy to create corresponding articles for other labels. With a little expansion and cleanup, this would be an excellent Featured List Candidate. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have suggested merging to Motown Records, but it already has a length warning on it. This is sourced, presentable, accurate-looking, and belongs in wikipedia. --Lockley (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medicated (band)[edit]

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

Unsigned band, no real indications of notability given, IMHO. Admin User:AGK apparently beleives there is enough assertion to invalidate A7 speedy, so I have reversed my own A7 deletion. But even so, I see nothing that indicates that they meet the WP:BAND requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, not quite "apparently"; I do believe that. :) Yes, I think there has been so much dispute over the notability of this article, that deferring the matter to a consensus of editors at this forum (AfD, I mean) is the best option. I won't comment on my personal opinion as to the article's notability. Anthøny (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my weak wording. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real claim to notability, lacks outside sources demonstrating notability. two self released demos is far from enough. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vocalist of the band is very known person in Metal-scene, as the former vocalist of Imperanon. Also you will find out in few weeks that all this has been in vain ;) Syndicated85 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the band Imperanon similarly fails to meet the project's notability criteria, and it is currently also being discussed for deletion. Membership in one non-notable band does not translate into notability for other bands he may be in. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - band falls short of WP:BAND, but would qualify once it has a second album released on Roadrunner Records (or other major label)... whenever, or if ever, it happens. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckeye NutHouse[edit]

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

Same concerns as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawkamaniacs, only with a bit more google hits (60 instead of 30), the only sources I see are college newspapers and the group website, nither are reliable or independent of the subject. Delete Secret 13:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By My Side (song)[edit]

By My Side (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreleased song. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs (also WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:V). Prod removed without reason. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraan[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, no sources, label up for afd. Also listing his albums:

Mockinbyrd Slang: The Voice of Nureaumerica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nn-club. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkamaniacs[edit]

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

Non-notable cheering section. Fails WP:GROUP, WP:NEO, and most importantly WP:V, less than 30 google hits mostly mirrors of wikipedia. Delete Secret 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Syntax Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Night Owls Compilation Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable music company, no sources found.. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I saw enough for a Keep for the label in the previous AfD but I don't see enough now after a second look - one decent source to add to what's there might be enough.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Night Owls Compilation Series. If any of these releases are notable they should hve their own article. nothing there to suggest the series is notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Plates[edit]

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

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without reason. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald monteron[edit]

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

Notability not sufficietnly asserted. Although several links are introduced, one is inaccessible without special membership and the other links to a non-substantial mention of the subject as having participated in an industrial video presentation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious A7, gone Secret 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aaron Sprinkle. MBisanz talk 02:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really Something EP[edit]

Really Something EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unverifiable for the most part. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC with no third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futile (EP)[edit]

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

Promotional EP only, not an actual physical release. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire It Up ! (EP)[edit]

Fire It Up ! (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP. No third party sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Sinta[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. He's drummed for others but that doesn't make him notable if there're no sources related to him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn by nominator). Topic is a Fellow of the AAAS, thus passes WP:PROF#C3 (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Servos[edit]

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

I believe he fails WP:BIO. He is an active professor with decent contributions per google books and google scholar, however I found no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about him, as indicated by a low number of gnews hits. Notability in question since June 2007, and the only significant contribution to the article is its creation, all others are tags and cats, so interest in this biography is apparently also very low.
His college bio reveals that one of his book won the "History of Science Society's Pfizer Prize for best book in the history of science in 1991", which is not enough to make him notable. AmaltheaTalk 12:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Scher[edit]

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

very minor child actor. non notable. Honey And Thyme (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree: eminently non-notable. The one source is the IMDb, and I have found no others, certainly nothing that could be called in-depth. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (yet) and as the article makes no assertion of notability. And even though WP:RS does not mandate that a source be lengthy and in-depth, this fellow doesn't even have a blurb. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, rename to "remote deposit capture" and redirect to Remote deposit (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Data Capture[edit]

Remote Data Capture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite the title this article is about a narrow topic covered by a patent, and does little to establish it's notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 20:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the two newspaper articles linked from this article carefully, and it's not even clear even if they're talking about the same patent. The first article talks about a "remote image capture patent" by DataTreasury. The second article covers "remote deposit capture" but makes no mention of the patent or DataTreasury. VG ☎ 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete links do not establish notability. Seems like promotion. Clubmarx (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move I added more citations, but apparently it's called "remote deposit capture." The (200,000+) sources you get from a google of "rdc banking" describe remote deposit capture as a disruptive technology for the banking industry. I just put up a stub because it's out of my area of expertise (I already messed up the article title, it's probably a good thing I stopped when I did). I knew the article was in poor shape, but I was hoping others would WP:Assume Good Faith and pitch in to strengthen it rather than just kicking it off the site. Maybe you're both from the banking industry and can attest that this "disruptive technology" claim is an exaggeration, or maybe you're lost like me, and we just need to get this article in front of those who can actually help it. Either way, it's obviously not mere promotion, or someone would've spent more than 5 seconds setting up the world's ugliest and least helpful stub. --Thomas B♘talk 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In more direct response to VG's first point: I do not believe it is a narrow technology covered by a patent. This is outside my expertise, but I'm trying to read up, and I get the sense RDC is a generalized term for a class of technologies. RDC seems to cover any service which clears checks without transmitting their paper equivalents, but instead electronically with captured images of the original checks. The only article that discussed a patent did so because it was trying to warn banks that this group of technologies poses patent infringement risks, you might be using something you think is just a generalized technology in this area, when actually it is not. This would explain why "it's not even clear even if they're talking about the same patent," because they aren't talking about a patent, they are talking about a group of related technologies that emerged after the Check21 legislation permitting electronic clearing for banks. That's why the second article doesn't discuss DataTreasury, the company's not generally relevant. --Thomas B♘talk 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of AfD nomination the article was about a patent [33]. User6985 has enlarged the topic by rewriting the article. VG ☎ 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the rewrite, this article treats the same subject as Remote_deposit, so it's redundant, and poorly titled. VG ☎ 07:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to remote deposit. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as redundant. but don't redirect, as sources do not show this to be a n alternative name for the process described.Yobmod (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make the same remark, the use of "data" instead of "deposit" seems confined to this Wikipedia article. VG ☎ 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to remote deposit. Is too specific (lacks specific secondary sources containing commentary about the subject). Article is not sufficiently more than a definition/description. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to remote deposit. The subject might be expandable, but this sentence contains too little information to support a full article at present. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 snowed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus S. Ronningen[edit]

Magnus S. Ronningen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ridiculous puff piece. Punkmorten (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity page, fails WP:BIO. There is this Norwegian newspaper article (which I can't read) that seems to cover him, maybe you can have a look at it Punkmorten. Other that that I find very little. In particular, I can't verify the claim that he was voted 12th hottest norwegian guy. --AmaltheaTalk 13:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the nespaper article, I just looked at Talk:Magnus S. Ronningen. --AmaltheaTalk 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should not be confused with your own personal Facebook profile. Slusk (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extreme vanity page, also the Aftenposten article contains him bragging about writing his own Wikipedia page, as well as him having limited notability, IMHO Kerb (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to build up to the last paragraph's revelation that he's about to go and visit the 'Kingdom of Lo' in the Himalaya. Unfortunately for Mr Ronningen, this location appears not to exist... AlexTiefling (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity and abuse of Wikipedia. - Atluxity (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to do with Wikipedia. - morhveem (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extreme vanity, as stated above. --Ekko (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant vanity, self promotion of a non-notable person, as admitted by himself. Also, the guy's name seems to be Magnus Rønningen, not Magnus Ronningen. BrunoBarn (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Subliminal Verses World Tour[edit]

The Subliminal Verses World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 10:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doll Domination Tour[edit]

Doll Domination Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do not think this article should be removed, because it is very informative about the upcoming tour from The Pussycat Dolls. It should be cleaned up with added information, not deleted, as that would be useful. Willsayshey
  • Keep. I do not think think it should be deleted either - it has references. It is a confirmed upcoming tour. Liamr02 ☼ 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many similar, and IMO equally notable, pages on upcoming music tours. This page looks credible and well-written. --Lockley (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Babcock[edit]

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

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable source material available to have an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 10:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Nearly 700 Ghits for "Dave+Babcock"+saxophone. One Edmonton Sun article about him and a few profiles in specialist jazz magazines. Also appears to have done some live gigs for CBC. The article needs cleanup but I think it might be possible to salvage it. McWomble (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is quite clear here. The fact that he has bios at the Calgary Blues Festival website [34], the Edmonton Jazz Festival website [35], and the the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [36] should mean something. Here is also an article in the Edmonton Sun [37] and this review [38]. I literally only spent two minutes looking for sources so that tells me that there is bound to be more newspaper articles, other independent sources etc. out there. However, this article is highly self promotional and needs a substantial rewrite. I suggest tagging it with appropriate tags.Nrswanson (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article definitely needs a cleanup for writing style, but he looks sufficiently notable to me — the article already contains several sources (they're just not properly formatted), per nrswanson's research there are likely more out there, and he's won (either as a solo artist or as a member of a larger band) several notable music awards. Keep and cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual animal anecdotes[edit]

List of unusual animal anecdotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this list does not fit in a clear deletion category (WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes closest, and WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay), I don't believe it actually is the kind of list that fits Wikipedia. It is basically unlimited, the only restriction being that it has to involve animals. It explicitly encourages primary sources, which is not the best idea either. Listing and reading anecdotes is amusing but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is the kind of stuff that goes in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. It's just indiscriminate cruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be an impressively referenced compendium of loosely related information. Some kind of better organization might be found for it, or moved to more specialized lists. I note that there seems to be no discussion on the talk page with regard to either ways to make the list more discriminating or break it down into more easily defined subjects, like list of animals in battle, list of animals rescuing people, and so forth. I understand the concern, but deletion seems somewhat drastic for a first step, and AfD is not cleanup. Provisionally keep this article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our articles aren't meant to be collections of trivia. This is altogether unencyclopedic: can you imagine Britannica ever including such an article, even if they had limitless resources? There's no need for discussion on the talk page: the very idea of an article on this subject is way too broad, and no talk page discussion can rescue that problem. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've linked a few articles to this entry because I think it does a nice job collecting some related events spread out across Wikipedia. Looks like there is some trivia that needs to be trimmed but I think its deletion would significantly remove information from Wikipedia which seems like a good litmus test. If a list doesn't add value, it should go. This one seems like it does. It's got 100+ sources of weight; why doesn't someone improve what they don't like about it instead of getting rid of the whole thing? 216.65.215.213 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Improving what I don't like about it" = "getting rid of the whole thing". ;-) Fram (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This entry is an impressively researched piece regarding the importance of animals to historical events. The title should be changed to be more specific to its content though. Zukin (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually reading the same article? How is Da Vinci believing in unicorns " the importance of animals to historical events"? How is the circus elephant Hanksen important to historical events? How is (fill in 99% of the anecdotes) important to historical events? Bucephalos having a city named after him, that is an historical event. I am hard pressed to see much more of these in the article. Schrodinger's Cat is obviously important, but then again, I fail to see how this thought experiment is an animal anecdote... Fram (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this page is very much a work-in-progress, I believe that deleting it is unwarranted. Miltthetank (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot fathom why this should be deleted rather than improved. Because you believe it is somewhat vague, it is unsalvageable? Dotingmatrix (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat vague? No, completly undefined. A list of everything remotely to do with animals, no matter if it are sculptures of animals, hunting of animals, thought experiments with animals, deification of animals, things that happen to animals in literature, ... Yes, this list is completely unsalvageable and acvtually a disgrace for any encyclopedia except uncyclopedia. Being sourced is not sufficient to turn something into an encyclopedic article; being on an encyclopedic subject is equally important. A "list of X" in general is a good subject if and only if "X" is in itself a clearly defined subject of research. Fram (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's more alarming is calling an article a disgrace and having a whole history of trying to delete rather than improve. That's the essence of a collaborative encyclopedia. I understand what you're saying, however, the edit history and discussion page of the article don't show any evidence of a problem with irrelevant additions or undefinability. Appears to be working nicely. Dotingmatrix (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The people interested in contributing to the article do not see the problem: this does not mean that there is no problem. People who do think that the article is problematic may not be inclined to improve it, preferring to spend their time on more productive things. Apart from that, please comment on content, not on contributors, and if you do comment on the contributor, try to be correct. I have a history of trying to delete things I don't consider suited for Wikipedia, and of trying to improve things I do consider suitable. To suggest otherwise is incorrect. But of course it takes more time to go through thousands of edits than to check all three edits you have made, all of them to this discussion. Don't lecture people on improving things when you have not contributed anything yet please... Fram (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of WP:TRIVIA which states "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way." A well-researched and documented trivia page, to be sure, but a trivia nonetheless. I appreciate that the author has taken the time to do the sourcing and citations that should be part of any Wikipedia article, and it is copiously researched. And yes, it seems harsh to delete something well-documented when there are so many pages on Wikipedia that aren't at all documented. Finally, I commend the author for his candor-- this is indeed a collection of "unusual animal anecdotes". But where is it going? What's the point, other than assembling some amusing and unrelated anecdotes in chronological order? It reminds me of the old Ripley's Believe It or Not books of later years, which consisted of something like 128 days worth of columns in a 128 page paperback. Entertaining, yes, encyclopedic, no. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get where you're coming from but, to answer your question, it's probably going in the same direction as the List of unusual deaths which has become an intelligent, organized piece due to hard work on the part of editors. Also, the Trivia rules, I think, apply more towards trivia sections in individual articles. Lists like this provide a service by collecting encyclopedic knowledge that would be strange on its own but, when aggregated, has a purpose. I could easily see myself using this as a reference tool were I writing a report on animals, looking into the anthropological roots of blood sports, etc. Miltthetank (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But all of this is true, if we can trust the sources. Keep but potentially alter the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.82.131 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's trivia. That it is referenced only makes it referenced trivia -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this can be considered trivia if List of unusual deaths has survived 3 AFDs. I stand by my keep. Dotingmatrix (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment: Does anyone have any idea why this AfD attracts all kinds of "unusual" editors? Apart from regular editor User:Ihcoyc (provisional keep), all keeps are from an IP, a very irregular editor (User:Zukin, 4 edits in 2007 and 2008), User:Miltthetank (only 6 edits, only 3 in 2008, all to this AfD), and User:Dotingmatrix (all 3 edits are to this AfD). Most AfD's I see have a number of regular editors, and some editors who have a clear link to the article in question. What I see here is quite unusual... Fram (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please be clearer? I'm not certain exactly what you're insinuating. Miltthetank (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks to me like there has been some "call" to come and keep this article. Whether this happened through email or on some website or by some other means is unclear, but the chance that all of you (re)appear just in time and only for this AfD seems unlikely if not for some outside intervention. Fram (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, found it; you are a "friend"[39] of Ryan Holiday, the main contributor to the article at hand. Improbable that this is a coincidence... Fram (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me, I'm his 'friend' on digg. All I am saying is that this list isn't trivia, these are historical facts that have value. The pop culture ones, like Hugh Hefner's zoo and the scientific name for giraffes coming from Caesar - those aren't trivial. They're educational, if anything. As for your strange insinuations, Ryan Holiday is a fairly well-known blogger and I saw this AFD on delicious. I know this isn't a democratic vote, I'm just saying that this doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of trivia at all. In fact, getting rid of it will probably result in an increase of trivia on other individual pages. Miltthetank (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see where this information might be organized by different types of animals, though it still gets into an overwhelming amount of trivia. Consider all the "good dog!" news stories that regularly appear in the press (if your Sunday comics has Marmaduke, there's a feature there called "Dog Gone Funny"). Certainly, the can all be sourced, but which dog stories are the most significant? Anything would be better than the current arrangement, which seems to follow the one-damn-thing-after-another view of history. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bradley[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, yet another PROD removed anonymously without a reason. Soccerbase and Darlington FC confirm he has yet to make a first team appearance at a fully-pro level, and so fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 08:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 advertising. Wikipedia is not a product guide. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cart SEO[edit]

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

Add-ons for a non-notable software, which was itself speedily deleted as spam. Previous AfD for these add-ons was closed under very dubious circumstances by a non-admin. VG ☎ 08:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You know what? screw it. I'm tired of dealing with idiots that prefer to delete valid articles that others have spent a considerable amount of effort on. Delete it, but then you need to nominate this article as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_shopping_cart_software Intel352 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yea, this looks more like a product spec sheet than an article, pretty spammy...PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oke-doke. Tagged as G7. We'll get to the other one when we feel like it. MuZemike (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Todd[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. McWomble (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These: [40], [41], [42] all show some real world notability to the character. Specifically, her death. Otherwise, the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not convinced that those are reliable sources. In any case they are more about the show and the actor than the character. Such information would be more appropriate in NCIS (TV series). If by "cleanup" you mean "remove the plot summary and original research" there would be little or nothing left to justify a separate article. The character only needs a one paragraph summary in List of NCIS characters. McWomble (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Characters of NCIS#Caitlin "Kate" Todd as a plausible search term. No notability outside of NCIS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of NCIS characters#Caitlin "Kate" Todd as the character does not stand separate from the TV series (note: the proposed target is in dire need for major editorial surgery per the {{articleissues}} tag). B.Wind (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a notable character and WP:N is not a policy. And the character only exists in the series, so it's impossible to for it be worthy of notice "indepedent of its series." And stop stealing TTN's AFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Some sourcing exists on gnews but it is pretty weak tea. Lots of series reviews/previews that namecheck the character and actress and move along. Nothing you could call significant coverage. However, since that is subjective, it is a "weak" delete. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of NCIS#Jenny Shepard. MBisanz talk 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Shepard[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability of the character independent of its series. Unsourced and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. McWomble (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tasmania Infrastructure[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#NEWS. this will become a sprawling list if we start doing this for all states in the world. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was bold Redirect to Balsz Elementary School District, the school district, per common procedure (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Crockett elementary[edit]

David Crockett elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub. Not referenced. Just one sentence on the article. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land mine (drinking game)[edit]

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

The originating article and all of the linked ones consist entirely of game guide information for various drinking games. None of these articles contain any information of an encyclopedic nature. They include either no references or references to rules websites for drinking games. All of the articles would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic in nature. The work could still be placed on a drinking rules wiki, just not wikipedia. None of the articles make any real assertions of notability. By contrast articles which I'm not nominating including: never have I ever doesn't go into rules, but has marginal notability at best because of some pop culture references; or Boat race (game) which at least has some history/etymology sections. Optigan13 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as state above WP:GAMEGUIDE

21 (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bullshit (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7-11-doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beer die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chandeliers (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moose (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Game (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Around the World (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Asshole (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Connections (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fuck the dealer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Horserace (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kings (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pyramid (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ride the bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Case race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Centurion (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edward Fortyhands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Some do not have any sources. Most of the remainder do not have any reliable sources. The handful with links to newspaper published summaries of the rules fail several nots anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McWomble (talk • contribs) 08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is due to the inclusion of Asshole, which should be notable enough for anyone. 'Asshole' has many names and is a very well known climbing game. Some of the other games may also be known by other names, and they should get a simple redirect.  The Steve  09:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those that don't indicate any notability. Severely cut back the others (for WP:NOT a gameguide reasons). We shouldn't explain the rules of games in detail, just a short description of the kind of game, and then an extensive description of its origin, popularity, critical reception, ... No sources for these sections? Are you sure it is a notable game then? Fram (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game) for why this mass nomination will inevitably become a confused mess than the closing administrator will have to close as "no consensus". Also note that many of these games have been already discussed at AFD and kept, including 21 (drinking game) (AfD discussion), 7-11-doubles (AfD discussion), Beer die (AfD discussion), Horserace (drinking game) (AfD discussion), Fuck the dealer (AfD discussion), Kings (drinking game) (AfD discussion), and Ride the bus (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No doubt some could go, but this is an inappropriate nomination. Asshole/President for one is a very notable game, so this chainsaw approach should be rejected just because of that. 2005 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Uncle G's powerful reasoning. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason to delete an article that can be improved. The information is (mostly) factual as well. The pages need to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Liface (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete per Fram. Delete the ones which aren't supported by reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some of these are notable, others not. These should be nominated separately since some of them have already survived past AfDs. -- Prod (Talk) 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some are worthy of deletion but this heavy handed all inclusive nomination is not the way to do things. Basement12 (T.C) 05:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. These are games played regularly by hundreds of thousands to millions of college students every weekend. Certainly notable games. Yes, a number of them arn't the best written articles ever, and there are a couple here that even I, a seasoned college student, have never heard of. However, this is a reckless AfD. Kings, Bullshit, Asshole, Fuck the Dealer, Pyramids, Around the World, 7-11-Doubles... all of these are very popular games. Find your way to your nearest college campus on a Saturday night and you'll easily find half of these. Keep all, and if we need to go through them one by one, then thats how it should be done, but this "buzzsaw" is nuts. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eljay Connors[edit]

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

Non-notable Australian rules player who has not yet played a game in a fully professional competition Mattinbgn\talk 04:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a disputed PROD, no reason for disputing given. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A poorly written vanity article written about an impressively non-notable sports figure. This probably could have been speedy deleted. Trusilver 04:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair to Mr Connors, he is on the list of a professional football club. However he is yet to play a game in the first team and as such does not meet WP:ATHLETE. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yeah, but we go through this annually with American football too. Association alone does not create notability. There must be some sort of measurable impact he has had on his team before there's a reason to make an article. Trusilver 05:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has not played in a national league game, fails WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:ATHLETE without prejudice to recreation once he actually plays a professional game. McWomble (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has not actually played in the AFL yet. Recreate if and when he does. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete--poorly written vanity indeed. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quality or lack of is irrelevant here. I know WP:ATHLETE currently says otherwise but it's only a guideline and it used to have a 'is a member of a professional team' line. This guy was one of about 60 players drafted and is one of about 40 on the team's roster - not one of hundreds like on other sports. The AFL has very tight and strict recruiting systems. I'm sure I could find some RS in a few daysThe-Pope (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artists Against Success[edit]

Artists Against Success (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to show notability per WP:Corp guidelines. Was PROD for five days. No updates and no objections. USER:Oo7565 De-Prod and said to take to AfD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment prod was only on 2 days not 5 look at article history and because it a labor record company and seems to have produce some notabil artist have used them article should be at least have a afd discussionOo7565 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My bad, Prod was for 2 days. Guidelines per WP:Corp state: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. As this is a music label you can somewhat "reverse" and look at the artists and per WP:Music one of the notability guidlines for a musician sates: an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable. In this case MJ Hibbett seems to be somewhat notable for a novelty song, however he also owns the label and seems to be a weekend warrior when to comes to being a musician. The only other valid blue link that relates to this label is to the Plans & Apologies article. This would not qualify as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I was not arguing for a keep, I was saying the company is non-notable and they do not meet the criteria for WP:Corp and, if you bring it into music, they have, maybe, one semi-notable artist which also happens to own the label. The "book" you mention is an alphabetized listing of indy record labels by decades. That does not come close to meeting the definition of "Significant coverage" (sources address the subject directly in detail) or other guidlines in the WP:GNG. I am talking about the label - not the artists on the label. I find small mentions of the label in regards to "Artist B has a new single on the label" or listing of releases. And I want to stress again that MJ Hibbett owns this business, so a review of his music or an interview with him about his music will of course mention his business. This label does not meet notability criteria on its own, certainly not of an having "a roster of performers, many of which are notable", and if it were not for the Hibbetts own music there would be almost no articles "Independent of the subject" that mention this business. I think one has to, in this case, apply the same criteria you would for a musician what would be "notable". Articles where the musician talks about a release might only be good to verify there was a release, but not to how notable it was/is. In which case guideline number one of WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles says a musician may be considered notable if they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. The guidlines for WP:NALBUMS say for a release to be notable it "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As a business Artists Against Success does not meet any of those criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no outside reliable sources. fails WP:CORP Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a non-notable label, fials WP:Copr and WP:musicYobmod (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Field of view (image processing)[edit]

Field of view (image processing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a content fork of angle of view; different name for identical concept, but written from the POV of optical instumentation instead of more generic cameras. The author agreed to a merge, but then backed it out when I pressed him to work on integrating it better, in terms of style and content. To the extent that there is new content here, it remains welcome in angle of view, but not just by inserting this article. He needs to actually work on figuring out what here is new, and merge it in. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Surely this is a content/editorial issue, not a deletion issue? if merge is the right thing, then the contents aren't suitable for deletion? MadScot (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a merge issue; it was a new article, then it was merged, sort of, then forked again; I thought maybe letting the author know that the fork would be deleted would help encourage him to do the merge. But isn't content forking a typical reason for article deletion? Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergehese articles under one or the other name. A bit of research is needed to determine the most commonly used name. Each article starts by saying they are basically the same. No deletion of referenced material is required, since the subject, by either name, is notable. Edison (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The field of view name is taken for another use already (visual as opposed to camera oriented); the concept described in detail in this new article is totally in terms of angle, of a camera, and the angle of view article has long covered that concept, so there's no excuse for the new fork, and no reason to even consider a new name at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Talk:Angle_of_view#Merge_proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Field of view article covers photography too and so, if merger is appropriate, that's where all this should go. None of this justifies deletion of any article though. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can't see anything here not already covered by the other articles. However, if any of the content is salvagable, I'd rather have that done first. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but where? There is yet another POV fork at Field_of_view. Field of view (image processing) seems to differ from Angle_of_view only by the bibliography an the fact that calculations are done in pixels; Field_of_view has less math, and seems to be "biological camera" rather than "technological camera" perspective, but it's the same thing otherwise. VG ☎ 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually have some novel content in how to compute an angle of view from measurements of images of test equipment. But it's done in a cryptic and belabored way; I'm willing to help clean it up, if we can get the author to cooperate and start working on it; but taking it back out to a separate article was a step backwards; we need to delete that and work on stuff that's in the history now of angle of view. Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The little extra it has is not worth keeping the article around just to satisfy GFDL (see below). Someone can add that info to another article from scratch. VG ☎ 15:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a merge proposal which does not belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to contradict, but the discussion does belong here. The normal merge discussions have deadlocked (see above). This is a legitimate procedure to solicit a broader consensus for material that's 90% duplicate of another article, so outright deletion is a potential outcome. VG ☎ 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you wish to retain 10% or more of the article so deletion is contrary to our licence terms. RFC or a third opinion is where you should go to resolve your dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known fact that merges done with the current Wikimedia software violate GFDL when both articles have a non-empty history. Using this as argument against deletion is utterly silly if not trolling. VG ☎ 10:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand your point now. VG ☎ 15:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no arguments have been made that would warrant deletion over a redirect. Nominator has admitted to using AfD to make a WP:POINT to the article's primary editor. (This seems well-intentioned, but is perhaps misguided.) --Karnesky (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, you do support converting it back to a redirect; that's really all I wanted, not a literal delete. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of some delete support, it seems the consensus is that we work this out as a merge issue; so I've restored the merge contents and redirected to angle of view. I retract my delete proposal. Someone close this... Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 National Youth Festival, Napier[edit]

2009 National Youth Festival, Napier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced speculations. Exact details about this event were, as the article says, unknown. Even no details were given about the previous ones. Alexius08 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror Shows His Heels[edit]

Rocky Horror Shows His Heels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rumoured film. No reliable source for script ... it's from a "studio reader's notes", and those notes can only be found on the numerous Rocky Horror fansites. —Kww(talk) 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Despite trying to source this out, all it seems to be is fanfiction. It certainly does not have claim to even the most tenuous form of notability. Trusilver 04:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for now but allow return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now but allow return. The script never made production and is the bases for what eventualy became Shock Treatment. If more references can be found it may be notable enough for an article but right now there is no way know if this is a real script or something "Put together" over the years by well meaning fans. To much has been written on this subject for there not to be references and statements published in the nearly 30 years since this was written.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encinite[edit]

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

not notable; also violates WP:DICDEF -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-tron[edit]

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

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many things for which reliable references cannot be provided, one of which would be independant artists. The author of this article has done everything he or she can to cite references. Deleting this article could serve as grounds for deleting many articles that wikipedia needs to call itself a complete encyclopedia. -- 207.34.126.10 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Also concerns of original research given the sources cite a personal interview. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Being unable to find sources is a good definition of non-notable. Including non-notable artists is not part of wikipedia's aims: we don't include every person on the planet all because they have all drawn a picture before. Reliable sources have to show them to be notable, which this one doesn't. They also fail the more lax requirements of WP:Music.Yobmod (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Ralf of Bracebridge[edit]

Sir Ralf of Bracebridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete"Little is known about Sir Ralf" almost qualifies as enough said. Only reference is a self-published book about the authors genealogy. No evidence mentioned that would indicate notability. Borderline speedy candidate. Nothing found in ghits that looks useful, first 100 are google hits and genealogy sites. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Horrorshowj (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Horrorshowj (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I'm in agreement with Horrorshow. The article does not help itself by practically denying its own credibility, and indeed, that book, I don't see that as a reference for anything (just look at the product description on amazon). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If you strip out all the "probably", "maybe" and "likely" from the text there's not much left. Also, I'm at a loss as to how someone can be defined as the earliest known member of a family when their issue is listed as "Unknown". MadScot (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deelte, no source will be seen as made up stuff.--Freeway8 03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not quite sure what you mean. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much speculation, too few facts. Fails verifiability due to lack of reliable sources Edison (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a bit startling to have a definite year of birth with everything else unknown. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems a bit dubious, I'm not sure that the source listed is reliable enough for WP:V or WP:N. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Knighthood in the sense implied by this article did not exist in England in the era in question; the name seems too modern, and the lack of sources is highly suspicious. I conjecture that this is a hoax, written by someone whose familiarity with the history of the era is limited to the Lady Godiva legend. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Four books[45][46][47][48] which would appear to be reliable sources mention a Ralf of/de Bracebridge in the 13th century. The only references to "Sir Ralf of Bracebridge" in 975 appear to be self-published by the Kingsbury family.[49] McWomble (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's customary, when assessing genealogical claims in Britain, to be extremely skeptical of claims of lineage going back before 1066. in this case, that definitely applies. Where are these modern Bracebridges based? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Keep- the author appears to be a respected contributor of some note, having created a number of (apparently quite serious) articles, which have undergone independent editing (many on Chess). I am too unversed on the family to be sure of the facts, but if the premise is hoaxiness, I think more faith should be given to an apparently in good faith user. Can we refer it to some sort of sub-group of experts on this area? If they decide it's rubbish, then fineJJJ999 (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just plain wrong. There are no "Sirs" to be found in Anglo-Saxon England, and any book by an amateur genealogist claiming that there were is entirely untrustworthy, not that amateur genealogy is to be trusted at any time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the point JJJ. I don't believe we've claimed the editor who created the article is perpetrating a hoax or otherwise acting in bad faith. The author who wrote the self-published book upon which the article is based is the one with the credibility problems. Unless they are the same person,which would be a coi , then it's inaccurate to view this as besmirching the editor's integrity. The biggest issue is that a self-published genealogy book someone wrote about their own family is the only proof of any kind found for the subject's existence. There's no way to verify the meager assertion of notability in the article, due to vanity press pubs not being reliable sources. Factual errors strongly point to why the reference shouldn't be given any credibility though.Horrorshowj (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasons, but is anyone here an expert on this region? If this is in good faith, then maybe it should be refered to people who are experts on this sort of thing, to see if it can be salvaged. Not everything exists on google, and there doesn't seem to be any dispute about good faith. Sure, it may need mass changes because of the problems you cite, but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it, nor that the person may not necessarily be notable within the community (the article would simply need to mention that the history of this notable figure was dubious and exaggerated)JJJ999 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an amateur historian with an interest in royal and noble genealogy, and I've studied the era in moderate detail. I really don't think this person existed. If another, more reliable source can be found asserting both existence and notability, I'll change my vote. But saying that a person only attested in one, unreliable source might be notable despite not being backed by any WP:RS at all seems tenuous. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G12) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith talk 03:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirdosh Herbal Cigarettes[edit]

Nirdosh Herbal Cigarettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page may be blatant advertising FOR the product, or it may be invective AGAINST the product (clearly, the article has substantial issues!). In either case, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldominion[edit]

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

Non-notable hip hop crew, fails WP:MUSIC -- lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if deleted, redirect to Old Dominion as plausible typo 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: its no typo. "Oldominion" is the spelling of the group's name. I cannot speak toward WP:Music, but my search found stuff on them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Group has made no substantial contribution to hip-hop music and should therefore be deleted. Group has also not generated any significant media coverage (most sources trivial).

oldmic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.82.140 (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Searching fails to bring up any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has few references, does not explain why the subject is notable, and is mostly lists of information (WP:TRIVIA). Nat682 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - btw nothing from MySpace should be linked to from Wikipedia Nat682 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myspace is not notable--Freeway8 03:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Airlines[edit]

A lack of sources, plethora of red links and WP:N make a deletion debate feasible. --Sigma Epsilon Chi (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An airline with 11 large aircraft in operation for 12 years ought to pass notability. I added a ref to the NYTimes reporting the airline shutting down - if the NYTimes notices you go out of business, that probably says you were notable. The redlinks are because either the aricle's author misnamed the airports or the airport article has been renamed since this article was created. They'll be easy to fix. MadScot (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the airport links. Do a gnews search of all dates - I used southeast airlines -"atlantic -southeast" to remove hits for the regional airline 'Atlantic Southeast Airlines'. I get 10 pages of hits, a good number of which are not tangential. MadScot (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Southeast Airline is name of Airline, just like Jet-Blue.--Freeway8 03:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's nothing to merge it to, as far as I can tell. The airline wasn't taken over, it shut down. I'll note that there was also another Southeast Airlines before this one, there are accidents recorded in the 50s and 60s that I found while googling for this airline, which only started up in the 1990s. MadScot (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MadScot. JJL (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. there is definitely something here. In just a few minutes, I found enough sources to pass WP:CORP. The articles about the airline shutting down alone are enough to suggest notability. Trusilver 04:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over 1000 Google News hits.[50] Easily passes WP:CORP. McWomble (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ifqiren[edit]

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

National championship suggests notability, but no information about what the championship is in. No references. Could it be a hoax? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks like judo - I get ghits in Dutch which seem to include this person in various judo tournament reports. One text translates as "In the class were juniors all categories Ali Ifqiren 2nd behind Dutch champion Robert van der Wal and the seniors knew Maarten Majoor to occupy the second place." That sounds like it's a junior judo person, so even a national championship (which I haven't found sourcing for yet) might not cut it. I also note that another page seems to have been speedied [Martijn Oosterveld] which referred to the subject of the current article I believe. MadScot (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No contents, no notablity, just two sentence long. This defaults as delete.--Freeway8 03:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced BLP. MBisanz talk 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention on judoinside.com. Punkmorten (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Bolton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Michellecrisp (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources are about his death. Schuym1 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, this article is abut a person--Freeway8 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That in itself is no reason to have an article. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, but appears to be more prominent as an educator. Meets the basic requirement of WP:BIO -- the Guardian is a major newspaper, and gave him a full length obituary which describes him as a pioneer and a leader in the new circust movement. RayAYang (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep--RayAYang gives a pretty good reason. But the article needs a rewrite and a paring-down, esp. in the Works section. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unnotable people don't get obituaries in The Guardian. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is to many. Schuym1 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 in birding and ornithology[edit]

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

The article was created in 2005, but it still hasn't been completed. Schuym1 (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-beast[edit]

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

Article fails to meet policy: WP:N. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Yes I have. Do us all a favor and read all the text present. Not only that, but this afd should be closed, as the previous AfD was a delete, and this falls under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went back and read the first afd from over two years ago, which seemed to be a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT mixed with WP:NOEFFORT. I've never watched Beyblade, but don't find the article "incomprehensible" per the original nomination (though it needs further cleanup) - that implies to me that the article has, perhaps, been improved since then, I would hope that the article would not qualify for speedy. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't see any notability here either. There are a lot of words here but nothing to convince me that it matters. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I declined speedy as CSD G4 on this page. Were I to close this AfD now, the outcome would clearly be to consign this in-universe verbage to the bit bucket. Appears to be pure original research about a group of fictional creatures having no out-of-universe notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source?--Freeway8 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely in-universe, no outside notability whatever. RayAYang (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long list of extremely minor characters. Notability not even asserted, let alone supported by references. VG ☎ 09:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let the page stay. I have not seen any other site that gives full details on the Bit-beasts. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Drmies. What is this and why do we care? It's a brief description of some generic monsters, followed by a boring list of trivia characterizing a bunch of them. At least with lists for Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon, the editors are good enough to mention how a specific monster figures in the plot or something. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 17 October 2008 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rikers Island. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryker's Island[edit]

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

Since various users will not read what is availible, I hope they take time to read this: Whether a subject deserves an article or not is based upon WP:N, a policy this article fails to meet. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply That isn't my reason. I do not honestly see why this derveres an article, there isn't even a claim of notability. A merge might be possible to the parent, but otherwise, notability is not inherited.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing to Weak delete, now that a real reason for deletion has been posted. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Yes I did read it, thank you very much, and at the time you didn't mention anything about notability. What you did say, before you changed it (and I cut 'n paste for clarity), "I do not see why this place deserves it's own article", which is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Actually, that is not a clear cut case, yes, I was vague, but stating that I not see why it deserves an article could be interpreted as many things. At the time of writing this, my interpretation was that it did not meet WP's inclusion policy.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been useful if you'd actually said that. Even if you feel that it's clear why something is deletable, you should still make your reasoning clear when nominating. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I also don't see any reason for this article remaining. There is no notability, this stuff is fictional, and if it needs to exist, it needs to do so under the parent. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as purely in-universe with no outside notability. Might potentially be a transwiki candidate to [51] if anybody is so inclined. RayAYang (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rikers Island as a plausible misspelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to the real prison. `70.55.200.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

::*Reply -- I deleted this comment because it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. This article is about a fictional version of a prison in a comic-book universe. There is no article on a person to redirect to, therefore I removed the comment as vandalism.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the real prison. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and creat redirect per above. no notability for this fictional one outside it's fictional universe.Yobmod (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per WP:BEFORE, as plausible search term AND plausible misspelling. We don't need to discuss every single redirect at AFD. Neier (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - done by Scientizzle. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew curtis wade[edit]

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

There is an assertion of notability, Professional Baseball player and perrenial allstar, but I can't find any sources to back up the claims made. The article is a direct copy of a personal website and the only source that corroborates any of the information in the article. The article appears to be a hoax and should be deleted as such. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geo Cities is not notable--Freeway8 00:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G1 with WP:SNOW too. AngelOfSadness talk 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arguers[edit]

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

A nonsense show created by a pair of children. See WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:MADEUP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict!) Delete something made up by schoolkids using "imaginary cameras" - not notable or verifiable. Somno (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely uncource. Eliminate.--Freeway8 00:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not eligible for speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--and I agree with Bsimmons. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- goodness, we don't have a speedy criterion for this? RayAYang (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute stupidity. JuJube (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here's a new word, kids: bollocks!. MuZemike (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense, recommend CSD as patent nonsense Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imaginary delete for being a figment of an overactive imagination. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd tag this as a nonsence but I figure there are enough delete !votes here. WP:SNOW this thing. Poof! Obliterate! --Pmedema (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 09:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thugstep[edit]

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

A non-notable musical subgenre. Google turns up a load of "dj nappy" and Urban Dictionary references, but nothing reliable. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that Thugstep is very noticeable genre, and google gives many hits on thugstep and nintendub. I think the page about thugstep should not be removed. And nintendub was noticed in FactMagazine.
  • From myspace-then delete.--Freeway8 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources to suggest that it's notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing has changed since the previous AFD - see my arguments there. Wickethewok (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still no reliable sources for the sub-genre. SkierRMH (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still no sub-genre for the reliable sources. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing has changed since the last AfD except that this editor has become really disruptive with edit-warring at electronic music articles. --Kaini (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McDonnell[edit]

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

I've declined this as a speedy, purely because the comic in question may - just - be notable. However, I'm no expert, and the article needs a rewrite. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Raven challenges[edit]

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

and this is notable... how? The series may be, but I was unable to find anything which would suggest a notable aspect of the series is these challenges. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs[reply]

Challenges are the biggest part of Raven, it is a very notable aspect of the series! And how can we source it except by saying that we've seen the programme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.132.61 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thanks for letting me know on my talk page; I originally spun this article out from the main one on the show itself, as it was clogging up the main article body. The challenges as a whole are notable since they do actually make up most of the show, but you're probably right in the sense that a full and detailed list doesn't fall within Wikipedia's notability guidelines. SynergyBlades (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the article should stay. What's the harm in information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.132.61 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too much information. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is way too detailed and of limited interest. A brief summary of the challenges in the main article should suffice. Somno (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of relevance. 86.26.132.61, you'll have to come up with more than WP:ILIKEIT.
  • Delete Per above, and most of those images fail the NFCC...hard. Protonk (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

It's ridiculous that it's now been deleted!!! Why couldn't we just reduce the information rather than delete it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.129.225 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Just Shoot Me!. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Van Horn[edit]

Nina Van Horn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Hits on Gnews exist for the text string of the character name and show name, but a lot of them (I haven't searched every one) look like reviews of the show and mentions of who plays the character. The same story goes for Books. A lot of those books cover the actress and note this as a role of hers. We are looking for significant coverage of the character. But, sourcing exists for the show, so it might be possible that one of those covers the character in detail. I would rather that we not take 1-2 sources covering the show, add a bunch of editor interpreted citations to the TV show and make a pseudobiographical article, because those end up violating WP:NOT, WAF and OR anyways. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the episodes was a spoof biographical documentary on the fictional character Van Horn, some gnews hits on it - [53] , [54] , [55] give enough RS's by any measure.John Z (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Just Shoot Me! where the character has notability.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Van Horn is about the only iconic character in a notable TV series. Article needs more depth, development and references. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Just Shoot Me!. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Gallo[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Like Nina van Horn, sourcing exists, but mainly in the form of episode and show reviews that don't cover the character specifically or significantly. I will note that this character gets fewer hits than van Horn (though that may or may now mean anything). This is the closest we come to significant critical coverage in the books hits. Not sure if it is sufficient. So, the hits are out there. Someone may be able to find one and make a decent article, but there is an equal chance that each of those hits provide material that isn't helpful in making an article for the fictional character. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it's main character of this sitcom article should stay. imdb.com has many quotes of Maya Gallo - a few of them are quite beyond recognition. Andrew18 @ 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the quote section of imdb is user generated. It isn't any reliable tracker of the character's significance outside the show. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Merging and deleting isn't an option; anyone who feels that there's content here worth merging is free to merge it. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline WP:SYN. Should probably be merged with, and/or redirect to, Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Christian vegetarianism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per WP:SYNTH. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete via Red. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per Erik Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and comment. Please realize that a merge and delete can be in violation of the GFDL, which requires author information to be preserved. This can be solved by either merge and redirect or a page history merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Star Wars. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars trade routes[edit]

Star Wars trade routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced trivia/plot summary for minor window-dressing element in-universe, and totally non-notable from a real-world perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_17&oldid=1116879577"