Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 19

< October 18	October 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank Future 2[edit]

This ins't really a deletion request, but apparently it's under the wrong title and I'll move it to Ratchet & Clank Future 3. And while this is here, could someone please tell me if there is 'articles for moving' or something like that? Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per wrong AfD tag - article just needed a move. Taken care of and notified this editor. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Behrens-Benedict[edit]

Does not meet WP:NOTE. This page, for a former candidate, does not use references- the campaign page is a deadlink. Additionally, there is no text other than four sentences about not winning. DerRichter (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement and sourcing. There is a lot of coverage even for an "also-ran" in reliable sources that pass WP:N: Google Search, Google News. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a reason for how this passes notability? I have read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People and WP:POLITICIAN, and neither gives a reason for why Heidi Behrens-Benedict should be notable just because she ran for office. Please read these before responding. According to your google searches, she is an interior designer, so I'm not understanding why else she should be notable. --DerRichter (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --DerRichter (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local political candidate. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another political candidate who lost four different elections, but not in any kind of notable fashion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major party nominees for Congress are per se notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is certainly more notable than Duff Beer. -75.171.190.1 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 75.171.190.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete unsuccessful candidates do not meet WP:BIO for politicians. Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If so, that rule needs to change, at least as to major candidates for President and Congress. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this, because according to the links I provided earlier (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People and WP:POLITICIAN), Heidi Behrens-Benedict is not inherently notable. Read the part that says: Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability. She has not held any office or done anything notable outside of political candidacy. I'm not sure from which Wikipedia policy you are getting your arguments. --DerRichter (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how I can say this more clearly. I reject that policy statement, stated as baldly as that. I do very much agree that not every candidate for a national legislature is notable, especially minor party and write-in candidates. But major party ~~candidates~~ nominees are surely notable, and the policy should be amended to reflect this. Kestenbaum (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current practice certainly seems to be that major party candidates for national offices (like Congress) are notable. RayAYang (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while I do not mean to offend, is this "seeming" just a feeling you have, or is there a basis for your statement? In other words, can you show instead of just telling? Thanks. --SeinHenker (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Please see the recently closed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerry_Connolly, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monty_Lankford, for the most recent examples. My understanding is that this is a relatively recent shift, and people are certainly free to disagree. But I think Wikipedia is not paper, and major party candidates should have articles. RayAYang (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable politician. Simply being a candidate does not grant notability. TN‑X-Man 13:33, 23 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 characters in The Simpsons. Very light smerge seeing as the vast amount of content is already in the main character list. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Springfield Elementary School students[edit]

There is already a List of characters in The Simpsons page, this list is unorganized and unnecessary. There does not need to be a list of every possible grouping of Simpsons characters. It is also unreferenced. Crahan335 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Characters covered in other pages. --SeinHenker (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of characters in The Simpsons where such information is expected to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district, per policy. Just kidding. Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just rearranging the information of the List of characters doesn't make a new article. Why not merge? Because all the important information is already in the List of character. If something is missing, I couln't perform a full check, it would be a very minor character with no notability. Why not redirect? Because the name is misleading. When I look here for the first time, I though that the nominator misplaced this article in fiction. We are dealing with fiction here and this name doesn't make it clear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say keep but I doubt anyone else will, so Merge to Springfield Elementary School or List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, these articles have the same characters, but with the extra information this page currently provides. Rhino131 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding a little, I'd say merge Database, Dolph, Janey Powell, Jimbo Jones. Kearney Zzyzwicz, Lewis, Richard, Sherri and Terri, Üter Zörker and Wendell Borton into the recurring list. The rest are just one-timers or very minor characters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to the larger list. There are a few recurring characters in the Springfield Elementary list, like Nelson's weasels, who aren't mentioned in the other. Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful stuff into List of recurring characters from The Simpsons or Springfield Elementary School. List of characters in The Simpsons is a different type of list, so merging it there makes no sense. Gran² 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Especially considering the existence of List of characters in The Simpsons, this page is rather extraneous Firebat08 (talk) 03:30, 23 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. TN‑X-Man 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millard Powers Fillmore[edit]

Is this person important in his own rights?? I'm sure John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush are, but I don't think this person is. Georgia guy (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unrefereced. Possibly made-up. --SeinHenker (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He's definitely not made up and lack of references does not mean references do not exist. He got an obituary from the New York Times [1], if admittedly a brief one. He's also discussed at Google Books [2]. Edward321 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep also. His role in the destruction of his father's papers indicate his notability isn't purely as a president's son, but also (in part) through his own actions and their impact on history. MadScot (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321 and MadScot. Per the book cited, he was one of "America's Royalty" :-).John Z (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he became notable by his own actions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep yes a stub, but a keeper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did some referencing. Seems notable. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close early WP:SNOW is falling. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his father (assuming WP:V). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but barely. I haven't read the book cited and it seems none of the notable things about the guy are in the entry. Can someone with access to it add something to prove he passes notability? All the entry says is that he was born, lived a dull life, and died.--otherlleft (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done I added a couple of sentences summarising the important elements of the Quinn reference. MadScot (talk) 02:26, 23 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 and Redirect to List of Queer as Folk characters. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David Cameron[edit]

Minor fictional character. Article lacks real world information and references. Fails notability for fiction. All useful information (actor's name, character's name, short description) is already in Queer as Folk (North American TV series) in the "Cast" section. Prod was contested. I am also nominating the following related pages:

Magioladitis (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Deletion. Postdlf (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Queer as Folk characters or something similar. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and set Redirect to Queer as Folk. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cast" section in Queer as Folk (North American TV series) has 5 lines with descriptions for every single of these characters. Do you think we need something more? The rest that is contained in these articles are plot summary and don't add anything in character's profile. I don't understand what more can have a separate article. According to WP:WAF spin-off articles must very rarely be created. "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles." Right now we don't have a WP:SIZE problem with the main article and the Cast section is well established. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are characters with no real world impact and the useful information already exists in wikipedia. -- nips (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although I don't see it as a huge deal. I created one of these pages (Carl Horvath) a few months ago because the other secondary characters in the template had pages, but Carl's name was a red link, and I've got the shows on DVD. I did put some effort into trying to summarize the character and his interactions within the show, although I didn't add any references. This was one of my few wikipedia forays into anything besides music, so I don't really know what's typical in a situation such as this. A "List of secondary characters on QAF"-type page would seem to be sufficient. But if they all get deleted, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and discuss how much of it to merge on t he approrpiate talk pages. DGG (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the appropriate page? Because I am afraid that if we are not specific a merge could not be performed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:58, 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. The issues raised by the nomination were adequately rebutted by the subsequent discussion and improvements to the article. Merge discussions may continue on the appropriate talk pages. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRK[edit]

Is there a standard for the notability of op codes in various processors? This borders on how-to, is not encyclopedic, and is not of any notability. It's unreferenced, too. Mikeblas (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The standard I'm aware of is WP:NOT a manual. WillOakland (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this instruction was considered notable because of the bug mentioned in the last paragraph. But I don't see much evidence of coverage for this bug. Processor errata are common this days, so we can hold them to WP:GNG. VG ☎ 07:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MOS Technology 6502 which looks like it has most of the stuff about brk, including the bug, but not all. btw, 13400 ghits for "brk 6502" and 6560 ghits for "brk 6502 bug". cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The section you intend to target with the merge in the 6502 article probably should be removed, as well. It's completely unreferenced negative material about a product, and POV as well ("dubious"). -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - i didnt read it that way, to me it just looks like its describing a bug in the chip and how its been exploited, seems fine to me. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:17, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that deletion is the answer. However, merger isn't the answer, either. The BRK instruction exists in the MOS Technology 6502, the WDC 65C02, and the WDC 65816/65802, and is largely identical in each. Merging to three articles is unfeasible, and placing a complete discussion of BRK in MOS Technology 6502 would too great a level of detail compared to the rest of the article. As demonstrated by the expansion that I already did, there is verifiable information to be had on this subject. There's more yet, that isn't in the article. (For examples: The differences in the BRK vector on the WDC 65816. The reason that BRK acts like a 2-byte instruction even though the opcode is only 1 byte.) I think that the real problem here is the whole "Dubious features" section of MOS Technology 6502. The BRK instruction isn't a "dubious feature". It's a normal software interrupt. There's actually a fair amount of verifiable information to be had on the interrupt handling of the 6502 and its successors. ISBN 0750618396 devotes two pages to software and hardware interrupts. I think that probably a summary section in MOS Technology 6502 on interrupt handling, with a breakout sub-article at Interrupts in 65xx processors will eventually be the answer, with this article being renamed to that title. In the meantime, we can keep this article and await the expansion and refactoring that is there to be had, from any editor who is willing to do the work. Uncle G (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, none of the above addresses the WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, and verifiability ≠ notability. I don't see notability here outside the errata issue. All 6502 instructions are mentioned in the technical manuals given as reference. Should Wikipedia have an article for every instruction of every CPU? I think not. VG ☎ 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an intriguing question - if not, why not? Incidentally I'll toss in a keep as the argument above has convinced me that nondeletion will give the better eventual result. --Kiz o r 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that we can document the interrupt handling of the 65xx family of processors without going into instructional text or tutorial territory. There are a fair number of books on the subject of these processors, that discuss their software and hardware interrupt handling, that can be used as sources. One can say that these processors have various interrupt sources and what they are, and describe how the processors respond to these various interrupts, how software and hardware interrupts are distinguishable, and the various foibles of the processors, without going into the "Let's now add this to our example program and see how it works!" territory of an instructional text or a tutorial. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current article leads with section:

“

In 6502 assembly language programming, BRK is an opcode that causes a software interrupt or trap. The generalized actions of BRK are as follows:

The B bit in the processor status register is set to indicate that a BRK instruction is being processed.
The program counter is incremented by two and then pushed on to the stack, most significant byte first.
The status register is pushed on to the stack.
Maskable interrupts (IRQ) are disabled by setting the I bit in the status register.
The program counter is loaded with the address stored in memory address 0xFFFE (LSB) and 0xFFFF (MSB—the 6502 is little endian), and execution is continued at that point.

”

which is eminently textbook stuff (technical documentation in this case). VG ☎ 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Please go and familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is actually addressing. There is nothing either instructional or tutorial about that text. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per incisive comments by Uncle G. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, while I agree we are not a technical manual or a how to manual I believe this goes a few steps beyond that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topics that Uncle G suggest covering end up meaning an article about interrupt handling should be written, not an article specific to the 6502 family BRK instruction. It's remarkable that there's articles for each variation of the 6502 processor; I will tag tag them for merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article can be developed into such an article, using normal editing tools. An administrator hitting a delete button will form no part of the process. Indeed, apart from the renaming, even editors without accounts have all of the tools to develop this article in that direction. Some of the content already exists in this one already. Deleting it sets the process back. It does not advance it. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daikatana (sword)[edit]

This article is about the use of the term "daikatana", not about any particular kind of sword, fictional or otherwise. Besides being entirely original research, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and though Wiktionary is, I think it would probably get deleted from there too if it was transwikied. Hence just delete. Ptcamn (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete At first glance, I was considering voting "keep" because I thought it could well be a notable fictional sword or popular culture item of some sort (this FPS for one), and that the article just needed to be edited significantly to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Now that I really thoroughly studied it, it's just a definition for Japanese big sword and a few trivial facts to go along with, with no apparent room for improvement. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so therefore I'm leaning delete. One thing I should note, while the article lacks sources, I doubt any of it is actually original research, just a bunch of likely facts that the editors who wrote forgot to provide references for. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The term is used in several unrelated but popular video games (as indicated in the article). What are you claiming is the original research here? The fact that it's pseudo-Japanese? It's use in video games to mean big sword? Both of these statements seem rather uncontroversial. Also, this article isn't just a dictdef since it goes beyond the meaning of the word. VG ☎ 02:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of sources that describes the fictional sword. Google books and google scholar hits are mostly concerned about the game. There is a passing mention in this novel though. Google hits describe the FPS game, wiki mirrors, or "daikatana" that are obtained from a game and how good they are in-game. I cannot find serious reviews. At best, this could be a Weak Redirect to Daikatana since it seems to be an important plot device.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daitō (long sword), to which the Daikatana hatnote should also point. It's a valid thing to point out that this term isn't used appropriately in American game usage, and also to give some information about what a "Daikatana" really is in Japanese. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a merge discussion on the talk page referring to Daito (long sword), Odachi, Nodachi, and Uchigatana. It's a sword that appears in several videogames and is apparently also a D&D item. It looks like an okay article in Category:Japanese swords. It doesn't look like a dicdef to me. --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as Daikatana (disambiguation) and point to the three sword types, and the game. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It in practice serves to give someone who has come across the term the information that is probably wanted. Its intermediate betweena disam p.and an article, but I do not see what is wrong with that. DGG (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm okay with a dab page but definitely this will not survive as an article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase a famous line: "We can rebuild it, we have the technology." JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:11, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:33, 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. Regardless of tone, the lack of reliable sources is fatal. Systemic bias is always a danger we need to worry about, but the TV show doesn't appear to be especially noteworthy (nor, indeed, the network that broadcasts it) even in its broadcast country. Coren 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mega Model Nepal[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, and this article consists of nothing more than such a list, concerning a non-notable show Mayalld (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a nationally broadcast TV show, that I'm sure had as much of an impact in Nepal as the US version had in America, more systemic bias. RMHED (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accusations of systematic bias are easy to fling (and seem to be used as a get-out-of-jail-free-card to keep articles like this that would be deleted without a second thought if they related to a UK or US show, but look at the facts;

No reliable sources.
Well over 90% of the article is no more that an indiscriminate collection of facts rather than any content that describes the show.
All GHITS are youtube, or blogs.
It is not broadcast on terrestrial TV, and there is zero evidence that this is a mass-viewing channel

Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Tone of the article is not an encyclopedic one. Majorly it contains profile of not so notable people . Nothing proves that this show has mass viewing. Apart from this, this article says that the winner gets 75000 NRS. According to XE.Com, at the time of my editing, the value of that amount is 968 American dollars. This clearly suggests that this one stands no where if compared to US or UK version of the same. Hitro 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't put too much weight on the prize money as the cost of living can be wildly different across various countries. In Shanghai, I was able to dine at a fine Japanese restaurant for two people paying the equivalent of $40 Canadian, and I know an equivalent meal in at a Canadian Japanese fine dining restaurant would have run me at least $160 for the same meal. The TV show does appear to be through broadcast through Image Channel. There is a severe lack of coverage about the show so I cannot support a keep, but do worry about systemic bias. -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you on money factor. The cost of living may vary around the globe. This article may survive this AfD only under the shield of Systemic Bias. Else it contains nothing which should be a part of an encyclopedia. Please note this article has Sourceless claims, irrelevant informations(like age, hometown, height etc. of the girls) and promotional ingredients(like cybersanar.com is best modelling agency in Nepal). According to the article, the presenter of the show is Vivek Singh, it redirects to some shooter of Indian origin. How could a shooter be a modelling show presenter. Hitro 05:36, 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--if a source or two are added as verification, and if that entire list is scrapped, then we have something keepable, so to speak. (That Singh-link, that's gotta be an error.) Drmies (talk) 22:38, 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. (non-admin closure)Nrswanson (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kantor[edit]

This is someone who has aparrently been involved with several successful companies, but nothing indicates that there is individual notability - WP:BIO has not been met. Ros0709 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably Speedy procedural close, and please be more careful to review articles and sources, and understand notability policy, before making speedy and AfD nominations. This article was speedy nominated twice, and AfD within 1 hour of creation. The claim of notability is clearly stated in the opening of the lead: he "helped shape the modern loudspeaker industry." I don't know if that is fully supported by the sources because I just found the article and was actively working on it. However, despite the messiness and quite possible COI of a SPA creating this as a first article, there is significant substance to the piece, and plenty of sourcing to significant mentions in major reliable sources within the industry, so that there is no question about meeting WP:BIO - Stereo, Soundstage, Wired Magazine. I spot checked a few of these sources and they check out that he's a respected audio engineer and co-founder of a notable audio company.Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was, and to some extent still is, that whilst he was clearly involved in some notable companies, the article may be attributing more to the individual than is justified. I have further found a number of interviews with him, so he's clearly a noted expert in the field and for that reason now think that WP:BIO has been met, but care is needed in thoroughly reviewing the claims in the article. That aside, I believe I do well understand notability policy; your opening sentence is dangerously close to WP:NPA. I should add that when two editors feel an article is worth tagging for speedy deletion for different reasons, there is possibly some substance to the assertions. It was 'disappointing' that they got removed with the dismissals "rm silly tag" and "nope - obviously not" - and it was largely due to these that I thought it worth taking the article to AfD for a more considered opinion. Ros0709 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two speedy tags were obviously inappropriate - calling it "blatant advertising" or "no assertion of notability" is so far off the mark that a bit of policy review is in order. The substance is that it's a poorly written and sourced article. Aggressively tagging new articles in that way has become a problem here so, again, please do be more careful.Wikidemon (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this continues to be edited. I'll believe the proof of the guy's notability, but the article still reads like a promotional piece (I'd take care of that, but Wikidemon has put in some work already). Moreover, I note that there isn't a specific thing mentioned that he actually DID--what are these 'innovative products and technologies'? There's a ton of fluff in this article, and without some actual technological goods, it shouldn't be more than two sentences long. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More evidence of notability is available from Google News [3] and Google Books [4]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources support notability. I'd also like to add that per WP:AFD, there are actions that would have been more appropriate before taking this to a deletion discussion, especially given that the article was less than an hour old. If notability is in doubt, then there is the {{notability}} tag that can be used. In this case, given the subjects involvement in multiple successful companies and some exeternal links provided for doiing research, AFD does not seem like the best next step. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 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. Uh, no. Option given to salt if recreated seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Veilleux[edit]

Recreated after speedy deletion, this incarnation mentions a prize so is possibly not a speedy candidate. Still no indication that WP:BIO is met. Ros0709 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No clear assertion of notability and no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly. Plenty of reason above. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This web page calls the CRM-SSC prize one "of the eight major national prizes in the mathematical sciences" in Canada. That may be enough to pass WP:PROF #2, I'm not sure, despite it being for a relatively junior researcher. It's more than a student award, anyway. But in some other AfD's it's been questioned whether the Aisenstadt prize, another of those eight and also for a more junior researcher, is enough to satisfy the criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not even sure that this article is not a hoax. MathSciNet does not list any papers authored by the subject, and similarly there is nothing in GoogleScholar[5]. We can debate the level of prestige of CRMS-SSC prize some other time, but the claim to have won that prize does not check out: the official webpage[6] with the list of the prize's recepients does not contain the subject's name. Delete as failing both WP:V and WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, delete. That was the only reason I was holding out on giving an opinion. I suppose there's an outside chance Veilleux received the prize before the 1999 date of the first listed recipient, but there's nothing in Google either. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 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. Coren 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Derek Deakins[edit]

No sources found. Only assertation of notability is that he has played for other artists, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copied from talk page: "I think side man musicians are important in documenting any kind of music. Derek has played with two well-known groups in country music. I think there need to be more articles on sidemen because they are the ones that make the big stars sound good and nobody ever knows who they are unless you can read about them somewhere." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:07, 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix article and restart AFD Something has messed up the article so the references are hidden, but, they're there - edit it and you see them. I wasn't able to fix it, maybe an admin must do it. Till then anyone who claims it is unreferenced should be disregarded, since, the references are present but not showing up properly. Felisse (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I think the ref tags have been screwed up actually. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 19 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 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree with the nominator. Tone and most of the content already aren't appropriate, but there is also a lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life on the Arabian Peninsula[edit]

An unreferenced essay of loosely connected points. Each individual section is a subject in its own right; this article is redundant. Ros0709 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A well-intentioned but unnecessary essay, offering problems with WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--though I wonder how much O there is in that OR. Looks like a book report. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete homework essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an essay. --Banime (talk) 23:22, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Krum[edit]

Just trying to be consistent in the lead-up to the election. I don't think that being a party president (as opposed to leader) gets her past WP:POLITICIAN. dramatic (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she was leader of Labour or National, or had a particularly high profile, I would disagree. In the case of minor parties, I think a list of presidents on the party page would be more appropriate. Delete. --Helenalex (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User Page She doesn't appear to be notable for anything else other than this one event. If she is successful in the upcoming elections, then move it back. Otherwise, delete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Party Leader, and her page gets red of a Red Link, which is why I wrote it Hugo999 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the principal editors in the field of NZ politics you should be well aware of the difference between president and leader (Peter Dunne in this case) of a party. With the possible exception of National and Labour, the president tends to be fairly low profile and do little of note (barring scandals). Similarly, I decided not to contest the deletion of Catherine Delahunty given that her position in the Green party (co-convenor) was the equivalent of a president, not a leader. dramatic (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, and could not find evidence of general notability.

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

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

The result was For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep Ah well.. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers[edit]

The introductory material of this article is actually very interesting, and should be moved to the bow tie main article. The list, however, is arbitrary, contains some original research, a ludicrous idea and I can't see any situation where it would be of use to anyone.

Such facts as the point that an Illinois Senator who died in 2003 wore a bow-tie in his official portrait, is of no practical value to anyone. I suggest that this article is an indiscriminate collection of un-necessary information; that which is germane to an encyclopedia should be incorporated into the main article - it has no place here anyway - and the pile of particularly uninteresting trivia should be deleted. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the topic is light-hearted, and there may be a few entries that are essentially original research, but the list is well-sourced and the phenomenon documented by the list is notable. For the vast majority of the entries on this list are notable men (and fictional characters) whose habit of wearing bow ties has been widely remarked upon (for example, for many of the real people who have died, bow-tie-wearing is mentioned in the first sentence of the obituary).
For that Illinois Senator you mention, you are referring to an image caption in the article, not his list entry. The caption merely describes the image and the photo is not the sole basis for listing him in the article. The article cites two sources discussing his bow-tie wearing (I have no doubt that more could be found), and the introduction to the article contains a quotation that mentions him, saying "Former Sen. Paul Simon is a habitual bow tie wearer, though, oddly, he seems never to have learned to tie them properly, for the right side of his ties never quite make it to full bow form."
This list gets many additions and I cannot guarantee that all have been checked for sourcing. If you have concerns about some of the entries, please remove or flag them for sources (as appropriate), but please don't delete the list article because it has few less-than-perfect entries. --Orlady (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is an excellent article. Very well researched with useful, encyclopedic information. It's a lot more than just a "list". If you think it should be part of the main article, then put up some merge tags. But I don't think that will pass anyway, for the reasons asserted in the previous 2 AfD nominations of this article ... it's simply too big and developed of an article to be part of a larger one! And since when is "interesting" a prerequisite for inclusion in wikipedia??? There's a separate article for each one of the elements on the periodic table. With all due respect, I don't find any one of those to be interesting at all, but I'd never argue that they don't belong on wikipedia. Shirulashem (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might not find the elements interesting, but most scientists do, and that's millions upon millions of people :-O I cannot think of the sort of person who would find this article interesting. And while "interesting" may not be a written preqrequsite for being on here, why would we hold articles nobody would ever read, what is the point? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article gets about 100 hits per day which is comparable with the traffic for element-related lists such as List of elements by boiling point. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT which makes no coherent case against this fine article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You may not be able to think of the sort of person who would find this article interesting, but so far several have disagreed. I don't have to think of the sort of person who finds this article uninteresting; they keep showing up, trying to delete it, rather than just ignoring it. htom (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - An excellent example of how list and 'popular culture' articles should be written! The criteria are kept narrow, by excluding the item's peak of fashionability in the 19th century; the relevance of the defining trait is explained; almost every item in the list is backed by a source; and the contents of the list are not indiscriminate. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cultural text to Bow tie and 86 the list. Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated people. There is no indiction that anyone on this list wears a bow tie because anyone else on the list did, thus there is absolutely no encyclopedic relationship between these people on the trivial basis of neckwear preference. While some may find the article interesting, it's interesting is not a particularly strong argument. All sorts of interesting things get deleted every day because they fail policy or guideline and this fails WP:NOT. What is the encyclopedic relationship between, for example, Walter Gropius, Pee Wee Herman and Lurch? If all they have in common is that they wear bow ties then that demonstrates the non-existence of an encyclopedic relationship. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written that there must be a "causal" relationship between list elements for the list to be notable? If causal connections were needed, then Wikipedia would have to get rid of almost all lists. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people ) of people ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people ); this list of people they've categorized there as "circumstances", to wit, wearing bow ties. htom (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the criteria for stand-alone lists, the relevant section of what Wikipedia is not, examining the discussion in AFDs passim, and, most importantly, reading through the article itself, I'm inclined to take the position that wearing a bow tie post-19th century is a significant aspect of some individuals' dress sense, and that this article is, therefore, not an indiscriminate list of information. Any concerns over original research can be addressed in the usual way – via discussion and editing – and should not take forever, as this is, after all, a relatively well sourced and well written article. The deletion process is not required to remove original research. Lu Ta 07:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is an indiscriminate list and in my opinion runs afoul of WP:FIVE pillars. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:44, 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 redirect to Computational gene. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart gene[edit]

No sources exist to verify the existence of the term Narayanese (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google "smart gene" returns "intelligence-boost gene in mice (or another animals)" scientific articles. It is not the definition presented in this article (about genetic teraphy or disease treatment). Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This feels like it should be merged somewhere, but exactly where is escaping me at the moment. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for expert review. I believe that this definition may in fact be correct, although my knowledge in the area is next to nil. However, look at these science articles [7] and [8]. I think that what this article is refering to is a gene therapy technique known as SMaRT (spliceosome-mediated RNA trans-splicing). A possible name change might be in order but the content looks like it is in keeping with these articles.Nrswanson (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I quite sure it doesn't refer to that technique, given that the article doesn't say a word about introns, and SMaRT has nothing to do with DNA computing. And I can't see how eternal tagging is a solution. Narayanese (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or repurpose for the common meaning, which is the one found in Google by Kitsune. DGG (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Computational gene. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Leisure Group[edit]

Contested speedy deletion of a blatant spam article. CSD tags removed by a new IP address that comes from ... Malta! Article is also copyvio from the company's website [9]. Deadly∀ssassin 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with the nominator. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, an obvious bit of promotion. --Lockley (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:N - DustyRain (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:37, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making Commitments Matter[edit]

Procedural AfD - contested PROD removed by serial deprodder, no notability currently asserted by article. Black Kite 19:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since this is pretty blatant advertising, with no notability attached to it whatsoever, but with some COI issues. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising. However, the subject may be notable in itself if independent verifiable sources can be found and the article is written a neutral encyclopedic manner. I say delete it for now and it can always be recreated later if someone wants to write it properly.Nrswanson (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original prod should have been left alone. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Nrswanson. Could be re-written later if reliable third party sources are provided. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:14, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Borders[edit]

Appears to be a very minor local pressure group of no real notability. A few news sources, but nothing that isn't minor local news. The quote "The rally, organized by a group known as Standing on Secure Borders, or SOS Borders, drew about 35 people Saturday..." is quite telling. Contested prod by a serial deprodder who gets some right, but I think, has got this one wrong. Black Kite 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They seem to have made a media splash when the group started in 2006 but have gotten zero press coverage since. Definitely a minor organization of no real notability.Nrswanson (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The primary source link doesn't work anymore. We can't rely on secondary sources as such. davumaya 18:41, 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. Routine closure; NFF is pretty clear on this issue. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thetan[edit]

The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen a lot of projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so this is the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline.

It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike.

This article has had no fresh information of note since its last AfD, and the star attached to the project has denied his involvement; frankly, this story smells like tabloid rumour-mongering, and a year after its last AfD, only a cursory application of common sense is required to see that this is not going to happen. There isn't even an IMDb page for it. And should there be even a grain of truth here, in accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 19:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve ^{T • C} 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete because this article is a crystal ball; the film is not "notable and almost certain to take place" because there is no film at all and never has been. There is no lasting topic, merely a spout of rumors that circulated a couple of winters ago. It's more like a news report. If necessary, The Thetan can be mentioned at Tom Cruise if it isn't already, using this article's sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, blatant crystal-ballery. The only reason I didn't put it up with that rationale was because of its keep the last time around, when the argument against pretty much was WP:CRYSTAL. Steve ^{T • C} 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was little of substance to the original celebrity gossip story when it was passed around from paper to paper in a slow news period, and it hasn't aged well. Park it with the story on Tom Cruise's alien defense bunker. AndroidCat (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scientology charges good money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) to tell you about Thetans. There's no way they'd give it out for the price of a movie ticket. Hoax. - Richfife (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, or merge to Tom Cruise. A google news search does not any new sources, which would tend to indicate that he film is on some sort of "hold", though I do find references to a Tom Cruise Scientology recruiting video from 2007 called "I am the Way, the Thetan, the Light". If a film called "The Thetan" is made, then bring the article back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no film; this is simply an old tabloid rumour which is well past its sell by date. Verifiability of the rumour may not be a problem, but we shouldn't be in the buisness of documenting any old rubbish. Even at best this fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this speculation. Bring it back if shooting begins. Cliff smith ^talk 01:22, 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 Redirect somewhere. The consensus seems to be that it should point to List of characters in the Mega Man Battle Network series, but I did not see the character in that article. Since I found him in NetNavi, I have pointed the redirect there. Through the normal editing process, editors certainly may conclude that a different redirect is desireable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bass.EXE[edit]

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) 14:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations; seems to violate WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Mega Man Battle Network series per WP is not a publisher of original thought. Plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 16:49, 15 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, So Why 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NB and WP:NOR. Also made up of WP:OR cf38^talk 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MuZemike, without preference for the fate of the page's history. Nifboy (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed above. As a separate article, this is an excellent example of detail not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I don't think anyone could realistically argue for keep, so I would have just proposed a redirect in the first place. I see nobody ever tried to do it that way. DGG (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly more notable than Duff Beer. --75.171.190.1 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)— 75.171.190.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, it isn't. Duff kicks butt, and along with Fudd Beer, is more notable! Why? Because I said so! MuZemike (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Bass.EXE is a fictional character that spans a variety of media — videogames, anime, and manga. Since Bass.EXE 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) 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling the nominator a child is not helpful. You can debate the nomination's merits with resorting to ad hominem. Characters can have notability independent of the series. For example, Darth Vader only exists in the fictional Star Wars universe, but has significant cultural impact and is a notable figure. Pagra shtak 12:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge due to no evidence of notability. If someone were to boldly do the same for some other entries in Category:Mega Man Battle Network characters, that would probably be in order. Pagra shtak 12:55, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMaz[edit]

No references or claims of notability aside from its upcoming demise that was to occur in the past. Tlesher (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, I believe it does not meet WP:NB; cf38^talk 17:20, 19 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, Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article for a supermarket that is, according to the article, now closed? Delete! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 11:51, 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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian_Zionism_in_the_United_Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

Subject is not notable; article is an original synthesis. Christian Zionism is not a significant political movement in the UK. The article cites no newspaper or other independent sources substantiating the idea that Christian Zionism is a notable movement in the UK. I would suggest that is because there are no such sources (the article does cite a piece by Ravender Singh Sembhy in a web magazine which raises the question of whether Christian Zionism could take off in the UK in the future, but concludes with a quote suggesting it will not). LeContexte (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It kind of reports on people who happen to have 3 qualifications: They are Christians, they live in the UK, and they have expressed some kind of sympathy or support for Israel. You might as well write an article on Jewish vegetarians in Ohio. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think Wikipedia should try to decide which political or religious movements are "significant". If they exists, have some distinctness,and sources, there should be an article. I think t his one meets t hose requirements, or comes sufficiently close. This is a much smaller group than the probably several million "UK Christian who support or sympathize with Israel" DGG (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup The article has sufficient sources for notability (no doubt that the Jerusalem Post is reliable), but it's quite a bad mess, relying in large part on primary and self-published sources. I think it's a potentially notable topic, but this isn't the way to write an article. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid article topic, but needs some improvement and wikification. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Historically, there was an enduring movement amongst UK Christians (including many important leaders such as Spurgeon, Shaftesbury, and Wilberforce) to support the the Jewish people both generally and in their desire for a homeland. This is undoubtedly a notable subject and IMO deserves an article of its own, being scarely mentioned elsewhere. Whilst this movement waned in the latter half of the 20th century, in recent years it has seen a small resurgence. The proposer of this AfD is correct in saying that UK Christian Zionism is not a significant political movement - it is primarily a religious movement at the moment and should be evaluated as such. The fact that a number of books have been written in recent years (eg by David Pawson (pro), Paul Wilkinson (pro) and Stephen Sizer (anti)) suggests that it is a notable phenomenon within the UK christian community. I do agree that the current article needs much work and I would also suggest that its scope is extended to cover the historical movement as well as recent developments. But we should improve, not delete, poor articles. Sidefall (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about changing my mind - agreed Christian Zionism was of historical significance from (approx) 1850s to 1920s. If it is a notable extant religious movement then I'd agree the article should be retained (it sounds like this is a subject you are far more knowledgeable about than I). What is clear is that the current rather scrappy original research and compendium of weakly related references should go. LeContexte (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the subject but do have an interest in it. I think it's fair to say that the past 25 years have seen a resurgence of UK Christian Zionism. Whilst the notability of this in isolation could be endlessly debated, when the historical context is also taken into consideration I would say that the modern movement definitely becomes notable. I agree with your cleanup suggestions. Sidefall (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep The subject is worthy of inclusion, but this article needs significant rewriting and some stronger references. I am erring on the side of Keep, albeit with great reluctance, with the hope that improvements will be forthcoming if the article remains here. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve though needs a lot of work. Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom (referred to as 'Classical Christian Zionist' by its main promoter today, David Pawson) is far different to U.S. Christian Zionism (Dispensationalist Christian Zionism) and deserves its own article, from its history to its modern day manifestation. AWT (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your conclusions but would humbly take issue with some claims you've mentioned. Is David Pawson the main promoter of UK Christian Zionism today? Is US Christian Zionism dispensationalist? Some certainly is, but not all. Sidefall (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - As LeContexte observes, this movement was significant in the UK for at least 70 years. The fact that (although extant) it is less significant now should not harm its notability - a religious or political movement that's properly documented in reliable sources should be notable whether it was this century, last century, last millennium or whenever. Currency is not a guarantee of notability, nor is obsolescence any indication of non-notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Sourcing disputes the nom's assertion of non-notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am not totally familiar with the subject, but the article has adequate references. David Pawson is a notable evangelical (and a baptist minister), who has long studied the prophetic scriptures. I regard the fact that he is apparently expounding a view makes it worth having an article on it. I agree that the article may need more work, but that is a reason for tagging it for improvement, not one for deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It's certainly more notable than Duff Beer. -75.171.190.1 (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)— 75.171.190.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters#1983. (there is already a brief description there, and nothing here is sourced) Black Kite 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faker (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge based on the article, sufficiently important to be included somewhere, As usual, the nom does not indicate any objection to doing either. Individual characters do not need notability to be included as content in a combination article--thats what combination articles are for. DGG (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list of characters article. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merging would require the content in the article to be cited. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 24 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 List of characters in the Mega Man X series. History deleted as nothing useful sourced to merge. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vile (Mega Man X)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mega Man X characters. JuJube (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the character is already mentioned in detail at List of characters in the Mega Man X series (not to mention that the entire character list is also in desperate need of cleanup/referencing). Otherwise, this is just original research and plot summary rehashing. MuZemike (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Mega Man X characters. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mega Man X characters as it is not notable on its own, but probably has enough trivial mentions in third party sources to be a viable search term on Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no citations to decent sources, so nothing mergeable. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 24 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. As ever, a discussion on merging and/or redirecting can be commenced on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Hazuki[edit]

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

Keep main character in a notable series of games. JuJube (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main protagonist. did the nom not read the first sentence even of the article, or does he seriously think that even main protagonists do not share in the notability of a fiction? Agreed, that for many minor fictions the two should be merged, but the nomination does not suggest that alternative. DGG (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't share notability. You can disagree with the main notability guideline all you want, but to reject it is just ridiculous. You can make an argument that sources are likely based on the main topic, but nothing more than that. This is just a repetition of the plot and other details in the main articles, so there is nothing to merge. TTN (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shenmue - TTN's logic is right - there's no demonstration of notability of the character on its own and the article presently is either duplicating the plot of the two games or WP:OR on his fighting style. Maybe there are sources, but that needs to be shown to keep this article -- and given the age and origin of the games, this I don't see happening. --MASEM 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Shenmue characters (although that list's right of existance is also a little stretched for a 2-game series). Plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT) and no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JuJube, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Two redundant plot summaries does not equal one article. Nifboy (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the character has been the subject of prank phone calls, which has received some coverage here, here, and here (understanding that those aren't the best sources out there, they do establish some real-world notability as opposed for fictional characters). MuZemike (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how those even come close to asserting notability, let alone establishing it. If they were covered in actual reliable sources because they caused some sort of controversy, that would be one thing. These are just the average video game blogs grabbing ever minor video game related piece they can find. TTN (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improving, not deleting. Last I checked the main character in a game released worldwide is notable. The article may not be the best, but I find the suggestion of deletion instead of a "simple" clean up and improvement laughable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was that? MuZemike (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; the bulk of the article is plot information that should be summarized in the game's articles. Only the lead sentence is of encyclopedic interest, which can be included in the "list of characters" article (or in the game's article; my preference.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Notable, but could just be included in main article. --Belinrahs (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as lacking significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N. There's some trivial coverage here, but that's not enough to pass WP:N. But good enough for a redirect, perhaps with a sentence or two. No prejudice against splitting this character out if there's enough reliable third-party coverage to support something non-trivial, that isn't just filled in with original research from primary sources. Randomran (talk) 02:01, 24 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 Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book). I haven't Merged, because nothing's sourced, so any sourced content could be moved across. Black Kite 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locke the Echidna[edit]

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

Delete Soniccruft. JuJube (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside it fictional world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into one of the Sonic character pages. The article got strongly blank-vandalised in early June 2008, which still hasn't been noticed and implies even a lack of in-universe significance/popularity. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Probably best combined with material for related characters, if only to deal with claims of lack of sourcing for notability. Parts of combination articles do not need to prove it. No argument given here against merge. No consideration of redirect. DGG (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No verifiable secondary sources present to establish notability (fiction). Will gladly change if such sources about the character (not the Sonic games) can be found. MuZemike (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of Sonic characters page. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into character list. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect into character list, since it's not really notable enough for its own article because it's lacking significant coverage in reliable third party sources. But redirecting seems like a decent compromise in the interim. No prejudice against splitting once someone properly sources this material. Randomran (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't merge because there are no sources. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 24 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 Logan's Run (1976 film). History not retained as nothing sourced to merge. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak merge the "How Box came to be" section into Logan's Run (1976 film) (it's unfortunately unsourced, hence the "weak"). No point of an article for a one-time character. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at least redirect. Perhaps the section in the film article on him could be expanded by a line or two--the same part as selected by sgeureka. ("weak merge" is a concept unknown to either afd or WP:merge, unless, analogous to week keep, it means "merge, but I'm not going to argue strongly for it" I think it's intended to mean merge, while first deleting the original content. I don't think that's an option under GFDL. Or does it mean, merge just a little of the content? That's reasonable enough, except the article talk page is the place to decide (I know, I just talked here about what part to merge myself, but sometimes it's necessary in order to explain why a merge is preferred. But no afd decision can be binding on content of an article.) DGG (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Box was actually one of the best things in that film, next to Peter Ustinov's role. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Logan's Run (1976 film). Nothing cited; nothing to merge. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 24 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 Get Smart. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hymie the Robot[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a recurring character on Get Smart and a memorable one as well. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete or) Merge to Get Smart, where no other character seems to have his own article (and TTN didn't touch that article). Character can be covered in the main article until real-world information becomes too much, which is totally not the case here. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Get Smart. Hymie was not a major character on the programme, and a standalone article does not seem warranted. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small amount--there's one line on him; it could better be a short paragraph. But no reason to delete instead. DGG (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any good information to the Get Smart --Banime (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge to Get Smart, where character has its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hymie appeared in Get Smart series and movies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:26, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillian (The Black Hole)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A character in a film should be covered in the film article. It's unfortunate that the only real-world information in the article is fairly trivial. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish individual notability outside the main movie article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "a character in a film should be covered in the film article" is emphatically not Wikipedia policy or practice. It's one opinion. A major character in a major film should be covered in its own article if t here is enough material. That's another opinion, and is supported by hundreds of afd decisions and tens of thousands of articles. (and even if it does apply here, the consequence is merge, not delete.) The question here is the absence of sourced material. since this is a moderately important movie, and since this is a major character, and the article does show the connections to literary characters, there probably is enough sourced material to be found in the reviews of the film and the books dependent upon it. However, as I am not about to find them, the material should be merged into the main article, where most of it is supported by the primary source--the film itself, which is sufficient for such content. DGG (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Black Hole where character has his notability. The simple answer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the robot is not notable outside his universe. So a merge improves Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's an article to be written, but it will require going to the library.[10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 23 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 The Black Hole. History not retained as no useful sourced content to incorporate. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old B.O.B.[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old B.O.B.. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure plot for a one-time character. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish individual notability outside the main movie article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little of it. Minor but not trivial role in the plot. More than background. DGG (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect some of the article to The Black Hole where character has his notability. The simple answer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merging would depend on the content being cited, which it isn't, and redirecting isn't necessary as this isn't a useful search term. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 24 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 The Black Hole. History not retained as there was no useful sourced content to incorporate. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.N.CENT[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Black Hole as a likely search term. Does not establish outside notability from film. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure plot for a one-time character. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish individual notability outside the main movie article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as unimportant--certainly not enough for a stand alone article. I see no arguments here against that. DGG (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Black Hole where character has its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the robot is not notable outside his universe. So a merge improves Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing cited, so nothing to merge, and no point redirecting as it's an implausible search term. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 24 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 by Orangemike as an A7 case. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dotsrc.org[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is an article like this at all notable? Websites aren't notable enough simply for being websites, and a single reference about its name (to itself!) isn't at all sufficient for notability. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N, WP:V, WP:SPAM - DustyRain (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't this a speedy candidate?--Crossmr (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:22, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Mihas[edit]

Has a distinct air of self-promotion (see for instance the links to MySpace, Flickr and YouTube); additionally, not (it seems) notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify and weak keep. Gentleman in question may well have written the article, but it's not too bad, and may scrape through on notability grounds. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has multiple albums on what is, according to its Wikipedia article, Greece's largest independent label, passing WP:MUSIC criterion 5. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a keep, passes WP:NMG per Phil Bridger. Watch for WP:CSB issues. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 24 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) 08:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AS Soleares/AS Alegrías[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. TTN (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No real world information there. Completely in-universe, many parts of these article seem to be original research (I am referring to sections called "specifications" and not only), unreferenced game material. Nothing there to keep really. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list, one line each. None of the reason given oppose that. Named characters in a major fiction are appropriate for that sort of treatment. The present articles are a disgrace, with detail obviously appropriate only for a fan wiki, but that shouldnt affect our decision to conserve some part of the content. DGG (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: completely in-universe information constituting original research from primary sources. Violates WP:N and WP:V due to a lack of reliable third-party sources. Merging these all together would still fail to address those core problems. Delete. Randomran (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is a mixture of original research and plot summary with no real world impact. -- nips (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. However, just as I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, I would like to see these articles find a home at another wiki before nuking them here, as this is a lot of content here being deleted. MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:34, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singelringen[edit]

This arcticle is unecyclopedic and for advertisement only --EvaK (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It asserts importance enough to be prevented from being speedied, but there's definitely no notability. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reason it cant be speedied is that its a product, not a person, company, or group. That's the only reason. DGG (talk) 23:35, 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 speedily deleted by Dlohcierekim (see his note below). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland stereotypes[edit]

Article is written in German; the German article is nominated for deletion as well; a similar article Auckland Stereotypes was already deleted in 2006 Leftfoot69 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can read some German, and in German, it's exactly what it says on the tin: A soapy, travel/how-to bloggish personal essay on "stereotypes" in Auckland, New Zealand. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- ~~I speedily deleted as a former article on the German Wikipedia.~~ Actually it was deleted previously per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auckland Stereotypes, so it was deletable per G4. It also is a copy of the article Stereotypen_Aucklands on the German Wikipedia. , and so is delteable as A2. Further, from what I could piece out (German is not my mother tongue.), it lacked any assertion of notability and was more of an OR-like essay that an article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:12, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darksat[edit]

All information is based on one source. He has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources . A new name 2008 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might reconsider if any of the citations requested are provided. Until then, all we have is a copy-pasted article from another website that anyone requested could have written, so delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent verifiable sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:16, 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 deleted (and salted). This is material recreated by a spam-only account after multiple warnings to cease. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TronMe[edit]

Music player software without reliable sources to establish notability. G11'ed twice and recreated, tag then removed by new account then IP. Searching produces only download links and press releases. gnfnrf (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. Author clearly has no intention of making article encyclopaedic, let's not waste any more time discussing this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Obvious spam. Also signs of sockpuppetry being used to try to hide the underlying COI. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 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. (non-admin closure)Nrswanson (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Stelzer[edit]

No assertion of notability. None of the positions held (including the current one, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs) give rise to a presumption of notability under the basic criteria at WP:BIO or the specific criteria in relation to diplomats. Bongomatic (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I agree that the article, as it stands, isn't enough to assert notability, a bio from the Austrian embassy lists what he's done here. Don't know if this is enough for any kind of notability independent of the events, but it's only fair this gets considered. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there appears to me to be something that either would give rise to "significant coverage" or meets WP:BIO#Diplomats. Bongomatic (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article doesn't give any sources the person seems to be notable enough, serving on several UN boards. The article does no harm (I'm assuming the information is accurate) and might be useful to someone looking for information on Mr. Stelzer. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say that common sense would dictate that an Assistant secretary general is notable ex officio. We usually don't write guidelines that cover rare special cases that don't exactly fit, but are clearly notable because of this relative rarity. Can think of it as an international political office under WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not going to be overwhelmed by biographies of all Asst Sec Gen'ls past and present. An Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations has the same diplomatic rank as a national cabinet minister, and an assistant secretary is just below that, so apparently the equivalent of a US deputy secretary, which we seem to consider notable. There's also only one UN, which argues for more notability than just any country's officials. He is also Austria's UN Ambassador, which also argues for notability.John Z (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep positions are sufficient as above. That's he's Austria's ambassador to the UN would be sufficient by itself--except it's not clear whether this is just to the agencies in Vienna/. DGG (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JohnZ and WP:SENSE. The rank is essentially an equivalent of a national cabinet minister, that should be good enough for passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this fragment from [11] alone is enough to seal notability: "Thomas Stelzer will coordinate the UN Chief Executive Board (CEB), in which the UN Secretary-General coordinates the work of all specialised agencies of the United Nations"... If we delete this, who's next to go? The UN Chief Exec himself? Pegasus «C¦T» 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:POLITICIAN point one as having held international political office. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Ambassadors to the UN are automatically notable, as are holders of political offices such as this. Even if he's not Austria's lead UN ambassador (who is?), John Z's other point seems to indicate that he's at least as notable as a UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State - unquestionably notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shacklesons Disease + National Shacklesons Awareness Day[edit]

This article was tagged for CSD as a hoax with the summary "Obvious hoax, part of a campaign to introduce it wholesale into Wikipedia". Whether or not that statement is correct, there are a few things that can be established with certainty:

The user single-handedly "introduced" the disease into various wiki articles
Claims of National Shacklesons Awareness Day ~~(up for CSD)~~ (included in this AFD)
Google yields 1 result (non wiki related)
No inline citations, external links, inbound links or sources for WP:V

Apparently, this disease was discovered on August 30, 2005 by S&F Labs. On December 16, 2006 the disease was declared fatal, and On October 18, 2008 the US celebrated National Shacklesons Awareness Day.

Whether this disease exists or not, is now up to you (yes you) to decide. Flewis^(talk) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I have never heard of the disease, however will remain neutral as an assumption of good faith. --Flewis^(talk) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Paranormal and psychic say it all for me. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. A dig at somebody named Shackleson, I suspect. Chris (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah for pointless bureaucracy. Speedy delete. Regarding those 'two Google results', the ONLY Google result using the full phrase is for the just-created Wikipedia article on this alleged disease. That's not good faith, that's gullibility. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aside, prodding an article rather then sending it straight to CSD (which was declined btw) is an assumption of good faith. Littering his talk page with warnings and, 'overzealously' attacking him was frankly, superfluous. Newbie biting at its worst--Flewis^(talk) 13:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It not being a personal attack, but rather an observation on behaviour, there's nothing to put aside. Nor was there, as you mischaracterise it, 'overzealous' attacking: it was a stark staringly obvious hoax--as even your flawed Google search revealed--and noted as such. These additions were, in fact, a form of vandalism, and dealt with appropriately, not the hyperbolic 'Newbie biting at its worst' mischaracterisation. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax; nothing on Pubmed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brave effort to AGF and not bite, but alas, this is a hoax. Neither the disease nor the referenced journal (the "Medical Bulletin of Rare Diseases") exist outside of Wikipedia. gnfnrf (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have also never heard of this disease, but will assume good faith. Unfortunately if no reliable sources turn up I may have to switch to delete. --Banime (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax based on ghist for the disease and the "Medical Bulletin of Rare Diseases". Flewis, thank you for listing it. --Lockley (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SNOW. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, this is an amateurish and astonishingly blatant hoax with no verifiable references or google hits. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles unless they can be in any way verified, as of the moment it searches find nothing... including searches in medical sources, disease sources, and reaearch sources. There is simply nothing there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete: If a whole country celebrated an awareness day, there would be sources for the disease and the celebration. Schuym1 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All valid reasons, suggest WP:SNOW closure. —Ceran^(Sing) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bullet in the Arse[edit]

Already deleted once. Somebody's weekend project. Chris (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was originaly putting it up here. I thought it was a hoax, but it's someones project? Wow... Yowuza ZX Wolfie 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' I assumed it was fake because the way it was sort of written. Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not a hoax, and closer to inclusion than I was expecting (it appears to have actually screened at a festival). But, other than a sentence on AICN, nobody has actually written about it. So, no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, no article. gnfnrf (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of some coverage in reliable third party sources including [12] and[13], and because of the multiple awards it won at a film festival which can be seen here [14]. --Banime (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be working on wikifying this and adding new references to see if I can change anyone's mind. --Banime (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to above, I've improved the intro a bit and referenced it. It has screened at two film festivals (Sitges and Melbourne Underground) and won multiple awards at one of them (Melbourne Underground). --Banime (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet any WP:MOVIE criteria for notability. Small awards for cinematography, sound and "Most Gratuitous Violence" at one fairly insignificant film festival don't make the grade. Most of the writing appears unsupported by citations or independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ ~~Strong Keep~~ Per sources found and improvements made. It has won awards and gotten coverage... but the article is longer than the film. Can anything be saved? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking into it, the body is quite a mess. I tried to improve the intro a bit. Maybe at worse we could delete the body and keep it as a stub, but I'd hate to delete someone's hard work without reading through it and trying to salvage what I can into an article. If anyone has any ideas let me know or please go ahead and do them. --Banime (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I spent a lot of time trying trimming the peacock and pov out of the artilce in an attempt tp make it encyclopedic. It does look somewhat better. But my search for sources was gloriously unsuccessful. No doubt it went to MUFF and won awards, but I cannot find anything to solidify a notability... and I did try. With regrets... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is the coverage? There are only three links given: [15] is self-submitted info by the filmmakers (see the submit your film button at the website), [16] is a webpage created by the filmmakers, and [17] is a one-sentence blurb also submitted by the filmmakers. There is no independent WP:RS coverage. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As well, the article indicates the film was part of the 2003 Sitges Film Festival, but the festival does not include it among that year's titles. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I was going by the source that said it was, I'll double check and see if I can find anymore about that. --Banime (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Well, I've found this [18] and this [19] that also said it was in the 2003 Sitges. But I can't find it from anywhere else, or on the Sitges site. Is there another possible place that Sitges could keep its archived movies? Maybe they played it there but it wasn't up for an award, or something similar. Again I'll need to look more into it. --Banime (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Bullet in the Arse was in Sitges 2003. It most definitely did screen in Sitges in 2003. It was in the Brigadoon section. I have a scan of the appropriate page from the Sitges 2003 book. Unfortunately it is right next to the spine, so it is not perfect, but it is legible, and surely that is all it needs to be in order to be proof? Where do I send it? Aside from that, extra references have now been added. How much is enough? ABITA is also on the Internet Movie DataBase, is this not sufficient proof on its validity? BumMcFluff (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I believe you but do you have anything you can point us to that shows it? --Banime (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stiges Film Festival 2003 (French) and Film description at festival (in English), with links to other festivals it was in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
My bad. Messed up a translation. I did find the 2003 listings for "Sitges" and "Brigadoon", but ABITA was not listed. Have however fornd other soureces and currently working on cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding here. No one contests the existence of the film. However, simply being made and screened does not confer notability. Schimdt and Banime suggest the film is notable because there has been coverage -- but, as yet, no actual coverage has been referenced. As stated under Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and WP:GNG, sites like IMDb, Screen Australia, press releases, blogs, filmmaker webpages and other self-submitted sites are specifically excluded as coverage. So where is it? This shouldn't be so hard for a film released only 5 years ago. This is normally a no-brainer for Australian films. Any notable Australian film should have received some significant reviews by critics in the country's many major newspapers, magazines or film journals. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you're saying. When I looked at the notability guidelines for films this one stood out at me: The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Now I don't consider the awards they received "major" awards but that combined with being on that website run by the Australian Government tipped it in their favor, plus the two screenings at film festivals. However if that site is purely made up of only author-submitted movies then maybe that would be different. Still I'd have to stay with my keep for now, but I definitely see your reasoning and frankly maybe I'm fighting a lost cause, but I'll keep trying to help the article til it fails or succeeds. --Banime (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and WP:GNG.Nrswanson (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CactusWriter. Doesn't pass our film notability guidelines, and while we tend towards inclusion when it comes to just about any film, this doesn't even pass our very reasonable minimum standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though some basic info could be merged into an article associated with the Melbourne Underground Film Festival 2003 season, but no such article exists yet Gnan garra 16:39, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. G.O.A.T.[edit]

Non-notable mixtape with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without reason. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:49, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Fook Cheong, PPT[edit]

Non-notable.
Vanity and this is observable by the liberal use of superlative.
A large part of the article is about Feng Shui and not about the person. We already have an article about the pseudo-science.
Possibly advertisement.
The creator of the article seems to share the same surname ("Tham"). So, this may be a case of conflict of interest. __earth ^(Talk) 11:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy G11. It's almost impossible to tell if the man has notability once all the effusive praise is stripped away, since I'm not sure anything would be left of the article. gnfnrf (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's concentrate on point 1 of the nomination - the others are not reasons for deletion but for editing. The claim to be a Feng Shui master is backed up by the New Straits Times[20], and he also seems to be known as a soothsayer[21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through all of those clippings before my original claim. While most are in a language I don't read, the English ones (of which there are 5 or 6) follow a basic pattern, in which the subject is cited as an expert in an article about something else, or is the author of a set of Feng Shui horoscope style advice blurbs. The only one which seems to come close to talking about him as the subject himself is [22], but even that one doesn't tell us anything useful about him. Unless the foreign-language ones are significantly different, I don't think there is enough there to base an encyclopedia article off of. gnfnrf (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 4 is a reason for deletion. The website which the article promote belongs to a consultancy firm ran by the subject in discussion. It is selling something (snake oil, heh!) __earth ^(Talk) 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further independent sources can be found where Tham Fook Cheong is the actual main subject of the article. There just isn't enough coverage on the individual in question as the article currently stands.Nrswanson (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:13, 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. (Weak) (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin B[edit]

Non-notable band. One of the millions of bands worldwide that have recorded a few albums but failed to break through. Aecis·(away) ^talk 10:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The band has a few releases on a label notable enough for their own article. They seem to have receive a little bit of significant coverage, it's just not referenced. I would tag with unreferenced. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excelsior has had a few succesful releases with Dutch indie rock bands like Alamo Race Track, Hallo Venray, Johan, Spinvis, Solo and Supersub. Enough to make the record label itself notable, but that doesn't make each and every band that has been signed to Excelsior notable. Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To respond to the above, if Excelsior qualifies as a major indie label, and it appears that it does since it's not disputed that several notable bands are signed to that label, the release of multiple albums on that label appears to meet the music guidelines - see #5. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that we are talking about Dutch indie rock music. That's about as niche as it gets. Aecis·(away) ^talk 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, passes WP:MUSIC owing to multiple releases on a notable label. Easy. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While they may just pass WP:MUSIC's specific criteria via album releases (I'm not totally convinced Excelsior is sufficiently important to confer notability on artists it releases records by), the lack of any coverage from reliable sources is still a problem for both notability (general notability criteria still apply) and verifiability. The Dutch version is also totally unsourced. A Google search found nothing that could be added to the article. I've tagged the article as unreferenced - maybe if the result is a keep, it could be revisited after time has been allowed for finding and adding sources.--Michig (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having dug a bit deeper, I found the following: news article (translated version), live review (translated version) - I can't tell whether these would be classed as coming from reliable sources, but it's something at least.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source you provided is the university newspaper of my alma mater. It's ok, but it's tiny and it's not read outside the university. The second source is one small review in a regional newspaper, De Gelderlander. As the article says, the gig drew 200 people. Aecis·(away) ^talk 06:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its certainly more notable than Duff Beer. -75.171.190.1 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)— 75.171.190.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christin sassenberg[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there are several notable films listed, I can't see any suggestion that her roles in them were anything more than that of an extra. She's not mentioned in cast lists of any of the films [23] which basically suggests that either (a) her roles were so minor as to confer no notability at all or (b) the article is partially or entirely untrue. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of Geogre's Law. JuJube (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WWGB.Nrswanson (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:08, 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 redirect to Richmond, Texas. The content is available under the redirect for anyone who cares to merge it. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakemont[edit]

Remove as unnotable housing development with no assertion of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the links are general government agencies without mention of this specific housing development Clubmarx (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the first two sentences to Richmond, Texas. The rest of the article is accurate but redundant. --Lockley (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Lockley: the standard for neighborhoods (which is the most that this one is) is to make them redirects unless there's a distinct neighborhood identity. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:07, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.music.white-power newsgroup vote[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no third party sources on this, its purely original research. Violates all core Wikipedia policies in the worst of ways. JBsupreme (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. A search on Google Books shows a number of possible reliable sources to aid in meeting WP:V: see [24]. Thus it should be possible to upgrade the article so that it meets Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT#NEWS. Even if reliable sources can be found, the subject in question seems to me to be of temporary notability and therefore does not warrant an article.Nrswanson (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nrswanson we are WP:NOT a newspaper nor are we a primary source of information. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:28, 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 both of the pages under discussion here. There are some ideas for reasonable lists in the comments but none of the content here would be useful in creating them. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of former monarchs[edit]

Ill-defined list that aims to contain all "former monarchs in current monarchies". It would be extraordinarily long, and unmaintainable, if all the monarchs that satisfy this criteria were included. Even if (erroneously) only one former monarch per current monarchy is listed, as in the current version, the page already weighs in at 21KB. It does not take into account repeating former monarchs like in the case of Malaysia, which rotates the monarchy among all the state rulers. Lastly, the inclusion criteria is arbitrary: why only current monarchies and not abolished ones? Thus my opinion is to delete this list, and optionally replace with a category. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Pegasus «C¦T» 09:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page created a half hour ago because it's the same article with the same issues except for the one concerning the title:

List of previous monarch in current monarchies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be kept in some formDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do something I was thinking that while the restriction "of current monarchies" must be meaningful somehow to the author, I was at a loss to see what purpose would be, and I also didn't understand why he'd only provided the most recent past monarch for each. Then I discovered: he just took List of current monarchs and replaced the information there. So perhaps the restriction only means, "I was willing to fill in the existing tables in their existing format but no more." So, I see two possibilities other than deletion. Either move this page to List of immediate predecessor monarchs or some other more accurate title, or turn this into a page that is what the title claims, and add all previous monarchs, and add all past monarchies to the list of present monarchies. But then, why past monarchs only? What would be the advantage of excluding the current monarchs, instead of having List of monarchs outright (ignoring the fact that there's already a disambiguation page at that location)? And then, with or without the current monarchs, I agree the list would be unmaintainably large and needlessly long to download. It should be a list of lists, one list per monarchy, past and present.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree. I think List of immediate predecessor monarchs is the way to go. However, I'd check the categories carefully. For example, Infante_Juan,_Count_of_Barcelona was never King of Spain (or else he would have been King Juan III); Franco decided to bypass him and chose his son King Juan Carlos I to reign after his death. Therefore, I believe the Spanish entry should be changed to Alfonso XIII of Spain should the category/page be changed to List of immediate predecessor monarchs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to a title such as Largo Plazo suggested, as such a list would be quite useful, quite verifiable, and quite well-defined. By the way, the Malaysia section seems to list the immediate predecessor monarchs to each state monarch, not the last several kings of the country. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After reading the article title and page introduction I was surprised to see dead people listed. My natural interpretation had been that this was a list of living people who had resigned or abdicated. I agree that a list of dead monarchs is either too long or too hard to maintain. dramatic (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as useless. the intent was immediate former monarchs, and I do not see the point of that. as for a more general lsit, we already have these by country, and this would have to be broken down that way anyhow. DGG (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also can't see the point in this list. The information is already available by country. I can't see that searchers would use this list to find the information. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly unmaintainable, quite indiscriminate. My first guess as to the subject was the same as Dramatic's: a list of living people who used to be monarchs. (Do we have one of those? If not, could this be recreated as one? It's a more natural category, and IMHO more likely to be looked for.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I began a list of links to lists of monarchs by country on the page that already existed List of monarchs.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess this answers the question "Who died and made YOU king?"; but I don't see much of a point to this. It specifically exempts persons who lost their job when the monarchy was abolished, which is the very thing I would expect would make for a "former monarch". With three exceptions, this is a list of dead persons who reigned back in 2006 or 1952 or 1930. If it's a keep, then the title certainly should be changed. However, I think that when we call it was it is-- a "List of immediate predecessor monarchs" was suggested-- it underscores how pointless this list would be. Mandsford (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another hodgepodge, randomly assembled list. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the new page too - The user who created it is creating a lot of pointless monarchy-related forks of lists. AlexTiefling (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 Non-Admin Speedy Keep by original nominator. Bongomatic (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Alleyne[edit]

The only potential assertion of notability for the subject is that he is the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean region. The question (and it's genuinely a question on the part of the submitter of this AfD nomination) is whether this role-based claim of notability is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Diplomats, which is for "diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources."

It doesn't seem to me that that is asserted, but if there's a consensus to the contrary, let me know. Bongomatic (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I added references that state he was awarded the Knight Bachelor and Order of the Caribbean Community. The latter is "the highest honor that can be conferred on a Caribbean national" and would constitute a definite claim to notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article clearly states notability and the person is notable enough to warrant their own article, as pointed out above as well. So Why 11:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, director of PAHO is one position that indicates notability. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The whole article seems to constitute various assertions of notability (this one is quite impressive: "He was made Knight Bachelor by Queen Elizabeth II in 1990, and awarded the Order of the Caribbean Community in 2001"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the comments above, there is also significant amount of newscoverage of him, 372 hits in googlenews[25], quite a bit of it specific and detailed (I have added a few such refs to the article). He is also the Chancellor of the UWI system since 2002 (also ref added) and thus arguably passes criterion 6 of WP:PROF. In any case, enough coverage here to pass WP:BIO, both under its general provisions and under the specific provisions for diplomats (he was a rather senior one). To the nom: please do a few quick googlesearches (such as googlenews, googlebooks and googlescholar) before listing for an AfD; it takes less time to do these searches than to do an AfD nomination and everybody is spared from an AfD debate that is likely to be closed as a WP:SNOW keep. Nsk92 (talk) 23:24, 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and histmerge as requested in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITU G.992.5 Annex L[edit]

The ITU G.992.5 Annex L does not really exist in the ITU-T document, as it is only a separator to align all annexes from xDSL ITU-T recommendations. It should refer to ITU G.992.3 Annex L. Garciaargos (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of ITU G.992.5 Annex L should be merged to ITU G.992.3 Annex L. —Snigbrook 11:58, 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 per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtin number[edit]

Non-notable number. Probably a hoax. A Google search shows up only wiki mirror sites. Salih (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Possible~~ Hoax. The formula as given does not give a dimensionless number. The units are l/m^5. The talk page gives a name of a researcher "Lenard Kirk" from the "dept of ERG". Said researcher is asking for data to validate this formula. Therefore this is OR. Additionally I can't find any ghits other than obitiaries for Lenard Kirk. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just as I saved the above, I realised that this article is actually about sexual intercourse. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it? I guess I can pull a few vague innuendoes out of it but I'm not too sure. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no idea if it's a hoax or not, and don't care. Absolutely no citations = assumption that someone made it up in class one day. Burden of proof, particularly for empirical information such as mathematics, is on the article writer. -Markeer 11:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any information on this to suggest it's notable, or indeed real. As Markeer suggests, WP:V really does require sources for this kind of thing and I can't see any. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure it's about sex, as Beeswaxcandle claims, but the talk page entry looks quite socklike, and the calculation certainly doesn't give a dimensionless result. I think it's a hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. This seems to be about Taylor-Couette flow. Dimensionless numbers in this situation include the Reynolds number and the Ekman number, but I can't find evidence for the proposed Courtin number. However, I do think it's dimensionless: the unit of $C={\frac {\tau }{{\omega ^{2}}{D_{i}^{5}}{\rho }}}$ is ${\frac {[Nm]}{[s^{-1}]^{2}\,[m]^{5}\,[kg\,m^{-3}]}}={\frac {[kg\,m^{2}\,s^{-2}]}{[s^{-2}]\,[m^{5}]\,[kg\,m^{-3}]}}$ which is unitless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:36, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Gruich[edit]

Appears to be a made up person.

Delete: per WP:MADEUP from this search, this search, and this search. Schuym1 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, googling 'cameron gruich'+hockey gives no relevant results. Do note however, that the article is linked from Detroit Junior Red Wings. --Soman (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting that although mentioned in that article, he isn't listed as one of the 13 "NHL alumni" later in the article. MadScot (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:MADEUP cf38^talk 09:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:SNOW) per the above. JBsupreme (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to believe that he's made up as of now --Banime (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played for the Red Wings List of players starting with 'G' who played for Detroit. Assume the rest is also fictional. MadScot (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leanna Parker[edit]

Seems to be made up, but doesn't fit any of the CSD. Chris (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a google search shows very few hits for this Leanna Parker. The main one seems to be an unapproved article on the Marvel Universe wiki created 12 August 2008. As it is unapproved, there is no information to be gained from it. There is nothing to indicate existence, let alone notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be speedy, as nonsense article. --Soman (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fictional fictional character. No sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

212xtreme[edit]

Non-notable program with no broadcast deal set yet. No reliable sources to indicate the notability of the program, the potential contract with channel 31, etc. Fails notability and verifiability, but as it's asserted it's a TV program, it's not speedyable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. This appears to be nothing more than a parents' basement podcast. Ravenswing 06:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wishful thinking is not a substitute for reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flush!: The Scoop on Poop throughout the Ages[edit]

Non-notable book. If it were one of a series like Horrible Histories, we would allow an article about the series but not for each individual book. — RHaworth (Talk

The book is not part of a series. How is the book non-notable when it has significant coverage in reliable sources? Schuym1 (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was in a series, an individual book can have it's own page if the book is notable like Harry Potter. Schuym1 (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reviews are from major book reviewers. Schuym1 (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm--I would be all for it if I could actually see the reviews. They would probably establish notability well enough, per WP:NB, but I can't see them. But Booklist and Kirkus Reviews, them's paysites, and I couldn't find anything about this book (or author) on the Horn Book magazine site. So I can't vote yes--if author could produce some URLs, that would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the reviews: http://web.ebscohost.com/lrc/results?vid=4&hid=4&sid=269b1b2a-a95a-44ce-9c97-5d30692014e9%40sessionmgr3&bquery=(poop)&bdata=JmRiPWxmaCZ0eXBlPTAmc2l0ZT1scmMtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d 2nd page.Schuym1 (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per in the Library of Congress, but mostly per reviews by Reliable sources: by Tina Jordan of EntertainmentWeekly, Cincinnatti Library, and its continued use in children's reading programs around the world: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait--"per Library of Congress"? Your link establishes that the Ohio U system acquired a copy. That the LoC would have a copy is pretty much a given. How does Ohio's acquisition make a book notable? Just asking, Drmies (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh? I thought LOC qualified as an archive. No matter though... there are reviws, and sources showing use of this silly little book as used in worldwide reading programs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Library of Congress is a deposit library, so the fact that they've got a copy simply establishes that the book exists. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt and Schuym1. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So there is 12 plenty of reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears we have to indulge your burst of coprophilia. Could you please provide ISBNs for this book and for The Truth About Poop and Poop: A Natural History of the Unmentionable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get sexual pleasure from feces. I like creating articles on various topics.Schuym1 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I also thought that it would be a funny topic to do articles on. Schuym1 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And why does it matter if I provide ISBNs or not? If you want to know the ISBN, just go to Amazon. Schuym1 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or a library site. Schuym1 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added the ISBN, and may add here that it's common practice on WP to give ISBNs as well as other relevant publication information (for instance, the page numbers for citations, which are missing from the article on Poop. BTW, I'm pretty sure RHaworth was joking. I'm sure they don't hate poop, books about poop, or pooplovers; after all, everyone poops. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This Afd discussion should stay civil and focused only on the merits of this single book. The ISBN is now found in the article infobox. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which wasn't a big deal in the first place. Schuym1 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reviews establish notability. A general comment: If you can't find bibliographic details on a book using Amazon.com, try http://catalog.loc.gov and http://catalogue.bl.uk The Library of Congress cataloguing information for this book can be found at http://lccn.loc.gov/2005015080 The author's other books may also be notable. See, for example, http://lccn.loc.gov/00062443 -- Eastmain (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - book meets criteria for WP:BK notability — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per...well, per everyone who got here ahead of me with all of the trenchant explanations on why it is notable. (I really need to get into these things much earlier!). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'tis notable, therefore Keep. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written, well sourced, and reviews establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:57, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Marvin[edit]

I looked for references, and there's nothing out there. This article is either a vanity page, a hoax, or some other strange combination, but it's not notable. Hoax is suggested by the article's absurd content before it got a recent BLP haircut. Fails WP:BIO in any case. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. Obviously "Cool Hand Luke" doesn't live in NYC, but if he did, and knew anything about the emerging art scene, he would be familiar with Little Marvin's work. Little Marvin's online videos get thousands and thousands of views, he shows frequently in the city and his "Wanted" street posters were taught in my class at Cooper Union as one of the most effective pieces of street propaganda. Do you have to be Britney Spears to stay in Wikipedia? Sad.

Agreed with comment above. There are many people in new york paris and berlin (where little m is showing in '09) who'd disagree w/ Luke. keep the page.

I am in the art world and have worked extensively with Little Marvin. This Wikipedia entry is an accurate description of the artist. Censorship of content on Wikipedia should obviously not be done by those unfamiliar with the topic.
- Note: all three of these comments are from the same IP. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And in response to the above three unsigned comments. No, you don't have to be Britney. But if I, as a non-resident of NYC, have to take it on faith from unidentified people that the purported 'facts' in an article are true, then the article doesn't belong on wikipedia. I can, quite trivially, prove Britney Spears is real and VERIFY facts about her. If you want this article kept, provide the same for this subject. MadScot (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON"T DELETE. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1018846/

Don't delete. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chicinparis.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/littlemarvin-cropped1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://chicinparis.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/paris-pret-a-porter/&h=281&w=210&sz=21&hl=en&start=2&um=1&usg=__jcq-STgihTRYBYagOVCbLxxz-FE=&tbnid=Hqd5zCFy5AWjHM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=85&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlittle%2Bmarvin%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN i'm not entirely sure how to use this thing but I do know how to use Google and a simple search brings results.
- Still the same IP. And I used Google before nominating. I also checked the LexisNexis news archive. There's nothing but self-promotion and mirrors of this content. Google and Google News get very few hits for "Little Marvin" (zero in 2008 Google news) and most of them are from sentences like "...a little Marvin Gaye..." Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IMDB lists two minor acting roles and one film, which I can find precisely zero non-trivial coverage of (and very little at all). Being photographed at some party (which is what the second image link points to) is borderline hilarious, given the remarks about "having to be Britney" to be on WP; this person's claim to notability rests on being photographed at a party? MadScot (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person. The incompetent sockpuppetry on this AfD discussion automatically makes me suspicious, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 04:56, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niko (Playgirl)[edit]

Blatant self-promotion by a porno actor. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE with haste Self promotion? An article about Niko (Playgirl) written by User:Niko (Playgirl)? Seems likely. My first search puts into question his notability assertion of being named "Playgirl as its 2007 Man of the Year", as NewswireToday says that honor went to Julian Fantechi. His first source simply refers to him as a Romanian striper. His second source is a pornographic blog about himself. His third third source is a movie review of Addicted to Niko. His fourth source is a Youtube clip of him stripping. His fifth source is a link to Playgirl TV. His sixth source is a link to Wicked Pictures. His only claim to notability, as the Playgirl 2007 Man of the Year, is false. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--good detective work by MQS. This is all vanity--especially since he seems to have photoshopped his mug onto MY body. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Harumphhhh... and here I though he had found an picture of MY body when 22 to use. Or is it that you and I are that much alike physically? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — obvious COI as well as WP:VANITY with a subtle attempt at spamming. Wish I could say there is a CSD criteria for this one, but there isn't. MuZemike (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just spam vanity conflict of interest etc etc. JBsupreme (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would pass WP:PORNBIO with the Playgirl award, but if that is false then no notability whatsoever. Pure vanity piece. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put on your clothes, Niko, and get outta here Shameless self-promotion of a non-notable "entertainer." Ecoleetage (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a self promotion. --Banime (talk) 23:41, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Without Death[edit]

No Google hits nor sources for this book. Delete per lack of verifiability and WP is not a crystal ball. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable vanity page. Self published works very, very rarely make the cut for notability--especially when they've not yet been released. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I apologize--I had to edit some of the spurious material. If it is a vanity article written by the expected author, then the book may not become very notable. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently the article is a one sentence WP:Crystal... and the original version was Crystal as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced page with no claims to notability about something that hasn't happened yet. --Lockley (talk) 20:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Vellani[edit]

Non-notable board game designer, who "appears to have withdrawn" and for whom there's no other evidence of notability. See this AfD for a related discussion. Would have bundled but was not aware of this article at the time. Bundling now:

Helmut Ohley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same series of semi n-n games, no evidence of other notability
Lonny Orgler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gary Mroczka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note I am explicitly not listing those who seem to have other notability. TravellingCari 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, should this end in delete, please note the number of re-directs in the above named article histories. May be a number to take care of. TravellingCari 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 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, treelo _radda 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per prior AfD, and nom. None of these meet the notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note account above has been blocked as vandalism only. TravellingCari 12:01, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and seriously consider deleting the list of 18XX games too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, why is this being re-listed over and over? There is a clear consensus on this, from what I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 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 Withdrawn, sources assert notability quite nicely now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Mall[edit]

~~Non-notable mall, no sources found. Sources are a dead link and a blog. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN mall and Redirect to National Mall as a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep due to reliable sources being found by Eastmain. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the linked blog sums it up pretty well "It is a pretty cool experience to walk through this 21st century version of a ghost town" NN mall, which from the pictures won't be open for long.--Terrillja (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Will probably be notable for being closed down soon enough, but notability is not temporary, so keep.--Terrillja (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. A mall that has closed down remains notable because notability does not expire, and this one has plenty of references to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess since eastmain expanded it some there are ample references now. JBsupreme (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hate mall articles, as certainly one can always find a source that says store XYZ is now at mall ABC. But Eastmain pulled another rabbit out of his hat. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wouldn't be too quick on the trigger on this one. Would love seeing more pages for Malls. Any multi-million dollar shopping center is going to have some sourcable write-ups in local papers.138.23.82.131 (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... they sure will... full and half-page spreads on furniture sales and adds for deodorant. However, Eastmain brought the magic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there some way we could disambiguate this, because I'm sure that 99% of people looking for this are really looking for National Mall. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:45, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Canis Lupus 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book has been used as a source for later books on Kennedy and Johnson, but I am unable to find any sources discussing the book itself. If those sources could be found, I think the article would be very appropriate. Until then, however, it is essentially OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 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, Tavix (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable book with no reliable sources that I could find. Tavix (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found Abstracts of five reliable source reviews that allow the book to pass WP:BK.
- Payne, Charles M. "Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights (Book." Contemporary Sociology 22.1 (Jan. 1993): 73-74.Abstract: Reviews the book "Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights," by Mark Stern.
- Tushnet, Mark. "Reviews of books: United States." American Historical Review 97.5 (n.d.): 1624. Abstract: Reviews the book `Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights,' by Mark Stern.
- Brauer, Carl M. "Book reviews." Journal of American History 79.4 (n.d.): 1683-1684. Abstract: Reviews the book `Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights,' by Mark Stern.
- Dierefield, Bruce J. "Book reviews." Journal of Southern History 59.3 (Aug. 1993): 585. Abstract: Reviews the book `Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights,' by Mark Stern.
- Shabazz, Amilcar. "Book reviews." Southwestern Historical Quarterly 97.3 (Jan. 1994): 582. Abstract: Reviews the book `Calculating Visions: Kennedy, Johnson, and Civil Rights,' by Mark Stern. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:56, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the good faith offerings of Captain Tucker. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Captain-tucker. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:46, 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 Leet. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@$$[edit]

This article has no content apart from a box saying 'search Wiktionary for Appendix:Internet slang'. I've checked 'Appendix:Internet slang' in Wiktionary and found no mention of '@$$'. Also, the title is offensive and it does not descibe the origin of '@$$' or usage, for example. Previous edits have shown vandalism, offensive language and a personal attack. Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Perfectly valid soft redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not censored and what one editor finds offensive is not so to another. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ass. JJL (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid soft redirect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRETARDED. What? How in the hell is this useful as a soft redirect for anything? Its totally not plausible. JBsupreme (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leet as a plausible search term - the current soft redirect target does not mention "@$$" and hence is pretty useless. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Redirects are cheap. And last I checked, we're WP:NOTCENSORED Umbralcorax (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects are cheap as noted above. Also, per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, aspects of the nom's rationale for deleting I don't consider to be valid. Is there anyone left in the world who still finds the word "ass" (which obviously @$$ references) offensive? 23skidoo (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect (either to Leet, or Ass or pretty much anywhere) as a way to avoid having to delete vandalism from the page; if we delete it, it'll just get recreated; better to leave it as a redirect. Of course, making it a banned title would work too. And if we don't have any citations showing its use in the language, maybe it should be deleted. Citations, anyone? (Note: I'm the original creator of the redirect, based on the fact that, when I created it, @$$ was listed on the List of internet slang to which I redirected it.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:56, 20 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 No consensus, default to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWAK[edit]

Usenet term which began in a red linked news group. No sources, no chance of being sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in Usenet. Usenet terms are not as likely to appear in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is Usenet a reliable source? I don't think so. How is that any better than a term used on someone's web forum? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 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, Mr.Z-man 02:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere, such as Infrequently Asked Questions. JJL (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this term, and unreliable sources show various meanings that differ from the one described in the article (e.g. [32]). It's a neologism with no evidence of mainstream usage, and no verifiability. Somno (talk) 03:29, 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 speedy deleted under G7; author blanked Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Pope (composer)[edit]

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Geoffrey Pope has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works and does not meet any of the criteria for composers and lyricists listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Furthermore, according to the article, his most notable composition hasn't even been performed yet. Nrswanson (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 02:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
debated. nrswanson, not sure what you're referring to as his "most notable composition." the bosnian opera? Pinesofrome (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) — Pinesofrome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source his awards. Deletion not required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the awards listed are in themselves notable and would not fulfill the requirements given in Wikipedia:Notability (music). If you actually read the awards given they are all pretty much related to collegiate programs and/or non-professional ensembles. Therefore those awards really don't make him notable. Also there are no reliable independent sources given even substantiating any of this articles information.Nrswanson (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music criteria. Sources show work and awards are all at the university scholarship level. He appears to be a talented student composer -- but should reapply after he becomes an accomplished professional. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blanked by author (so tagged). ... discospinster _talk 19:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Sydney[edit]

Page was deleted as civil spam and has now been recreated. The author has an obvious conflict of interest, although he/she has setup a new account to try and conceal it. The page does nothing but promote the said institution and the vast majority of the citations are from the institution's website. MvjsTalking 02:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G4. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page indicates plenty of breakfasts and luncheons, but seemingly few significant achievements. Non-notable lobby group? WWGB (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I'd love to join them for lunch. There's no apparent real-world importance here. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they are a group of businessmen (along with Committee for Melbourne) who lobby governments, and I used to prepare briefs for politicians for meetings with it. I'm not sure what impact they have.--Grahame (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's a fundamental rewrite it's spam. Lacks third party sources to establish notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:05, 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 02:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bajio Mexican Grill[edit]

Notability not proven. Kickstart70-T-C 01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a good place to eat, but no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Disclaimer: I hate chains.) Not every restaurant is notable, and this one certainly isn't (yet). Drmies (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article for no special notability... but keep the good food. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, googling shows that the chain has quite few outlets in different states, thus notable. For example searching "Baijo Mexican Grill" shows up in several US states at maps.google.com. --Soman (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google hits do not meet standards of WP:Note --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Ganci[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable mobster. Few ghits, even fewer that are relevant. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, non-referenced. Author's continual removal of PROD and AfD notices smacks of something going on. Dayewalker (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I fully agree with this assessment. The author admitted his intentions on the article's talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google search gives almost nothing. Clear BLP problem in the article. --Soman (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious BLP issues. John Nevard (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negative and and essentially unsourced biography. NYT "reference" mentions subject in passing and does not support anything in the article. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just removed unsourced content per WP:BLP and the rest is questionable too. Aside from the NYT link, all other sources found appear to be wiki-sourced, possibly circular-sourced. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And after removing that unsourced information, we are left with... an A7 speedy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:12, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruet Caelum[edit]

Seems like a totally nonnotable local band, which never played before a crowd of more than 400. Would have speedied this except there is an Allmusic cite. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding My Pen Is a Detonator (album by this band) to listing. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Allmusic listing does not connote notability. Basically any album that gets released ends up in a database somewhere, and Allmusic culls those databases to produce its listings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very not notable, and the album should be deleted as well. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band is more notable than other bands on previously noted list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions; band has been included on AllMusic as well as other related sites. Someone needs to verify information and cite references but other than that the article meets guidelines. Plus, it doesnt state that the band only played shows to crowds of less than 400 - states that was the attendance at the last show. References were from AllMusic and various information found online about this band. Imnotacoolguy (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The links don't show notability. Why don't you add reliable sources that show notability to the article? Schuym1 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable band and album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 07:23, 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. (It has been "Uncle G'd," apparently.) (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al (folklore)[edit]

Procedural nom – creating discussion for an article that was tagged for deletion on 15 October (diff). This is an unreferenced article on a mythological creature. The article has a fairly extensive edit history and several corresponding articles in non-English editions of Wikipedia; however, I've been unable to locate any sources to establish veracity. Muchness (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one:
Asatrian, Garnik (2001). "Al Reconsidered". Iran and the Caucasus. 5 (1). Brill: 149–156. doi:10.1163/157338401X00189. In Iran it is called al; in Georgia ali; in the North Caucasus al; in Tajikistan …
and this one:
Mardiros H. Ananikian. "Chapter XI: The World of Spirits and Monsters — 7. Als". Armenian Mythology. Retrieved 2008-10-19.
Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncle G's sources look like enough for WP:V, I'm removing the hoax tag from the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Uncle G for providing these refs. I've taken a stab at starting an article rewrite based on the above sources. I believe we should keep the article as a verifiable, referenced and notable aspect of folklore. --Muchness (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent and superspeedy work, you two. Interesting subject! Drmies (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been Uncle G'd, which is what it needed. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialists[edit]

This is a procedural nomination, since this article appears to have been overlooked in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialists from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, which resulted in the deletion of all other lists of socialists. This last list of socialists, despite its more general name, only covers Western Europe. Procedural prod removed with the argument that this is a valuable list. Please note that I opposed the deletions linked above, but feel that we need to be consistent in either restoring those lists or deleting this one along with them. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete- agreed. It should go, which is my consistent approach to such lists.JJJ999 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. JuJube (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments at the last AfD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- Uh oh. Zero sourcing + WP:BLP = delete. Reyk _YO! 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but tag for lack of citations, and either cite or remove the entries for people who are still alive, thus eliminating WP:BLP concerns. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a position I had also stated in the previous AfD. There is no BLP problematic here, and a criteria for inclusion could easily be formulated. --Soman (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. BLP does apply indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful page..just because other pages were deleted doesn't mean this is useful and or notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another hodgepodge, randomly assembled list. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Self-Identified" shouldn't even qualify as a a criteria. Anyone can self-identify as anything, it doesn't make it so, and in Categorisation through Editor synthesis of the many numerous political views of each entry you'll find the list completely unmaintainable. It doesn't serve any purpose, and is a useless grouping. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep "socialists" is a very broad term, including in one sense or another -- at least by party name -- most 20th century european politicians. This needs further definition, and I think the first step is not to attempt a multi-national list at all. DGG (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) But since apparently national lists have unwisely been deleted, we should keep this one and work on it. DGG (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that there is a Category:Socialists, but it is a parent category, while Category:Socialists by nationality is the comprehensive category. Why do I bring this up? Because lists and categories are meant to complement one another. There is no reason why List of socialists can't be a sort of "parent list" (sort of like List of philosophers) containing nationality-based sub-lists. Yes, socialist is a broad term (so is philosopher), but if it is a useful enough term to warrant a category, then it is useful enough to warrant a list as well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: This is a rather old article, which was originally organized by sub-ideology, then chronologically, then by nationality. The nationality-based article grew to such a size that it was converted into a number of sub-lists (of which this article was one), all the rest of which have now all been deleted, through the discussion linked above. I happen to concur with Soman and Cosmic Latte, but we seem to be the minority. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you are in the minority--though I think national lists better, I had not realised they'd been deleted--so this can be upgraded in their absence. DGG (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: This is one of the national lists -- it lists only Western Europe, even though the page was not moved to reflect this fact. It should be treated on an equal footing with the others (which can be restored, should there be consensus to do so). -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AFDs, redundant to category, generates BLP, OR, V, and RS issues, and so on. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 24 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. The only appropriate merge target no longer exists. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tully Rinckey Legal Power Hour[edit]

Nonnotable radio show. The creator User: TR_Editor has made no contributions to articles where Mathew B. Tully (co-host of the radio show) hasn't been involved, so I suspect there's a conflict of interest at work here as well. A google search for ""Tully Rinckey Legal Power Hour" brings up no third-party sources discussing the topic for verification of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Program is a brokered time show, the equivalent of an infomercial. Definitely no notability at all unless Mr. Tully can get a weekday slot on the station without having to buy time from it, which is unforseeable. Nate • (chatter) 18:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mathew B. Tully local show lacking 3rd party sources, lacks notability. COI seems to be an issue here, creator has been notified.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mathew B. Tully was recently speedied by criteria A7. Themfromspace (talk) 02:42, 20 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, treelo _radda 00:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- informercials lack notability.JJJ999 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infomercial. Would be A7 if it were an organization. I speedied the guy and the firm. -- Y not? 19:44, 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.

READY[edit]

The result was DELETE, due to WP:CSD#G4 and has already been deleted by admin. Terrillja (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:Music. The album is not notable. Beano (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Crystal. If it is recorded and released, it may then find a notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not sure why this is even here, it is recreation of previously deleted material (A4)--Terrillja (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above, obvious.JJJ999 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of previously deleted material. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:38, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPP-SHR[edit]

fails WP:NOTE, lacks third party sources to establish notability as a notable research program (amongst the 1000s out there) Michellecrisp (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Michellecrisp (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE I am the article's primary author. I am a part-time research assistant, and am a newbie to wikipedia editing, so please excuse my lack of familiarity with the process. IPP-SHR is a non commercial research organisation whose work is dedicated to the promotion of consumer advocacy in the areas of physical and mental illness. It is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and CQUniversity, and it was the intention to create an entry for those who searched Wikipedia wanting to know what IPP-SHR is and does. IPP-SHR has an international audience who subscribe to podcasts and a quarterly review, free of charge to the researchers, students and academics who are interested in psycho-social research. I understand and agree with the rationale against POV articles, but would argue that the entry is factual and encyclopaedic in nature, and is devoid of values or opinion. IPP-SHR is not a one-off research project, and is not motivated by profit or in the nature of a commercial enterprise. I believe it has merit to be included as a Wikipedia entry, as it is an organisation that has generated a significant number of publications, a quarterly review and podcast interviews with notable researchers in the field. A reference to a third party source has since been added to the IPP-SHR page, refering to an article in the CQUniversity website, in particular an article in the CQUniNews published on 26 May 2008 regarding the launch of IPP-SHR's free podcasting program at the end of last year. Thanks for your consideration.Bouwork (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nomination, can't find any references to the group in the mainstream media or in WP:RS. MvjsTalking 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find plenty of references to the group in reliable sources. Catastrophic bleeds during end-of-life care in haematology: controversies from Australian research Journal: Supportive Care in Cancer; Tough Journey For Families Of Children With Lymphoma “I was never like that”: Australian findings on the psychological and psychiatric sequelae of corticosteroids in haematology treatments Medical News Today; Western Notions of Informed Consent and Indigenous Cultures: Australian Findings at the Interface; Journal of Bioethical Inquiry; Family care giving for Aboriginal peoples during end-of-life: Findings from the Northern Territory. Journal of Rural and Tropical Public Health 7: 1-10 (2008); Blood cancers research. Australian Nursing Journal ... --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:21, 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) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just goes to show what a different set of search parameters will find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is not a national program, but a single faculty group, not even a cooperative multi-faculty project. --it is funded by the Australian National Research council, but its a program actually limited to one college within Central Queensland University a regional university of no great international reputation. Its no more a national project than any of the other thousands of demonstration grants funded by them and similar organisations in other nations, and of course they all produce publications. It seems to be centered around a single notable academic, Pam McGrath, who should have a page in WP where this is mentioned as one of her projects. As far as I can tell, not one other person associated with it has even a PhD, let alone a notable career. And, curiously, her name comes first on all the paper published from it; furthermore, almost none of one of them is from a major journal or major scientific publisher. Straight-out self-advertising for McGrath's own work. The arguments of Bouwork, a paid employee of the project, that it is not commercial, is irrelevant. Public relations is public relations, and commercial or noncommercial it is equally unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mawarid Bank S.A.L.[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability, no third-party references. Bongomatic (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:22, 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) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Delete~~ ~~the one sentence article as failing notability.~~ if gets sourcing and expansion... otherwise its just one sentence about a bank. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search turns up media coverage that confirms notability: [33]. The article needs expanding, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Google hits do you think demonstrate notability? Bongomatic (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch Research Report is published by Fitch Ratings, which is a major financial information resource. If Fitch offers confirmation, it is (pardon the obvious pun) money in the bank. Also, remember that this is a Lebanese bank, so there will probably be a minimal amount of English-language media coverage (I would invite anyone with access to the Arabic language version of Google to confirm the subject's notability via that search engine). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch rates thousands (or maybe tens or hundreds of thousands) of entities--some of them notable, most of them not. Fitch rates everything from multinationals to single-purpose vehicles, almost none of the latter of which is notable. Bongomatic (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict you, but you are offering a subjective opinion of Fitch (especially in relation to its ratings of international financial institutions). If this bank was not notable, Fitch would not waste its time on it. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict you, but you don't seem to be informed as to what rating agencies do. They (for a fee) rate companies so that such companies may borrow money. This is not a test of notability, but whether people want to finance a company. Being able to obtain debt financing or being rated is not a proxy for notability. Bongomatic (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this and allow our friends on the project to join the discussion and weigh in on the merits of the article. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As is, it doesn't show anything to make it notable. Maybe if the article was expanded, I'd change my vote, but as is, it should go. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Messiah 4[edit]

Non-notable mixtape with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:52, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a non-notable mixtape (just like 99% of all mixtapes out there). JBsupreme (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JANNMT (Just Another Non-Notable Mix Tape). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mix tape which fails WP:MUSIC notability guide. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:32, 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 redirect to Father's Day. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Father's Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Happy Father's Day

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unofficial, so doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Without commentary from reliable sources, the article can't be kept, and I don't see any signs of such commentary.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unofficial, no significant secondary coverage as far as I can see, would not appear to meet the relevant notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:JANNMT (Just Another Non-Notable Mix Tape). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as redirect Topic of the article isn't notable, but this might be a useful redirect to Father's Day. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just another non-notable mixtape, this one is also unofficial. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:29, 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 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kwiato Master[edit]

Forthcoming album. Per WP:MUSIC, not notable without significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:30, 15 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, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per crystal ball.JJJ999 (talk) 01:30, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Music 2004[edit]

Promotional EP for a soft drink company. Never charted, no sources, permastub. —Kww(talk) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:37, 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) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or find way to merge it to one of many other Pepsi articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect merge and redirect to marketing bit of pepsi article, since the ep was made for marketing purposes.--Terrillja (talk) 01:17, 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 me}_{My work} 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Willet (fictional character)[edit]

Almost a stub for a fictional character already covered in Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy. No notability outside the fictional universe. VG ☎ 08:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no real world information. Moreover, everything is already in Wikipedia in another article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the other Axis of Time characters below. No sources, no notability asserted or established. This is yet more fancruft and Wikipedia is not the place for it. Reyk _YO! 04:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After having a look at the other Axis of Time articles, devoting articles to AoT characters is massively out-of-proportion. I also support the deletion of the other AoT character articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:47, 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 me}_{My work} 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Judge (fictional character)[edit]

Stub for a fictional character already covered in Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy. No notability outside the fictional universe. VG ☎ 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One stray comment about the real Mike Judge is trivia and perhaps synthesis to boot. Cool Hand Luke 08:22, 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 me}_{My work} 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Lonesome Jones (fictional character)[edit]

Another character not notable outside its fictional universe. VG ☎ 08:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no real world information. I would just prod it instead for bringing it for AfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for separate articles of every character from this 'fictional universe'. --Soman (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:10, 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 redirect to Axis of Time. Axis of Time (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Halabi (fictional character)[edit]

Fictional character not notable outside its universe. VG ☎ 08:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No sources provided, and I can find nothing except an unrelated real person with the same name. Reyk _YO! 04:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this triology is hardly Lord of the Rings, no need for articles outside the main book articles. --Soman (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Harris[edit]

This man first became mentioned nationally about five days ago, when he said the following at a John McCain rally in Wisconsin. He also appeared on CNN stating that he had received hate mail for his comments ([34], [35]). Aside from this, he is a local radio host in the Milwaukee area, although if we were to keep this article, it would have to based on his recent nationally-aired comments. IMO this alone is not enough to keep the article as he doesn't appear to be notable enough according to Wikipedia policy. He is about as well-known as this woman, who recently became nationally notable for her "Obama is an Arab" comment. Khoi khoi 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, this person's 'notability,' is entirely based on recent events and will soon die out. Not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Maethordaer (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ONEEVENT. JBsupreme (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW delete per all the arguments, especially WP:ONEEVENT. I think this is a no-brainer. Xihr 21:54, 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. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Nepal[edit]

Delete non-notable, unreferenced, beauty pageant. Mayalld (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A national beauty pageant, the refs, though currently primary, are in the external links. A clear case of Systemic bias, now if this goes then surely Miss Teen USA should also. RMHED (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Systemic bias, You mean we should have article for every beauty pageant around the world. I do not see a point which suggests that it is national beauty pageant. Please look at the official website, it is two years old. There is no information whether this pageant still active or perished. Miss Teen USA is sourced article. Systemic Bias is an invalid support for keeping this article. Claims are sourceless, No third party link to support that this has any notability. A similar article was deleted under this discussion.A pageant should have stability and newsworthiness to be part of encyclopedia.Hitro 07:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability doesn't only apply to large countries. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't matter where the pageant is, if it doesn't have reputable 3rd party sources, it isn't notable.--Terrillja (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- if this was a major country, this would be a SNOW keep and an obvious one at that. Sources can surely, easily, be found for someone like this, who must have received mainstream coverage. People here may be disinclined to find them, but deleting it is the wrong course.JJJ999 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notability does not have to be world-wide, but it's spreading anyway. Nepal News, WaveMag, OhMyNews, NepalSite, CyberNepal, KantiPur, NepalMountainNews, Miss Teen Nepal 2006, friendsandtrends, etal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources to show notability have been located; hopefully MichaelQSchmidt will add them to the article. Nice work though. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... It's done... and I added a few more sources I found as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Shirulashem (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a national beauty pageant and references have been found. Nice work, MichaelQSchmidt. DollyD (talk) 09:23, 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 17:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbi Morgan[edit]

Looks to be a bit-actor who lacks the required non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree, there's not enough here. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 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) 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but I could be convinced if the author produces good arguments to the contrary.JJJ999 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RS does not mandate that sources have to be in-depth, though it is preferred. Acceptable also are less infusive multiple confirmations that offer WP:V of notability assertions. Google News shows brief coverage in the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Review, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, etc... on top of the scads of WP:V found with a generic google search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete - does not pass Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers and the passing mentions in the Google news and general Google searches (which appear to be referencing at least three if not more different Robbi Morgans) do not rise to the level required by WP:RS and WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, my cursory search was quick. I'll do a deeper search and see what I can come up with. If I cannot seperate the wheat from the chafe, I'll be glad to change my opinion. I must grant that this actress, though acting from age 10, does not really seem to have done very much at all. Maybe there is a pearl in this oyster. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supastition[edit]

This artist is not notable and fails WP:MUSIC -- lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC despite having worked with some notable artists; a Google News search returns only trivial mentions. Also fails WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This supastition.com graphic displays multiple non-trivial mentions, there's no good reason to doubt it, the "Chairman's Choice" piece is from XXL, October 2005. This is by no means exhaustive: here's another piece in Stylus, here allmusic, and so on. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks promising but you can't read any of the text, or even see what issue of the magazines the scans are from. If something more solid and verifiable were to surface, I would almost certainly change my !vote. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for the review in Stylus Magazine & Allmusic. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:08, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Dempsey[edit]

No reliable sources to verify content and all attempts to find any suitable sources have failed thus article fails to meet WP:BIO. There is two mentioned references: the first being an Evening Herald article and while the newpaper itself is fairly reliable, the link in the article brings one to a scan/picture of the article hosted on the subjects MySpace/Bebo which is extremely blurry therefore one cannot verify the content of the article. The second ref being that of a local newspaper whose reliabilty on wouldn't be known. There is however an assertion of notability that being the musician's single reached 99 in the Irish Singles Chart but that cannot be verified with a reliable source that is independant of the subject so article may or may not reach WP:MUSIC. It has to be said that the article and related articles were created and upkept by subject of said articles (WP:COI) which is possibly the reason behind the unverifable content. The following related articles are also up for deletion in this discussion:

Breakin' Up (song asserts notability (reaching 99 on Irish Chart, 2 in download) but nothing can be verified with reliable sources thus may not meet WP:MUSIC#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs)
Sean Dempsey discography (again unsourced and unverfiable content) - AngelOfSadness talk 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Guliolopez (talk) 23:05, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind In the Gutter[edit]

the songs is not notable as it lacks any significant and independent coverage, thus failing notability per WP:V and WP:NSONGS. The iTunes chart position listed in the article is not reliable, as it is pertaining to only one specific retailer (from WP:CHARTS) —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable single, didn't chart on a major chart. I redirected this a month ago and it was undone with no explanation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Even though it's a viable search term, a redirect will probably act as a temptation to recreate a non-notable article again, per TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:05, 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 deleted by Uncle G. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 01:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Meade (bodybuilder)[edit]

Article appears to be a self-promotional page - the author appears to have joined Wikipedia specifically to create this page, since she has no other edits. The article is loaded with statements like "He has proven that success is contagious". Even if the self-promotional aspects are cleaned up, he seems marginal for notability - though apparently successful, he doesn't really seem notable as a businessman, and his bodybuilding career consisted of a handful of amateur level contests. Also note, the bulk of the article appears to be a copyright violation, with text taken word for word from [36]. Dsreyn (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Self promotional issues abound. JBsupreme (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotional and the references are dodgy, some of them are even written about Meade, by Meade. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps speedy delete as totally nonnotable and (in a way) advertising. I'd do it myself, but I'm never too certain about speedying articles at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My name is Samantha and I noted that all my previous comments on the above were deleted. I believed this was an open forum for discussion. Please allow me the decency to respond to the allegations.
- In order to take others opinion into matters, the page has been edited and I thank you for your feedback. I trust the edits done in good faith will make the community feel better. Now I would like to address matters which I believe to be patently false.
  1. All initial disagreements steamed from one person. In those talks, I shared that multiple pages were created utilizing different spelling of Darren Mead and Darren Meade. That I tried to correct such, to no avail or reply. At that time we cited references to that point and at times used Wikepedia as a source. That person then went in and began to edit entries to fit his argument and to change that which we cited as evidence I offer the follwing search result:
    Darren Meade (soccer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Fbb fan (talk · contribs) started at 02:45, 17 October 2008
    Fbb fan is to whom I reference and ask the editors or Wikpedia to perform some diligence perhaps an IP search and/or see within his own category if those making comments above frequent his pages and perhaps be friends. This I believe would show bias.
  2. Dsreyn talks writes that because I have not edtied more articles my entry should be deleted. I find that unfair, as I just found out about Wikpedia. Why would I edit others work, as I am trying to learn and understand the site and how it functions.
    Dsreyn then states : "marginal for notability - though apparently successful, he doesn't really seem notable as a businessman, and his bodybuilding career consisted of a handful of amateur level contests." I respectfully disagree. Let's begin with the patently false claim that Darren Meade only had a handful of amateur level contests. Mr. Meade represented the USA in international bodybuilding events. Amateur bodybuilding in the USA is under the NPC (National Physique Committee) and professional bodybuilding under the IFBB (International Federation of Bodybuilders). Mr. Meade won the IFBB North American middleweight class. The show was in Mexico, I cite this to show that this was an international event, to which he had to travel outside the USA. The title itself is called the North American Championships, thereby indicating Canada, Mexico and the USA. That particular year, it was drug tested by the International Olympic Committee. Again showing the level of the show. Mr. Meade has a plaque congratulating him by the IFBB and signed by Ben Weider who was the President of the IFBB.
    Mr. Meade also has 14 plaques by the National Physique Committee. These are not for titles won, but thanking him for his improvements of bodybuilding and recognizing him for his accomplishments. While these are from the NPC which handles amateur bodybuilding, they again recognize bettering the sport itself.
    As for business acomplishments, how do I explain that without it being construed and self promotion of Darren Meade? The first company he partnered in was sold for $180 Million dollars, it created a new market category within the sports nutrition arena and the history of such is being covered in a book titled Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors by Randy Roach. He has been retained by the Autralian Government, and Hong Kong Public exchange. The area I believe that he is most notable was that he was homeless for 3 years as a teenager and rose to fame in bodybuilding and later business. Within the page I created are link to particles that were press releases and Darren Meade's original article that when he was told that he was dying on April, his out look on what he has learned.
    Many of is other published writing found on the internet have to do with God and religion. Therefore he does receive threats upon his life and attacks because of his unique view on God. While I list my name and that of Darren Meade, the other user are announymous and I am not sure if the attacks of censorship come from other published articles. None of those articles are linked to the Wikepedia page. I believe as cited above though, and explained that all my previous written comments have been deleted show that this is more than a routine concern for the page. It is an attack which can be validated by reading the talk section.
    Darren Meade is notable for business and his bodybuilding titles, which include success in the NPC and IFBB. He won both titles in the USA and Internationally.
    As a business man he has paunched both private and public companines.
    Philanthropy - Through his work with Feed The Children and other groups to feed the hungry and inspire other homeless children.
    Politics - They are not linked of referenced on this page, however, the Orange County Register, interviewed Darren Meade each week on the historic recall campaign in California for Governor. Darren worked on Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign through out the campaign. Again showing notability.
    In closing one last attack was simply one of copyright infringement. I believe this to be false. I added a link to an article written by Darren Meade. When I went to the page I created, it said I should add links to help verify, which I did. If I placed this in the wrong location, please let me know where it should go. I will gladly change such. However I do not believe a link to an article by Darren Meade to be a copyright issue. It is his article, he wrote it and irrevocably agreed to release his contribution under the terms of GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthadecanta (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am part of WikiProject Bodybuilding and I would love to see more articles on notable bodybuilders. But the emphasis is on the word notable. Fails WP:BIO, sadly. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear Ecoleetage in regards to notable, do you consider newspaper articles, video news releases and other third party articles citing notability to be what causes notability? If so, how can we share such without in being considered self promotion? Further, if someone wins a title and then leaves a sport to help the homeless and hungry and uses the title in doing so, is that notable?
If I add all the articles when Darren Meade helped the campaign in California to promote another bodybuilder into office (Arnold) is that notable? If we go off the deifintion to the link you kindly provided, I believe we can easily do so. Do you know if I should add this in a different section, so that it is not construed as self promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthadecanta (talk • contribs) 2008-10-19 22:39:35

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) already speedily deleted this as a copyright violation. The article was then re-started by Samanthadecanta (talk · contribs). I performed a history split to get the original history of Darren Meade (soccer), which got deleted along with this article, back at that article. In the process I have deleted the restart that Samanthadecanta did, rather than restoring it (the usual procedure at the end of a history split). This is because it was, once again a copyright violation of M. Meade's own autobiography, with the first person pronouns simply changed to third person. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 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.