Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

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 Keep. The article unquestionably needs help, but notability is established per WP:MUSIC. At least one released and reviewed album exists, in addition to music being used on a widely-viewed TV show. Frank | talk 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Sailing (band)[edit]

Band that fails wp:music. No released album, doesn't seem to be notable. Tags take up more space than the article itself. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep There's a review here, and this verifies that their songs have been on Grey's Anatomy, which is a valid assertation of notability. This name is hard to Google, so there may be other sources out there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved? Someone decided to MOVE the article in the middle of an AFD for reasons unknown. A rollback would be a good idea. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out finally. Not good to do a move during afd... PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Shell ^babelfish 03:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs better sourcing, but both the Grey's Anatomy mention and the backup on a national tour mentions seem to indicate they pass WP:MUSIC. Shell ^babelfish 03:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C10. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the same policy, it says (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.). At this time, I don't actually see anything else that they have done that qualifies as notable. I am a bit confused with the sentence and if it applies. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - in which case, an AFD discussion is not necessary -- Redirect per WP:BEFORE, or just flat out keep. Neier (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the music being used on Grey's Anatomy by itself would not be sufficient, but there are also articles and reviews as noted by Ten Pound Hammer -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 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) 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Chivers[edit]

Non-notable Australian rules footballer. No evidence to support notbaility using multiple reliable sources provided. Yet to play a first team game and does not therefore meet WP:ATHLETE Mattinbgn\^talk 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:ATHLETE. - Longhair\^talk 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. Shell ^babelfish 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not create articles for people who have not yet reached top competition level at their sport. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of fail. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet wikipedias notability guidelines. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has yet to play at a fully professional level, as far as I can tell. If he eventually debuts in the AFL, then we can recreate the article. However, a debut at the top level seems far from certain for Chivers at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:16, 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. Wizardman 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kailin See[edit]

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 10:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I agree with Suntag -- although she has appeared in a few notable films, the roles were minor and I have been unable to find any significant coverage for this actress. Even reviews of her most notable film fail to mention her other than as a cast member (mostly because her appearance is limited to a scant 5 minutes of a 160-minute movie). Article can be posted when or if she receives some significant press. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:39, 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. The complete lack of references, unanimous concerns about it being a hoax, and possible WP:BLP concerns over confusion with the similarly-named real author call for an early close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. Marron[edit]

Can find no reference for this author or any books. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a probable hoax, although there is indeed a real author by that name: Carol A Marron. WorldCat, [1] i suspect the bio is fictitious. The book title can not be verified. The awards are "Ballentyne Readers Circle", real, but not to her-- Her books were in the 1980s. Possible an article on her would be appropriate, but the first step is to delete this nonsense. Quickly, because the other people mentioned might be real names. DGG (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd agree this looks like a hoax. No record of this person, the book or that the book won the award claimed. As DGG says, also doesn't appear to be about the author by the similar name. Shell ^babelfish 06:33, 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. James Bond (film series) (now) has the same content. Sandstein 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond films with synopses[edit]

This is a redundant list, see List of James Bond films Lithoderm (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of James Bond films is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant James Bond (film series), which redirects from List of james bond films Lithoderm (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't even finished creating it yet (OK now I have), and it's already proposed for deletion. Attempts to incorporate synopses into the James Bond_(film series) article were rather unfruitful, because they were placed (by me) in the table that included box office reciepts. Films with rather Byzantine plots (notably The Living Daylights) always got a bit too long making the chart there a bit unsightly. Most users were Ok with them, but one fellow working only from an IP address twice reverted by doing a whole article reversion that simultaneously reverted dozens and dozens of other legit edits. The first time I undid his work, I pleaded to remove synopses only and not undo. This is actually rather hard to do given that they are table entries. The second time he tried, he on pass 1 got rid of all synopses except for View to a Kill and instead of removing this, once again did the date revert which undid well over a week of lots of other good changes not only by me but by "Chris42" (an excellent editor) and others.
We do in fact have separate articles with lists of TV episodes such as "list of doctor who episodes" "list of Seinfeld episodes" or "list of Star Trek comic books". I think if the box office figures are not in the table, a similar tabular list of Bond films with short synopses is viable. It's the squeeze in the table created by box office figures combined with the difficulty of summarizing more Byzantine films like Octopussy and The Living Daylights which seems to be the source of the problem.

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better of course to find a better solution to incorporating short synopses into main article or perhaps just give up on synopses altogether. But we just can't provide any editor with the temptation to remove them by reverting several days of other legitimate changes!!!!

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you not add synopses to James Bond (film series)#Films? From what I can tell, film series articles usually cover the films' synopses very briefly. Can the same not be done here? There doesn't seem to be a need to have a separate article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a thought. However, it would at this point have to done separately from the table with box-office receipts for all the reasons detailed above. Box office receipts plus films requiring longer plot explanations make table ungainly which tempts one miscreant (well-intentioned) editor to revert whole article to before addition of synopses undoing many other excellent edits. Clearly, it just isn't going to work putting synopses in the film table with box-office receipts. We could put it at the bottom. The lists I appealed to "lists of Seinfeld episodes" etc. are all much much longer than this list (over 100 Seinfeld episodes- only 22 Bond films), so it's perhaps not a good justification.

--WickerGuy (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about creating a table solely for box office performance of the 007 films? See Spider-Man (film series)#Box office performance as an example. That would allow you to use the table under development that can identify the films, their synopses, and the actors and directors. It would require some fairly large changes, but I think it would be better for the long term if the synopses belong on James Bond (film series). Some editors may be adverse to just having an article with mostly plot detail, so if the rundown neighbors real-world context of the film series, it would not be as disputable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We think alike!! I've already done just that before I read your message. See James_Bond_(film_series)#Films. If this change stands, then we can of course delete the article. Note incidentally that the article proposed for deletion currently does not have a link to it from any other page (except my "My contributions" user page of course).

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like editors/users Chris42 and Alientraveler are quite happy with the new arrangement, so it looks like this really can be deleted. Apparently, I can create articles but can't destroy them. --WickerGuy (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of James Bond films with synopses? None of those films had synopses, although I believe that there might have been one hidden inside a cigarette case in The Spy Who Loved Me Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since synopses have been implemented in the film series article. Article title does not seem like a redirect worth keeping. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of James Bond Films might be a good redirect, however... 216.54.198.18 (talk) 02:36, 25 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. --Tone 11:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door[edit]

As before, still mostly a beat for beat plot synopsis with nothing to assert the significance beyond it being a crossover episode which isn't considered canon for either series. Throughly non-notable, mostly made up of original research and lacking in any reliable sources or real-world context. treelo _radda 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources exist for this series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (no sources exist). JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 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. --Tone 11:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior (Kid Rock Song)[edit]

Non-notable song, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:32, 21 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)} 22:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM; song fails to assert notability in any manner. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:50, 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 Delete. --Tone 11:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd sonic boom six album[edit]

Three articles about supposedly upcoming albums by Sonic Boom Six - but unconfirmed and without release dates. Fail WP:NALBUMS. Ros0709 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Also note that City Of Theives (album) redirects to 3rd sonic boom six album.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a crystal hammer. If anything can be confirmed, merge into band article until a) the album is released, b) it has a name, and c) notability is established.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. (As happy as I am to see WP:HAMMER cited daily, it would still be nice to see at least one day go by without a WP:HAMMER-related deletion discussion...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above two !votes were made before the nomination was completed - at that point it did not include the additional two albums Ros0709 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my view, the article relates to a future album ~~, which has not been titled~~. As such, I believe it fails our notability guidelines WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. If something comes of it that isn't speculation, I would say include it in the encyclopedia. Also, I can't find anything on google (which I admit is difficult, given that City of Thieves is a popular topic used by other books, and perhaps I'm searching for it wrongly), but I can't find any other RS yet. Fraud ^{talk to me} 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'City Of Theives' is the title for the 3rd Sonic Boom Six album. It is to be released in Feb 2009.

'Play On: Arcade Perfected & Rare and Rejected' is the name of the rarities and remix album. It is to be released 'soon' - information taken from www.sonicboomsix.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calummckenna (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have said where the information came from, from a post via the bands bass player on their official forums. I quote: "The provisional title is 'City of Thieves'." Also, as they are a pretty small band, they own their own record label, and the fact that this information was only divulged on Oct 20, 2008 @ 10:16 PM, I very much doubt that there would be information on google.

All I have done is relayed information that the band have released. Calummckenna (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) There has been proof FROM THE BAND on the bands official website about these releases. If there is any more problems, I suggest that you contact one of the band members yourself, preferably Barney, who's contact information I am not willing to post here but can be found on their official website. That is www.sonicboomsix.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calummckenna (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calummckenna. Things can change from time to time, and just because a band wants to release something, it doesn't mean they will. I would say it would violate WP:SELFPUB, as it represents the only reliable source out there on the article. In my view, if the release was notable, we'd have some coverage of it in the press, as releases are typically reported in the media, but even still, we're facing difficulties with WP:CRYSTAL. These are my two cents, I'm open to hearing any additional comments you may have. Fraud ^{talk to me} 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP… Hammertime! — on top of WP:CRYSTALHAMMER, band may be trying to promote itself through Wikipedia. Also, a conflict of interest is present. MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page titled 'rarities and remix' can be deleted, as the page titled 'Play On: Arcade Perfected & Rare and Rejected' has been made to replace it. I don't see anything wrong about that page, it has a release date, album artwork, a record label and a tracklisting. This album has been announced on the bands official website, and official myspace page.

The pages titled '3rd Sonic Boom Six album' and 'City of Theives (album)' could be deleted, as there is not too much information about this future release yet.

As for the band self promoting the albums...I have nothing to do with the band, I'm just a fan, and if by releasing information via Wikipedia is classed as 'self promotion' then you're clearly wrong.Calummckenna (talk) 20:19, 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. --Tone 11:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Martin (footballer born 1989)[edit]

Alan Martin fails WP:ATHLETE because he has not played a professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE - article has been around for over a year and he still hasn't made the first team. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not yet made it. recreate if and when--ClubOranje^Talk 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete " ". JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate should he ever play at a fully pro level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if he makes a pro appearance. Bettia (rawr!) 10:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:21, 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. --Tone 11:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Square[edit]

An open-air center even less notable than the enclosed mall it replaced. No references, either. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The old mall doesn't seem to have been covered in very many, if any, reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Looks like they used Labelscar's summary for Hammond Square as a springboard and hastily added a few more details. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:17, 22 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)} 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tone 11:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable PC game - the only claim to notability is based on a non-notable website review CultureDrone (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There's absolutely no sources of any credibility available for the game, notability is not satisfied. Someone another 02:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "over 300" downloads? Non-notable software. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

delete - no soruces covering this game -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 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 Keep all. There is no consensus to delete. There is no compelling reason to enforce deletion here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2004[edit]

Almost sickeningly unencyclopedic. Some of these articles don’t even have introductions, they’re just huge lists of bands and show dates. The tour itself is very notable, but each year of the tour is not.

Delete all per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the above articles. Agree with nom. --Belinrahs (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - duplicative of List of Warped Tour lineups by year. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. If you tried to put all of that info on one page it would make an article that was entirely too large. I find some of the language used here a bit disheartening. Are you actually getting "sick" over the layout of an article page? Seems a bit much if you ask me and like someone is taking this WAY too seriously. Instead of deleting everything when there is information, why not fix the layout then instead of just removing it entirely? DX927 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. A reasonable breakout per WP:Summary style. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how are giant lists of bands encyclopedic or necessary? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they show which bands played in a specific year? DX927 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't any context, it's just a list of bands. Besides, that information all exists already at List of Warped Tour lineups by year, which was created by consensus after the last AFD nominations for all of these articles. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I missed that list. I'm not crazy about how it's organized, though. I think for example Ozzfest lineups by year is better at capturing who was on what tour and level of importance, compared to either the list here or the separate breakout articles here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't either, so I went ahead and re-did it. I like the way Ozzfest did it, but due to the large amounts of bands on Warped Tour, that just wasn't feasible. Instead, I put it in a table, and I think it looks alright. (Gotta love MS Word's "find and replace" feature. Saved me a LOT of time in putting this into table format.) Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you even realize how large the one article would be if just one year's worth of bands was added to it? DX927 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, not too long, as I've already fit ALL of the bands into just one article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to "ALL" of the bands are listed on that page DX927 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to List of Warped Tour lineups by year. There is nothing that really distinguishes the tour in one year from another that would give that year's instance notability beyond that for the overall tour concept. This is similar to the situation with organisations where individual chapters or sub-units of an organisation of a notable organisation are not notable unless they have some form of independent notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep somewhere A list of performing bands is a perfectly acceptable split-out article, per Wasted Time R. This sort of thing is very easy to reference, and an introductory paragraph shouldn't be beyond our abilities. Barring length concerns, I think these ought to be merged into one list. See as paradigm List of Lollapalooza lineups by year. 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep all, each year of the tour IS notable. List of Warped Tour lineups by year is an interesting article, but a little hard to read. That list is useful for seeing which years a particular band has been on the Warped Tour. But quick, from that list tell me which bands were on the 2008 Warped Tour. I suppose a prose list could be created like List of Lollapalooza lineups by year, but the tours are different in that Lollapalooza occurs in one location, for no more than 3 days each year. The Warped Tour typically spans two months, with different bands each date. Information besides band names, dates, and locations would be a welcome addition to the articles — for example, attendance figures, gate revenue, reviews, press coverage, tiny sections on the compilation albums (and not just a link to them below in Template:Warped Tour), etc — but I think they're okay as is. Having articles on each year of the tour is just as acceptable as having articles for years of the Toronto International Film Festival. --Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can. Click the little arrow box next to the year you want to view and it will automatically re-sort to show you all the bands on the tour in a single year. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what are they? Did you have to type it up or could you select them with your cursor and copy and paste? I did notice the arrow box next to each year, and I know what it's intended for, but it's certainly not working on my end. --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like you have to click it twice to get them to the top. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, layout isn't a topic of deletion. Even though layout is an issue, deleting a few hundred hours work without discussing notability...? try {{wikify or {{cleanup 89.204.240.36 (talk) 04:03, 28 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. The merge has been completed, although of course anyone may edit further. I left the old title as a redirect for the time being, although it probably is not a particularly likely search term. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted (song)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, fails notability for songs, wouldn't be a useful redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album. It was a #1 single, but not on a very major chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album's article. This single reached number one in the Billboard Hot Rap Singles chart.[2] Articles on songs or albums by notable artists with some (arguably) useful content are better merged into 'parent' articles than nominated for deletion, IMHO. --Michig (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above comments. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the album's article per above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a single, like many articles of Ice Cube's singles. It's got a single cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCB '92 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 October 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls tours[edit]

Little to indicate notability, not to mention a complete lack of sources. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Set list, largely unsourced. The coding has at least improved since the last afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom sourcing issues have not been addressed since the conclusion of previous discussions. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Cheetah Girls (recording artists). Unfortunately, "poorly sourced" isn't an accepted reason for deletion, and I don't think the information in this article is unsourceable. Most of it is simply unnecessary. I stand in opposition to tour schedules and setlists, and think that they fall under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I clearly represent a minority opinion there, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Strip the tour schedules and setlists out, and the remaining information will fit nicely into the parent article.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that tour schedules are not necessary in tour articles (just a general description of where they played and in what type of venues), but setlists (for those tours with fixed ones) are important, just as tracklistings for albums are important. A concert performance is an artistic work, and the inclusion and ordering of songs is the key element of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No worse than most of the rubbish in Wikipedia. 125.255.16.233 (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Stuff Exists is not a valid reason for a keep vote. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 10:15, 26 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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Tour[edit]

Non-Notable Tour Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. ~~I've long been planning to expand and improve this article. I guess now is the time. Stay tuned. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)~~ The article has been expanded, and citing has been extensively added. The tour's notability is now established: It was the first headlining tour for the Dixie Chicks, but already took place in arenas, due to their strategy of building a broad base of appeal and an innovative approach they took to concert promotional arrangements and marketing of the tour. It was the second-highest grossing country tour of 2000 and the sixth-highest of any genre. It was nominated for the most important Pollstar award and won another one. And it had a strong cultural effect, "making the Dixie Chicks a pop-cultural phenomenon" in the words of one source and bringing in a cross-generational audience. There's more work to be done on the article, especially in describing the show, but for all these reasons just given, the Fly Tour is definitely notable and the article should be kept. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 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 Delete. --Tone 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curatorial Assistance, Inc.[edit]

Bringing here after a declined A7 speedy... no independent sources attesting to the notability of a company that apparently does road shows of art. Even if the artists themselves are notable, I'm not sure the company warrants an article. Newsaholic (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NB, agree with you that the artists may have real-life notability but it does'nt warrant an article. cf38^talk 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry, Wikipedia is not a web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR & above. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not a notable business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 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. --Tone 12:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Little more than a setlist and list of dates. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Martina's at least has sources, but these still aren't anything more than set lists. I'm almost getting the feeling that tours are almost as inherently non-notable as mixtapes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable tours that fail WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on Timeless Tour, Strong keep on George Strait Country Music Festival. Regarding Timeless Tour, nom's description of it is incorrect, it includes substantial material on the tour and the show. Regarding George Strait Country Music Festival, this was a package tour, which are hard to describe in any one participant's article and thus merit their own article. This was also a festival, and the article describes some of the festival-like aspects to it. Look at Category:Music festivals in the United States; we have hundreds of articles on music festivals, many more minor than this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because another article exists does not mean this one should stay. Likewise, there is no problem with adding portions of this article to the articles of their respective articles, if it were notable enough. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:21, 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. --Tone 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Little more than a setlist, notability not established. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, non-notable tours. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more significant than any other tour. Lacks sufficient media coverage. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improvement and de-blathering strongly recommended. Sandstein 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organic baby products[edit]

Article fails notability, content fork with Organic food and possibly Organic cotton, no effort taken by editors to prove notability, general blabla state of article. Truetom (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. I should make WP:BLAHBLAH for articles that are in "blah blah" state. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. There is an article here, this just ain't it. Might need some working. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep merge with Organic food cf38^talk 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to be well-written and sourced. With a new infant, I'm finding a lot of chatter in the "baby world" about organic baby products. Article is warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak but lead and melamine free keep This message brought to you by the "Organic Baby Products Consortium". Remember, you can find our products from a variety of sources. Don't forget to ask about organic diapers and bedding! (Thought I would make my reasons to keep as weak as the article. Notable, just written with a bias) PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can i just verify, if you vote for keep, a merger is not an option, or is this not the place to ask this?Truetom (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. It's a discussion. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for more information. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the concensus here doesn't question the notability of the topic, however, the current article appears to be written in a very "pro organic" tone. This isn't a reason to delete the article (IMO), but it means the article needs lots of work from someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest in the subject matter. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in my opinion the problem of the article is not that it is pro organic but that it can be summed up by advantages of obp is that they are organic, disadvantages is that they are more expensive and then it lists all the organic baby products that you could possible buy, all references refer to organic products in general, there are no references about obp in particular.Truetom (talk) 05:10, 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. --Tone 11:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EmoTrance[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:FRINGE; there are no references from independent, mainstream sources. The lone cited source is a promotional website associated with the subject; most of the cited books are by DragonRising, a small specialty publisher of EmoTrance literature. There is no non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:N, and no coverage in mainstream sources to satisfy WP:FRINGE. Without such sources, the topic is non-notable and the article can never get beyond a promotional brochure. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sources. Zero Google Scholar hits. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, sounds more like a musical genre to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, definitely. If nothing else, it reads like an advertisement, and without reliable mainstream sources, that's not fixable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. There isn't anything important in this. --X093i (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any independent sources either. If they appear at some point in the future, then an article could always be created at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 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 Delete. --Tone 11:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Sanitarium Tour 2003[edit]

Non-notable tour. Unsourced since June 2007, and doesn't seem to be exceedingly notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a package tour, not just by one group, and thus is hard to describe in any group's individual article. As for the headliner, Metallica is one of the most major rock groups of all time, and their summer European tours are notable for high grosses for relatively few dates, for letting the volatile outfit blow off steam, and for previewing some of their new musical directions. In that respect, article needs improvement, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having notable bands on the tour does not make the tour itself notable. You seem to think that all tours MUST be notable in all instances, but I assure you they are not. Nobody is questioning how notable Metallica is, but we are questioning how notable this tour is, because it doesn't seem too notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If this tour is notable then we need to demonstrate non-trivial coverage through reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:17, 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 Delete. --Tone 11:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb Of God's 2008-2009 Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lamb Of God's 2008-2009 Tour

Non-notable tour, consists solely of a list of dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. cf38^talk 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until it starts and we know something about it. And even I don't consider touring as a support act to be worthy of an article! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park 2008 Summer European Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. The article is just an unencyclopedic list of tour dates, songs, and supporting acts with no assertion of notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major tour by major rock band. Obviously needs improvement to describe various aspects of the tour, themes of the set list rotation, critical and commercial reaction, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Never Gone Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major tour by major pop group. The nom's notion that concert tours are inherently unnotable is badly flawed. In many cases, concert tours are artistic endeavors of their own, due to staging, presentation themes, song selection, arrangements, etc. And in many cases, concert tours are seen by more people than buy the same artists' albums or singles, and are more commercially important to the artist. There's no reason this article can't be as good as Into the Millennium Tour. And even in its present state, it doesn't "inherit" notability any worse than the barebones The Hits: Chapter One article does, which is hardly more than a track listing. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply making an artist a lot of money does not make something notable, nor does complexity of the stage show make it notable. If there isn't substantial, non-trival coverage, then it isn't notable enough. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - there is no doubt about the notability of the act. If the article can be sourced with non-promotional citations (say. from local news sites) demonstrating widespread coverage of the tour would assuage much of the objections stated above. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 26 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. — neuro^(talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omakase[edit]

It must be dictionary definition season. Except we're not a dictionary service. Oh, and "stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" is definitely not a reliable source! coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a cuisine-related stub that does have potential to expand beyond a mere dictionary definition. Both of my favorite books on sushi have Omakase in their indices... I'll try to come back to this article in the next few days when I'm not too hungry for sushi to think straight. Yum. Newsaholic (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing is nonideal, but it's not contentious or potentially problematic and is a legitimate encyclopaedic subject. WilyD 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...according to who? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... eh? It's a subject which can be covered in an encyclopaedic fashion, for instance one might expect to find it in this encyclopaedia. Wily D 03:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This term really exists. I think that best sources are in Japanese and the Wikipedia doesn't need all sources in English. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is notable in the same way that buffet is. This has a similar potential for expansion. --Polaron | Talk 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The food-related information could easily be merged into sushi, and the Amazon.com reference could be merged into the Amazon.com article. There is no reason to have this article here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply only to sushi. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If it could be expanded, I'd feel stronger about it. Now, it's more a definition than an encyclopedia article. Geoff (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially following the recent enhancements of the article. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 12:17, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera Latin American Tour 2001[edit]

Non-notable tour, consists primarily of a setlist and list of tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Important tour by a major pop artist. Just the fact that she did a Latin America-only tour is significant and notable. Needs better sourcing, but that's already covered by the {{unreferenced}} tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Wasted Time R this tour is very significant to the artists career, no reason why it should be deleted. Wneedham02 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is significant to her career, then there is no reason why it cannot be merged with Christina Aguilera, but it doesn't meet the requirements to have it's own article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 11:17, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable Tour (Backstreet Boys)[edit]

Non-notable music tour, mostly setlists and tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Major reunion effort by once-major pop group. The nom's description is incorrect in this case, as this article has a good deal of material other than set list and tour dates. The nom's notion that concert tours are inherently unnotable is badly flawed; in this case, how well the group's appeal has maintained over their dormant years can be addressed, with likely variations for geographical region. Article needs better sourcing, yes, but deletion won't solve that! Wasted Time R (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep and clean up. There is no doubt as to the notability of the group. The problem is that the article is in serious need of cleaning up, condensing, and sourcing, most notably to show coverage of the tour itself (preferably by local news sites). I have flagged the article for cleanup. Two sections (set lists - which can be combined into one section, not two - and backing acts) I've tagged as OR as there is nothing indicating that it was obtain by anything but attending a concert or two. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black & Blue Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Black & Blue Tour

Non-notable tour, article is hardly more than a setlist. Despite being a tour for a notable group, an article still must be notable on it's own as per WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major tour by major pop group. The nom's notion that concert tours are inherently unnotable is badly flawed. In many cases, concert tours are artistic endeavors of their own, due to staging, presentation themes, song selection, arrangements, etc. And in many cases, concert tours are seen by more people than buy the same artists' albums or singles, and are more commercially important to the artist. There's no reason this article can't be as good as Into the Millennium Tour. And even in its present state, it doesn't "inherit" notability any worse than the barebones The Hits: Chapter One article does, which is hardly more than a track listing. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply making an artist a lot of money does not make something notable, nor does complexity of the stage show make it notable. If there isn't substantial, non-trival coverage, then it isn't notable enough. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. There is no doubt about the notability of the act. The problem here is twofold: there is no citation indicating coverage of the tour by news sites (preferably local media), and the set list seems to be OR without any sourcing. Should citations for both be provided, that would be enough for keeping the article. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 26 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) 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean P. Conlon[edit]

The coach of a college poetry slam team. Doesn't seem notable. The source provided mentions the team and has a few quotes from Mr. Conlon, but the article isn't about Conlon himself but rather poetry slams in general. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too obscure. Punkmorten (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. cf38^talk 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF, and WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 04:13, 26 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) 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Juvera[edit]

Minor actor. Two minor roles, one uncredited. No reliable sources provided. No substantial coverage found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too few achievements to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NB cf38^talk 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMemory Animation Software[edit]

NN software. Major part of the article is chemistry that can be found in other articles. --The Firewall 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to describe the s-memory software similar to other software pages listed on Molecular modelling, perhaps it should be more specific? Edguy99 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other software here are either directly linked to their homepage or have an article with content about the software, for example MOPAC.

My concern is that everything below the contents box in this article is chemistry. The article should be about the software, not a How-To/manual for using it, if it was intended to be that. I also doubt if its notable enough to have a page.--The Firewall 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is introducing the idea of the dots that are used as attraction points to draw the structures together, then goes through from simple to more complex molecules how that works all the way up to the use of nitrogen. Would less examples and more to the point work? Edguy99 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, this is a restoration on material that was deleted after this discussion at AfD. Second, the software is not notable. Third, most of these diagrams are misleading and give an inaccurate picture of molecules. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The work is a clever artistry but it has no useful connection to the real world of chemistry. The work is also a form of research. And it is misleading. The strange thing is that constructing these diagrams requires skill, but the result is garbage. Also irritating that we went through this process previously and I guess that this editor will persist and merits some sort of warning.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the merits of this software (we can and do have articles on "bad" software), there are no references to support its notability. The electronic book referenced in the article doesn't mention this software. VG ☎ 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software is notable and of considerable use to anyone wanting to join bigger collections of molecules together. It displays .pdb (protein data base) format files in the traditional sense, but many other popular programs such as JMOL that just allow you to view and manipulate 1 molecule. Here you can manipulate several molecules on the same page and manipulate them into bigger and bigger structures of molecules through special 3-D editing capabilities.

The dots are not misleading as they help the user connect multiple complexes of molecules together into groups. The dots can be rearranged by the user or more can be added to allow you to model any molecules orbital structure. Think of it as using VP2000 (as I understand how it works) to find the orbitals, and then marking the centers (where possible) with a dot.

I do see better how this section is organized and should have reviewed pages like MOPAC more carefully before posting, sorry about irritating anyone Edguy99 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VP2000? Do you mean VB2000? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Edguy99's page is basically a copy of this article. VG ☎ 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability to see what we mean by notable. This is basically another attempt at promoting this product and these ideas after the deletion of 3D Lewis Structure from the same author. --Itub (talk) 05:55, 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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move America Forward[edit]

This article shows extreme bias and is not in accordance with wikipedia's NPOV policy, to an extent that it cannot be salvaged. Mercury981 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mercury981, I see your point, deletion would be preferable in some ways. Unfortunately this organization looks notable-enough to have some coverage in wikipedia, and the article is cogent, if biased, and apparently well sourced. I say keep, cut, and maintain the 'neutrality' tag until another editor sorts it out the bias issue. --Lockley (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lockley's rationale. Tag and perhaps trim with a chainsaw, but it isn't unsalvagable, just very biased in a backhanded way. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withholding judgment at the moment. The current state of the article is, I agree, intolerable, and may take too much effort to fix. If it doesn't get better in a day or two, I will vote to delete in the best interests of Wikipedia, with no prejudice against the re-creation of an unbiased article. Some articles are too damaged to fix, and it's easier to start over. This may well be one of them. RayAYang (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notable. Verified. Multiple independent sources. Appears engaged in activity that would result in long-term standing. The only problem being the article is not very well structured or written. It doesn't seem to explain the subject matter well. davumaya 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be impossible to delete based on everyone's input, *however*, a concensus to "keep but stubbify" could be a reasonable outcome, assuming that is the concensus. Trim it all the way down to the bare facts and let them start over, and likely it would be good to watch the page for a few months to make sure we don't have to end up here again. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, afds are not a way to deal with content disputes. If you think that the article at present is POV, you can reduce it to a minimalistic stub. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AFD is not for content cleanup -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 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. Without prejudice to the creation of the article proposed by Itsmejudith, but the current content is probably unhelpful for that too. Sandstein 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosociology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article fails to establish the notability of the area of research. Despite various links dug up during the first AfD, none of these have been incorporated into the article. Most of the papers in the scholar search appear to be authored by the same person, and nearly all of these appear to be associated with astrosociology.com. Moreover, an anonymous editor points out on Talk:Astrosociology that there are no publications on astrosociology appearing in reputable academic sociology journals. This clearly disqualifies the subject of the article as a non-notable academic field of study. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject matter of the field is total speculation at this point, but that does not mean it cannot be notable. The present article is very close to PR for a particular POV, though. The subject is probably discussed elsewhere, though probably under variant names. That doesn't necessarily affect the possible validity of the article if there is no better name. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't keep articles based on their subject matter "probably" being discussed "elsewhere". Google Scholar returns 45 hits - all of them either part of astrosociology.com or written by Mr. Pass, who seems to be the originator and sole voice of this theory. These results do not bode well, especially for a recent (i.e., within the last decade) field of study. Badger Drink (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after 2 years it is time to "fish or cut bait" ... forget potential... either this article can be properly sourced or it can not. Given that it is still poorly sourced after two years tells me that this is unlikely. Blueboar (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of all the sources provided, only one is independent of the subject and I don't know how weighty that source is. I don't feel that notability is established. Reyk _YO! 04:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several third-party articles were pointed out during the previous AfD. That "none of these have been incorporated into the article" is not a valid deletion criterion, because, as the saying goes, AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline. I say weak keep due to the admittedly small number of independent sources, although this technically meets the general notability criterion in my opinion. Just remember that not everything needs to be "academic" to be notable. --Itub (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the third party sources identified during the previous AfD are particularly high-quality. Neither of them was in a sociology journal or other highly regarded academic source, which I believe is what would be needed to support the article's own claim of notability as a subdiscipline of sociology. If we wanted a keep based on WP:FRINGE, entirely different sources would be needed for evaluating the field, which no one has so far presented, and it would require a rewrite of the article as well. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the article that establishes the notability of the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It sounds like the topic failed to get any traction beyond the originator (various .com and .org included). The keep from the previous AfD was based on assumed potential rather than any third-party references. VG ☎ 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand. I suggest to move it to Sociology of outer space. We have a lot of other "sociology of" articles, and there is a recent contribution to this sub-specialism from a leading academic publisher: Dickens, Peter and Ormrod, James, Cosmic Society: Towards a Sociology of the Universe, Routledge, London 2007. This has been reviewed in several places, so there is a chance of expanding the article with additional good sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand. This sounds like an excellent idea. I've also seen the book Itsmejudith mentions and have been looking at other sources. My own academic study of sociology long ago leads me to the conclusion that the idea of such a field is valid, but whether is will end up being called astrosociology is another question. Let's have a broad article that can include this. Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand per Itsmejudith and Doug Weller. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is somewhat notable in literature ([3]). Object to renaming - "sociology of outer space" is much less frequent. That said, article seems like it needs expansion/rewriting and possibly some npov tags.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those is a guide to doing a PhD, which suggests it as a novel disciplinary theory such as 'nanotheology' and comments it will have to start somewhere and that a PhD would be a good place to make the first move - sounds like that source doesn't see it as an existing discipline. Others reference the web site, Pass, etc. One, 'Ambassador Without Credentials', says "Everybody knows that only those with exceptional spiritual qualities are selected for astrosociology" and is listed on Amazon.com as an adventure and fantasy book. What is missing is lack of notability in the sociological literature, journals and books. No one is saying there is a field now called "sociology of outer space", just that an article on that can include astrosociology and other ventures at extra-terrestrial sociology. If you add 'sociology' to Piotrus's search, you are down to 6, one of them being the PhD tip book that seems to think it is a non-existent field. The most relevant book there is Cosmic Society:towards a sociology of the universe, and see this page [4] which says "There is a distinct danger that some fledgling projects to explore the relationship between society and the universe, such as the field of 'astrosociology' being developed by Jim Pass (2004). do little bur reproduce hegemonic common sense about the benefits of space exploration and development (Ormrod 2C05). Although ;istrosociology may draw public attention to under-researched issues, it will offer nothing if it does not do so critically. Some previous studies offer more hope for this kind of sociology." Doug Weller (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. It is my understanding that in AfDs we are discussing WP articles, and not the subject of the articles. Is that correct? If so, this article does nothing to establish the notability of the subject, notability being the grounds for votes to "Keep", or "Delete". Have I misunderstood something? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if there is a possibility of rewriting an article so that notability is established, then that might be grounds to keep. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good, reliable, sources, and fails notability requirements. Verbal chat 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No articles in peer-reviewed literature means it's a non-notable non-academic field of study. All "sources" are by the same person, even the link to thespacereview.com. - Atmoz (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially this article is entirely original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a very good article but it's a subject that covers the influence of Star Wars and ET on modern society. UFOs!!! First person shooter games are all spawned from alien related fiction stories. It should, perhaps read, "The culture and social phenomenon resulting from human interest in outer space." Perhaps there is a better article under a different name but this topic covers the psycological effect of NASA on your ordinary person. I guess that fails to establish notability?!! Also the topic would cover Scientology as it was created by one of the most successful "astro" thinkers of his time. Star Trek!! Suggest "cleanup" tags for the article and "project needs help" tags as well. If you can find these links (nominator) you are bound to add them and improve the wiki, not tear it down for the laugh. 89.204.246.141 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, make this into a Scientology WP:COATRACK, that's exactly what was missing here. VG ☎ 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saugus.net Ghost Story Contest[edit]

WP:NN local contenst. Failed {{prod}} after sole editor objected. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I concur with nominator. Not notable enough, and I found no sources besides Saugus-related sites, blogs, and portals. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--A former contest entrant tipped me off about this entry and this discussion. Obviously I am not going to get involved in the debate one way or another as I am directly associated with the contest. However, I am in a position to offer evidence that may help better make an informed decision pro or con. Responding to above comments, not everything with "Saugus" in its title is affiliated as seems to be suggested, and (giving the benefit of the doubt that it was meant to be meaningful and not an insult of some sort) I honestly don't know what is meant by the free Web hosting service comment. What I can say is that I have been personally interviewed on seven occasions regarding the contest; twice by the Saugus Advertiser, once by the Lynn Evening Item, once by the Marblehead Reporter, once by the Wakefield Item, once by NOBLE (the North of Boston Library Exchange), and once by the people writing the book Of Time and the River. These are not all in Saugus (or even all adjacent to Saugus) but are all in Massachusetts, and I doubt that many (if any) of the actual articles were copied online. I am told that there have been a handful of other articles written about the contest both in Massachusetts and in other parts of the country, but as I was not personally interviewed for these I don't have a lot of info on hand. In particular I do not have direct information regarding the mentioned Saugus Advocate article listed as a reference in the entry in question. I will be happy to answer any serious questions posed to me regardless of whether they support keeping the entry or deleting it, but as I am pretty busy right now with the contest under discussion, I won't be able to check back here again before Halloween. Eric Brown (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2008 (EST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not have submitted this article if I didn't think it was worthwhile. Some categories of literature get more space in Wikipedia than others, and all my submissions have been related to horror literature to try and make as useful for horror fans as some of those other categories are for their fans. This contest is probably the oldest / most prominent of its kind. Drmies - I found sources in print. Do they count? Eric Brown - what's your involvement with the contest? User:Halloweiner (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety ^talk 06:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daivajanam[edit]

Fails WP:BK. Article written by an editor with the same name as the book's author last name. VG ☎ 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom cf38^talk 21:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable book. Springnuts (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and part of a walled garden of material that *seems* to be pushed by the subject of the article as discussed here--Cameron Scott (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tear down that walled garden. All the sources originate from the author of the article (who is also the name of the book), or associated with him. Definitely promotional in nature. B.Wind (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kuzhinapurath[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable priest. Practically all references document trivial aspects of his career. Original editor's name indicates auto-biography. VG ☎ 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete on first appearance it seems like this is a well referenced article but really it's all trivial or all seems to come from organisations that he has a personal connection with. I don't see anything that represent true independent notable 3rd party coverage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NB and WP:BIO cf38^talk 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has a minor role in his church, and minor writings only--and not all that many of them either. Should he become a bishop, not just notary to a bishop, then he'd be notable. DGG (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, minor role otherwise known as non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is rendering an important service as an expert of CCEO. He was invited to the Episcopal Synod of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as an expert of Oriental Canon Law.[5]Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those have any relevance here. To warrant a biographical article, a living person's life must have already been reliably, independently, and extensively documented outside of Wikipedia. You have not cited a single source to show this. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable just because he is a writer but he is a social worker who is rendering a praiseworthy service among the cancer patients. Being an expert in Canon Law he has contributed greatly to the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. In 1998 he has argued in his writings that the Metropolitan status of the Syro-Malnkara Catholic Church is incompatible with its jurisdictional history and in 2005 the Syro-Malnkara Catholic Church was elavated to the status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church. He is the Notary of the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal and not of any bishop. He is the authorised signatory. He is also working as judge of other tribunals of the Church. I have watched a programme on Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath in the Power Vision TV channel. This programme very clearly affirms the statements I made here.Wiproman (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Wiproman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

you understand that personal testimony means absolutely nothing here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable --GPPande talk! 10:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a research on the basis of the writings of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath in connection with my Bth Thesis. I could find the following works written by Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath in the Library of St. Mary's Malankara Seminary and Public Library, Trivandrum:

1. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, Towards the Absolute: A Comparative Study the Evolutionary Theories Teilhard and Aurobindo, Trivandrum, 1991.
2. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Vadikapaisheelanam Ghattangaliloode", Christava Kahalam, 1991 April, pp. 9-14.
3. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Idavaka, Daivajanakendram", Preshithakeralam, 1991 December, pp. 21-28.
4. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Dhanikarkku Daivarajyam Anyamo", Talent, August 1992, pp. 32-40.
5. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Manushyajeevanuvendi Oru Dharmasamaram", Talent, November 1994, pp. 23-35.
6. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Manushya Manasakshiyodu Sabha Samsarikkunnu", Talent, January 1994, pp. 18-27.
7. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Sabhayude Samoohika Prabodhanangal", Christava Kahalam, 1991 August, pp. 21-34.
8. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Christmas Chinthakal: Karl Rahner", Christava Kahalam, 1993 December, pp. 14-27.
9. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Mar Gregorios Chinthakal", Christava Kahalam, 1994 January, pp. 9-17.
10. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Kaumarathile Kuttavasana: Oru Padhanam", Mathavum Chinthayum, 1992 May-June, pp. 43-62.
11. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Prapancha Parinaamam Udhithanaya Christuvilekku: Teilhard Chardin", Mathavum Chinthayum, 1995 March-April, pp. 17-31.
12. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Palam Thettunna Kaumaram", Vjnjanakairali, 1997 October, pp. 42-51.
13. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Mar Ivanios: Bharatha Christava Sanyasathinte Pravachakan", Deepika, 1997 July, 15 (Editorial Page).
14. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Malankara Katholikkasabhayude Kanonika Vyakthithvam", Aikyadeepam, 1993 September, pp.9-14.
15. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Ecological Problem: A Problem of Justice", Caritas, 1992, pp.63-78.
16. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, "Divine Soniship in the Gospel of John", Caritas, 1994, pp. 18-24.
17. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, The Existential Christology of Karl Rahner, Aluva, 1994.
18. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, Daivajanam, Trivandrum, 1998, 2000.
19. KUZHINAPURATH, Thomas, Salvific Law, Coimbatore, 2004; Trivandrum, 2008.
So the article shall be kept. Davis Mathews (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Davis_Mathews (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- most of those are not notable (Mathavum Chinthayum seems to be a student magazine that he was editor of) and the couple that are make a trivial mention in keeping with his station as a priest. Nothing special from a wikipedia point of view. I have to ask what's going on here in regards to this and a small group of articles, we seem have an awful lots of Single purpose accounts all making edits to the same three or four articles and AFDs. New accounts seem to be popping up to !vote in Afd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works by the subject don't count. It's works about the subject that are needed in order to show that a biographical article of a living person that satisfies our content policies can be written. Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. The relentless deletion stance of Cameron Scott first prompted a pro-life reaction, but, on the second thought, the article does not persuade enough that his writings are notable, or that he is an important cleric withing his church. But neither was Mother Theresa. So the reviewing admin should give it a week's chance to improve (why not?) before pressing the button. NVO (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well an AFD runs for five days - any reason why RS couldn't be added in that period? But neither was Mother Theresa. eh? that would be Mother Theresa who had 100s of books written about her and thousands of magazine and news articles in every single major newspaper around the word? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smacks of self publicity. A doctoral thesis and one essay now included in the syllabus are not enough for WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a sysop from ml wiki. We recently had the same article for AfD discussion. The decision was to Delete, as the ml wiki editors did not find the person notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Wiproman was a one time use account created in ml wiki and we had blocked the id for flaming the discussion. The User Davis Mathews was also created around the same time, but did not participate in the AfD Discussion. Simon has claimed there that he is from the same family and he took the id of kuzhinappurath first and then created his own, as he felt that the name of the article would cause a COI issue. He also claims that he passed on the id and password of that account to the person in article himself. Then again, we see this. All these lead me to vote for a delete. Thanks. --Jyothis (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- seems to have minor notability. However, I have a concern that there may be some conflict of interest, and that this may be semi-autobiographic, if not acually so: if so, it would point to a weak delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have enquired about Mathavum Chinthayum. It is a theologico-philosophical bimonthly. Grreat personalities like Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India have contributed articles to this journal. It is not a students' Magazine. Bishop Thomas Chakkiyath was its Chief Editor when he was a professor in St. Joseph's Pontifical Institute, Aluva. Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath may be the chief editor from the part of the students. About other publications I got the following details: Vjnanakairali is the official organ of the Kerala Language Institute, an agency of Kerala government. The Kerala University whose Chancellor is the Governor of Kerala State has published one one of the essays of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath (See, Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath, "Palam Thettunna Kaumaram", Bhashathilakam Kerala University Press, ISBN-81-86397-13-2,1998, pp. 146-154.). The University affirms in the introduction of the essay that Fr. Thomas the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Trivandrum has contributed a number of essays of essays on various socio-ethical subjects and that he is the author of the book Daivajanam (Bhashathilakam Kerala University Press, ISBN-81-86397-13-2,1998, p. 146). Power Vision TV owned by Protestant Management has telecastes a programme on the litrary and social contributions of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All India Radio Trivandrum has recently broadcasted a discussion on one of the essays of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath in its Educational Programme. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reasons are WP:NB, WP:BIO and self publicity. There are a group of users or puppets/meat puppets of kuzhinappuram family members who are behind all the Kuzhinappuram articles. Their aim might be to start a kuzhinappuram portal in English wikipedia. :)

The following articles are created by this group in English wikipedia.

Thomas Kuzhinapurath - I think this is the master article.

The user who had created Thomas Kuzhinapurath had created the same article in Malayalam Wikipedia also. We have deleted the article from Malayalam Wikipedia after a long discussion. The discussion regarding the deletion of the article is available here. The users who have voted in favor of this article have participated in discussions there also. I have strong doubt whether these users are puppets/meat puppets of one user.

Moreover the below edits are just ridiculous.

Law_and_Gospel
Salvation
Canon_law
Veritatis_Splendor

and, this was too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shijualex (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Shijualex (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have contributed to a lot of articles. This can be very well seen in my contributions page. It is I who created the pages such as Manjanikkara Dayara, Rektha Kanda Swamy Temple and a lot. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: There are more articles that are created by this group and needs investigation regarding the notability.

--Shijualex (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The QDOS profile of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath shows that he is having 11346th rank of 67104 profiles. Ref.[6].Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

means absolutely nothing. This isn't a popularity contest. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The QDOS citation makes me feel a little too suspicious about the intention/credibility of this/these author(s). The higher QDOS profile rank seems to result from Wikipedia citation. Is this author trying to make a circular reference and fool all of us? --Jacob.jose (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the long list given above, the only mainstream publication is Deepika. Add Philip Chempakassery to Shiju's list. Tintin 12:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWritings concerned with theological and spiritual subjects appear in theological journals and Religious Magazines. But I think Vijnanakairali is also a mainstream journal published by Kerala Language Institute. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of the Syro-Malnkara Catholic Church praises Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's book Salvific Law.Ref. [7].Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who published it.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*CommentThe Holy See of Rome gave a destinguished recognition for Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's work Salvific Law (Monsignor Gabriele Caccia, Letter to The Reverend Thomas Kuzhinapurath, dated September 23, 2008, Secreteriate of State, First Section, General Affairs). The official News Paper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano (Indian Edition) has published a review on Salvific Law (Dr.Daniel G. Fulton, Book Review, L'Osservatore Romano, (Malayalam Edition Supplement) 1/21 (2008) p.vi.). The books Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath were found in the following libraries: [8][9][10] Ref.: www.unigre.it/English/Library/Catalogue/Author/Kuzhinapurath (Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome), www.pio.urbe.it/English/Library/Opac/Author/Kuzhinapurath (Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome). Among these Daivajanam (People of God) (Carmel Publishing Centre, Trivandrum, 2000, ISBN 81-87655-13-5) was reviewed by the following reviewers:

1. Dr. Geevarghese Panicker, "Jeevitha Sparshiyaya Daivasasthram" (Lifebound Theology) in Aikyadeepam, July 1998, p.34.

2. M.V. Thomas, "Daivajana Jeevithathinte Vilayiruthal" (An Evaluation of People of God's Life) in Deepika, July 26, 1998.

3. Daniel Poovannathil, "Uthamamaya Vayananubhavam" (A Real Reading Experience), in Christava Kahalam, March 2002, p.58.

And Salvific Law (M.S. Publications, Trivandrum, 2008) was reviewed by:

1. Dr. Daniel G. Fulton, "Book Review", L'Osservatore Romano, (Malayalam Edition Supplement) 1/21 (2008) p.vi.

2. Philip Chempakassery, "Book Review", Aikya Samiksha, 4/2,2007.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Aikya Samiksha is the in-house journal of his church who also happen to be his publishers. It say nothing about notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aikya Samiksha is the official theological journal of the Malnkara Seminary. It has a readership of around 5000 (Selected Theologically Educated). It publishes only well studied theological articles and Book Reviews. Ref. "Editorial Guidelines", Aikya Samiksha, 4/2,2007. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His two books are only held by one library in the US. [11], [12]. VG ☎ 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was surprising to see how this article survived its first AFD discussion. Most of the references given in the article are associated directly or indirectly with the subject himself. The intentions of Thomas Kuzhinappurathu and most of the defenders of this article are clear-Self Publicity. Majority of the articles created and edited by them are best examples of "Wiki cronyism" :). Speedy deletion Manjithkaini (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Jyothis and Shijualex.Salih (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The equal representation from different communities in responding to a single article looks interesting. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be interpreted as "poisoning the well", and considering the worldwide reach of Wikipedia, it would be unbecoming for one editor to even hint at the racial, ethnic, nationality, or similar composition of another and the possible implications of an influence in their analysis and disposition. Assume good faith. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive self-promoting delete - this is one of the most blatant self-promotions that I have seen on Wikipedia. He wrote his autobiography (those who have been invited here by Mr. Kuzhinapurath or other members of his church, please note WP:AUTO). Remove all sources connected to him, either directly or indirectly, and there would be nothing left to show that he would be notable under WP:BIO. To meet the notability bar, there must be something from reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines the term) to verify his notability... and I must add that the reliable sources must be clearly without connection with him or his church. Even then, autobiographies tend to be hastily deleted a Wikipedia as the author of an autobiography has a conflict of interest. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentEnough reliable sources are mentioned above. I have proved that it is not an autobiography. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
Delete I'm sure he's a nice guy doing good things, but he isn't notable by WP standards. I think we also need to look into the possibility of sockpuppets here given some of the comments above Doug Weller (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath was the subject of reliable published secondary sources WP standars as per the comments given above. The news of release of Fr. Thomas' book Salvific Law was published in all important news papers in Kerala. SeeMalayala Manorama, May 14, 2008; Deepika, May 15, 2008; Mathrubhumi May 15, 2008. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William P. Simmons[edit]

WP:NN author. Failing to win lots of awards doesn't pass Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals. Failed {{prod}} after sole editor objected. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to assert notability. The article includes precisely zero sources and a Google search doesn't help much either. one brave monkey 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I see several references to him, but not as a primary topic. The info in the article seems true, but he appears to be just short of notable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guidelines state that if "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" then they are notable enough to be included. As a longtime reader of Wikipedia, I see it as having two key advantages over other sources: it's fresh and current, and it's more extensive. If I'm looking for information on Edgar Allen Poe, I'm probably not going to bother with Wikipedia. If I'm looking for information on Stephen King, I'll probably check both Wikipedia and other sources. If I'm looking form information on someone like William P. Simmons or Paul Melniczek I'm not going to bother going anywhere else but Wikipedia. We're not talking about an unknown author here, this guy is repeatedly published and there are people who are probably looking for information on him (that's actually how I got involved to begin with. I saw a book by Melniczek on Amazon and wanted to know more about the author.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Halloweiner (talk 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Halloweiner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- reply The policy also clearly states that all articles *must* be verifiable. I wasn't able to find any references, any news or articles about him. If you have one or two, then that would likely change everything. If not, then anything in the article is just a "claim" that is not backed up by any proof, as verified by reliable sources PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:38, 26 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) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Martello[edit]

"Arthur Martello is retired Educational Administrator and teacher that is presently enjoying a second career as a part time professional magician." I don't think that is enough to establish notability. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete but be nice to the new user. When I was new, my self-promoting page got deleted right away, too. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion, nor is it a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His bibliography looks pretty exhaustive, including even unpublished papers.... Nothing here that would even suggest notability. --Crusio (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it meets WP:PROF -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF by a wide margin. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO based on the information available. Little in terms of citability of his work in GoogleScholar[13], GoogleBooks[14] and WebOfScience. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 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 speedy redirect (non-admin closure). Orlady (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McQueen (rat)[edit]

Non-notable and the article is not serious AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Redirect~~ Delete. Note that the creator improperly removed a speedy tag added by Dream out loud (talk · contribs), so that can presumably be restored, though maybe as A7. —KCinDC (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Redirect as Wily suggests. —KCinDC (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Er, Uncle G is right—that redirect would be useless. —KCinDC (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... Delete. Not sure that this completely avoids WP:CSD, but even if it does it certainly comes a cropper against any notability guideline you care to mention. one brave monkey 19:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I was going to suggest a merge into the article on House, but, after reading the article, I've seen there's nothing to merge, so delete. I'll let someone else make the lupus joke. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, trivial character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no salvageable content. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_House_characters#Minor_characters. Since it's already covered in more depth there. Wily D 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_House_characters#Minor_characters, going along with Wily's good idea. --Lockley (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per the above. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I tagged as db-bio. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um, OK, but I really don't think that speedy criteria applies. Does anyone REALLY have a problem if we just close this and redirect the article to List_of_House_characters#Minor_characters per WP:BEFORE? No one's arguing that it should be kept in its present form. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't. I declined the speedy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea, my bad on the fictional character db. I am not a fan of redirecting something just to close an AFD. If the concensus thinks that this is a "good" redirect, then that would be fine. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What use is it as a redirect? What reader is going to type "Steve McQueen (rat)" into the search box? Uncle G (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly implemented the redirect. While it's unlikely that anyone will type this precise name in the search box, complete with parentheses, there is a likelihood of typing "Steve McQueen rat", and this redirect will take them where they wanted to go. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 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) 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected Marxist Images[edit]

Reason I assume the Marx in question here is Karl, although Groucho might be more appropriate given the comically bizarre nature of this article. I have WP:V problems here, and I am wondering if it okay to call it a hoax. Feel free to weigh in with appropriately Marxist commentary (Karl or Groucho is fine). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax/joke article. —KCinDC (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for simply not verfiying that this is anything else than something made up by the proletariat one day. Fails WP:NEO on the face of it, but as I'm not exactly proficient in Portugese I can't read the single source so am prepared for being proven wrong. Would still be very surprised, though. one brave monkey 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! It's not a hoax. I just got back from Ecuador, and its actually a big deal there. I'm still looking for better documentation, but that last article from the Argentine daily La Nacion mentions the phenomenon quite clearly in association with Che. And the first one alludes to the phenomenon among campesinos in Mexico.
I feel that this is being targeted because it seems crazy - not because its not verifiable. It is verifiable, even if its not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsjacks (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC) — Tsjacks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The La Nación source is just an opinion piece about "icons" in society and doesn't seem to have anything about spontaneous appearances. Even if the sources were as you say, where does the "Unexpected Marxist Image or UMI (pronounced oomee)" come from? Some of the rest also seems to be OR. —KCinDC (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay/original research. Themfromspace (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone. Its got sufficient documentation. That final source has a discussion where Zizek talks about how spontaneous images of Che and Marx infuse the Catholicism of Latin America, using it as a means of arguing that there is magic/spirituality in Marxism. The "iconos" article mentions surprising Che images and their quasi-worship, and the other does the same. The acronym is translated (maybe poorly) from Spanish, but its legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsjacks (talk • contribs) 2008-10-21 20:29:46
- Please quote the section of the piece from La Nación that refers to spontaneous appearance of images of Che Guevara. Portraits of him and five other people to be used at the 2010 Frankfurt book fair are not relevant. —KCinDC (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to second KCinDC. I've looked at both of those sources. Neither of your statements about what they say appear to be true. I cannot see any mention of Che at all in Feijoo & Gutiérrez, in fact, let alone what you claim to be said about him. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would really have liked this to be true, but I can't any independent verification of this phenomenon. The listed sources don't exactly prove out. The lack of specific dates, places, names and images is a red flag. Doesn't look like this holds any water at all. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. --Lockley (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: if it's a hoax, it's vandalism. Images of Marx and Che Guevara magically appear in implausible places. Seems a parody of the several sorts of theophanic images in folk religion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "joke" article. Would Uncyclopedia accept it? B.Wind (talk) 02:08, 26 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) 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During[edit]

Attempted dictionary definition (WP:DIC) with irrelevant wikilinks. KCinDC (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Themfromspace (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Also, you don't need to link every single word. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
’’’keep’’’ - I agree with tenpoundhammer, but during is quite a popular word. I feel if this is rewritten as an encyclopedia article, it should be kept on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.251.0 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how would you have an encyclopedia article about a preposition? —KCinDC (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could talk about how it's a bad word to end a sentence with. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - lol. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NAD --The Firewall 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT (and I think we should add a speedy category for obvious NOTDICT cases). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/8. Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a dictionary page thus a delete per WP:NOTDICT. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete um, yea. JuJube (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see your argument. However during is more than a word. It is a state you are in while something else is happening. There is a lot more to this than you think.99.153.87.60 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, during is not a state. During is a preposition, not a noun, which is why it makes no sense to say this can be expanded into an encyclopedic article, and why the definition given is invalid. —KCinDC (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with fire. This dictionary definition is not an encyclopedic article, and it can be nothing more than a dictionary definition. B.Wind (talk) 02:12, 26 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. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xconq[edit]

A game article I started a long time ago, before I was aware of WP:N. Last year, User:Stan Shebs mentioned that this game was discussed in a couple of books, but these sources have not yet come forth, and no reply on his talk page. I propose deletion on the grounds of WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you tag it as G7? I mean, there is not an extensive edit history. MuZemike (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did dig through my library, and came up with three refs - a screen shot in Bridget Testa's book Graphical Treasures of the Internet, a mention in Leininger's 1996 book on AIX tools, the total content being "X-based strategy game; considered by some to be the best multiplayer strategy game available today" (I guess he was a fan), and a page in Game Marugoto Pack for Macintosh, in Japanese so I'm not sure what they're saying. :-) No idea if that's sufficient to establish "notability" in the game world, although it seems a bit weird for something with 49,000 Google hits not to rate a WP entry; the plant species I work on are lucky to get even 500 hits. Stan (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, glad you haven't vanished! Subject needs to have had "significant coverage", so of these the Japanese book is of the most relevance. Marasmusine (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for grins, I plugged "xconq" into Amazon's search and came up with another half-dozen books mentioning it, including a paragraph in Unix: the Complete Reference. Stan (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: one of the first graphical games for X11, and it's still included in Linux distros today. I think it rates as notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here is the link to the Amazon search results. One of them has George Bush and Stan's game in the same book, so it must be important! ;P SharkD (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to say, but the mention of George W. Bush in something, as infamous he may be, does not imply inherited notability. MuZemike (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kirksey[edit]

This article was prodded with stated reason: "non-notable surgeon. Only 6 articles in PubMed and contributor to 1 book. Misses WP:ACADEMIC". The (expired) prod was removed with by an editor who gave as edit summary "deprod, undisputed valid claim of notability". While the presence of a claim for notability is a good motivation to refuse a speedy deletion, it is a rather meager reason to remove an expired prod. Earlier I cleaned up the article, but I don't find sufficient sources to establish notability. Six articles and a contribution to 1 book are not really sufficient to establish notability under WP:PROF. His charity activities do not seem to have generated interest from independent verifiable sources establishing notability under WP:BIO either: just 58 Ghits for "Lee Kirksey", not all of this concerning the subject of this article (but "Arthur Lee Kirksey") and including WP itself. Hence, I am proposing this article for deletion. Crusio (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ACADEMIC and per nominator. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete no notability, probably written by someone with a WP:COI in my humble opinion. Sticky Parkin 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere. Absoutely no evidence of COI.The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the? Lol! I am an established editor who is contributing to AfDs, like I always do when I feel like it, I've contributed to several in the last couple of days, based on what is up at AfD that I feel like contributing to and nothing else. I can assure you, I've never even noticed you around before yesterday. Your comment is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Sticky Parkin 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, per nom. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery" is an undisputed valid claim to notability. The nomnator's inability to find online sources in a de minimus search is not a valid justification for deletion, under the applicable terms of the deletion policy. The nominator, rather than contacting the new user who wrote the article and offering help, slammed deletion tags on the article and posted boilerplate on the talk page. That's WP:BITE territory. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?? Minimus search?? Slamming deletion tags?? Please take a second to look through the history of this article. I extensively edited it to try to make an acceptable article out of it. While I did so, I checked the references given (mostly the subject's own promotional websites) and searched for other references. Being the "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery" is indeed a claim to notability, so a speedy deletion would have been unjustified on those grounds alone. Whether it is a claim that would satisfy any criterion of WP:N or WP:BIO is open for debate (as the following !vote -with whom I was in edit conflict- shows). In any case, except for the subject's own sites, I have not found any reliable, verifiable, and independent sources for this claim. After spending quite some time editing the article (and if you care to compare the original version with my final version, you'll see that the article improved quite a bit, I think) I decided that there was not enough substance to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PROF and prodded the article. I placed a prodwarning on the creator's talk page, thereby giving that person 5 full days to improve the article. In short: I improved the article, notified the creator of problems (through the justification in the prod and the prodwarning), and now propose it for AfD in a reasoned way and you now seem to imply that this is a frivolous AfD nomination? And what's with the nota above to the closing admin concerning stalking by Sticky Parkin? That editor !voted before you did so how can that count as stalking? If my search for sources is so minimus, it should be real easy for you to come up with good sources establishing notability without doubt. Please do so and post them here or in the artciel, because that way I can withdraw my nom an my previous work on the article will not have been wasted time. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have taken the trouble to go through your contributions history. Perhaps I missed something: what article did you recently (or ever) improve? 90% of your edits seem to be removing prod and other tags accompanied with acerbic edit summaries, leading to many unnecessary AfDs and a general waste of time. --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The claim "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery", even if sourced, is not within guidelines. By Enchantress' standards will soon have an article on the 3rd Romanian American to receive certification in OB/GYN etc. VG ☎ 13:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and questions to the nominator. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to verify that the subject is notable, specifically with regard to WP:PROF. Having searched a fair bit I'm still drawing nothing but co-authorship and random mentions... neither of which really add up to much. Incidentally, the nominating editor has followed the prodding process to the letter... I'm not too impressed with some of the criticism regarding that. one brave monkey 19:46, 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 both. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"

Contested prod. Per WP:MUSIC, demo's are in general not notable, unless they meet the general WP:NOTE requirements of course. Prod was contested because "a simple google search turns up thousands of results for this demo". However, a Google search turns up only 108 distinct hits[15]. At first glance, none of these give sufficient info from a reliable source to let the demo meet WP:NOTE. Most are fansites, youtube, lyrics websites, ... Fram (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Puzzlez Ov Flesh (129 instead of 108 distinct Google hits[16], same reasonin otherwise)

Delete both, no sources found, demos aren't usually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly, this is marginal, but I think it makes the cut. Some of the leading online metal sites have this in their pages: Encyclopaedia Metallum [17] and [18], LivingForMetal.com [19], Libarius Metallicus [20] and Spirit of Metal [21]. It appears this demo did get wide release (which most demo recordings do not). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the author of the articles in question was not notified by the AfD nominator of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never notify any editor of AfD's. I note them for Prod's, which don't get widespread attention and discussion. AfD's should be judged on their own merits, and the author had the chance of improving the article when he removed the ProD. While comments by the author of the article are welcome, they are not needed more or less than anyone else's comments. Fram (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, you should know better. The AfD template specifically requests that authors be notified that their articles are being discussed for deletion. The article's author should have the right to defend his work, especially if the request for deletion is weak and wobbly. In future, please extend the articles' authors the courtesy of knowing that their work is being threatened with removal. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It lists it as a courtesy. I don't think it is a useful courtesy, and one I disagree with, as has been discussed before on talk pages of deletion policy. The user was given the chance to discuss and improve the article when it was prodded, but choose to remove the prod without any improvements to the article. I have also stated previously that I don't object to a bot doing this job. And since this request for deletion is not "weak and wobbly" but quite clear and well rooted in our policies and guidelines. As somoene who statezs that they perform non-admin closures of AfD's, I had hoped that you had a better grap of those, since closing AfD's involves weighing the strength of arguments wrt policy and guidelines, not the number of votes or the existance of unreliable Googlehits. Fram (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your attempt to change the subject to my non-admin closures and to belittle my "grap" of policy, but that's not what we're talking about. I have put many articles up for AfD and I always alert the articles' original authors to what is taking place -- it takes no more than 30 seconds. The fact remains that you attempted to sneak this AfD in without having the basic respect (not a "useful courtesy") to allowing the article's creator to defend his work. Your prod on the article was separate and apart from this discussion. And until such time that a bot comes along to list articles for AfD, please show some respect to your peers when engaging in this process, thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to lecture someone on policy, while at the same time defending an article on very shaky grounds, you should not be surprised if your remarks are used against you. You adressed me on an AfD as an admin, so I adressed you as a AfD closing non-admin. Apparently that is not allowable? The article's creator is allowed to defend hiswork, but his opinion was already expressed on the prod, and isn't worth more than those of everyone else. If a subject is appropriate for Wikipedia or not should be obvious from the article after it has been prodded and the prod has been removed. But to get back to the case at hand: I asked you already, but did not get a reply: where is the evidence for your repeatedly stated assertion that this demo has gotten a wide release? Fram (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that as someone who performs NAC, I can only close to Keep, and even then I would do it when it is 100% clear that the article's meet policy and there is unanimous consensus by a strong number of editors. I have yet to perform any NAC where my actions were called to question, so I would like to think I am doing something right in terms of interpreting policy. (Though I should thank you for noticing that I do NAC -- anything to help out, I am glad to contribute). As I stated, I put a lot of articles up for AfD, but I have enough respect for the authors of the articles to alert them that I am trying to push their work off the project. The AfD process specifically requests that the article's author(s) be notified of this action, and I was surprised that, as an admin, you chose to ignore it (I am unaware of your previous qualms on the subject). That notification is not, I believe, a "useful courtesy" -- it is basic respect for the editors who contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD tag says: "Please consider notifying". WP:AFD states that "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.". So yes, it is a courtesy, and it is one I choose not to follow. I do believe it would be more productive to discuss the article at hand than some general reamrks about AFD policy, so perhaps you could turn your attention to the question I have asked quite a few times already? Fram (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for your links: first is a Wiki-like user submitted review, second is a tracklisting, third is a tracklisting, fourth is a tracklisting, and fifth and last is a tracklisting with user submitted points. I don't see any commentary, reviews, ... from reliable sources. I also don't see any evidence that this demo got "wide release". Could you point out which source gives you that impression? Fram (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fram. The review is user-submitted, and the rest are mere tracklistings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know I'm the articles creator, but, Go Fuck Your Jewish God was one of the biggest demo's ever recorded. I'm big into the metal scene so my opinions might be a bit skewed to someone else, but, the sources given above by Ecoleetage are sources enough. While they may be user contributed, they appear on numerous sites which should stand for some sort of notability. I don't care about puzzlez ov flesh. Delete it if you want, but don't delete Go Fuck Your Jewish God. Here are some sites. It's listed many times on different sites, and IMO, that should be enough. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just track listings though. Can you find something that's actually a third party review and not just a track listing? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP: MUSIC states the following: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." There is no debate that Watain is notable. The demo was released, as detailed in the various sources that have been listed. Please note that there is nothing in WP:MUSIC that requires reviews -- the key word is coverage. Technically, the track listing is coverage. It may not be a lengthy rumination on the music's value, but it nonetheless is published on well-recognised and well-respected online media devoted to the music. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage <> tracklisting. Furthermore, you again state that the demo was released "as detailed in the various sources". It is not because a copy of the demo is illegally put on the internet and all user-contributed sites get their tracklisting from that illegal download and from each other, that it is officially released. When? Which label? Where was it for sale? Which source states that it has been officially released? Fram (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These don't come close to meeting the notability criteria. Wikipedia policies (should) apply to black metal articles just as much as they do to other articles. Also, there's nothing useful in these articles that couldn't be mentioned in a couple of lines in the band's article (which, by the way, is also barely sourced).--Michig (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete no mentions in reliable sources whatsoever. [22] Sticky Parkin 01:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes the sources given unreliable? Undead Warrior (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at this. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UW you know I disagree with you about what is WP:RS.:) What sources are given in the article? Only a website called "metal archives" and the band's own website or something. Find numerous discussions of it in well known newspapers etc or books published by well-known presses, then I'll say keep:) But I looked and they aren't mentioned anywhere in WP:RS as I understand it. Diskery? What's that lol, another website?:) Few websites are as reliable sources as news articles etc, unless it's the website of a broadcaster/publication that also exists in the real world. I'm especially impressed by a site with "buy online" "promote your music" "e-commerce"and stuff like that as part of the page. Oh and Diskery, the site you linked to also has the option to "add a biography"- so anyone can write anything there too- that's the opposite of WP:RS. "Submit your band" [23]- "you can enter any info you want". :):):) Sticky Parkin 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way you can even come close to saying that Watain is non notable. The Diskery site lets you submit a band, yes, but that doesn't have anything to the effect of the demo albums or Watain. Someone submitted Watain and the site took over from there. My point is this: If so many user submitted sites contain information on this, even if it's just a track listing, that is still coverage and that passes WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that watain are sufficiently notable - I added an allmusic link and I found some sources earlier which I will add to the band article. That doesn't, however, justify a separate article for every recording by the band. Coverage isn't enough unless it's significant coverage in reliable sources. Tracklistings are not significant coverage. Your best bet would probably be to migrate this article into a new section within the band's article.--Michig (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cool name, but fails notability requirements in every manner possible. Track-listers and blog-like fan sites don' cut it. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know the topic of demos has come up a lot in discussions, but if you take out the things that Wikipedia disallows - warez, torrents, bbs, fan sites, myspace, icq chat, internet radio, blogs, podcasts and the like - I don't see where there have been any feature stories on this demo. If someone pulls out a Village Voice, LA Weekly, NY Times, AP, Rolling Stone, Kerrang! (Or even Aardschok or Revolver) that has a feature article on the demo (not the band but this specific demo) than I for one would change my opinion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:54, 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 speedy redirect. Sorry, I would never have brought it to AfD if I had realised it was a fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Ralph Cornelius (Fred) Penner[edit]

Singer songwriter. Strong whiff of self-promotion. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to Fred Penner or delete. --Elliskev 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: No new, sourced info in the new article. New title not a likely search, so Delete --Elliskev 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mobile Suit Victory Gundam. Whether another redirect target and/or a merge would be good ideas is, as always, at editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

LM314V21 Victory 2 Gundam[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Suit V Gundam. Also, anyone but TTN enlighten me about whether appearing in a game with no relationship with the original universe serves as notability. This one does appeared in a game that is outside of the Gundam universe as 1 of the 4 main characters.(Yes, a character, not a mecha, he(it?)pilots a bigger mecha and has a personality in that game) I might change to a keep if it does. MythSearcher^talk 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mythsearcher. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto List of Gundams of the UC timeline or List of gundams in Gundam V 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

care to explain why? You can say "not notable" and I could reply "notable", and no matter how much of it there was, it wouldn't amount to an argument either way. And care to explain why it is not suitable for a merge? or a redirect? Remember, you said delete. DGG (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This fictional weapon has very few Google search, it's not referenced by any magazine, as far as i know and additionally, its notability, if any, depends on the anime series. Additionaly, article has so many speculations like "The most important upgrade was the Minovsky drive system" that probably it's just an original research. -- nips (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have read the article or not, but it says that the mecha also appeared in a game that is totally unrelated to the anime seires, and this particular mecha became a main character of it as well. So its notability may also come from that. It is a pretty old game and the article for that is only a stub, but I am pretty sure that the notability, if any, is not purely from the anime. MythSearcher^talk 01:54, 25 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 with Mobile Suit Variations. Being lazy and all, I am only redirecting, keeping the original content underneath, and the edit history available for merging at any editors discretion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-78-1 Gundam Full Armor Type[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Suit Variations. MythSearcher^talk 18:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mythsearcher. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto List of Gundams of the UC timeline or List of Gundams of the UC One Year War era 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional weaponcruft, only notable in-universe if there. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if it is related to the in-universe part, than a merge is way better than a delete. MythSearcher^talk 16:27, 27 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 Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. Sandstein 16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS-18 Kämpfer[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket (which already got a similar list) or something like List of Mobile Suit Gundam 0080 mobile weapons. MythSearcher^talk 18:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable within the series. It isn't part of the real world, and therefore doesn't require real world information from real world reliable sources. Details about fictional chracters and objects can be encyclopedic. All these nominations of fictional weapons and characters are a bit overwhelming, rather like BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · count)'s tagging of images its creator thought had inadequate fair use rationales. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles must follow WP:N. There are several different discussions working on reworking the guideline, but until such a time, it still needs to be followed. TTN (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I highly doubt it to be highly notable in the series itself. It is notable in the Gundam Universe, but in the original 0080, the focus on mobile suits are much less than other Gundam anime series. MythSearcher^talk 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a strong opinion about this particular article, but for your information, WP:N is still just a guideline, not a policy. We are not required to deal with these fiction articles immediately. Couldn't you limit yourself to one or two nominations per day? We're not dealing with BLP violations here. And most of these articles could at least be pared down and merged into other pages, so deletion tools aren't needed in the first place. Nominating 10+ articles a day just seems unnecessarily aggressive. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though this really isn't the place for this discussion, there is an extremely large amount of articles on fictional elements. More are created each day, while the rest just constantly fall into disrepair (if they weren't already created in that state). My main goal is to have fictional subtopics at a manageable level, and this is the only way to do it without taking ten literal years to do so. We're not in a rush, but there is no need to go at a snail's pace. With articles like these, the main details are way too crufty to actually merge half the time, so deletion really is the best path. TTN (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. No notability outside that fictional universe. VG ☎ 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge a little I agree with TTN about the inappropriateness of articles such as this in Wikipedia. There will be occasional instances where the nature of individual items of weaponry and other background elements is of real significance, but these are going to be quite rare. A very short description of the key weapons somewhere in the article is almost always sufficient; for some games such as this where the weapons are of interest generally might well use an article describing them in general. It is combination articles such as that where the individual sections do not have to meet WP:N, for if one thing is clear about all present and proposed versions of Notability, it applies to articles, not bits of content. The problem here is two-fold, the insistence on having this sort of fan detail about minor subjects in Wikipedia; and the insistence on removing all mention of the subject. This applies to episode plot and character articles as well--the attitude of those who write them frame by frame, or in a manner copied from program or game guides, is matched by the equally inappropriate attitude of those who want to eliminate as much as possible. To make this a matter of WP:N is besides the point entirely though--the question is about what sort of content is appropriate in WP; if we agreed or could compromise on that, we could easily write a guideline that expresses our compromise. Worded differently, our ability to compromise is not impaired by the present wording of any guideline. The guidelines are the guidelines for what we do. So much of these recurrent disputation could be solved by judicious merging of a little or a lot. (Incidentally, i think it totally unnecessary to have redirects from specific weapon models such as this; nobody who does not already know the game well will be the least likely to encounter the term.) TTN--do you think there is a real possibility for those who think like you to reach a compromise at 50% of what you want, not 90%? If you do, I'll try to persuade your opponents similarly. But if each side wants 90% we will never get anything but continued war by attrition. DGG (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto List of Gundams of the UC timeline or List of Gundams of the UC One Year War era 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the arch-enemy mobile suit in this series. It is somewhat disappointing that so much of the current article is written in an in-game perspective. Having been in Japan at the time the War in the Pocket video series came out, I can say that this was a big thing and had made appearances in various anime and modeling magazines. The article needs a complete overhaul but the topic is notable. --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 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. Sandstein 16:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Fried Cruelty[edit]

The article is violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and has no reputable sources -- Teancum (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up and add references from reliable sources, which can be found at this Google News search and this Google News archive search. Ignore the press releases, though. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the reliable sources, but this article needs a lot of work - it's extremely biased in favor of PETA. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- A sub-section here. --The Firewall 20:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I totally agree with Bart133's point about bias. The page should be improved, and stay. --Lockley (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-This article makes PETA look like angels, and since there is no sources to give KFC a response, the article is unbalanced. --Thewritingwriter17 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim down. The killing them at two months old was particularly funny (industrial farm chicken never live as long). NVO (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cites are a joke: four are listed but they only link to two distinct pages. Neutrality is entirely absent; the whole article reads like a propaganda flyer handed out by PETA. Weasel words and total POV throughout, not a shred of Kentucky Fried Chicken's side of the story is presented. At best the subject of this article should be a footnote on the Kentucky Fried Chicken page. --Captain Infinity (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into PETA as the article is too biased to survive (and it has too much undue weight). The resulting redirect will be OK as WP:NPOV doesn't apply to redirects. A mention in Kentucky Fried Chicken should be brief, no more than a few lines. B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 26 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 Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team. Sandstein 16:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RX-79 Gundam[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list page of the particular anime Mobile Suit Gundam: 08th MS Team. Also, I would suggest you to stop nominating similar pages for deletion but start merging them instead. You go through so much more steps to create an AfD and waste a lot of server resources and is probably going to get the same result (having merge lists) anyway. MythSearcher^talk 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mythsearcher. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto List of Gundams of the UC timeline or List of Gundams of the UC One Year War era 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_characters_in_Gossip_Girl#Lily_van_der_Woodsen. History deleted as nothing sourced to retain. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily van der Woodsen[edit]

Article was deleted via prod and recreated. Fails any notability outside its fictional world. No references at all. Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gossip_Girl#Secondary_characters--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the information there is more (3-lines instead of 1) than in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Magioladitis accepting his judgement that the already present material is sufficient. Or is there any argument against a redirect. Why was not a redirect proposed in the first place? DGG (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a secondary character. If this was a main character, a redirect would be appropriate. That's why a proposed a prod at the very first place. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say rather that if it were a main character an article of its own if possible would be appropriate. & if not enough material, a considerable section of a combination article. And, checking--I see that List of characters in Gossip Girl lists her as a principal continuing character, On that basis, redirect (there's nothing here worth the merging) --and a recommendation to expand the part on the list and if possible try to develop it into an article of its own, if there is comment on it to be found. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in Gossip Girl#Lily van der Woodsen. I don't see why we would ever not want a redirect for primary or secondary characters in notable TV series. It's a plausible search term, it's useful for linking, and it might very well be turned into an article eventually. --Amalthea^Talk 19:56, 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 Delete. If anyone is willing to do the merge and add appropriate sources, feel free to contact me for a temporal recreation of the articles. --Tone 11:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Database (Super Robot Wars)[edit]

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) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Surely intelligent people can think of a way of merging the essentials, and reach agreement without coming here. DGG (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the relevant thread on RFAR shows that this isn't the case. If anything AfD is the easiest way to establish that these articles are unnecessary, even if we don't agree on what to do about it. Nifboy (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in that thread that suggests that discussing article merges is a bad idea--the arbs who commented seem to be encouraging proper discussion in the right places. The way to find out is to actually suggest a merge, not give up ahead of time. I'll be glad to come by and endorse it if it preserves some reasonable amount of content DGG (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, if there is any opposition at all to begin with, an inordinate amount of effort has to be spent dealing with local editors who are only in the best-case scenarios cordial and understanding. If there isn't initial opposition and the merge goes through then TTN is by fait accompli causing a problem if anyone has an objection later on. It's a catch-22 which is resolved through the use of a page dedicated to third-party discussion regarding the fate of a (set of) article, or AfD. Nifboy (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A collection of robots and fictional weapons that has no notability. -- nips (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as none of these articles can be sourced with reliable third-party sources, thus failing both WP:V and WP:N. A merge is inappropriate, as it would not resolve the core issue that makes an AFD discussion suitable. Randomran (talk) 23:50, 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 Jordin Sparks or Jordin Sparks discography. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Now[edit]

Self-released EP, no sources found. I have to give her credit, she at least worked with some good writers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:32, 21 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)} 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to artist: Nothing notability asserted by EP to have its own article. This should simply be a paragraph in Jordin Sparks's article. Aspects (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the record itself doesn't have any verifiable notability, but should be mentioned in the artist's article. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Not a stand alone article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe emerging as a New superpower[edit]

This probably falls under WP:OR, but I can't find a speedy category it'll happily fit in. The two people mentioned in the article are experts in their field, but I'm concerned that the account may be pushing their views, rather than contributing for the good of the encyclopaedia. That said, there might be some salvageable material here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. JRHorse (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps I'm slow, but I'm not sure what this article is trying to say.. even with the "modified game of chicken" part. I'm curious, if, and what, others have learned from this article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the start of someone's essay, not an article. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like nonsense. It has nothing to do with the article title. There is already a section in potential superpowers for information related to Europe as a potential superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even an essay, but still fits the same critereon for deletion as an essay. Also per WP:SOAP. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely delete — perhaps this could have been speedied as a short article with definitely no context. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have speedied it, but AfDs are much more concrete. Speedies can be overturned easily and are not transparent, whereas AFDs explain the reasons for deletion and are more consensus-based. Furthermore, A1 (No context) states Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. - The subject of the article is apparent here, I feel. I see your point, though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See European Union as an emerging superpower (AfD discussion) for prior discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no context, it's a deletable essay, original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbage. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergenetics[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A psychometric profiling tool. Has been deleted twice as spam. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The numerous references tell me "Yes, this is notable". -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yeah, looks like a large number of independent groups and organizations are using this for personality profiling (for hiring, position placement, etc.), much like the Meyers-Briggs and other such tests. Can't guess at how useful the test itself is, or who is editing the WP page on it, but clearly it has established notability. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel that the references are misleading. Four of them are about statistical tests, not Emergenetics. The other sources do not support the article either. Stripping all of that away, it still appears to be spam at worst and unsupported research at best. TN‑X-Man 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the first 100 hits in Google, 95 or so are advertisements for the book or the course, and 5 are blogs of participants. I didn't go on, but I'd expect an gradual increase in the blogs, but no increase over the zero number of real references. GS has a similar proportion of PR among its very few hits. TNXMan has analyzed the refs in the article right. If it ever becomes notable, there will be real references, and a nonspammy article could then perhaps be written, which is the only reason I did not say "delete and salt" DGG (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are credible, and the world-wide reach of the organization, along with the large number and diversity of its clientele, makes it notable.--Mo2415a (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Mo2415a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia's three core content policies of 'Neutral point of view', 'Verifiability' and 'No original research'. The references cited, precisely because they are not all about Emergenetics, support the policy of 'Neutral point of view', and can easily be verified. While a Google search may highlight more commercial than non-commercial weblinks, this does not indicate the lack of real references, for example, there could exist other references that are currently not online, such as books and periodicals. The content too is not made up of only original research - perhaps further citations are needed to help give more clarity to this issue. Given more time, this new article should be able to build up on its credibility and diversity of opinions as more Wikipedia users contribute their edits.--Ladybug97 (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ladybug97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Per the analysis of TNXMan and DGG. Also, I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology yesterday, but insofar none of the regulars came here to support these tests. VG ☎ 12:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — plainly put, this fails WP:SPAM. The only thing missing here that is keeping me from exclaiming G11 and making another reference to Hormel or to Monty Python is some slogan saying Please try Emergenetics today! or similar. It's like one of those four-page-long advertisement pieces you find in magazines (or one full page in a newspaper) that tries to make itself look like an actual part of the publication, or a paper version of those infomercials where the people sit down and "engage in serious conversation about a topic." In either case, this is nothing more than a mere promotion of a product, and in Wikipedia, that's called spamming. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with MuZemike. The spammers are getting better at presenting their material, but this remains a breathlessly promotional presentation of a dubious commercial product named by a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to psychometrics. Non-notable variation of a notable idea. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reached the same conclusions of Tnxman307, the provided references do not establish the notability of the subject matter, and in most cases are referencing topics unrelated to the subject matter itself. Anything that comes close to offering notability is self-published or likely self-published. Likely to reconsider if independent third party reliable sources can be found, but from the comments above, it looks like people have searched in vain already. Neil916 (Talk) 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there are going to be similar style instruments (i.e. Myers Briggs) and even the instrument that this profile grew out of (i.e. Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument) on Wikipedia, I don't see why this one shouldn't remain as well. My Google search showed several articles relating to the numerous awards that Emergenetics and it's founder received for her work (most notably the Colorado Business Woman of the Year). This in my eye passes the "notability" test. --Tde49p (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) — Tde49p (talk • contribs) 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. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensatori[edit]

This has been tagged as a hoax; it's not quite that, but it is seriously misleading and I don't think there is a valid article to be made out of it. Sensatori is not a place name: it is "A new generation of stylish hotels exclusively from Thomson". The first of these is in Crete. It's not an "island resort", except in the sense that Crete is an island; it opened in May, not "the last quarter of 2008"; and the stuff about being "built on top of a live volcano" which erupted in 1704 and "follows a 300 year cycle" is nonsense. The descriptions and dates of the images make it clear they have nothing to do with the subject. The author has no other edits.

The facts could be corrected to make an article about this hotel, or about all of Thomson's "Sensatori" hotels; but it would be hard to avoid a spammy tone, and IMO they are not notable enough for an article, so I propose we delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to assert any significance or provide any sources. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It can establish notability after construction is complete, if it deserves that. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not assert notability or provide reliable sources. The pictures are entirely unrelated - the user just took images from other Wikipedia articles. The infobox is simply an infobox for Crete. The remaining paragraph of semi-relevant text is extremely spammy. It's almost, but not quite, a hoax. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I know its too early to declare WP:SNOW but this one is inevitable. Where's a rouge admin when you need one. ;-) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only because Thomson, the chain that owns the hotel, doesn't have an article to redirect this to. Hotel is real[24][25], but gnews and gsearch not turning up notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Aramgar (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove false "volcano" information. Build up WP, don't tear it down. Geĸrίtz (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost nothing seems to be true, and what is true isn't notable. LeContexte (talk) 12:44, 25 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. Kudos to Malaiya for article improvement Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nattal Sahu[edit]

The article asserts that it's subject is a "merchant-prince". Such an individual should be notable enough to have more than 28 google hits [26], most of them originating from wikipedia and mirror sites. Just being mentioned in a book doesn't make an individual notable. The Journal, whose text can be viewed at http://www.jstor.org/pss/604073, refers Nattal Sahu as the patron who commissioned Parshvanath Charitra, but thats the only instance where Nattal sahu is referred. Here, WP:ONEEVENT applies. If the subject is a historically important merchant-prince, there must be more references to him in Indian history. The references given include a dead web link, Also "Agrawalon ka Jain sanskriti men yogadan" just gets 4 google hits owing to wikipedia. [27] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a propaganda article, which mainly tries to establish that some pillars of Qutab Minar were reused from some earlier temple. References do not look reliable/unbiased. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Keep:Subject is notable. Variety of references improved. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are from research journals. "Agrawalon ka Jain sanskriti men yogadan" is the title of a research article, "Anekanta" is the name of the journal. There are several other texts that refer to Nattal Sahu. I can add them.--Malaiya (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added references to four books that refer to Nattal Sahu, including the four volume "Tirthankar Mahavir aur unki Acharya Parampara".--Malaiya (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dead web link was included inappropriately by someone, I have removed it.--Malaiya (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also addd a Univ of Penn PhD dissertation as a citation.--Malaiya (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. I am satisfied by the new research provided to the article! (Ekabhishek (talk) 08:03, 25 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.

Dear friends, Jay Jinendra

I do not see why the page on Nattal Sahu should be deleted. He is a historically significant person and has had a book written about him! He is linked not only with Jain history in Northern India, but also plays an important role in the subaltern history of India. Manish Modi 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Modi (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Théophane Rifosta[edit]

Contested PROD. Subject does not meet primary notability guidelines that require non-trivial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Had been tagged as unreferenced since August 2007 (before the tag was removed without the addition references) because, aside from trivial appearances on "oldest people" lists, there do not seem to be any references. Subject has a French Wikipedia article, but it too lacks references of any kind. In short, this is essentially a list entry, not an article, and could go on one of the many oldest people lists if appropriate. Cheers, CP 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial references can be found. Neptune5000 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Here is one list here (COI noted):

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/France.HTM

Mr. Rifosta was the oldest man in France at the time of his death, according to INSERM. However, I have not seen any news coverage, so merging to a list could be appropriate.Ryoung122 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be appropriate if such an article existed and there is independent verification from reliable sources. Unfortunately, I don't see an article for Oldest people in France (or similar) for which this can be done, and writing one from scratch would be very difficult, to say the least. I'm sorry, but if this is the only claim to notability for him, deletion of the article may be the only option here. B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete per above. B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax / vandalism Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DinQueen[edit]

"DinQueen" + "L'thumania" gets 0 Google hits, so I believe this is a hoax. TML (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a hoax. Jfire (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:HOAX WP:V WP:NONSENSE WP:CRUFT Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school in one day. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD#G3. Tagged for bogus info. VG ☎ 19:54, 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) 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmith: The Movement[edit]

Non-notable mixtape, per WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources provided, none found. Contested prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mixtape, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:08, 21 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)} 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MUSIC#Albums and lacks sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per JANNMT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:37, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Veronicas Third Studio Album[edit]

Future album release unsupported by reliable sources. Article is an exercise in crystalball-ery. TN‑X-Man 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated. "...will be released sometime in 2009" is hardly the sort of hard fact we need around here! Nouse4aname (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Also delete Good Times (The Veronicas song), the first single, for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:02, 21 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)} 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good bye, come again. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced speculation. When more solid information surfaces, then maybe recreate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No title, no set release date, no confirmed tracks. Fails WP:HAMMER. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source, no album title, nothing confirmed. Completely speculative.165.228.178.143 (talk) 05:08, 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. Between canvassing and a significant amount of change to the article, this was a tough AfD to close. However, after having examined the article, the purported "sources", and the arguments presented here, I'm forced to agree with Amalthea and DGG. The "sources" in the article are in the main self-published and/or unreliable, and even at that generally mention the subject only in passing (if, that is, they mention the subject at all, which several do not). This along with at least two of the "keeps" here having been canvassed and one more being an SPA (and AfD being a discussion based on strength of argument, not a vote based on strength of numbers) lead to the result being to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Masse[edit]

Bruno Massé, an anarchist author, researcher, activist, publisher, musician and lyricist.
I believe that Massé fails the notability guideline for people, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC. In particular, I find no significant coverage about him, his academic work, research and papers have not "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" that I can find, his books are not "significant or well-known work", neither are his plays, and "The Bloody Band" fails WP:MUSIC.
The article has a high number of references since I discussed notability with the author at Talk:Bruno Masse before, but I'm afraid that they too don't amount to significant coverage by far. The best of those I think is a radio interview (in French) by CHOQ-FM.
He sure is versatile and very active, but at this point fails the inclusion criteria for biographies. Amalthea^Talk 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've already stated my arguments against the deletion of the article on the talk page of the article. Bruno Masse is as significant in Quebec as Jaggi Singh and Norman Nawrocki, and on the international level, comparable to John Zerzan and Fredy Perlman. Quebec has a small population of 7 million and at this scale Masse is one of the notable and significant artists of the province. English Internet coverage might fail to portray him as a popstar, but so much should be expected from an underground artist and renowned scholar. Still, the references there (Government of Quebec Archives, UQAM Research Group, CHOQ.FM, A-Info, etc.) should be more than enough. That is, if the truth is actually what you're looking for - an assumption upon which I have based my arguments. Ultimately, I doubt the administrator who has initiated this proposal will favor reason over authority. Pity he/she doesn't have to prove his/her notability in such matters. I myself have been a researcher at the University of Quebec in Montreal for five years (where I first came in contact with the subject of the article) and, at the University, quoting the Internet is generally considered to be the worse possible sort of reference, especially Wikipedia. I once failed a student because she copied her paper on a Wikipedia article. I realize now the irony that a character grounded and influencial in reality would be discriminated on a virtual forum. It is even contrary to an interview of Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Whales to The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008, that he'd "be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet". But since we're talking about deletion, I'll just end my argument by five glorious, fantastical words: please don't delete this article!
Lkeryl (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been working on and writing articles for many Canadian poets and a few authors. Many are only Notable in a Localized area, and this article has improved and I vote Keep. WayneRay (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources The article seems to rely safely (without original research or other) on the sources, and the sources themselves are of public nature. We are not dealing with a case of self-published publication, so I believe it should remain a part of wikipedia. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to have been a good faith mistake, but it's worth noting that Lkeryl has canvassed about 20 users with a request to !vote keep at this discussion. They've been left a friendly heads-up that this isn't cricket. Personallly, I have no opinion about the notability of the subject of this article - just wanted to make sure this was on the record, for consideration as appropriate by the closing administrator when the time comes. Mlaffs (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain ([28]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of disclosure, the article's creator actively solicited a keep vote from me on my talk page. I am going to vote keep here, but not because Lkeryl asked me to — I'm voting to keep because the article does contain a number of decent references in reliable sources. Having publications indexed in a national library catalog certainly passes my sniff test, frex. It could probably use a few more references for good measure, I'll admit, but IMO enough valid references are already present to get him over the WP:N hump. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I've learned on the article's talk page that "all of these publications have been admitted to the National Library of Quebec, as required by law". --Amalthea^Talk 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Books on this genre are not necessarily likely to be found in many libraries, but there is nothing whatever in WorldCat, which does cover many Canadian libraries. DGG (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, there are enough independent sources referring him and his work.--Sum (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, with the current improvements the article seems to squeak by notability requirements. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems consistent with most WP policies, hope it will improve with better sources but it would be a shame to remove the article. Remember that radical environmentalism is the number one domestic threat in the US, authors on the subject are likely to get more attention in the future. Also the question of scale seems relevent, Canada has 1/10 of the States population, yet the artistic life is very much present. Most authors don't even get any media coverage. As for the sources the french ones seem more relevant, go to online translators if you want to read them. Charlesfournier (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Charlesfournier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you give me *one* French source that covers him in detail? Cause I haven't found one, and I have looked pretty hard. --Amalthea^Talk 11:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that radical environmentalism is the number one domestic threat in the US Oh, jumping jesus on a pogo stick. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you haven't found one and I'm sorry. But the sources are there for you to read. They are significant. I understand we disagree on this but there's not much I can do, just have a look. Perhaps if you could cite the french sources in detail and explain how that they don't qualify, that might help foward the debate instead of claiming that they don't cut it, and me replying that they do, etc. I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance. Moliere's tongue sure is a tricky one! Charlesfournier (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll do that right after I've finished disproving the existance of god. If you happen to find significant coverage of the topic at hand in the meantime, feel very free to enlighten me and add them to the article, it should be a real easy job if "the sources are there".
  And FWIW, he's spelled "Molière". --Amalthea^Talk 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this article I've nothing more to add, I've already stated my arguments and have no more to contribute. I'll let the admin(s) decide on the matter. Cheers! Lkeryl (talk) 15:55, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzhinapurath Family[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No evidence of notability for this family. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. Verbal chat 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a personal database and moreover fails WP:NOTABILITY. Kalivd (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. --Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability is indicated in the discussion page.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no discussion page. Verbal chat 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, the talk page for the deletion discussion. If there are notable references etc, they should be n the article. The things in the talk page here don't seem to establish notability. Verbal chat 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some members of the family are rendering outstanding services to various National and International Agencies such as UN.Wiproman (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Wiproman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- If individuals are notable, they can have their own pages. Verbal chat 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quote: "Saviour Kuzhinapurathu, Chief Finance Officer in UN ICTR". No, an accountant within one of many UN commissions does not qualify for automatic inclusion. This is not a public position, it leaves no trace in public record outside UN protocols and self-published sources. Delete. NVO (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTE. The information given in talk page cannot be considered as reference. Simynazareth (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was already speedied in February [29]. The contents may be integrated into John Kuzhinapurath. NVO (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enough Kuzhinapurath-related stuff on Wikipedia already (see other AfDs). This is not a personal website. VG ☎ 21:33, 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 duplicate discussion closed in favour of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuzhinapurath Family, which is now listed as of today and properly linked-to from the AFD notice on the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzhinapurath Family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A family who have a strong involvement in the Christian church in india and also run a number of businesses. If there is notability in here, it escapes me. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a problem here - it seems there is already a running AFD. I'm not sure how that AFD was started but no notice was added to the article page (maybe a broken tool) and no attempt seems to have been made by the creating editor to do so. anyone know how to merge this one into that one or something similar? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe request speedy of this page, and change the notice to point to the other? Verbal chat 14:38, 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 speedily closed, with this article redirected to Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks, which I am currently refactoring on BLP1E grounds to discuss the people notable for one event in the context of that overall event. You can still discuss the merged article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylar Deleon. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Deleon[edit]

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Elliskev 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge to an article about the event itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does a separate article on the crime itself exist? If so, merge. If not, make one and merge. If nobody's willing to make one, then keep. Fumoses (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Skylar Deleon. Jennifer Deleon is an accomplice to a crime perpetrated by Skylar who is himself likely not notable for an event other than the murders in which Jennifer was involved. That way, if the two subject are inextricably connected on Wikipedia in one article, the result of the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylar Deleon will decide the fate for both of them rather than separately debating the notability of two people known for a single event. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 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) 04:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvific Law[edit]

Non-notable PhD thesis. Sources are emails and other puff type sources. No coverage in any notable third party sources of the type that we would expect for an academic work with any weight. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This reads very much like a coatrack article. It is allegedly about someone's thesis. It tells us very little about the actual content of the work, but expands on blurb-like reviews praising it, from high ranking members of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems calculated to promote the opinions set forth in the thesis without explaining them. No opinion yet as to whether the thesis is in fact notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Salvific Law succeeds in demonstrating that the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches has a particular congruence with the Divine Will. The aim of both is salvation of souls. While this book will be of interest to theologians and canonists, it is also particularly suited for priests and even laity. The sections regarding the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance demonstrate how God's saving love for man is made manifest in Canon Law." This comment very well speaks about the content of the book. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this due to some comments about *another* article at the RS board - it seems to be part of a wider walled Garden of stuff around this author and his family (for example, check out Thomas Kuzhinapurath. I'm looking further into all of those articles but it all seems to be puff and misdirection at this stage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. At best it is an everyday piece of academic work. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Ph.D. thesis. VG ☎ 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTE Simynazareth (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable self-promotion.PelleSmith (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are two discussions of the book besides the blurbs. One, in L'Osservatore Romano, even is a general periodical, not one specifically on a narrow topic on canon law. The only question is the extent of the review in Aikya Samiksha. This meets the present wording of WP:BK. On the other hand, the book is a reprinted thesis, and does not appear of any particular notability. We may need to revisit that guideline. DGG (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, in L'Osservatore Romano, even is a general periodical, not one specifically on a narrow topic on canon law. That's a bit of a disingenuous claim - it's the newspaper of the holy see and as far as I can determine, the review was in the regional edition not the main Italian one. As for Aikya Samiksha, that is published by St. Mary’s Malankara Major Seminary as is this book. It's hardly independent cover to have your in-house journal cover a book published by your in-house publishers and written by a member of your organisation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads too much like an advert for a book of that title. Eliminate the letters and non-independent reviews, and there is nothing to indicate that the thesis (whatever it may actually be) has not gained traction outside of a few people who seem to be connected with the Vatican. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 26 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) 04:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Dimitrios (Kefalonia), Greece (disambiguation)[edit]

It is an exact duplicate of the correct disambiguation page, Agios Dimitrios (disambiguation). This page does not conform to dab page naming rules, as it would refer to multiple localities named Agios Dimitrios within Kefalonia, which is not the case. Furthermore, converting it into a redirect to Agios Dimitrios (disambiguation) would be redundant, as it is unlikely that any user try to get there through this obscure page. Already the dab link from the article where this originated, has been corrected, and hence, this page is orphaned. Constantine ✍ 23:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant dab page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that someone brought it up, delete. Punkmorten (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incorrect dab page, and no hypothetical need for a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 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) 04:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boyan Josic[edit]

This article is about an obscure CEO of a non-notable company. Less than 1500 hits on Google. Fails WP:BIO. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 6 gnews hits are passing mentions. First several pages of ghits aren't showing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Fabrictramp. No notable sources to be found. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kalivd (talk) 15:21, 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 Exactly what Elliskev said. This didn't need an afd. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN HD[edit]

This page should be deleted and the information in it should be merged into CNN. CNN HD is simply a direct simulcast of CNN and all content is the same and therefore it doesn't need its own article.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. No AfD needed. --Elliskev 13:54, 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 Comfort. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comfortability[edit]

Fails per WP:DICTIONARY. Sorry, didn't know what section to CSD. If it's obvious, could someone message me on my talkpage and let me know what CSD section this would fall under? Thanks. Beano (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that's very odd. Twinkle must not have completed it properly. My apologies. Beano (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a neologism, dictionary definition, and probably original research. TN‑X-Man 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comfort — this would be a reasonable redirect to Comfortable, if that weren't itself a redirect to Comfort. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 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) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak (folk)[edit]

Fails A7 = "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Also fails all twelve notability criteria for musicans and ensembles outlined as per WP:BAND. Article also fails to list any sources, references or citations. Alphageekpa (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's probably too late for a speedy tag, but this band does not appear notable. They are not signed with a major label. No reliable sources provided, none found. TN‑X-Man 13:48, 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) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Hames[edit]

Non notable local politician and election candidate with no reliable 3rd party sources Valenciano (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN merely being a candidate isn't sufficient. No additional notability is alleged. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for now without prejudice to recreation in the future. The only reliable and independent source i can find at the moment is this from the regional section of the BBC Politics Show in 2006, which doesn't seem quite enough by itself. As it's a new seat and expected to be a close fight he'll probably get plenty of news coverage a bit closer to the next general election though, and once he has the article can be re-created with suitable sources. Qwfp (talk) 07:39, 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) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Pritchard[edit]

Short article with almost no content, no sources, about someone with no claim to fame except for one minor role in a film. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though with no prejudice to future recreation if material for an actual article presents itself. --Delirium (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Entry at IMDb indicates only appearance was only the one minor role. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:47, 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 Speedily deleted as vandalism. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Werid Werid World[edit]

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

Delete This page is vandalism and should be deleted as soon as possible.Wneedham02 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The single has no sources, no title, and thus gets no article. Probably an extension of WP:HAMMER. TN‑X-Man 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete Wikipedia does not entertain vandalism, although it is a open resource it does not mean that it can be affected by vandals. Kalivd (talk) 15:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Islamic reconciliation conference[edit]

Lacks third party sources to establish notability. also WP:NOT#NEWS Michellecrisp (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Kalivd (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing there to indicate the significance of the conference. Sole cited source predates the conference itself; so the associated press story contains nothing to indicate what happened at the meeting. B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources to establish notability: People's Daily[30], Jordan Times[31], BBC[32], and Associated press[33]. Icewedge (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It also called "Iraqi Islamic reconciliation summit", for which there are even more sources; [34][35][36][37]. Icewedge (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "keep" argument would have more weight if someone actually puts the sources in the article itself. B.Wind (talk) 01:30, 27 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. Protonk (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Amel[edit]

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

The article Jabal Amel is so poorly written, lacks citations, highly sectarian, and constitutes an insult to the non-Shi'a population of that Lebanese geographic area by depicting them as auxiliaries to it. In many cases, the information in the article are highly inaccurate and subjective. Please examine the version of the article that does not include the corrections made by the user Fastabbas. The information remaining in the page are poor quality and perhaps useless, as the original authors of the article filled it with village names and the names of "respected" 'Hezbollah' "heroes." Fastabbas (talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and deal with bias in the article by dispute resolution. If we deleted the articles on every region of the world with minority populations, there wouldn't be much left in the way of geographic coverage. True, one sure way of removing all arguments about NPOV is to not have an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an article about a prominent geographical region in Lebanon. Eklipse (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not cleanup; geographic regions of this significance are worthy of inclusion. the skomorokh 14:46, 26 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. Wizardman 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James_Kotecki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Kotecki

Non-notability, unsourced entries, subject lacking notoriety, shameless self-publicity featured in article,

Delete per nom. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 04:31, 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]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eliminate the interviews by him (and of him) and the unsourced information and there would be nothing left. No independent coverage of him, not even of his work at politico.com. B.Wind (talk) 05:45, 26 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) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Munro[edit]

Munro never played at a fully professional level in Scotland - East Fife F.C. and Cowdenbeath F.C. are semi-professional clubs - and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. There is only incidental coverage (match reports, team lineups) using a search with the club he played for most. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and no other reason for notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (I was the user who removed the prod) although it might not technically pass WP:ATHLETE, this sort of article highlights the weakness of that rather than the non-notability of the person concerned. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources that indicate the verifiability of the article, and the quantity of games (well over 100 Scottish League Div 2/3 games) played make him (in my eyes at least) far more worthy of an article than someone who has stepped across the white line as a sub for 5 minutes at "pro" level. Also East Fife were prepared to pay a £10000 fee for him. Some of the BBC articles found by a simple Google search are more than just match reports, line-ups etc, for instance it is noted when he was released from Cowdenbeath. - fchd (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is only one result which mentions him outside of a match report, when he was transfer listed by Cowdenbeath along with two other players. I don't think this qualifies as significant coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to have played at required level yet. Previous user's comments notwithstanding, if we don't draw a line in the sand there is no criteria to meet and we'll have my 6yr old with his own page before we know it (he's actually quite good you know!). I'd rather see a 'pedia with worthwhile info. re-create if an when--ClubOranje^Talk 10:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing 135 games for East Fife is just as notable as playing 135 games for a small Conference team. It's just not enough. Bettia (rawr!) 14:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N per fchd. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and I think he fails WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ATHLETE is designed to help guide the application of WP:BIO by reliably predicting who is and is not likely to meet it. If an athlete has not played in a fully professional league, but has multiple nontrivial reliable third party sources about him or her, that makes a fine article. Show me those here, and I'll change my opinion. gnfnrf (talk) 14:04, 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) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs active on the east coast[edit]

A list of random gangs on the east coast, primarily original research. Doesn't really serve a purpose. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of material is in particular need of sources subject to cross examination, given the prevalence of hoaxes, panics, and swagger inherent in the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like people are taking disadvantage of open resources like wikipedia WP:HOAX. Kalivd (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 03:25, 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) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miffy Englefield[edit]

One sentence with no sources, etc, about an unnotable actress who played a minor role in a film. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nom has it right. Also, the article for the film The Holiday (2006 film) mentions her role exactly three times, one of which is the cast list. TN‑X-Man 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Other than a couple of bit TV appearances, she had one minor role in a notable film. A search was unable to find even a mention of her in any reviews or articles. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orion progresive rock[edit]

(completing nomination) Non-notable band

Speedy Delete per WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was pre-empted on my nomination! My original rationale was "No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. Was nominated for speedy deletion but the tag was disputed." WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:31, 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) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShockForce[edit]

Stub Article. No third party sources. Very little activity. The article has no hope of becoming an encyclopedic entry. DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and also fails WP:CRYSTAL--Pmedema (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Grade Biology[edit]

Also nominating the related articles:

Do we need articles on specific high school courses? Surely the article on Standard Grade suffices. Its hard to see how these can ever be more than a course structure and a note on assessment methods. Given that syllabi frequently change, I suggest delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not the place for course outlines á la indiscriminate collections of information. MvjsTalking 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'm not sure if this should be deleted or not, but I'm wondering how this compares with the articles in Category:Advanced Placement. Should they be deleted as well? If not, those articles are a bit more developed than the Standard Grade articles, and they could be used as a model if the Standard Grade articles are kept. Just something to think about: I have heard a lot about the AP courses, and in fact I think they are notable (often discussed in the media, for example), but I had never heard about Standard Grade, due to obvious geographic bias on my part. I would like to encourage the delete voters to make sure that their decision is not affected by geographic bias. Maybe (and here I really have no idea) Standard Grade courses are very notable in Scotland and there are sources that could enable one to write a good encyclopedic article about them. --Itub (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not specifically notable. The AP courses are. DGG (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Tour (Elena Paparizou)[edit]

non-notable tour, little more than a list of dates that isn't likely to grow beyond that, as the tour is over. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it should be kept or not, but it actually is a notable tour for the artist. It is her first tour of Greece in her career, with more than 190,000 people attending (a record for Greece). It's main sponsor was also Alpha Channel who will also televise the concert, which will also be released on DVD later. How is the any different than other tours by major singers who also released on TV and DVD? The only thing missing is a set-list, which I am sure can be obtained. Greekboy (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, in my mind, tours are rarely notable on their own. There are some cases when the tour receives a GREAT deal of coverage and there is substantial content other than just describing the tour, but I don't think that's the case with this article. It just seems like a standard tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting, I think it could be expanded. The tour was actually very notable in Greece, with a great deal of media coverage. I can find sources on line from Greek sites about it if needed. It was also well integrated into the release of her latest studio album. I mean what is so different about this tour compared to ...Baby One More Time Tour or The M+M's Tour, other than it was from a less known artist on a worldwide standard? Greekboy (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its sourced and besides being short, I don't see any other reason why it shouldn't be kept. Like Greekboy said, it will soon be shown on TV and followed by a DVD release all of which will be added to the article soon. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To answer Greekboy's question, there actually isn't much that separates this tour and the ones you posted in terms of notability, which is why I've nominated those as well. But there is actually some precedence for something like this. For instance, look at Soul2Soul II Tour to see what I mean by a notable tour. That tour had substantial media coverage, and there is a great deal of content within the article. With this, it's not much more than a setlist and a list of dates. If the DVD is released, then the DVD can have it's own page, but at this point I just don't think that there's enough to justify it's own article. It could also be Merged into the artist's page. But as I said, there is precedence with tour articles being deleted. For instance, here, here, and here, just to name a few. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly made that tour more notable? Like I said, this article could be expanded substantially. It got a LOT of media coverage in Greece all summer, as well as being one of the most attended tours in Greece ever. There is more than enough news sources and details out there to add to the article. Greekboy (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Well for one, it was the highest-grossing country music concert of all time. I initially nominated that one for deletion as well, but enough changes were made to convince me to withdraw my nomination. If this article is expanded to a similar degree, I will withdraw this one as well. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this summer tour was one of (if not the) most attenuated tour around Greece ever. I have to look for sources, but I am a bit busy currently. Greekboy (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons stated above. Greekboy (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Rwiggum's notion that concert tours are inherently unnotable is badly flawed. In many cases, concert tours are artistic endeavours of their own, due to staging, presentation themes, song selection, arrangements, etc. And in many cases, concert tours are seen by more people than buy the same artists' albums or singles, and are more commercially important to the artist. If this was one of the most attending tours in Greece ever, it definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply making an artist a lot of money does not make something notable, nor does complexity of the stage show make it notable. If there isn't substantial, non-trival coverage, then it isn't notable enough. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wait. Didnt you say above that Soul2Soul II Tour was the highest grossing country music tour, which is why you decided to keep it? Doesnt that contradict what you just stated above? Greekboy (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of many reasons, yes. During that deletion discusion, Wasted Time R did an excellent overhaul of a few articles, combining them into one and making an article that I felt met the notability guidelines. Also, if there are sources that actually say that this is the highest-grossing tour in Grecian history, or something to that effect, I will reconsider my nomination. But in my statement, I wasn't addressing my reasons for nominating this article, but rather addressing Wasted Time R's comments that tours should always be kept because they make the artist more money than album sales. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With your point of view, barely any articles would be notable. I would support its inclusion even if it wasn't the highest grossing tour or whatever because it is a tour by a well known notable artist. Would we omit an album page because it was a flop? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:53, 25 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) 04:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinsun[edit]

Topic lacks significant coverage in reliable third-party sources and thus fails WP:V and WP:N. No significant coverage can be found, and so this article should be deleted. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without establishing notability, it does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be anything worth saving on this page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A planet from a fictional universe with no references outside said universe to prove notability. VG ☎ 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant and notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:JUSTAPOLICY isn't enough. You need actual evidence of notability. Randomran (talk) 21:38, 25 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 A7. lifebaka++ 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Free Runners[edit]

Lacking noteworthiness Jeff (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7, so tagged). It's a small local running group, without a speck of a claim of meeting WP:Notability in the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France–Lebanon relations[edit]

Another trivial X-Y relations article. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is more important than the rest. France governed Lebanon as a League of Nations mandate after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Alternatively, merge to History of Lebanon. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To History of Lebanon. This doesn't require its own entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could see this growing to a good article. Man, that would leave a lot of potential for country-country relations, what is it, 2^n power? Good thing this is online!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can definitely be expanded and is not trivial. A merge to history of Lebanon is not in order. The two country's have significant political and economic ties which are documented by reliable third party sources.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep — unlike Kosovo and Nauru, France was the colonising power, and relations between the two have necessarily been important at different stages in their history. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a decent article, but relevant topic because of the historical connection. Punkmorten (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the historical relationship has the potential to be a reasonable article. Davewild (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 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). Nom withdrawn and article refactored to focus on the murder; this alleviates all concerns of delete !voters. VG ☎ 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks (neé Skylar Deleon)[edit]

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. --Elliskev 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Individual is notable for a number of reasons. Proxy User (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you enumerate them? --Elliskev 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to argue with you. I've voted to keep. Proxy User (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Afd is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Elliskev 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have no right to tell me what my opinion of an article has to be. Pleas stop acting like a pompous ass. Is this Afd is to be your personal farce? How dare you tell what I can and can not say here as to what my opinion of the value of this article is. Proxy User (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I don't think anyone is telling you what to think or say, they were just asking questions hoping for a response. Please be civil to other people on Wikipeida. If you don't feel like responding, that's fine. If you do, that's fine too. However, please understand that simply saying "keep" without a reason will have much less weight than saying "keep" with a reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I *did* give a reason. The individual is notable. For several obvious reasons. Elliskev disagrees. That's not my problem. Proxy User (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this person has potentially more noteworthy events than just the murder case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plethora of sources, WP:BLP1E says Cover the event, not the person. We can of course do so, e.g. by rewriting and moving the article. Not by deleting it, though. Everyme 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is significant, I vote that it be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.237.64 (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) — 66.176.237.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Look, I agree that it should be kept, but AfD is not a majority vote. All comments should be based on and state their reasoning. Simple votes such as yours will be disregarded by the closing admin. Everyme 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if all murder victims get listed, how many pages will it fill up in the end? Is this a noteworthy murder? Probably not. Can this information be used for reference for future articles on criminality, murder, child actors? Probably not. Is there anything special about this murder? Probably not, as there have been numerous murders documented with as motive stealing. Finally, did the murderer or victims 'do' anything other than this? Not that I can find out. It's not because one lives and breathes on this earth that this is a noteworthy reason for mention in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.71.2 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) — 194.78.71.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This is the only place I could find to see what this child actor had been a part of. Since he was convicted, it is not a rumer or false hood. Please keep his background info. User from the NW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.119.10 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC) — 72.24.119.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This murder has been getting national press for years. Saruhon (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy refactoring to Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks began at this point. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The page move nullifies my original reason for nomination. Seems to meet crime notability guidelines. --Elliskev 16:50, 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) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders omnibus[edit]

Already covered in the EastEnders wiki. Fails WP:N for an article in its own right. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary content fork, without any real content. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect The two sentences might warrant (I still question the usefulness of them, though) inclusion into the EastEnders article and this article should, at best, serve as a redirect. I had the initial intent of being bold and doing the redirect myself but I see that the PROD was contested so a redirect might be contested as well. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article's creator reverts redirects, so deletion is the only option. Darrenhusted (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirimba Polecats[edit]

This is an article about an amateur university football club. It doesn't appear to be notable in any way. I am also nominating the following related pages about amateur university football club for the same reason:

Grahame (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for Australian Catholic University which is a significant Australian university. It has no place in this deletion debate.
Delete others which are non-professional leagues, failing WP:ATHLETE and WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn for Australian Catholic University, which I obviously was not meaning to nominate for deletion, confused by the link.--Grahame (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all articles nominated. I fail to see any reason to delete. Fumoses (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're cited in the nomination. Perhaps you would care to address those? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd address them if an actual reason for deleting them was provided. Fumoses (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It doesn't appear to be notable in any way." is a subjective evaluation of importance, not a measure of notability, which involves determining whether multiple independent published works by reliable sources have covered the subject in depth. The nominator has not in fact addressed that at all. Notability is not subjective. Read User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD for how to write a good rationale. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'It doesn't appear to be notable in any way' is statement that there is no apparent evidence to support the claim--multiple independent published works by reliable sources have covered the subject in depth, say. Perhaps User:Fumoses could address that instead of running away from his non-responsive boiler-plate !vote? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per perfectly fine nomination. No evidence has been provided that the sporting clubs are in any way notable. Wiki-lawyering about the manner in which nominations are written does not actually aid this discussion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nirimba Polecats and Macquarie University Rugby League Club, but Keep University (rugby league team). The former are amateur football clubs with no claim to notability, with the content fine for their respective websites, but not for an encyclopaedia. The latter however is a club that formerly competed at close to the highest level and appears to claim a rich history, although there's work required to source information that suggests notability. Murtoa (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn for University (rugby league team) per Murtoa.--Grahame (talk) 12:51, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Herbythyme. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel regueira[edit]

Contested prod. Autobiography of a barely notable painter. Very few relevant ghits. Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moving Van Goghs[edit]

No notability as per WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of information here; the article just needs to be wikified. Fumoses (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say 'plenty of information here' is meaningless, since that's not a reason cited in nomination: its lack of compliance with basic notability standards is. Perhaps you would care to address those that were cited? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information is never meaningless. "Notability," on the other hand... Fumoses (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment did not assert that the information is meaningless, but that your argument to keep based on there being lots of information is meaningless. You need to provide evidence that the article passes the necessary guidelines at WP:MUSIC in order to prevent deletion. That is all that counts in AfDs. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the nominator says the article fails WP:MUSIC; neither Allmusic or Rockdetector has heard of them, Google produces no evidence of non-trivial coverage by multiple third-party sources, and the labels the band supposedly released albums on are also non-notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted, and the article was made by one user [38] so i would aim a guess at conflict of interest. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straight-forward failure of basic standards, as per User:Blackmetalbaz. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also made attempts to find sources, finding only a directory-like listing in a Google News archive search, and finding some interesting articles about actually moving art work, when I searched a library database of newspaper articles, but nothing about the band. Delete unless sources appear by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTTD[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article does not show how this game passes the notability threshold (WP:N), nor does it provide any references from reliable, independent sources (WP:V). Sourcing is difficult through a web search due to the large number of download sites and forum chatter amongst the hits, I certainly couldn't see anything appropriate through the first 10 pages or so. Prod with these concerns was contested with the paradoxical comment "It might lose at {AfD", so here we are. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yea, in a brief review of google hits, most of them are forum & blog based, so yes, it's difficult to find great sources. However, the fact that it does bring back hundreds of sites and more than a quarter million hits indicates to me that this is a notable game based upon its apparently very large following. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLE - a large number of hits does not equate to the existence of reliable sources or notability. As per Marasmusine, third-party, non-forum, non-blog sources are needed to establish the notability of this. --MASEM 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just a large number of hits, then I'd agree. However, it's not a large number of hits just mentioning the project; it's a large number of individuals actually discussing the subject. I take issue with the principle that something has to be picked up by mainstream reviewers to be notable. Verifibility is difficult here, but notability is not. WP:GOOGLE, which you refernece, backs this up in a backhanded way, when it states Google hit counts... "only rarely "prove" anything about notability..." - it doesn't say that it can't, it just says that it is rare. I think this is one of those instances. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The game obviously has a pretty decent following, as noted by its web presence. Fumoses (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe a section in Transport Tycoon if sources can be found to establish this more than just an independent work. Simply a matter of having no reliable sources for notability demonstration here. --MASEM 13:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The ghits are probably conflated, see [39]. VG ☎ 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If one checks the listing above one can find books that actually reference to OpenTTD, like Changing the Game By David Edery, Ethan Mollick. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC) — 85.149.88.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I can't find anything beyond blog/forums hits other than security advisories. VG ☎ 15:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)(see further below)[reply]
Keep A bug report was posted on it, and reported in multiple places. Drobe appears to be a reasonably independent source--Google news picked it up for me. Overall, I'd say it's meeting the threshold for notability. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that security advisories count towards notability. VG ☎ 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure they do. No one issues security advisories on software that no one uses. Doesn't mean it's Firefox or AutoCAD, but it's still something. At the absolute minimum, it's equivalent in credibility to MarketWatch or BusinessWire press release--someone in the company announces a new version with a security bug in the old one, and puts out a release that's picked up by press release aggregation services. However, SecurityFocus does independent verification on the submissions and assigns their own severity scores, meaning that an independent reliable source exercised editorial control over that press release, and then published a page/document/advisory exclusively about that issue. That adds up to independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage in my book. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. Getting some free software included in Fedora/Debian/OpenSuse is relatively trivial, and bares no relationship to how often the software is used, but guarantees that security-related bugs in such software will result in an official advisory. VG ☎ 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least Merge. The game in question is based on Transport_Tycoon an undisputedly notable game. That the game was reverse engineered, an open-source engine rewritten for it, and 13 years later it remains in development isn't exactly commonplace. Finding a source that meets the political notability standard is indeed difficult.Booklegger (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry for the crap edit summary. Finger slipped before I'd finished the sentence.Booklegger (talk)

delete despite the fans. Not many mentionns in reliable sources. [40]Sticky Parkin 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In fact "getting some free software in Fedora/Debian/OpenSuSE" and then just "publishing" a security bug is barely an easy thing. For a start, most of these repositories differentiate programs by their supportability value. Security advisories are in fact made for quite a small number of programs. Human resources of security team are pretty limited and security advisory must mean that even within such security team the application is considered notable and important enough to bother creating an advisory. For example, in Debian world, there's separation between "main" (supported software), "universe" (non really supported free software) and "multiverse" (not supported non-free). There are almost no security advisories on anything besides "main" repository. Moreover, security advisories are only made for stable distributions released long ago. This means that the package must not only make its way to the most supported repository, but also stay there for a long time to "generate" some advisories. So, I deeply believe that advisories are in fact a very good source to show notability. Also, search on a google books yields at least 1 published book: Changing the Game: How Video Games Are Transforming the Future of Business By David Edery, Ethan Mollick praises OpenTTD's interface as a unique example of good presentation of business data and discusses the usage of such design in business applications. The game was nominated at Best of 2005 awards by drobe launchpad, meaning it was a notable contribution to the RISC OS platform in 2005. There's an independent review of OpenTTD[41] at xpressd.com portal. Last, but not least, this article bears a massive list of interwikis. I guess it all makes a lot of references, although now we must work harder to incorporate them in the article. --GreyCat (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OpenTTD has also been awarded the "Hungarian Unix Poral" readers award in 2005 and 2007 (both times first place). Would OpenTTD getting a few hundred euros within a day in a fundraiser (two times) been seen as notable? 85.149.88.77 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a large German forum I could immediately find [42], youtube lists 76 Videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.108.122.254 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 134.108.122.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - having a bug report issued about it is no more a claim of notability than me having my telephone number in the local directory. Having a forum and youtube videos aren't claims of notability. So let's take a look at xpressd.com and drobe. I've not come across them before, so what is this community's opinion of them with regards to WP:Reliable sources (Do they have a reputation for fact-checking - is there editorial oversight?) Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to a section of Transport_Tycoon. The award link [43] claims that OpenTTD is not a standalone game since you need the original game data to play it. Regarding the other source, xpressd is personal web site [44]. There isn't enough coverage in WP:RS for a separate article. VG ☎ 10:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)(changed to keep)[reply]

Comment - currently OpenTTD does not require the original game data anymore; there are replacements for the graphics and the sound and music is optional. There's however no "notable" source that tells this. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To augment my above keep rationale, I note that there exist Google Scholar refs... but not in English. Can anyone read them and appraise how much they contribute? Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Create a new section for this on the Transport Tycoon with any information not already included - which I don't think is a lot - in the section for this. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way I see it, OpenTTD is one of the most notable projects listed at "List of open source games". 255,000 Google results, several magazine and Google Scholar articles ("OpenTTD: Open source hauls the classic Transport Tycoon Delux game into the future", TUX Magazine, June 2006, pages 44-46)), ongoing development, seemingly strong fanbase... The lack of extensive mainstream media coverage is really not a good reason at all: in cases of niche freeware projects like this it is extremely rare and mustn't serve as an indicator of their success. Frankly, I don't see why you would decide to target this particular page in the first place. Is Wikipedia running out of space? Just go to Special:Random and start deleting. The first 5 random searches returned Owen's_Market, Rope_(unit), Newbie, Liero, and StudlyCaps - each of which seems like a much obvious and appropriate candidate for erasure, if you ask me. Note: although I did find the mentioned listing and the page in question itself rather helpful, I have no personal affiliation with the project whatsoever. Rankiri (talk)

Comment - I did that Special:Random thing. Going on your theory, London - which was the second one to come up - should be deleted. Also, Google hits don't count as verification of notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Also - Why does this have an article, but not any of the Service Packs for Windows XP? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because TTDPatch relates to Transport Tycoon Deluxe in the way OS/2 relates to Windows 3.x (OS/2 patched Windows 3.x on the fly, TTDPatch patches Transport Tycoon Deluxe on the fly) and OpenTTD relates to Transport Tycoon Deluxe in the way Windows XP relates to Windows 3.x (OpenTTD has many core technology changes w.r.t. Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Windows XP has many core technology changes w.r.t. Windows 3.x e.g. a completely new network stack (for both)). That immediatelly would make me ask the question: why a page for each version of Windows, shouldn't those be merged? 85.149.88.77 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The point of what I was saying is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that discuss subjects much less notable and considerably worse sourced than this one. How is this not about double standards and bad prioritizing? I mean, if you bother to look at the list of open source games I just mentioned, you'll see that in if OpenTDD really deserves deletion, so do practically all of them. Yet I fail to see such a discussion on, say, FreeCol or Egoboo. What purpose would it serve to delete all of them, anyway? Surely, I wasn't the only person who found the list helpful. And for the Google argument, I managed to find a perfectly neutral magazine article in less than a minute. Dismissing 250,000+ search results with dozens of independent reviews and hundreds of specific blog and minor site entries in a discussion of notability seems just plain unreasonable in my view. Particularly when when original "Transport Tycoon Deluxe" -openttd gets only 280,000 results by itself. The last point: regardless of the fact that WinXP Service packs are already on Wikipedia, they mere fixes and updates to the original product. Considering that OpenTTD does not even require the game it was based upon, I fail to see any possible relevance of such a comparison. Rankiri (talk)

It is not the number of hits Google gets on a subject that determines notability, but the quality of its sources thereof. Also not the common WP:WAX deletion pitfall. If other articles have similar problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. However, right now, we are dealing with this article. MuZemike (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles mentioned have been proposed for deletion and nominated for deletion, respectively. Thanks for letting us know. MuZemike (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a problem about notability with this page. If there is a lack of sources and action must be taken then strip the page back to what information can be verified, but don't delete. Mattlore (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "OpenTTD" does not have "250,000"+ search results. It has 512 hits (and 599 for "open ttd"). Getting excited about the big number on the first page is exactly why it shouldn't be used in these discussions. Rankiri, can you provide a link to the "perfectly neutral magazine article"? We've also had the classic "well these other articles exist..." Please bare in mind that the closing admin will recognize that this is not a factor. Marasmusine (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for comparison using the same metric: Wikipedia has 689 hits. For OpenTTD it's quite hard to find everything because even though it is called "OpenTTD" people write it also as "Open TTD" and "Open Transport Tycoon (Deluxe)" 85.149.88.77 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: www.aurovillenetwork.in/download_center/books/tux_magazine/tux014.pdf Rankiri (talk)

Comment: At least one company is selling OpenTTD. Another company has ported it to some mobile phones. OpenTTD has had over 2 million downloads over 4.5 years whereas MediaWiki for example has had 1.4 million downloads over 7 years (using sourceforge's download statistics which I reckon to be independent) 85.149.88.77 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER. It's not the number of hits or downloads that solely establish notability, it is the quality of the verifiable sources that do. MuZemike (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the software in question is under ongoing development. A visit to Category:Upcoming_video_games provided numerous "no information has been released on this title as of yet" and "Rumors claim that the game will be for multiple platforms". What's the official policy on this? Also, could you define notability for me? WP:N indicates that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable", and a developing product that is already in such widespread use looks rather notable to me. To put it into perspective, Oldmans_Township_School_District has 244 students and practically no media coverage whatsoever. Should it be nominated for deletion as well? As for WP:V, considering that none of us actually bothered to search through all those Google results, shouldn't {{unreferenced}} be a more appropriate response? Rankiri (talk)

Maybe Oldmans_Township_School_District, Blue Dragon 2, and Delta Force: Angel Falls should be deleted (WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING). However, as mentioned before, we are not talking about other articles - we are talking about THIS ONE! If you are asking me to define notability, I am not a dictionary. However, I can certainly give my view of this crucial official Wikipedia policy. I believe that articles establish notability through proof thereof in reliable sources. My interpretation of the portion of policy you quoted is that such reliable sources just need to exist for inclusion of an article; they don't necessarily have to be cited; surely, many article that come of AfD that are kept are because someone either (a) did not see that reliable independent sources providing significant coverage exist but was later to be found, or (b) no one looked for them. Given that I have not given my !vote on the article yet, I cannot find any right now via a simple Google search that would be considered verifiable secondary sources. MuZemike (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? If you don't know what notability is, perhaps it is not up to you to enforce it. This debate is relevant to all such articles. If you delete OpenTTD without any good reason, what will stop you from deleting something I do care about in the same manner? Regardless, I already gave you one magazine article from a third-party source. Since I've apparently become the sole official source finder for the page, here's another one:

Ubintu Full Circle Magazine, Issue 9: Jan 25 2008, pages 20-21 (http://fullcirclemagazine.org/download-manager.php?id=55)
TUX Magazine, June 2006, pages 44-46 (mirror: http://www.aurovillenetwork.in/download_center/books/tux_magazine/tux014.pdf)

What further proof of notability would be appropriate for you? Encyclopædia Britannica? It doesn't deal with unfinished freeware. Oxford dictionary? Same here. Gamespot or IGN? Both deal almost exclusively with high-profile titles and practically never cover small projects like this one. As for my examples, what I meant to say that OpenTTD actually seems to have more sources than a good portion of Wikipedia's articles, not that it's similar to one or two of them that didn't receive similar treatment. I don't see how WP:WAX can relate, particularly when it specifically says "they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this". So what about the official policy on unreleased/unfinished popular software that verifiably exists but -for quite obvious reasons- hasn't been covered by any highest quality publications as of now? And what of "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable"? As with the previously mentioned magazine source, you're practically ignoring my some of perfectly valid arguments and keep shoving all my secondary observations under the tent of WP:ATA. Let me do the same and point you to WP:BASH. Rankiri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Don't tell me that I don't know what notability is; I am well aware of the policy. I am not going to read or interpret the policy for you. I expect users to read and follow that and similar policies and guidelines within reason and with reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, I do not delete articles; as you should know, that is the job of administrators to make that decision of whether to delete or not. I will throw one more guideline at you, and that is assume good faith. No one is out to get you or your OpenTTD community. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that reduction of each argument to WP:ATA (as well as baseless accusations of WP:COI) is not an acceptable way to argue, and I partially demonstrated the validity of that belief by pointing you to WP:BASH. Let me assure you, I was quite dispassionate in that response. To finalize, I'm glad you finally agreed with some of my reasoning. Until next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the sources part. If you brought that (that is, the two magazine articles) to the table first, then it would have saved a lot of arguing and carpal tunnel from typing. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup— With everything said above, despite the spurious other reasons to keep, etc., etc., the article does has enough coverage via independent reliable sources (see magazine articles above) to satisfy the WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The review form TUX magazine is comprehensive (please add it to the article as well). Together with the other sources (which aren't that in-depth), it's sufficient to establish notability in my view. VG ☎ 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jclemens, Greycat et al. Notability seems evident and sources are available. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the TUX and Full Circle magazine coverage (although the latter is perhaps too technical to use as a source, it is at least coverage.) I'm pleased to be able to change my opinion to keep. Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator appears to have accepted the reliability and independence of the magazines dug up, and I agree. Hopefully someone can take the time to integrate those into the article, building up a development or reception section. Good, productive discussion everyone. Randomran (talk) 23:38, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corned beef sandwich[edit]

Fails WP:N, could possibly be mentioned in passing in the Corned beef wiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried going with a redirect but the owner kept reverting. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable; one of the first foods in outer space Gus Grissom snuck one on.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an erroneous conflation of notability with your subjective opinion of importance. Notability is not subjective, and requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. The historical sources that document the Gemini missions actually say nothing at all about corned beef sandwiches. They go into detail about the resultant changes in disciplinary procedures at NASA, though. Such sources don't demonstrate notability, because they don't say anything about this subject. What they support is not this article but the content at Gemini 3#Flight. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respects Uncle G, in "Detailed Biographies of Apollo I Crew - Gus Grissom" by Mary C. White at History.NASA.gov there is this specific quote about 2/3 of the way down the article page: "I was concentrating on our spacecraft's performance, when suddenly John asked me, 'You care for a corned beef sandwich, skipper?' If I could have fallen out of my couch, I would have. Sure enough, he was holding an honest-to-john corned beef sandwich." (46) John had managed to sneak the deli sandwich, which was one of Grissom's favorites into his pocket. As Gus sampled the treat, tiny bits of rye bread began floating around the pristine cabin and the crew was just about knocked over by the pungent aroma of corned beef wafting through the small confines of the spacecraft. "After the flight our superiors at NASA let us know in no uncertain terms that non-man-rated corned beef sandwiches were out for future space missions. But John's deadpan offer of this strictly non-regulation goodie remains one of the highlights of our flight for me." Wouldn't History.NASA.Gov be a reliable source? I also found reference to the sandwhich at Spceline.org, DavidDarling.info, datamanos2.com, in "Dark Side of the Moon" by Gerard J. De Groot... and there are more. Not trying to be a wise-ass, but this sandwhich does seem to have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, Grissom may have taken such a sandwich with him, but does that make the concept of the particular sandwich notable? That article is about the taking of an item in space, not corned beef sandwiches in general. Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper on his return from talks with Adolf Hitler - far more notable than the Grissom incident, but there's no Piece of paper wiki, indeed nor should there be, as the concept is so trivial. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would agree that the article itself needs to spend more time on the history and utility of of corned beef sandwich itself, but might then include references inre the sandwich's place in modern history (such as Grisom's). I have found sources that may be used to improve the article: IrishCulturesandCustoms.com, FoodReference.com, WhatsCookingAmerica.net, Instructables.com, ChowHound.Chow.com, Foodhistory.com, etc. There is plenty to make the article properly encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - None of those references mention the corned beef sandwich in any sense usable for WP:notability. They concern Reuben sandwiches; one individual's liking for corned beef sandwiches; and how to make some kind of spread from corned beef. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That text rather proves my point. It says not a thing about corned beef sandwiches. Read it; then ask yourself what you have learned about corned beef sandwiches. The sandwich might as well have contained bacon, for all the information the text gives you about this type of sandwich. The whole "But there was a corned beef sandwich in space!" argument is simply grasping at straws. We have the incident documented at Gemini 3#Flight, where it belongs, because that is a subject that those sources do inform one about. Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as worth expanding. No need to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my knowledge, this is the third time that someone has attempted to delete this article. For the reasons stated above, I support the article. It is ridiculous that people try to keep having it deleted when it keeps surviving all of these attempts to get rid of it. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale essentially amounts to gaming the system, and holds no water. Surviving speedy and proposed deletion does not mean that an article should be kept. It simply means that it does not fall within our deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria, and its deletion was protested (in this case by you, the article's creator). If you want to make an argument that does hold water, please cite multiple independent and reliable sources that cover this subject in depth, to show that a full article can actually be built here. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy if there's no possibility of writing verifiable content without original research, there's no possibility of an article. And per Wikipedia:Notability, if there's no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, the content does not warrant a standalone article. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bravo Plantation, just because there is an article for another type of sandwich does not mean there should be one for this. Each article has to assert its own notability. And the deletion process is clear, first redirect, then PROD and finally AfD. The CSD for this page was turned down because "speedy declined, not A7, has long history", this just means that the wrong CSD category was used. @Bedford, Uncle G is right, your expansion only proves that this bares a passing mention in Apollo III, it does not make this sandwich notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why were you so pointy?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a brief mention that such a sandwich was snuck onboard Apollo III does not make the sandwich notable. Any notable person may go on record as saying they have a particular fondness for, say, crisp sandwiches but that would not in itself confer notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It adds nothing to the content at corned beef and Gemini 3, and only attempts to establish notability via its loose attachment to the latter. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Reuben sandwich has its own article; I fail to see why this shouldn't as well. Fumoses (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to keep this article, try WP:N as a reason to why this article fails. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuben sandwich#References shows the answer to that one. There are sources that document the (disputed) origins of, and variations upon, the sandwich. As I said before, if you want to make an argument to keep that actually holds water, unlike the rationale that you have used, similarly cite some sources that cover this subject.
  Several of the sources in Reuben sandwich are the results of my trying and so far failing to find sources that discuss corned beef sandwiches in depth, by the way. Reuben sandwiches are documented by the world at large. Corned beef sandwiches are, it seems, not. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purported image of a corned beef sandwich, added to the article by Bedford in an effort to prove xyr argument made above, in fact is self-defeating, and only serves to reinforce what I just wrote. It isn't a picture of a corned beef sandwich. It's a picture of a Reuben sandwich. The cheese and sauerkraut are clearly visible as layers in the sandwich. This is a corned beef sandwich. Uncle G (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped them- though it doesn't look like one in the UK, which looks like a 'normal' sandwich, and this one doesn't look pleasant to my unsophisticated food tastes.:) Sticky Parkin 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kevin Forsyth said it best: no notability for this food item other that loose transference from Gemini 3. Why can't this trivia be mentioned in the article on corned beef? VG ☎ 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "corned beef sandwich" is not a notably distinct food item. Or will we have articles for Pastrami sandwich, Ham and turkey sandwich, Turkey and bacon sandwich, Eggplant sandwich, Egg-salad sandwich, etc.? Or how about Vegetable lasagna, Four-cheese lasagna, Eggplant lasagna, Vegan lasagna, and Ground turkey lasagna? I could go on and on... It makes sense to have an article for Reuben sandwich, because it is a notably distinct food item with certain defining characteristics. But a corned beef sandwich could be anything that includes at least one piece of bread and corned beef. Not notably distinct. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going by the precedent set by Vegetable lasagna, I don't have a problem with making it a redirect to Corned beef or Sandwich. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as this is not a notably distinct food item. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument as usual. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jaysweet, redirect to corned beef, as the existence of such sandwiches is obvious and there's nothing wrong with the title. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would love for this to be kept, as the first sentence of this article gave me much laughter, but redirect to corned beef. While the story of this item being smuggled into space makes a fine addition to the Gemini 3 article, I don't think that this alone makes the subject of this article notable in its own right. Saying that, if we could find some reliable sources discussing the history and cultural importance of this delicacy then I think an encyclopedic article would be plausible, maybe something like the tuna fish sandwich article. Wiw8 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a 'food in space' page? if so merge this there. -May- be notable as the first sarni in space, maybe. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Space food. The paragraph I typed could be used for that article and the Gemini III article. As a child, one of my heroes was Gus Grissom; even dressed up as him for school once (although looking back I think I looked more like a Klansman).--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 06:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as iconic. It's the sandwich specifically, with respect to NY at any rate. DGG (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically what are you talking about? What content from this article do you suggest keeping and based on what sources? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that DGG is also conflating these with Reuben sandwiches, which (according to one story of their origins) were invented in New York. Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing especially notable about a corned beef sandwich that couldn't be dealt with in corned beef Stephenb (Talk) 12:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to corned beef. It is a common deli sandwich, and so would not be an unexpected or unusual search term. The material about it going into space is not in the conrned beef article so there is material worthwhile merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or Merge) to corned beef, where the sandwich is already mentioned. No need for a separate article. Geoff (talk) 20:49, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. The "Keep" opinions ignore our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and are discounted. Sandstein 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign place names in Japanese[edit]

Transwiki to wiktionary, per user:Timurite below. `'Míkka >t 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) List of Japanese words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. `'Míkka >t 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mikka. ApprenticeFan (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note-actually Mikkalai wants to delete it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... there are dictionary elements in the series of tables in that article, but the tables forming the list are not a dictionary. CJLippert (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article is useful and informative, and there are plenty of similar tables in Wikipedia. Fumoses (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful list showing both native names of places, and the representation of various names by a language with strong phonological constraints. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an invalid !vote. Please refer to WP:USEFUL for guidance. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Smerdis of Tlön. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transfer to an appropriate Wikimedia project. Useful reference must be kept; the only question is which project. Deletion is not an option. Fg2 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Traswiki to wiktionary. The page is nothing but the list of translations for an arbitrarily picked subject. Why not List of woodworking tool names in German language? I assure you, interesting it be. Timurite (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suppose it does in fact fail policy, but it's a really useful and well-written article that is just the thing for someone looking for this kind of information. Maybe one day there will be a wikilearnaforeignlanguage.org, but for now it can stay here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard, there are many places to store useful information: wikibooks, wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons,.... Each for its own kind of info. Translations belong to wiktionary.
Delete. This is an encyclopedia not a translation guide. JBsupreme (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Traswiki to wiktionary. While being useful, this is most definitely not an encyclopedia article. Mukadderat (talk) 17:31, 25 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) 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1949 Rally Of Finland[edit]

Intentional hoaxes or not, there was no Rally Finland, World Rally or Group B in 1949. Prolog (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Template:Group B results which is only used on this page. All of [Thebigdixie]'s contributions are strange as far as I can tell. Samples: [45] [46]. Maybe he/she doesn't have a solid grasp of writing in English. Maybe dixie has knowledge in areas that no other Wikipedian does. Maybe its vandalism. It's odd how most edits are centered on 1949 and 1950. I don't trust the edits and since they are unverified, and I believe they should be removed except if referenced. Royal broil 13:50, 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) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Russia[edit]

List of translations into chinese language. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. `'Míkka >t 08:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote modified: Transwiki to wiktionary, since the list is somewhat useful. I remember Geographical appendices existed in some English-Russian discionaries. `'Míkka >t 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite random list, no historical connection makes the topic relevant. Punkmorten (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to replicate a dictionary (most entries are quite obvious transliterations, give or take phonetic differences) NVO (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, places like Damansky Island missing. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:08, 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) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother and Father (Madonna song)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo only release. No references Paul75 (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-charting single, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:04, 21 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)} 16:05, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emer O'Loughlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Emer O'Loughlin

Delete. The article does not indicate why the deceased, or her murder, were notable. WWGB (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not editing this page to include much more information as yet, I am new to Wikipedia editing. This page is a joint effort between three people, all of whom, close to the deceased. As for notable, a case such as this is notable depending on where you live, if you live in the villages or towns of the Republic of Ireland, everyone knows of the case, it hits the communities hard. I will be sure to include a line stating that if you allow the page to be left live for just a while longer. The whole county of Clare in Ireland heard of this case and realise that this is not an everyday occurrence to them, its the sort of case which just takes you by Storm, despite the troubles in Ireland. Thank You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are all "close to the deceased" then perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on board the points on that page, personally, I have been trying to put across a neutral point of view, another editor is not. I realise it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote cases for the benefit of one side only. It is difficult to be completely unbiased, however, I have agreed with the other two editors, that I will write the rest of the page, seen as the only information to stay on the page was posted by myself. I hope you can appreciate that it takes a great deal to write about something such as this. Thank you for letting it stay live for that bit longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep By searching google news using ALL dates] you find 8 wp:rs hits. This passes notability and reliable sources. The rest can be fixed with tags and perhaps helping the new editor out. Notability policy says that subject must be verifiable, NOT verified. Again, that's what tags are for, not AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last media interest was more than two years ago. Sadly, people are murdered every day. What puts this incident above WP:ONEEVENT? WWGB (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage in Ireland. Maybe. I understand that the article is thin and the fact that is unsolved is the main reason for the coverage, but with several wp:rs sources, it seems to pass. If nothing else, WWGB says cover the event, not the person, which would mean a move to different title, not a delete. I'm not claiming to be ironclad about this (and fully understand your argument), but this is what I am reading in the policy here when taken literally. I am all ears to hear other precedents and learn something new. Is there another article it can be merged into, if it is borderline? PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other comment Read the intro for JonBenét Ramsey which says that the main notability is the longevity and the media interest. This article isn't at THAT level, but where is the threshold? idunno. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is no a memorial. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 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, kur ykh 07:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no particular encyclopedic notability: neither for the person nor for the murder case. `'Míkka >t 08:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article could use expansion and more detail, but it's clearly notable. Fumoses (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E applies here. Marasmusine (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I don't see anything in this article that would make this case noteworthy among the many tragic unsolved murder cases that exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 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 No consensus; default to keep - this article has been floating around AfD for quite some time (at least 15 days) and has been relisted 3 times. I think its time to close this discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fables[edit]

No sources found. Unsourced since 12/07. No notability asserted besides a long run in Grand Rapids. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I found [47] which takes about their trademark, this article [48] that talks about the breakup, many, many references in passing, and dozens of people trying to locate their old recipes. While I can't find a dead-on source, I get the feeling that this was an insanely popular chain that went of biz for some reason or another. I hate to see the article go without more confidence that they are really not notable (not the nom's fault). It went out of business before the Internet became popular, which may explain why sources are hard to find, excepting the fans of the food looking for the recipes and such. This is just one of those articles that I feel there IS something missing, and we just dont have easy access to the information, thus I will just stay neutral after searching. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up After searching Google news using all dates for "Mr. Fables" food I found some weak references that might pan out if I felt like spending money to see. NewsPaperArchive.com claims to have 32 articles for instance. Being verifiable only by pay ads should never stop an article from being considered sourced (policy doesn't say sourced for free) BUT I can't say that there are solid wp:rs behind that pay wall. I would lean more toward keep on faith, but I can't image sourcing this now out of business company will be easier in the future. Again, my gut says they ARE notable enough but they were preinternet, and I can't figure out how to satisfy policy in this. I tried, but have to stay neutral. Thats a lot of work to not take a stand... PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:19, 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, kur ykh 07:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's going to be a little harder to find cites on articles like these because the chain went under in the previous decade, when there wasn't as much internet coverage, but this shouldn't make it impossible to find sources, and it doesn't make it non-notable. Fumoses (talk) 13:29, 21 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 02:39, 27 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 Paul McCartney#relationship with Nancy Shevell. History retained as there are some useful WP:RS sources there. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Shevell[edit]

This is a classic WP:ONEVENT subject. None of the third-party references (excluding the bio at the subject's own company's web site) refers to the subject in a context other than in relation to Paul McCartney. All of the material information and references from this article have been merged into a brief couple of paragraphs in the main article, Paul McCartney.

Suggested course of action is to replace the article with a redirect to Paul McCartney#relationship with Nancy Shevell. Bongomatic (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, but WP:ONEVENT is not a universal rule. It depends on how big the "one event" is, and if things get more serious with McCartney that's big enough for an article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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, kur ykh 07:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta (Latin)[edit]

This short substub contains no useful information and thus fails WP:STUB criteria. It might possibly be adequate for Wiktionary, but currently it's non-informative. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Delta (letter) The Steve 09:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 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, kur ykh 07:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - insufficient evidence of the usage of the term hence the problem with verifiability of the article: ["latin delta" + unicode] only 4 hits from mailing lists, which discuss whether Latin pages need some extra characters. `'Míkka >t 08:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My curiosity led me to find the origins of this strange letter; I've expanded the article to indicate that it is a letter used in medieval Welsh transcriptions and was only recently added to Unicode. I've also moved the page to Latin delta to be consistent with similar articles such as Latin alpha and Latin gamma. DHowell (talk) 04:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laven Sowell[edit]

Non-notable. Local music teacher. No career backed by reviews in publications. Klein zach 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Oklahoma and WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to pass WP:BIO, or evidence of academic impact required to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. Re coverage - his official web site has scans of articles by and about him. However, the ones about him are restricted to local Tulsa publications. Here are two examples:[49], [50]. The next two are from the in-house magazines of the University of Tulsa and the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce: [51], [52]. There are also entries in Dictionary of International Biography (1976), Men of Achievement (1978), Who's who in American Music: Classical (1983) [53]. Re his career - the most notable aspects (if at all) are:

Sang Marcello and Colline in La bohème throughout US and Canada with the Charles L. Wagner touring company which was fairly notable as such companies go (See: Wagner's book [54], Time Magazine article about him [55] and mentions in these journals [56], [57])
Sang comprimario roles at Tulsa Opera before becoming their Chorus Master, a position he held for over 30 years.[58]
Received the Oklahoma Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts (1991).[59]
Books: Williams, Jack A. and Sowell, Laven (1992) Tulsa Opera Chronicles 1948-1992, Tulsa, OK: Tulsa Opera; Sowell, Laven (2000) My music notebook, Tulsa, OK: Hammondo Press. Voceditenore (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC) (further additions Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

weak delete Really doesn't do anything to assert notability, certainly not why it is notable on a world level. The introduction does not do this either. The sources above indicate above that the subject has some claim to notability, it could probably me made into an acceptable article if such sources were added and above all that the articles affirmed a bit better why the subject is of note. I suggest that the article is rescued and somebody tries to address these problems, if so I would lean towards weak keep. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The most glaring problem is that article is written like an affectionate tribute from one of his students, which it probably is. I might be able to 'rescue' it to a "weak keep" in a few days when I have more time. But, I'd like to see what the general feeling is here before I put in too much effort. Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Any notability seems to be of largely local nature. The book co-authored by him is not widely held by U.S. libraries[60]. Does not seem enough here to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Which Wikipedia policy has raised the required threshold of notability to "a world level"? Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is this man even notable on a national level? --Klein zach 02:18, 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 Tu-Plang. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sucked a lot of cock to get where I am[edit]

Fails WP:NALBUMS notability requirements. No references or external links. All the information listed within the article is already presented here. Flewis^(talk) 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NALBUMS to the album containing the song as a plausible typo for the correct capitalization. Newsaholic (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Newsaholic. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Meade (soccer)[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and has been lacking sources entirely for the past 18 months. JBsupreme (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (it seems the deprodder was mistaken - he never played for Millwall). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soccerbase confirms he made no appearances for Millwall. Bettia (rawr!) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom per failure of WP:ATHLETE criteria. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx)
- Comment I deprodded it because the article said that he played for Millwall, and I didn't know where to go to prove or to disprove that. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not yet made it. recreate if and when--ClubOranje^Talk 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Fails WP:ATHLETE. That's enough. Recreate if and when he becomes notable as per policies and guidelines. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:29, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Dragons[edit]

Amateur Taiwanese sports club with very-weak-to-non-existent claims to notability, with little to back up said claims. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball-softball is considered the national sport of Taiwan. Amateur softball in Taiwan is as big a deal as college football, which is amateur as well, in the United States. Whether a team has "claims to notability" should be decided by locals whom the team is based in, not by assumptions from people who never set feet on its home base. In this article, there is indeed sufficient backup to its notability claim, just not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gannilaomu (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Editor's ONLY contribution to Wikipedia, so far.[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of detail here, and I see no reason to delete. Fumoses (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say 'plenty of detail' is meaningless, since that's not a reason cited in nomination. Perhaps you would care to address those that were cited? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ORG, WP:NOTE. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur softball team. There are thousands of teams in the world and this one is no more notable than any of the others. Fails WP:ORG as there are no reliable references — X96lee15 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that prove notability. One of the "references" leads to the website of the Taipei Metropolitan Rapid Transit system. Not exactly relevant.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:00, 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 keep. I the nominator withdraw this afd, due to subsequent improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Central College[edit]

Another High School that lacks sufficient context to determine location or any significant info.

"Created By M.G.J.Sandaruwan (2001 A/L) [email protected]"
"School ID: 0706001"
"It's one of most popular categorized school in Galle distract"
"Ananda ... current principle Mr. K.M. Sunil Padmasiri ...[is] also a student of Ananda."

Yes, very encyclopedic. WP:N concerns aside, no WP:RS or external links for verification. A WP:OR is also a viable problem Flewis^(talk) 06:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Sri Lanka#National schools (where it appears under "Galle"). No prejudice against replacing the redirect with a more coherent article in the future. Deor (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned the article up a bit. I think it has enough detail to be a stand-alone stub. It is a high school, after all. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in List of schools in Sri Lanka this is categorized as a national school, whereas it appears on this page as a provincial school. The sources for the school seem mighty thin to me; can anything in the article be sourced other than the school's existence and the fact that it's in Elpitiya? Deor (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article still requires major cleanup, the issues are listed within the article.--Flewis^(talk) 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is poorly written, isn't it? Gawrsh, Goofy--is it a high school or a college? Oh, it doesn't matter because we Keep both of those!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Sri Lanka#National schools - the article is compromised by the use of multiple peacock terms and weasel words. The only external link of a former principal's brief obituary [61] (bearing in mind that the information listed in the link is not relevant to the article). A brief sentence or two in this article would suffice to establish info on the school. --Flewis^(talk) 15:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the school is also listed at Elpitiya#Key Institutes, and perhaps that would be a better place to include a "brief sentence or two" and to target the redirect. Deor (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD 1 hour after creation? Along with a serious case of tagging overkill. Secondary school deletions are unproductive. This is a cleanup job. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest we use for sources? Deor (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this contains a high school. Sri Lanka schools have a poor presence on the Internet so, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be found. The over-tagging is counter-productive and simply serves to confuse. TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are in practice considered notable here, because it turns out there is always material. Poor quality articles are edited, not deleted. DGG (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school, this institution will undoubtedly be found to be quite prominent in it's community, and therefore sources for encyclopedic material will certainly be able to be found. The fact that this school exists in a region that has poor INTERNET presence means that we should not rely solely on INTERNET search engines and expect a rapid turn-around on improvement requests. This article will undoubtedly need time to be improved. Deletion will not assist in that endeavor, and is not warranted because by a preponderance of AfD closings over the past 5 years, it is overwhelmingly the consensus of this community that all high schools can be considered notable, as a matter of convenience. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't tag articles for deletion 1 hour after creation + systemic bias. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:42, 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 Delete as copyvio. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. joseph old boys foundation[edit]

Non non notable association. Could be deleted on the basis of ambiguity, because it fails to state exactly which school this really is. From what I can deduce, this school is located in England, however there must be hundreds of "St. Joseph’s High Schools" in England and indeed internationally. Does not present enough information to sufficiently determine context. No inbound/outbound links, references, external links or citations either.

No prospective reader knows who "Brother John" or "Brother Jude" is. Weasel words, un-clarified statements bordering WP:OR and so much more. This article is a mess. Flewis^(talk) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From what I can deduce, this school is located in England - the article states Though presently in a state of transition, July of this year will see a new development when all the classes will be shifted to the new school in Mohammedpur. - I live in England and can say without fear of contradiction that there isn't a town in England called Mohammedpur..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point - the location is arguable - another reason to delete under {db-a1} --Flewis^(talk) 07:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12) - word-for-word copy of [62]. So tagged. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 or G11, take your pick.--Kubigula (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Chaserz Productions[edit]

Unsourced, unencyclopedic advertisement Mcbill88 (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Spiesr (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now tagged it as such.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing Room[edit]

Article tagged in May for notability issues. "Citations" section does not establish notability of film, does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds notable to me, but you can't know that it grossed $500,000 cos there's nothing there to back it up. That rules out its only claim to notability. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Temp~~ Weak Keep per improvements noted below ~~as I am giving the article a sandblasting and major cleanup.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 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) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- With apolgies, I have been away on projects and though have had internet access, have been away from my home resources. Will sandblast this evening and see if it can be made properly encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have finished cleanup, sourcing, wikifying, adding external links and reviews, etc. The article is better. Needs a few more tweaks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There issue here appears to be the reliability (or not) of the sources. Some discussion of this would helpful for closing this either way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources listed are okay, for a low budget horror movie. That plus the festival listings make me say the article is good enough to Keep. raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Mann (singer)[edit]

Not notable. There is an actor with the same name (and has article here) and searching for sources, you have to weed those out. I couldn't find anything I felt established notability for this SINGER (title says singer, description says best known for writing, I dunno...). Was a prod, was deleted, was recreated by SPA. Note talk page on article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is shown on the USA Songwriting Competition web site as the overall winner for 2003 (I added a ref) but I don't see evidence (nor especially evidence to the contrarty, in fairness) that it's actually an award of any significance. Can anyone opine on that? Bongomatic (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a major competition at all. No sources found besides those already present. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to abstain from !voting BUT apparently Mann opened for Alanis Morissette on a UK tour in 2005. If you follow this Google News search you can read "Gabriel Mann [...] as he supports Alanis Morissette on her UK...". The registration-only link is to an article from the Belfast Telegraph. BUT that's not non-trivial coverage, though some consider a verifiable national tour is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. I dunno. I'm ambivalent about the whole thing—it's definitely a puff piece with tons of unsourced content. I guess I'm leaning towards delete but I'm going to sit this one out. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, it's impossible to believe (notwithstanding the article snippets you found) that Mann opened for Alanis Morissette for a couple of reasons. First, it wouldn't generate so few hits if it were really true. Second, the article's subject doesn't mention this on his web site--it's hard to imagine that would be the case given the amount of other achievements cited. Bongomatic (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Retracted. Bongomatic (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first hit talks about Gabriel Mann (actor) not Gabriel Mann (singer). The other one offers the single sentence We'll all be able to hear his voice soon, as he supports Alanis Morissette on her UK shows next month which is forward looking. Doesn't confirm that it really happened, and from the looks of what bongomatic has found, appears it didn't or the author of the article was simply wrong. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll find many more hits in a regular Google search. Here's the Oslo venue from the tour, listing him as support. Here's someone's blog about a Morissette show in Rotterdam that includes pictures of Mann as the opening act; and a different one (no pictures, but a mention) (neither is WP:RS but still...). Mann also posted a video of himself from that tour on YouTube. And the tour is mentioned on his own website (more than once). Oh, and here's the actual article I linked to previously, it was in The Independent. Here's a profile listing his video game credits (dunno if it's WP:RS or not). I'm going to do a little more digging and if I turn up a much more, I think I'm going to have to !vote after all. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The venue cite may support he opened for her one time (says he was "support"), but the rest of the blogs fail wp:rs, so can't be verified, thus don't apply here. To add to this, neither the article NOR the artists website indicates that he DID. What you have is a VERY weak singular source that is verifying something that the artist has never claimed to be a fact, even on his own website. To say this is problematic is an understatement. The ONE decent article only make a mention in passing, and at best only verifies that he exists, which isn't the issue. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Support" is another term for "opening act", in case you're unfamiliar with the term. And maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the artist's website doesn't verify that the tour happened? I know it's a primary source, but it pretty clearly states the tour took place—but like I said, maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - List of German dates from the tour on the concert promoter's website (click on "Bereits gespielte Termine ausblenden" under the header "TERMINE" (right below the photo of Morissette) to expand the list of tour dates; Mann is listed as "Special Guest" for all five dates. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Review of German show on a WDR radio station's website (in German—Google translated). Only a brief mention of Mann but enough to verify that he actually performed in addition to being booked for the tour. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a Nutshell In the translated article, the entire mention of him is "After the act Gabriel Mann from Los Angeles". It doesn't even say he is a singer. Because of the links you added in foreign languages (good hard find), we know he opened for Alanis Morissette for 5 shows in April of 05. It comes down to this: We can verify that he opened up for Alanis Morissette a few times in Germany. Maybe more but we can't find sources that verify this, and god knows, we have all tried. Based on these few gigs, does this make him notable enough and pass policy here? I am glad you have found the sources you have, as it demostrates that in this AFD we have all tried everything to help the article, but in my mind it doesn't change my opinion of notability, they only prove he exists. Again, even HE doesn't claim that opening for her is notable enough to mention on his own website, nor does the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see:
1. He says (despite your repeated claims to the contrary) on his website that he opened for Alanis Morissette on a European tour.
2. There is proof from reliable sources that he opened all five shows in Germany and the show in Norway.
3. There is evidence from (admittedly) unreliable sources that he opened the London and Rotterdam shows on that same tour

If only the primary source existed I would agree to the dubious nature of the claim. Since the primary source is at least partially verified by reliable sources and there's nothing to be found that contradicts the primary source, it's acceptable to take it at face value. (I'm not necessarily saying, however, that everything on his website should be taken as gospel.) I would say that the European tour with Alanis Morissette, his producing Sara Bareilles' first album, along with his other work (videogame soundtracks, song(s) on Arrested Development, etc) added together equal notability. Put me down for Keep. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Opening for Alanis Morisette seems to be the only potentially notable thing about the subject of the article. I personally find it surprising that after opening (even if only a few times) for an act as significant as Alanis Morissette, he would have generated no material coverage or reviews. Don't know what conclusion to draw from that, but after extensive searching, no evidence has been turned up that suggests conventional "significant coverage" (or even "material coverage"). After reading WP:MUSIC under both its criteria for musicians and ensembles and its criteria for composers and lyricists, it is hard to see any criteria where he would fit in, with two possible exceptions. The first possibility is if he's released two of his albums on major labels or on "one of the more important independent labels". I haven't looked into this. The second possibility is that he satisfies the composers' criterion relation to competitions. However, that requires it to be a "major" competition "not established expressly for newcomers". It's not obvious that either prong of that test is met. Bongomatic (talk) 01:38, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll grant that the article needs cleaning up, but I see nothing here that justifies deletion. Fumoses (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the extended effort to confirm his touring just proves he does not meet the notability outlined in WP:MUSIC. Criteria #4 is not just that he has gone on a tour, but that the tour is covered in reliable sources. That is to say, the fact that the musician has toured has been noted. It hasn't been noted. Alanis Morrisette has been noted, and Gabriel Mann barely even gets a mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His opening for Morissette provided more than ample opportunity for "significant coverage" , coverage which despite several people searching for does not appear to exist. Hence the subject does not appear to have satisfied the general notability guideline. As discussed above, the subject also has not been demonstrated (again, after considerable effort) to meet the profession-specific guideline. Bongomatic (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated before, this article does need cleaning up and a through sprinkling of citations, but those familiar with Gabriel Mann's accomplishments as Hello Control has pointed out a few, would most definitly not be argueing about a percieved lack of notability. Voxbaryton (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC) — Voxbaryton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - but where are these citations to come from? We've looked and all that exists is confirmation that he exists. There's no articles being written about him. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not that I am an expert on all things Wikipedia, but a lot of this article can be supported by an interview that Mann gave on "... is good." (http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/19527) as just one source. While I understand that this is a primary source, I do believe that it has merit. A few more can probably be done with some legwork beyond just googling. It would be interesting if someone could actually get a hold of the liner notes to Sara Bareilles' first album for instance. He produced half of it and should be credited, and considering her huge popularity now that alone entitles him to be considered "notable." Voxbaryton (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)— Voxbaryton (talk • contribs) 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion)[edit]

A minor wine estate/wine in a minor Bordeaux appellation. Basically non-notable (a Google search reveals no substantive media coverage) and apparently created by or on behalf of the estate owner simply as an advert for their product. Nickhh (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ weak keep: My personal threshold of adequate notability for inclusion in Wikipedia is Peppercorn's thorough RS Bordeaux which does not include this estate in the chapter on Lussac-Saint-Émilion where other neighbouring more major and historical producers are covered, nor can I find any worthwhile coverage in a web sweep beyond the long review lists of Wine Spectator, Guide Hachette, the many vendor sites, and a brief mention in Decanter and by Thunevin which is insufficient. But it seems an investment push is relatively recent, so I'd agree if the article be userfied until in-depth RS possibly appear. MURGH ^disc. 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that Peppercorn is a good benchmark for Bordeaux if one is going to draw a line somewhere (by contrast for example simply listing only classified growths would probably be too restrictive, and also stacked against Chateaux from appellations without a classification system). Are there any wine project standards or assumptions on this kind of thing (I'm not a member)? Given that every music album ever released and every school seem to have their own WP page, one could make a case for allowing every wine or wine estate to have one too. Having said that, as a commercial product, I guess we have to be more wary? --Nickhh (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a good point of comparison. I'm not at all adamant the Peppercorn book from 1990 should "draw the line", only so far as to say this estate is historically no giant. Looking over WP:CORP, there is a case for the Guide Hachette entries over the years (some shown here [63]) which are more thorough than the Wine Spectator score lists.. Also there is the option, as this producer shares owners with Château Franc Mayne^[64] to do some form of merge. MURGH ^disc. 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As the nominator, I'm still tending towards deletion as a minor estate, most of which do not currently have their own pages. I guess my point is that it might be worth having a more general ruling/standard for the future, which could conceivably be more generous (or which, equally, might not be). A mention under or merge to the other Chateau might be a plan. --Nickhh (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although the article is written on behalf of the owners, I'm strongly convinced that the public has the right to know the existing of this estate. The Satellite wine appellation of Saint Emilion is not as famous as other nearby areas but it does take part in wine history. The ideal situation would be that every chateau has its own article on Wikipedia, like of those well-known chateaus in Saint Emilion or Medoc areas, but not everyone is alert to this online encyclopaedia yet. One of the solutions would be that one of the chateaus starts its own article, and hopefully others would do the same today or in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RelaisfrancmayneGB (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Murgh has a convincing case on the (limited) notability of this estate in the world of Bordeaux wine; I know very well that he has his nose in the relevant source literature. However, I would like to draw the attention to the fact that the article also states that the château building is a distinctive landmark in Lussac. Perhaps that fact, and not just the notability of the wines, should be considered when the overall notability is considered? Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that may very well be, and that valid but more obscure RS isn't readily found online. MURGH ^disc. 11:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, that would need to be sourced surely, as evidence of notability. Don't forget the article seems to have been written by or on behalf of the owners, so anything in it currently - with all due respect to the author! - should be treated with caution. --Nickhh (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the image sort of convinced me that it ought to be a local landmark as stated... :-) I agree on the assumption on how the article is likely to have come about, but I'm used to such articles being more non-encyclopedic and filled with superlatives, so I just thought that this one was OK in tone by comparison to many other. Tomas e (talk) 08:24, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned it up a little, and it's apparently accurate and sufficiently notable. --Lockley (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the nature of the subject, online media coverage (especially in english) may be sparse, but that doesn't preclude sources from existing. The wines from this vineyard have been recommended widely, however, this is usually a trivial reference for example this Washington Post[65] article or the multiple mentions in the NYTimes wine section. Some have gone further, for example, the Boston Globe reviewed the winery and recommended it (not as trivial) [66]. There was also media coverage of the "Assemblage en Bordeaux" which this winery belongs to; Europe Intelligence Wire carried a number of articles from European sources in March of 03. Griet Laviale, a current owner has also made the news especially as a female vintner in a typically male dominated profession (for one english example, see [67]). So, in short, I think there's an article here and that the subject is notable enough, but I agree that this first one wasn't really a good start. Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all official appellations get written about and are notable. The question raised above about how to comparably deal with less organized regions is a bigger problem. DGG (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but your statement gives the impression to be about an article concerned with the satellite appellation Lussac-Saint-Émilion and not a wine estate of recent emergence and sparse RS. I'm sorry if I've completely misunderstood.. MURGH ^disc. 19:12, 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prinzzess[edit]

Contested prod (although I can't imagine why). This person is a million times less notable than Ginger Jolie and is completely lacking in the reliable sources department, let alone non-trivial sources. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 05:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO and hasn't asked for her article to be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to a lack of third party coverage by reliable sources. Whether or not she "asked" for deletion doesn't play into it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete Ewwww. And yes, less notable than another one recently seen at AfD. It has only five hits in WP:RS [68] two of them penthouse, two of them I think are press releases, the other something anyone can get in if they dressed outrageously enough that day. Sticky Parkin 01:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:PORNBIO, even if the article needs work. Without implying that this is a deliberately disruptive nomination, the nominator seems to be attempting to pursue some kind of scorched earth policy with regard to Ginger Jolie and is extending it to other Penthouse Pets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that impression. The nominator seems to have been trying to wipe out any evidence that Penthouse ever had a Pet for September 2004. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, I don't see how an in-house award of Penthouse Pet confers notability. RMHED (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Epbr123. Dismas|^(talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tabercil (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After some research, I've found that the "of the Month" criteria was removed from the WP:PORNBIO guideline here. I can't find any discussion that leads to this deletion that, in my opinion, creates a grey area as to what a "major award... from a major magazine..." consists of. Dismas|^(talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Also looks like a bad faith nom to me. Possibly nom did not read WP:ATD. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you need to read WP:AAGF. This person is not notable and none of the keep !votes are even close to substantial, including your own. In-house awards do not confer notability, and this subject lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok then, passes WP:PORNBIO. Therefore notable. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK then explain how she passes WP:PORNBIO and then explain how she passes WP:NOTABILITY. RMHED (talk) 19:36, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

What more do I need to say beyond the title "fictional History of Spider-man"? We don't write in-universe fictional histories of characters. We write real world perspective encyclopaedia articles that keeps recaps of plot to the bare minimum and concentrate on what third party reliable sources (which this has none of) have to say about the cultural and historical significance of a character. This article doesn't cut it in any way shape or form nor can it be made to because it's structure and purpose are so out of line with every policy we have. The MOS (and a dozen other policies) is clear and explicit about this - we don't have articles that are just fictional biographies, we don't write articles that are just to provide descriptive accounts of fictional happenings - we do not.

I Quote "An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become". Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination makes tendentious claims of consensus but we see that this article was at AFD just a few weeks ago and the consensus was that it should be kept. The nomination therefore does not respect consensus and is a disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? that's a quote not my own words. Would you like to rephrase your accusation? As for "disruptive repeat nomination" - that is in regards to repeat noms by the same people in a short period of time (there is a space of 4 months between noms). I was not involved in the first AFD and have never edited this article. I have read it and concluded that it should not exist - that's is my reason for nominating it. This article is just one lengthy plot summary, much of which is just a repeat of what is covered in individual articles. If I removed the in-universe perspective and the duplication, we would be left with two paragraphs. The function provided by this article would be better serviced by a "list of spiderman storylines" which would link to the article that we have on the individual storylines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal; just that I have read your nomination and concluded that it should not exist. Your explanation of how this material might be better presented fails to explain how deletion will assist this. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- How does four months become "a couple of weeks ago", Col. Warden? JuJube (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does "a few weeks" become "a couple"? The point is that it is too soon to claim that we need to go through this again to try to get a complete reversal of the result. The correct process for overturning recent results is WP:DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you're not seriously suggesting that a minor misquote negates my whole point. As Cameron Scott said, the limit is four months. It has passed, and it's a valid AfD. Your speedy keep vote is invalid, period. JuJube (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal limit but common sense indicates that at least a year is required to avoid vexatious disruption. Cameron Scott has brought nothing new to the subject and this discussion is just generating tiresome drama to no useful purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous consensus still applies, and I agree. Viable spinoff article, notable sub-subject, reliably sourceable. The article is overly reliant on primary sources at the moment, but that's not a deletion argument. gnfnrf (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violation of WP:PLOT not to mention WP:IN-U. I don't see why plot information can't simply be included on the main Spider-Man article; yes, there's lots of it due to 40+ years of stories, but we don't need to describe every story in such detail. People have argued in the previous AfD that merging would clutter the main Spider-Man article, but not if the info was summarised. PLOT states "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Therefore, an independant article dedicated to detailed plot information violates that policy. Yes, it can be acceptable to branch out into a specific sub-article if an article becomes too long, but the Spidey article isn't even that big, and per WP:WAF, "just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate." An article like Publication history of Spider-Man could work if the Spider-Man article ever did become excessively long, but the title "Fictional history of Spider-Man" just encourages in-universe information and the article is inappropiate. While I'm sure readers would find this biography useful, it's really more suited to the Marvel Database than Wikipedia. Paul 730 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valuable spin-out of the large Spider-Man article. Failing that, merge a succinct version into the parent article and redirect. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:PLOT. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. An article like this should be around for a purpose, there has to be a reason why Spider-Man's history needs to be condensed into a single article rather than citing relevant historical points in articles that discuss Spider-Man in relation to the real world. As it stands it is more of an essay. Themfromspace (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This article can be sourced to third party sources (heck, even Stan Lee's 1974 Origins of Marvel Comics--not the new one--was published by Simon & Schuster). there is a non-trivial amount of coverage about Spiderman's origins and what those origins say about our fears as a society (how the origin story changes over time). Try the Journal of Popular Culture for a set of peer reviewed articles. Or The Creation of Spider-Man. That said, the article as written fails WP:PLOT, WP:NOR and practically serves as a gallery of fair use images. So I'm neutral. My suspicion is that like Phoenix in popular culture, this article will be kept and remain in its current condition indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't an "origins" or a "development" article. This article is explicitly geared towards providing an in-universe fictional history. Now you could say "well retitle and go from there" but you'd still be forced to delete all the content and start from scratch anyway. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but there is also sourcing to support a much shorter fictional history article. I mean, this is a comic series that has run for decades and is extremely popular. there will be some sources on the subject. I agree with you 100% that this article in particular doesn't look anything like what that hypothetical article would look like. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fictional history of Batman from 1956 to today is covered in eight paragraphs in the Batman article. If someone wanted to spin that out to a "publication history" article for Batman and do the same for Spider-man, I would vote "keep" for both. I cannot do that for an article that is designed to provide an in-universe perspective. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't claim that my view on the subject delegitimizes your view. I just feel that it it is possible for this article to turn into one that meets the inclusion guidelines without a deletion in the middle, we shouldn't delete it. We may have to wait some time for an editor to come along and fix it, but it will happen at some point. I don't think it is terribly likely for this article, hence my "neutral" above. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you for taking the time to articulate your point, but let me just say I'd expect Amazing Flying Spiderpig (or maybe Peter Porker) go past my window before that happens ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:FICTION. Entirely in-universe with no real world relevance. Consists entirely of excessive plot detail and original research. McWomble (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable spinoout article to keep the main atricle from growing too long. While the article could use more independant sourcing, it has independant sources and is a very heavily sourced article. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't - it's entirely composed of primary sources. That does not equal a "very heavily sourced article" it represents an article consisting of primary sources which is not the same thing but for some reason people think that it is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the best sources for matters of canon and quite acceptable per WP:RS. There are thousands of other sources which we might add but there is little need. Is there any fact presented which you find to be dubious or untrue or are you just reaching? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:RS states that works of fiction are only reliable as primary sources that should only be used for plot summary and that "primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an anayisis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources." Furthermore, "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Themfromspace (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spin-off article from the main article on Spider-Man and its nature gives it a particular focus upon canonical sources which is reasonable and sensible. The article gets over quarter of a million hits per year and so is serving our readership well. Are any of the facts presented disputed? If not, then nit-picking about sources is just tendentious wikilawyering. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments above; in short, the character is SO famous, that a sub about the decades-long evolution of the character seems appropriate, imho -- with some work, could be sourced better, I agree on that. JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument isn't about sources but notability. Spin-off articles are still articles so they still have to abide by the WP:GNG. Certainly Spider-Man is notable himself but his long detailed history is another story. If it isn't notable than it shouldn't have been spun out to begin with and needs to be trimmed to the point where it helps the real-world discussion of the main subject. Themfromspace (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clear enough on my opinion here. Due to the 40+ year nature of the character, and the incredible amount of information/interest out there on the subject matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to consider a synopsis of the character's history (yes, fictional and plot driven as that might be), if only to help illuminate the larger article(s) that rely on the character itself. As Protonk notes above, it's definitely NOT a perfect wiki article by any means, but it does have the sources needed, and imho, the notability (not to mention practical necessity) to remain a wiki article. My .02; cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forks are perfectly acceptable alternatives when a merge is undesirable due to the lengths of the respective articles, as is gratuitously the case here. A merge, which has been argued for by some, would actively hurt the parent article. Saying that a character is notable while refusing to describe the fiction in which he appears is absurd. Ford MF (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit down. Currently, it contains a fannish overabundance of detail that is irrelevant to the general-interest audience at which Wikipedia is aimed. The denseness of its in-universe minutiae renders it less-than-useful to that audience since it gives equal weight to major and minor events, creating a confounding and frustrating lack of context and perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit down and merge, or week delete to Spider-Man. I am sympathetic to the long fictional backstory, but plot summaries serve to give context for real-world content, which this article fails as a separate entity. Trim, and add the necessary real-world content to the Fictional history article to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, and you'd end up with a copy of Spider-Man, so you might as well merge it Spider-Man in the first place. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on the grounds that the article passed AFD with a keep decision only 3 months ago. Articles should not be renominated in such a short period of time. 23skidoo (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's kind of outrageous to try to re-delete an article only a few months after it passed the last round of deletion-craziness. On the merits, there are similar in-universe histories for a variety of other fictional characters - including other comic book superheroes - and there's no way this should be merged into the existing Spider-man article, as it would be far too long an unwieldy. Fumoses (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move or rename to History of Spider-Man. I see no reason to distinguish the "fictional history of Spider-Man" from the "true history of Spider-Man". That said, this seems to be a hasty renomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. The intent of the article is to be a plot summary, so the problem cannot be fixed by any means other than deletion. Also, declaring speedy keep because of an AFD in June goes against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Jay32183 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last time around I said "This is a pure plot summary. That can't be edited away." That is still true. I understand that people want to retell the last 40+ years of fictional back story, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for discussing the Spiderman comic book in the real world, not Spiderman's life in the comic book world. Placing the story in context with a brief plot synopsis is fine, but devoting 36 KB to a plot summary is too much. --Phirazo (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A lot of the keeps here seem to consist of "it's a valuable spin-off article from Spider-Man". However, I haven't heard a very convincing reason which justifies why this article, by it's very definition, should be allowed to violate WP:PLOT. Why are sub-articles somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy? Paul 730 03:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:NOR (if you read the article carefully, you'll see what I mean about the original research riddled throughout it). Page also has a huge problem with meeting the fair-use criteria for all of those images. The page does not appear to be anything more than a rehash of other pages all lumped into one location (that's why we have a template with links to pages where all of this information exists). The very title of the article suggests that it will never be anything more than a page detailing the plots of all of the different Spider-Man publications, which it not Wikipedia's goal. That is why we have Wikias, so that information like this can have a home without complete loss. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why we have Wikias? Why not slap a banner ad at the top of the article and save readers the trip? --Pixelface (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we' don't have wikias. they are not WMF projects, but a separate profit making enterprise. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article of Spider-Man#Fictional character biography. It just has a poor title. This was kept less than 4 months ago and I don't see what's changed this that AFD. If the biography is written in an in-universe perspective, rewrite it. The MOS is not a policy, so your claim that it's "structure and purpose are so out of line with every policy we have" is dubious. And WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy in first place. It creates a blatant conflict of interest with the for-profit wiki Wikia, as it is used as a tool to ship off and profit off material that exists on Wikipedia. WP:NOTE isn't a policy. WP:FICT is just an essay. If the article contains original research, remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy in the first place? It's a part of WP:NOT which is a policy backed by community consensus. By definition, you are wrong. Also, "It's just an essay" is not a valid argument. The article is not an acceptable sub-article, since it fails WP:SS, read the section with the WP:AVOIDSPLIT shortcut. Jay32183 (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Although I personally think the article should be kept, or at worst redirected, and better fleshed out with sourcing, I feel like I have to say that removing things like WP:PLOT from the WP:NOT policy article is, in itself, NOT a valid way to make an argument... at least if you're then going to make the argument that WP:PLOT isn't a part of policy; in other words, I agree with Pixelface in part, but feel that his preceding argument loses a lot of value for his having twice removed that chunk of WP:NOT in the last few days... disappointing to see that happen. JasonDUIUC (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP NOT describes what we do here. Plot summaries of reasonable size are normally kept, if they are about the central characters of important fiction. Accordingly the general understanding of NOT PLOT, through all its permutations, has been that the WP coverage of a subject should not be limited to plot only. It isn't. This is the spinout article of what otherwise would be an excessively long and confusing main article. WP coverage of spiderman is not limited to plot. How we arrange these into articles is a matter of editorial judgment, not notability. And primary sources are acceptable verification for this, and I am further not convinced that sources could not be found by those who know the secondary literature on this type of fiction. DGG (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Spin-out article must still meet all the standards of stand alone articles. It actually says so in WP:SS, which I assume is the basis for your argument. Read WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Jay32183 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that section of the guideline is in contradiction with the guideline as a whole, and with the lead section, both of which talk primarily about the need to avoid excessive length. We therefore get to use our own judgment. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in contradiction to the guideline as a whole; It is a reminder not to game the system. Summary style is a way to deal with excessive length. It is not a way to circumvent other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTE, which is the way of determining which subjects get stand-alone articles. Read entire guidelines; don't just take the parts you like. Failing to understand how guidelines work is a terrible argument. Jay32183 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject is notable and needed. Keep in mind its a subarticle of Spider Man. The article just needs to remains true to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), (and in general I think it does).. although it needs more tie-ins to real world and background info. I am not seeing much "Fandom" or original research here. If there is any, it should be removed immediatly. But deleting the article seems clearly wrong to me. Danski14^(talk) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the WP:AVOIDSPLIT section of WP:SS. Sub-articles must still meet the standards for stand alone articles. Jay32183 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we do delete it, i gotta wonder, who's gonna take the job of trimming this article down into a summary without completly removing the point of the summary in the first place, the fact is, having this as a seperate article saves space and dosn't totatly screw over having the history at all.--Jakezing (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better here than there is not a good argument for keeping an article. Especially when the arguments for deletion wouldn't allow for merging as an option. Jay32183 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So how do you propose we merge that bitch of an article into the main artcle without making the main article to large or making it such a summary that no usefull information could be found in it? --Jakezing (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't. In fact, I said merging is not an option. The main article already has a decent summary. Deleting this article does not create a problem. Jay32183 (talk) 08:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange & Bronze Software Labs[edit]

Not notable. I was not able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It is a real company, according to the Philippine government. Wronkiew (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per original reason given. I tried to find a notable source for the article in order to save it and I couldn't find anything. Fails WP:CORP. Beano (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can't you see the official website? or at least try searching Google or Yahoo....the page is not yet completed and its references are not yet finished.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremo106 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what credible sources do you refer to and where do you look in to? Orange & Bronze has top clients in the Philippines if you try searching it in google or yahoo...how come you couldnt find any? in its homepage alone, it is linked to several other webrings and pages Supremo106 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline to which Beano refers is WP:CORP. It requires a nontrivial reference in a reliable secondary source, which is properly cited in the article. So far, only internal Orange and Bronze sources have been cited, which is why this article fails the notability guideline at this time. --Nsevs • Talk 06:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsevs is correct on this. Sources to prove notability and satisfy WP:CORP must be third party and prove notability. Beano (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the current third-party links Ive added now, are they enough? Supremo106 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say that none of those sources provide nontrivial coverage of the company. Many of those links are for business directories, which are specifically excluded in WP:CORP. Other links are in the same vein. --Nsevs • Talk 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only link that helps to establish notability is the OS Summit speaker bio, but it's not enough by itself. The easiest way to establish notability would be to point to an in-depth article about the company in national media. For a "pioneer in software development best practices" with a "respected name in the software industry" and a "reputation for accomplishing difficult software projects", it shouldn't be difficult to find. Wronkiew (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on what's in the article so far, this is a heavy duty WP:ADVERT for an otherwise non-notable outsourcing shop, failing WP:CORP. VG ☎ 16:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with VasileGaburici. This does show WP:ADVERT. Beano (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have erased contents that are "Advertisements" in nature..could all of you review it it at least. Thanks. Supremo106 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Even in its present form, it lacks notability. Some of the statements come from the owner's personal blog, and it is not mentioned in prominent independently-published sources such as broadsheets, news websites, and even television. Starczamora (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, per Starczamora. Beano (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ey, great wiki administrators and I think a fellow Filipino who writes and protects the philippine entertainment articles,~~ Ive added a publication where O&B is featured, in Globe Telecom's MASIGASIG Magazine, Nov. 2007 Issue. I think it is a notable secondary reference... Thanks. Supremo106 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IF, and only IF (since you guys are the God in this site), it is decided that the article should be kept, does this deletion discussion would cease to exist? this is publicly viewable in the net and that it could undermine the company that is being discussed. This discussion is displayed on top search results in google and yahoo that could affect the company's name..Just a logical concern, though. Hope you guys can respond asap Supremo106 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links of the said Magazine here in the Philippines, so you all can check and may settle this issue asap so I can organize the Article more... Globe Telecom's Masigasig Magazine - November 2007 Issue: Pages 9 -10 : Article: "Blazing New Trails" Words by: Ruth M. Floresca. For Magazine reference See http://www.sme.globe.com.ph/GlobeCSME/View/MasigasigOnline.aspx / Globe's MASIGASIG Online]], [[http://www.sme.globe.com.ph/GlobeCSME/images/uploaded/Masigasig%20November%202007%20-%20SMB.pdf / PDF File of GLOBE MASIGASIG November 2007 Issue: Pages 9 -10 : "Blazing New Trails" Supremo106 (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not play God. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and please practice civility. Starczamora (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masigasig is way, way too press release-y to me even if it's print material, in the same way that it's like claiming notability on the basis of having had guested on Rated K or Sharon Cuneta's Sunday evening show. And isn't it just too easy to contact press people and just hand out some self-written press releases? (The artice, btw, still reads as too ad-like to me, it needs to be much, much more neutral than that. And, by the way, if you happen to work in this company, please read WP's policy on conflict of interest, the article reads like it was written by an insider.) We need something which has more substance such as, say, the 6 o'clock/11 o'clock news, so you'll need to look for something like the business section of newspapers (as long as it's not on the "press releases" section, which usually precede the classified ads). Having said that...I'm from the IT field, and to me the more notable Pinoy IT companies would be something along the lines of Ayala's IT company (can't remember the name :P ), Joey Gurango's company (the start-up he created after he left Microsoft his ERP/CRM company which later became MS's premier ERP/CRM product) or the mother company that owns the Netopia franchise to name a few. Having said that, I'm voting on a delete for this article, notability is not yet established for these and the preceding reasons put forward by starczamora. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Masigasig article might be enough to meet the notability guidelines. The publisher is independent from Orange and Bronze. The author is some Ruth M. Floresca, who claims to be an independent journalist and has written articles on other topics. It is sort of "in-depth". Is there any reason to believe that this magazine does not do sufficient fact-checking? I guess I can't flip my vote, since I nominated this AfD, but I'm leaning towards keep. Wronkiew (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Real, but not notable. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The single article, for me, is enough to establish notability and keep the article. Starczamora (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My only issue with Masigasig as a source is that, at times, it includes really small enterprises that are themselves not as notable as bigger corporations. This is why I brought up the Rated K comparison. In addition, Masigasig is published by Globe and is included supposedly as a "free" insert with the Philippine franchise of "Entrepreneur". This is why I'm not at ease in considering it as a reliable source...yet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should assume good faith on the publication. I think Masigasig looks like a "trade publication." Starczamora (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the decision? So I should further know what to do with the article Supremo106 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single article in a free insert? 100,000 of companies could make that claim. I see no real evidence of notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrexiophobia[edit]

Dicdef of a fairly nonnotable specific phobia, one of thousands things a person may fear. Unlike, say, claustrophobia or some others, no notable research exists and the term is found only in phobia lists, dictionaries, and in unscrupulous websites, see -phobia#Phobia lists for some amusing examples. `'Míkka >t 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs specific sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per mikkalai. I don't think this is a notable enough phobia to have its own article. The phobia list provided by mikkalai works fine. Beano (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that it is valid (it looks like it is), it should atleast be added somewhere on of the lists at -phobia and redirected there. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add to phobia list and redirect - In it's current form it's essentially a WP:DICDEF, however it is a valid phobia. "Content spamming" may be a problem with phobias and the internet, however it surely didn't influence books written before the internet, as we know it, existed. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove that there is a valid phobia by providing reference to actual reported medical case. Word coinage may happen without actual thing to exist. `'Míkka>t 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ..." Is it a verifiable illness that is listed in numerous sources that were published substantial periods of time ago? Yes. Is it a 'real' phobia? We don't care. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is verifiable that someone coined the word. It is not verifiable so far that someone actually was diagnosed wth this illness. Therefore, basing on the existing evidence, at best this word belongs to wiktionary, but not ot encyclopedia. `'Míkka >t 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, per mikka. Hardly a real disease, just a word. Timurite (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the standard that we should follow with these specific phobias is: "Are there sources that would allow expansion beyond a dicdef (with content that does not merely duplicate the definition of a specific phobia)?" If not, the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and should probably be transwikied to Wiktionary. (Alternatively, it might be possible to start a list of specific phobias and redirect these to it, but then we'd have to come up with inclusion criteria for it.) Of course, there's no prejudice against recreation if someone comes up with a source that discusses this particular phobia in detail. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:52, 25 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. Certainly no consensus to delete; opinion remains also divided about whether it should be merged, but that discussion may continue elsewhere. I note that the article has been much improved since its nomination, so the earlier "delete" opinions are taken into account less. Sandstein 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sexual act)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is such an obvious delete I'm not even sure why we need to have this conversation, but oh well. We're not a dictionary and this is a dictionary definition. I rest my case. JBsupreme (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I've outlined as nominator, this is a clear violation of WP:NOT policy. JBsupreme (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say delete because it doesn't provide enough evidence of meeting either WP:V or WP:NOTE. Unschool (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBsupreme. I also believe this article would fall into the WP:NOT policy as well. Beano (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this article has survived three AfD processes already. For details, see the Talk Page. I'm not going to vote either way as I don't intend to do any further research, which would be necessary for me to make an informed response. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it survived five AfDs previously. This one is number six. See the "AfDs for this article" list, just above here. — Becksguy (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge to Coprophilia. Wikipedia's not a dictionary and it's hard to trust any content that gets added to this page. There was a sentence about the act being performed on a sex tape created by former Saved by the Bell actor Dustin Diamond, but I got the sense that people were adding that because it was amusing -- not because it was notable. Because of the prurient nature of the article subject, it will be hard to find any reliable sources to support the article's content -- probably dooming it to being a list of when it's been referenced in pop culture. Switzpaw (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look at this recent edit since my above comment: Gustavo Arellano in his ¡Ask a Mexican! column explains the origin of the term by the fact that thick moustache is a stereotype of a Mexican in the United States.[2]. Is this guy a Dirty Sanchez scholar? What Arellano says is very plausible but what makes him reliable? WP:Notability says sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, and it's going to be an uphill battle for Dirty Sanchez.

Keep. Much as I hate various stupidity in wikipedia, the mere existence of the disambiguation page vouches for the notability/notoriety of the term. Also, it is not a dicdef, because the article is nota about a word, but about an alleged sexual act. `'Míkka >t 07:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the disambig. argument flies. It could easily be unlinked and be covered in coprophilia. Switzpaw (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coprophilia. And what mikkalai means is that the disambiguation page shows that quite a few things are actually named after this, proving it is (relatively) widely known and thus notable. --131.211.156.215 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Etymology, notability and legal aspects now supported by reliable sources. Nomination rationale no longer applies. McWomble (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In response to the nom, no it is NOT an obvious delete -- note that this article has survived multiple AFDs. WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyway, it's got sources that establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sex act itself is clearly notable, so that's not an issue. And this isn't a "Wikipedia's Not A Dictionary" issue, because we're not talking about a word, per se, but a sex act; deleting this would be similar to deleting the article on fellatio. The article needs to be expanded, I think - right now it's little more than a stub - simply because the "dirty sanchez" seems to be an example of a sex act that exists more in the public consciousness (through jokes, pop culture references, etc.) than in actual practice - Dan Savage once claimed that no one has ever performed a dirty sanchez, that it's "completely fictional," [69] which in and of itself makes the dirty sanchez an example of an interesting phenomenon. Fumoses (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep References to the "Dirty Sanchez" appear throughout our culture and the prevalence and usage of the term is increasing. A compilation of verifiable information about this practice and its place in popular culture is consistent with the Wikipedia's mission. How many AfD's does an article have to survive until people will no longer assault it? Guess this is attempt number 4. WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still a dictionary definition with an etymology (also fitting for a dictionary). But wait, Wikipedia is not a dictionary you say? Get rid of this crap. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete surprisingly not notable, with most hits in WP:RS not actually being about this act. [70]. Sticky Parkin 01:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that this article survived five ~~four~~ AfDs, with the dicdef argument strongly played, show that the community has spoken over a period of time. Sorry, but I don't see this as a obvious deletion, rather I see it as a obvious keep. I also fail to understand why yet another AfD was initiated. The term is clearly way more than a dictionary definition since it about a sexual act, not just a word. It's notable, as shown by sufficient RS and cultural references. Although it could be expanded. — Becksguy (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:CCC. The sources provided within the article are either not substantial or unreliable. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consensus can change (although I believe it's rare), but the other side of that coin is forum shopping. At some point the combined weight of multiple keep consensus based AfD decisions are clearly for inclusion. And these were Keep closures, not "No consensus, defaulting to Keep", which show a very strong longitudinal consensus to Keep. And if the sources need improvement, then we fix them, although they seem sufficient to me, and several other editors here, and they were sufficient in previous AfDs. From WP:DEL, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. AfD is not for cleanup and deletion should be reserved for articles that cannot be improved no matter what. I'm assuming good faith that this is all intended to improve Wikipedia, but aren't multiple AfDs (and possible DRVs) for one article counter productive? — Becksguy (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stern's use of the racist slang is sufficient to make it notable. Unfortunately. (The most recent AfD was 2006, so I do not consider this an unreasonable nomination. ) DGG (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The racist slang is more notable than the sexual act, but is not this article or the subject of it. It's probably already in a list of racist slang or something, or should be. Anyway, that's not about the subject of this article, and just goes to show that other uses of the phrase are more notable than this. How about a merge to that telly prog with the same name? I think they named themselves after this mythical practice. Sticky Parkin 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coprophilia.Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this phrase is really just a childish joke. I'm sure someone somewhere has done it (such is the nature of human beings), but 99.99999% of references to it just involve someone explaining the term and its definition, followed by the inevitable "ew... that's sick!". It's not encyclopedic. --SJK (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's gross, but WP isn't censored. "Childish joke" and "ew... that's sick" are not policy/guideline based reasons to delete, they seem to be more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying that something isn't encyclopedic doesn't really explain why. And as argued here by several editors, this article is about the sexual act, not the definition of the word. — Becksguy (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but this article is still an under-glorified dictionary definition, and we delete those all the time. WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The article is reasonably encyclopedic now. Mukadderat (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coprophilia, with about the same level of coverage as "Cleveland Steamer" and "Hot Carl". This strikes a balance between the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" delete votes and the "reliably sourced" keep votes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I just merged Cleveland steamer into the coprophilia article, and will gladly do the same for this one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a new section about the veracity of the act and a very heavily implied description of the act in a British television advertisement. This clearly exists outside a dictionary. There is also scope for a more in depth analysis of the original racist slang. Tate goes into some detail about this but replicating it all from the one source would be a copyvio. There is also plenty of scope for citing more opinions about whether the sex act is real or an urban legend. This discussion has now been open for 5 days and there is clearly (at worst) no consensus, which is borne out by the three previous AfDs where the consensus was to keep a much shorter and unsourced article. McWomble (talk) 08:59, 26 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, McWomble (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The thought disgusts me but that is irrelevant. This is not an obvious delete. Much shorter and less informative versions that were kept. The article as it currently stands is an obvious keep. Cosmomancer (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Especially since it has been used as the title for a movie, and has had various other pop culture references. This is not an obvious delete at all, to be honest. — neuro^(talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content does not go beyond dictionary definition and trivia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Coprophilia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:38, 26 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) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Gontiya[edit]

Delete. Notability not established. Subject has only passing mention in the sole reference. Fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 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) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PWF Light Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Delete Cleanup of two leftover championship articles for federation deleted last year in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Wrestling Federation. Fed failing afd would be a pretty good indicator the titles don't pass notability either. Search results: PWF Light Heavyweight Championship 0 gnews hits[71], 4 ghits (+tx) [72] , ROW West Texas Wrestling Legends Heritage Championship 14 ghits [73] (wikiclones), 0 gnews [74]. NO significant coverage, badly fails WP:N. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [other title from same fed. now used by another non-notable. Cleanup]:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, clearly fails WP:N per above. Nikki311 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom.--S _R X 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:54, 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 Transport Tycoon. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTDPatch[edit]

Does not appear to pass our notability guidelines (WP:N); no independent, reliable references (WP:V). PROD with these concerns was removed in September by User:Maximr without comment and without addressing these issues. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually restored it as a contested prod. See the deletion log, this is simply an alternate account. butterfly (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This is a mod of a the game Transport Tycoon. Mods generally have a hard time meeting WP:N, but the info is generally verifiable (I haven't checked this particular mod), so it's okay to mention it in a section for the original game. VG ☎ 14:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: previously PRODed, and then restored without addressing the issues. Complete lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing our content guidelines and policies. Randomran (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google hit count is >30,000 (the name as search term is rather distinctive here, see also WP:SET), and those hits also turn up some independent sources for improving the article (which is necessary), including sources. But merging this into the TT/TTD article is also an option. --Mopskatze (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of hits on Google does not solely indicate notability, but the presence of verifiable sources in said search do. (The same thing is also stated in WP:SET#Notability.) What came up as reliable sources? (I'm asking because when I did the Google search I drew a blank.) MuZemike (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transport Tycoon without preference as to the history. A mod about which very little can be said that isn't derived from the mod itself. Nifboy (talk) 16:12, 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transport Tycoon per WP:NNC and VG's reasoning above. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submachin gun facts[edit]

Also included: International assault rifles

Lists of guns, of a sort, with short commentaries on a few representative elements, created by the same account at roughly the same time, who also removed a PROD from both. Both articles are indiscriminate collections of arbitrary stats, not encyclopedic articles. Wikipedia is much better served by the articles on individual weapons, and the existant list articles list of submachine guns and list of assault rifles but I don't see how those would be a useful redirect target for these. gnfnrf (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information is covered in respective weapon's article (technical specifications) and another are pure trivia or original research. Zero Kitsune (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:RS. This information is already covered better in the various articles about submachine guns. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random list of facts about a few SMGs fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. VG ☎ 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said about the International assault rifles article (what makes them international to begin with?) VG ☎ 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles — riddled with problems that I can't see being rectified, and I don't think that the formats of these articles can at all be made compatible with our policies. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Enumerating random facts is not an appropriate way to organize an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kolkata facts for a similar case - however, unlike that article (which was sensibly merged to Kolkata), these don't contain any sourced information which can be merged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:14, 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) 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

nn boardgame champion who fails primary criterion of WP:BIO due to a lack of reliable sources. PROD contested without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only statement in the article which is verifiable is the existence of a Hilton Hotel in Concord. No mention of the individual / Jenga World Championship seem to exist. The animation used in the article was uploaded in 2007 yet the caption says it's from the 2008 world championship. The only other non-scrubbed Google result for "Justin Davis" "jenga world champion" is a myspace page where someone is basically claiming they made the article as a joke. Even ignoring this last point, delete as unverifiable and as failing WP:BIO. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think this debate should have one of those shiny relist notices, but I don't know if there's a trick to making them. gnfnrf (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a joke, I was present at the tournament. The video was uploaded from a similar play made in 2007 when Scott Riley defeated Robin Grayhorse in the semifinals. Contact the WJA (world Jenga association) for conformation of the event. http://www.atari.com/us/jenga/

You have provided a link to the product page for a video game about Jenga. Is there any documentation in reliable sources that this tournament exists, or that this person won it? gnfnrf (talk) 13:58, 25 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techmare[edit]

Non-notable search engine, no reliable sources (the only independent source mentioning it is a blog entry listing Japanese job search engines). Was founded this month. It may become notable in the future; no bias against recreation once it is. Huon (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what particular source would you deem to be reliable. As the company is quite young, there have been no major articles in major periodicals or major blogs- as of yet. Based on your argument, I assume any young or niche company that does not imediately generate main stream press should not have an article on wikipedia. That seems somewhat hard to grasp. Can you give me an example of a reliable source that covers every young company that exists in this world. I suppose that Wikipedia is a tool to help us to find new information on new topics- sometimes, if not often, before they hit the press- or the Universites etc. Would you not agree? Also as an engineer living in Japan who has used this site- I find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to believe it is not notable, can you please provide a link to a similarly tech job focused search engine in Japanese, or any other language, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs)

I do not see any evidence presented for the above claim that this site is not notable.

It seems to be just an opinion based on no particular fact of any kind- that I am able to determine. The above phrase "Non-notable search engine" is not defined clearly. What does the author mean by this phase? Please define. I think this article is valid and should remain.

There's a very comprehensive policy on notability. See Wikipedia's notability policy --Ged UK (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails to meet inclusion criteria of WP:WEB from sources provided or any references I found in English. It is up to other users to search for sources in Japanese, since I cannot. gnfnrf (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see discussion section for this article-

Where does it state that blogs do not pass the reliability test? I notice that quite a few Wikipedia articles use techcrunch as a source- which is actually just a blog- albeit famous. And if fame is the most important criteria for a blog, then should we not eliminate newspapers with minor circulations- or perhaps periodicals that we do not agree with. E.G. too right wing- thus unreliable. Search Engine Journal is also more of a blog than a "newspaper" proper. If it is correct that blogs are not considered reliable sources- then it would seem that Wikipedia itself must be deleted- since so many article refer to blogs. In addition, media is changing, traditional corporate owned media is dying, and independently minded citizens and bloggers are growing in influence and respect- as is Wikipedia. And since Wikipedia itself is nothing more than a collaborative effort by individuals- that is-non-corporate identities- to make a valuable resource for everyone, how is it possible that it would reject the opinions of other socially created media like blogs?

User JackShinjuku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackshinjuku (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as (un-)reliable sources are discussed in this essay. As an obvious example of blogs' unreliability, I could create a blog and publish fictious negative information on Techmare (such as "Finds useful hits only on 10% of searches!"). That would obviously not suffice to add these made-up claims to the article.

Concerning the Search Engine Journal, while it's probably not among the most reliable sources in existence, it looks much more sophisticated than a blog. For example, it has a list of staff and a physical address. But that's completely irrelevant; whether Indeed.com (whose article cites the SEJ) is notable enough for an article is not the topic of this discussion, and whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant for the question at hand.

Finally, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and neither does it consider most other user-submitted content (such as other wikis) so. Huon (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that based on the comments above, the only way to have an indisputable conclusion as to whether a specific source was reliable, would be to have some sort of official and presumably countless list of "approved sources". Yet even if there was an attempt to make such a document- it is not at all clear how there could ever be a fair consensus as to what sites are reliable. For example among many of my associates- Fox News is considered completely unreliable as a news source. In fact it is often not considered a news source at all, yet for millions of Americans it is their primary source of news and information.

The author of the previous comment states- "while it's(Search Engine Journal) probably not among the most reliable sources in existence, it looks much more sophisticated than a blog..."

Is this not case and point- an individual judges a site to be reliable by it's appearance- and thus it is. (It seems also worth noting that the Search Engine Journal does not have an article on Wikipedia- despite it's presumed notability. Is it indeed notable?)

In lieu of such an officially sanctioned list, the argument is reduced to who thinks XYZ source is reliable or not. There are a myriad of opinions on which particular sources are reliable or not. And a source that would generally be considered highly reliable among a particular group of people, interest group or nation would be considered just the opposite by another group. It is interesting to note that the comments above suggest that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source- because it is user generated. If that is indeed the case, then what exactly is the point of this discussion. The logic seems to be almost self-defeating, at least in it's conclusion. No article that does not have a reliable source can be posted on a site that, according to the previously posted comment, is itself unreliable.

Overall the article contains information of sufficient merit and quality to continue. This is not to say that it could be improved in the future- as many other articles on Wikipedia could. But to argue for deletion of this article based on the aforementioned arguments would be arbitrary, subjective, unfair- and a detriment to the viability of Wikipedia as source of information.

User- JackShinjuku Oct.16 2008

Delete The top result in Google for Techmare is Wikirage followed by the Wikipedia article. It falls on the second page. Although, that alone would not make it non-notable, it doesn't vouch for the notability of this site. Can't find any mainstream media mentions or mentions in WP:RS. Mvjs Talking 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

As mentioned before, since mainstream media is dying, and alternative/community media is growing- it is illogical to use mainstream media as a bar for notability or lack of. Keep

User- JackShinjuku Oct.18 2008

Delete - References are NOT about the org, they are about the concept. Misleading references. Delete as per WP:N, WP:V, WP:SPAM - DustyRain (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is a Japanese language site- not English- so naturally one would not find so much english media about. As one would not for fc2.com a top website here in Japan. Keep

User- JackShinjuku Oct.18 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.105.47.239 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response While you are welcome to participate in the discussion as much as you wish, please restrict yourself to one summarized opinion (keep, delete, etc), so as not to confuse the closing admin. As for Japanese sources, you are welcome to provide sources that are not in English and add them to the article. However, the other restrictions on reliable sources still apply. That is a Wikipedia policy (stated at WP:SOURCES) which means that changing it requires much more than your opinion on one AfD. If you wish to change it, the discussion should start on the talk page there. gnfnrf (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Turk[edit]

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. It was prodded for deletion in June 2007 but it was declined. No improvement happened since that day. None edited this article in 2008. Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite claims from last year about the references meaning the person meets notability they actually fail to discuss the subject in any significant details. Article at present clearly fails not a C.V. If the article's subject is found to be important/significant enough for inclusion and that importance/significance can be verified by those more experienced than I than may I suggest a complete rewrite from a neutral point of view would be the place to start. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't let the "references" fool you. WP:BIO requires "significant coverage" in sources, and being quoted once or twice, far down in a article that has something completely different as its subject, does not qualify as significant coverage. Nor does writing a letter to the editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others due to the obvious lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:PROF and perhaps WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. For Prof #6 (or #4) because of his position in CAUT, exclusive of his scholarly output (haven't really looked at it). Politician (sort of) because of having been president of the Ontario NDP. Jim Turk caut gets 20 gnews hits after 1999, including this interview from The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology.John Z (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and lack of reliable sources. Beano (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources, and there is nothing in the article now that isn't cited or visible in the sources cited.John Z (talk) 17:21, 21 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major publications, notable administrative position. DGG (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Left Unplugged[edit]

Not notable; its a high school students project that got a newspaper mention. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is indeed an non-profit organization per [75]. The definition of notability comes in to play here. If a topic gets mention from reliable, third party sources. Only then is it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is indeed notable. Marlith (Talk) 04:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do understand the original reason given by Habanero-tan, but Marlith's provided source does indicate it is non-profit and is enough to pass WP:ORG. Beano (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is obviously a notable organization. Fumoses (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Trivial high school student project, trivial mentions for local community interest only. DGG (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, actually, the media mentions of the organization were from the San Francisco Chronicle as well ass ABC News. This more than proves its notability in the San Francisco Bay Area. Marlith (Talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:48, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Mazzi[edit]

Fails notability since June 2007. The article was tagged by the Notability wikiproject. I am just copying the reason from the Talk Page: It is currently unclear whether this artist is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, since no proper secondary sources are cited. By the notability criteria for biographies, independent reliable sources are required to make sure that the subject is notable. These sources might be, for example, an independent biography of the person, or press coverage in which he is covered in depth.

Currently, the article only points to a text "Piero Mazzi" of unknown origin; in fact, this does not seem to be a published book, at least I was unable to find it via the usual sources. If it is a independent source and not a self-published booklet, please make the reference more precise, e.g. by adding an ISBN number.

Also, I have my doubts whether the museum makes this person notable. First, dedication of a building, etc. to the person is not regarded as a fact establishing notability. Second, if the museum shows work of the artist, then it should be made clear that this museum has received sufficient recognition, say by press coverage in major newspapers. In the current state, there is no evidence in the article that the museum is not only a private, non-notable collection.. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I also cannot find confirmation of the book, the museum, or in fact any other reliable or semi-reliable reference to the artist at all other than what appears to be his own web site. Jfire (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be some sources available in Italian. I was able to find this relying on machine translation. An editor proficient in Italian may be better equipped to do the necessary research. The information in the article is npit sourced, but can be trimmed out and stubbed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he had a commercial exhibition in Elba, and ....? Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and sources may be available in Italian, but I can't read Italian. That I managed to find one despite this handicap indicates that there are more available to an editor who has some proficiency in Italian. We delete articel the are unsourceable, not merely unsourced. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can bid on an oil on board painting of his on Italian ebay here - 42 bids to get to €120 so far. That seems to be it. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....Modernist (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC) see below.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of meeting the criteria. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Whpq. Fumoses (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....Modernist (talk) 11:50, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Råshön wind farm[edit]

The only reliable source that I can find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small, non-notable wind farm, as are many in List of wind farms in Sweden. Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Offerdal. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sweden does not have very large wind industry. On global terms, the plant is small, but it is quite standard for Sweden due to a tendency to size them to 10 MW. Notable enough by virtue of context. --Adamrush (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make the article pass any of the guidelines or policies. Schuym1 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Small wind farms can be included in List of wind farms in Sweden, but should not have an article of their own. Where would we be if Wikipedia tried to have a separate article on every 10 MW wind farm? Things would get out of hand very quickly. Johnfos (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's just the thing. The list found in List of wind farms in Sweden shows pretty clearly that it won't get out of hand, because there are simply so few fish in the pond. All of these farms you have tagged have been notable enough to be featured in print media (Svenska dagbladet, Ny Teknik) and on the Internet. You need not worry that the articlespace will be flooded with tens of thousands of Swedish wind farm articles, disrupting Wikipedia's intended role as a Pokémon encyclopedia. --Adamrush (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The tagged wind farms are notable enough to be on the list but not to have a separate article. A reference or two should be included in their listing, to support their inclusion. I say again that things will quickly get out of hand if we try to have an article on every small wind farm around the world. There literally are thousands. Johnfos (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adamrush makes a convincing argument, and there's no real reason to delete. Fumoses (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. It doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY which is a policy. Schuym1 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 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, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Johnfos' observation. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:33, 21 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, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most frequently mentioned brands in the Billboard Top 20[edit]

original research, indescriminate information Habanero-tan (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reprinting of research done by non-notable group; no relaible sources or information given for why this information is important. Fails the notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SALAT. Overly narrow-focused topic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:08, 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 keep. no objection to a merger at the talk page MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Do (Jewel song)[edit]

song wasn't really a big hit and has no sources, tried to redirect but was reverted without explanation, not all chart singles are inherently notable. Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's charted, it's referenced, it's more than a stub and could still grow. Passes WP:NSONGS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Perfectly Clear. Not enough for a whole article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:40, 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 Userfy and delete. The consensus below is that the film does not now meet the guidelines but probably will soon (it it certainly would meet them in the near future, I'd say just IAR and keep but we all know that distribution could fall through), so I will be deleting the article from the main article space and moving it to User:Erik/The Speed of Thought were it can be worked on (with history intact) and moved back once it has been released and reviewed. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of Thought[edit]

This article is based on a future film whose notability is questionable because there has not been any recent update of this film's progress. I've sandboxed this article at User:Erik/The Speed of Thought until it can be determined that this film will be coming out, warranting all the usual coverage a film gets. Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When the film is released and if it meets WP:MOVIE, then an article would be OK. Beano (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As is not Crystal. Filming has finished and is in post (see additions to article). Is weak though per WP:NFF. Maybe renominate in a few weeks if release is not announced. It is getting coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my issue is that August 2006 was more than two years ago, and it does not seem clear that the production is notable. Obviously, the cast members are prominent, but the lack of progress makes me wonder if this may be shelved. To my recollection, The Adventures of Pluto Nash was made in 2000, was shelved for a while, then released two years later. If significant coverage gears up for this film to show that it will really have a presence, it can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked more closely with Access World News and LexisNexis Academic, and there is not even a passing mention of this film in the year 2008. While the overview links mention 2008 as a date, there does not seem to be any definite source on this. It's possible that the film will be direct-to-video... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found contact informations for El Camino Films. Would wrinting them to simply ask if they have a release date yet be considered original research? They may be able to either direct me to a site that has such information, or inform me that it is not yet been decided. That could then either confirm that the article might stay (with the new source added) or that it might otherwise be deleted until a release is announcd. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be considered original research, but I'm not sure if it would be something that a reader could verify (like a website or a book in a library). You can give it a try; I just suppose I am pessimistic about the progress of this film after so long. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... just fired off emails to El Camino's production staff and then even spoke on the phone with Chris Romano, one of their execs. He sympthyized with the article, explained that the post production took much longer than they expected, further shared that the film IS finally out of post... finished and is even now being lined up for release. I said that that was good... but unless there is something somewhere that can others can verify, the article may be deleted... at least until the film does get out. He promised to check his email, check with the film's director, and send me word. So... if I do not hear in a day or two, just save it and let it come back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, that's pretty cool. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he is able to follow through as promised. At the very worst, we just stick this in a sandbox foe a few weeks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, Erik, you should probably stick a {{db-author}} template on User:Erik/The Speed of Thought; should the closing admin decide to delete the article, he/she can then properly userfy the article to that location. This way, the article history will go with it to satisfy GFDL requirements. Steve ^{T • C} 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I've done so. To the closing admin, if the article is deleted, please userfy it to the above link. I will keep my eyes open for additional coverage and move it to the mainspace when there is sufficient coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now the link is red. Is it now someplace else? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-author}} is a request for a page to be deleted. If this article is deleted, its page history can go to the now-empty page (rather than deal with the {{db-histmerge}} process). Don't worry, the article won't be gone forever; I've asked for retrieval of some deleted articles to cull useful resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr... okay, confused but learning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Guerin[edit]

I feel that every professional athlete regardless of their sport or their country of origin has the right to be on this free site. Mixed martial arts is slowly becoming one of the most popular sports around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.21.128.52 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that basically a 2-2 MMA fighter in Japan is that notable. I think there's also some heavy COI between the uploader of the images and User:61.21.128.52 who removed the prod and the infobox. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep appears to have fought at the professional level [76] which would likely pass WP:ATHLETE, though which leagues are among the "top" in MMA could be debated. Written as a promo and should be edited. JJL (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Guerin has fought at the professional level since 10/19/00 [77] and most recently at the Deep M-1 Challenge 7/17/08 [78] which will pass WP:ATHLETE, Being "top" in MMA is not being debated. More biographical data will be added.

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

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

The result was delete. --Tone 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanopol[edit]

Notability, no references. Everyme 02:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all WP:CREATIVE criteria. Only two references provided make no mention of this artist anywhere. Internet search reveals only a myspace profile and an empty self-submitted art site webpage. This borders on WP:HOAX. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 18:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre[edit]

Non-notable festival. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, long-running but little indicates more than a local interest. Punkmorten (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it's a hugely important theatre festival, with considerable interest all over London and big coverage in magazines such as Time Out. To be honest, I really think that non-Brits who are unfamiliar with amdram in the UK really should not vote to delete this one. How would you like it if I decided on the notability or not of some cultural event in Norway or the USA? It's been running for a long time, its patron is Sir Derek Jacobi for goodness' sake. To be honest, most people know it as the Waltham Forest Drama Festival, or as the Waltham Forest Festival, so I would also recommend creating forwarding pages for these two as well. Tris2000 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where we're from. If the festival is as notable as you say it is, then there should be no problem providing souces to back that u p. However, a google search] for the phrase "Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre" only produces 59 results, which doesn't suggest that it's as hugely important as you say. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said though, not many people know it as "Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre". In fact, I wasn't even aware that that was the new name for it. As well as "Waltham Forest Drama Festival" (a further 43 ghits), MOST people just call it "Waltham Forest Festival" (and drop the "of Theatre" bit, even though referring to the theatre festival) which has 224 ghits. Glastonbury's official title is "Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts" yet that gets 9570 as opposed to over a million ghits for "Glastonbury Festival", and that is in spite of the fact that an even bigger majority will call it just "Glastonbury" - a huge chunk of the 8.6 million hits that that word gets. But the official title gets just 9570 hits. Just because the official title doesn't get many hits means nothing. 267 ghits for either "Waltham Forest Festival" or "Waltham Forest Drama Festival" is not insubstantial and Wiki pages have been created for far less important festivals, especially considering the cultural importance of this festival and its esteemed patronage. I mean, what is it you've got against this charming cultural festival in the East End of London, anyway? Incidentally, you get 559 ghits if you search for pages that include both the terms "festival of theatre" and "waltham", so I rest my case. Tris2000 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the following reasons:

1. The article was incorrectly tagged for deletion on the basis that the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is a club. The following message was written: "A tag has been placed on Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club". The Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is not a club. It is an open entry Festival. Entry is open to all. Anyone can take part in this Festival, it is not exclusive, it is not a club, it is a well-known, inclusive, open event that anyone, no matter who they are or where they are from, can either take part in or, if they wish, spectate. The whole mission and raison d'être of the Festival is the inclusivity and accessibility of drama and theatre at the Festival.

2. It has been mentioned that the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is not notable because there is a lack of independent sources quoted. I apologise that the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre does not have a very long online Internet history, but it does have a long and important history spanning nearly 28 years. It has to be remembered that Theatre in the UK has been very late in adopting the Internet both as an information source and as a historical archive. I carried out a search on the database of The Guardian Newspaper Series and found independent stories and reviews relating to the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre and its pre-2006 title of Waltham Forest Drama Festival dating back to 2004 [79], but my understanding is their online Internet database does not go back long enough to read the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre's entire 27 year history, anyone wishing to look into the Festival's early history would have to consult the volumes of the relevant Newspapers that have been archived and are available for inspection and study in the British Library [[80]]. Non-trivial independent sources do exist and are available but finding them on the Internet is a bit harder. I believe a research study at the University of East London is in the process of attempting to gather together a definitive database of the history of theatre in London, but given the hand to mouth history of theatre in the United Kingdom this task has its pitfalls. I agree that the article on the Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre does have some scope for improvement at this early stage, but the nature of Wikipedia will allow it in time to become the definitive, reliable article that reflects the strength and history of this Festival of Theatre in London.

3. The Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is a notable Festival. Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is clearly referenced in the Wikipedia article on the All England Theatre Festival (AEFT) 1. It is also referenced in the article on the National Drama Festivals Association (NDFA) 2, albeit originally under its pre-2006 name of Waltham Forest Drama Festival. Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is the new name for the Waltham Forest Drama Festival which was 27 years old this year and soon to enter its 28th year. Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre is the largest amateur theatre festival in Greater London and the only amateur theatre festival in East London. It is a well known event in East London and attracts participants from across the highly populated boroughs of East London and as well as the the Counties of Essex and Hertfordshire.

I propose that the article on Waltham Forest Festival of Theatre be kept for the above 3 reasons. -- unsigned

Keep -- This is clearly a significant drama festival. I have just wikified it. No doubt some one will add the refefncees listed in the previous (unsigned) contribution to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 26 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. Sandstein 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lees[edit]

Delete - subject is not independently notable apart from the disappearance/death of her boyfriend, fails WP:BLP1E. Information is adequately covered in other articles about the person and the event. Otto4711 (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- anything useful and redirect to Peter Falconio, or preferrably, Murder of Peter Falconio to cover the event rather than the person. - Longhair\^talk 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above, the only reason she's notable is the murder of her boyfriend. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Peter Falconio is a redirect to Peter Falconio. Otto4711 (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 02:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Joanne Lees is or has been a notable author [81] allegedly paid an advance of GBP250 000 for one of the Top 100 books of 2006 [82], the subject of a telemovie (Joanne Lees: Murder in the Outback), a victim of crime and a murder suspect. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This article seems to be a WP:COATRACK whose main subject is the murder of Peter Falconio. That was a notoriuos murder, so that one article on him (about the murder case) is justified, but we do not need two. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Presumably on the same basis the article on Falconio's convicted murderer Bradley John Murdoch should also be merged? Murtoa (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WWGB. While that may ne the intial reason for her notability, it's just not true that the only reason she is notable now is because of the death of her boyfriend. Lees is a published author of a top selling book. If the article has elements of WP:COATRACK, fix it through editing. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of references cited by WWGB. Clear evidence of third-party comment in her own right. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WWGB and Matt, although some concerns over content. Orderinchaos 00:51, 25 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. --Tone 11:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchies by GDP (nominal) per capita[edit]

Also nominating:

Forks with no extra value. All the author did was copy List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, respectively, and remove the non-monarchies. Creates a maintenance problem—future changes need to be reflected in each page—and the author is already changing values on "his" pages so they don't have the same information as the originals.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next, list of monarchies by peanut consumption? --Crusio (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like what was said above, completely useless. Lehoiberri (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no reason to have random list X sorted by Y. TN‑X-Man 13:15, 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. kur ykh 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-homophobia[edit]

This is not a list of articles associated with the same title, but an original research compilation of what the editors of the page think are anti-homophobia. There is no reliable source criteria for inclusion in the list and the name itself seems to be without clear scope. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. -- Suntag ☼ 01:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there a WP:IDONTGETIT? Needs sources to indicate the title is used and the list contains only examples of it, at the very least. JJL (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all of the articles are particularly about anti-homophobia topics. More importantly, this should be a category, not an article. Category:Homophobia exists already, and these articles can be tagged with it if they aren't already. Nothing prevents the creation of Category:Anti-homophobia movements if it should be judged useful.—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 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. kur ykh 02:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg v. Obama[edit]

A pending case filed by (apparently) a conspiracy theorist. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything these days. I don't see what makes this lawsuit notable. 67.150.122.240 (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Nomination was started by an unregistered editor. I have completed it on their behalf. No opinion on my part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: — 67.150.122.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Article was created by an SPA, — Zad68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel my account is a 'single purpose account.' I've made some submissions and edits to Wikipedia before, but I have just never bothered to register before. Since this is the first time I've wanted to create an article since Wikipedia made the change that allows article creation only by registered users, I registered. I will continue to use this account to make Wikipedia edits in the future. I don't feel that the characterization of my account as an SPA is warranted. Zad68 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's warranted for the moment. Your week-old account has made no edits to any article except this article, the one you proposed shortly after starting this account. Not that it should change the merits of the argument one war or another, but describing you as an SPA for now is definitely warranted.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as when you say "Not that it should change the merits of the argument one war or another", you're saying the truth, then OK, it doesn't bother me. I guess I shouldn't expect everyone else here to be able to prognosticate what other edits I'm going to make with this account in the future. Zad68 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that you are an SPA is separate from the many good, strong reasons for immediate deletion (which are enumerated below). These strong reasons for immediate deletion would be just as strong if you were not an SPA but rather a longtime user with a varied track-record.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Many editors prefer to document all SPAs, in case we get a flood of 'keep' or 'delete' votes, and we notice all of them are SPAs. In that case, it would look like someone was gathering people to "vote" (meatpuppeting). That isn't the case here, but I didn't know when the AFD started, so I just documented it because the nom was SPA. It is just procedure in this particular AFD. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've heard of other such allegations — not looked into them much, but an article on such allegations would possibly be reasonable. If there's such an article (and I don't have time to look for one right now), merge there; if not, delete as a nonnotable article. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SEE BELOW KEEP I seem to have gotten dragged into this, somewhat against my will, and due to my own curiosity. I was hoping this would be easy to prove not notable, only because I didn't want another contentious AFD, and lord knows anything about US politics is right now. I found this and this and this and a mention and verification here and Fox TV in Toledo aired something about it (youtube video, no print). I really don't care one way or another, but I can't pretend the sources don't exist, just to avoid another series of arguments. Based on this, I don't have a choice but to say keep and add them to the article. Crap. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Sorry bruder. I try to avoid both religion and political AfD's. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. The long term notability of this case is not clear and since notability is not a temporary thing on wikipedia this article really should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the news. However, the case probably should be mentioned under Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#Issues about Obama's ethnic and religious affiliation during the campaign.Nrswanson (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but notability isn't temporary. If it is covered by multiple reliable sources (and it is) then it is notable, per WP:NTEMP, regardless of the long term (the coverage is what makes it notable, not the result of the case). You are welcome to try another argument, but it passes wp:v, wp:n and wp:news pretty clearly since it is a court case that is covered independently. Also note, I found these sources in about 5 minutes, so I bet more can be found. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point. Notability is not temporary and the notability of this case is temporary thereby failing WP:NTEMP. Not all legal cases are notable even if they are independently covered per not the news. This case in my view is really just the legal system being manipulated for political reasons. When the case fails to go to trial (most likely) or loses (and it will lose as it is a very weak legal arguement as Obama was born on US soil) then the case will cease to be memorable for itself but only as a part of Obama's 2008 bid for presidency. I rarely express my personal opinions in AFD debates but in this case I think to give this topic an article at all is undue weight. If this were a serious lawsuit than you can bet it would be making headline news and causing serious discussion internationally. As it is, several major media outlets have not even picked up the story. Bottom line is that I doubt this case will even go to trial, a fact that makes the notability unclear. FYI, I am not an Obama fan but I find this sort of political monkeybuisness entirely reprehensible.Nrswanson (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says "if it is ever notable, it is notable forever". The line " there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic" demonstrates that. Once it gets multiple coverage, it is notable and it doesn't have to prove that it will be covered ever again. THAT is the purpose of the policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there isn't an element of .. well.. question-begging involved in stating that if the case went to trial [the plaintiff]would lose because Obama was born on US soil, when an allegation included in the suit is that Obama was not born on US soil, but in Kenya, to persons who were neither US citizens nor eligible to be (The issue of Indonesian residence, etc., is another matter.)It implies that Obama's birth "on US soil," therefore his citizenship, is or would be presented as a self-evident fact and foregone conclusion. Of course, it may very well be just that, which would be fine with me. [Potentially-sarcastic remark conscientiously deleted here by signer.]--JWMcCalvin (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama was born in Hawaii not Kenya as evidenced by his birth certificate.Nrswanson (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was not. Obama's black grandma says she was in a hospital room, in KENYA, on the day of his birth. Angie Y. (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. If you wished to advance such a claim, you should cite your sources. But this debate is not about whether Obama is American, Kenyan, Indonesian or Martian; it's about whether this as-yet-unheard legal case is notable. In my opinion, it is not notable as distinct from the general welter of misinformation and vexatious claims surrounding this candidate. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. This is a very important case involving the US Constitution that will more than likely cause Obama to lose the election to John McCain. Mr. Berg presents very powerful arguments, such as Obama's school registration forms. Angie Y. (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sensing an overpowering case of hyperbole here. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care. Your suggestion is a classic example of why the WP:CRYSTAL policy exists. As yet, the case is just a suit that's been filed. If it comes to pass as you suggest, then it can have an article. (As it happens, I think the case will be dismissed for being wrong on the facts.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge; there are many suits filed, but not everything that gets a little bit of news time needs its own article. Possibly if it doesn't disappear down the toilet quickly, then perhaps it might get its own article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. On page 6 of the complaint there is mention of a discrepancy between the Italian Wikipeida and the English Wikipedia regarding the hospital in which he was born. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exists only as a novelty. If we were to create articles for every lawsuit against every prominent political figure by every crackpot with a theory the place would be inundated with articles that would at best be frivolous and at worst be defamatory and libel. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep or Merge I agree that Wikipedia isn't the place for every allegation, assertion, contention or what-have-you that is made about a candidate or any political figure, but my first awareness of the issue was through a someone's comment, made yesterday in response to a news article, that 'Obama isn't a US citizen because he was born in Kenya,' etc. etc. After searching the Net for 'Obama not US citizen,'Berg v Obama; and reading various news articles and (mostly) conservative/right wing opinion pieces, blogs etc regarding the suit, I came to Wikipedia seeking a concise, even-handed and reasonably accurate NPOV summary of the matter. I must say the article is certainly concise . . . Seriously, though, I'm somewhat tempted to suggest that however the case is resolved and the election is decided, there might potentially be a rationale for a 'round-up' article or section regarding this and other such lawsuits--especially when brought by apparently prominent Democrats--and the most persistent rumors, for historical interest if nothing else. (I realize that Obama has an anti-rumor website; but I suppose that could be considered a possible source for such an article, not a substitute for it, should there be one.)--JWMcCalvin (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure the news can't help but make mention of this minor fact now... it will be forgotten so fast that I doubt we can call it notable in a week, never mind any time in the future. It's also not for us to decide upon the importance or the ramifications of the law suit, which appears to be the sole keep/"Interesting" argument. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Nrswanson. (Not ignoring the debate about WP:NTEMP, but simply suggesting that this is, in fact, the correct course of action.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I understand that people don't like it. (hell, I don't like it) but it is real, it is sourced in multiple newspapers. NTEMP clearly says this article passes, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic. You guys are reading the policy wrong. It says there is no such thing as temporary notability. Once it is notable, it is notable forever. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I don't disagree. But I don't think the case is independently notable - hence my !vote. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even tho it is covered in multiple newspapers? I'm serious, I am trying to understand what threshold you are using. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, wikipedia is not the news. Just because something has been reported in multiple newspapers doesn't make it notable. In this case we have a ludricrous law suit filed that probably will never see the inside of a courtroom. It's getting news coverage today but once it gets thrown out it will cease to be notable. Per WP:Crystal this article really shouldn't exist. If the case does turn into something more substantial later (which I think is highly unlikely) then by all means the article could be created again.Nrswanson (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to labour the point, but wp:crystal can't apply as nothing in the article is about what "will" happen, and it is properly sourced. I am also confident that the case is bunk, but that isn't the standard, independent coverage by multiple reliable sources is. I wish I hadn't seen the AFD, honestly, but I can't pretend that I feel the article genuinely meets policy in a very clear way. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Those aren't reliable sources. The Kentucky Lake Times article is obviously a press release from Berg - it refers to 'our website obamacrimes.com'; a quick glance at the KLT home page reveals it to be a highly biased site, filled with unverified claims, politicised opinion, and crazed hyperbole. The NewsStar 'article' is a letter from a reader. The title of 'Right Side Politics Examiner' should be a clue as to that site's persuasions; but in case there was any doubt, the article itself is an editorial, re-posting a YouTube video from Berg. The Australia.to 'article' is an opinion from a syndicated blog, and the blogger claims that the case has received very little attention. (A Google News search shows that that, at least, is true; almost no news sites carry the story.) Your 'reliable sources' are neither news sources, nor especially reliable. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's sources consist of generally minor media; no national notability established. The fact someone files a lawsuit against a political figure is not notable - it happens all the time. No prejudice against recreation should this become notable. 23skidoo (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have researched this and it appears to me that this is non-notable according to Wikipedia standards. Perhaps it will be in the future once the long term notability of this has become clear. However, as it stands it appears to be nothing more than fringe news, and Wikipedia is not the news. Eatabullet (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a lawsuit in a U.S. Court regarding the eligibility of a particularly notable presidential candidate. I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue in good faith that it is non-notable, whatever one's personal opinions on Obama or about the veracity of the claims made in this case might be. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Since he may still be a citizen of Indonesia, I agree with you. My mother and I do not trust Obama, because we too think he is a fraud. Angie Y. (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The possible truth of the assertion in the claimant's submission is not relevant to the notability of this court case, and nor is your view, nor your mother's. Please keep your personal opinion of the candidate's trustworthiness to other venues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This article just seems like a fork for WP:TRUTH, with no reliability other than being filed by a conspiracy theorist. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Forget I agreed. Angie Y. (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could sue him too, and that wouldn't be noteworthy either. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lawsuit in a U.S. Court regarding the eligibility of a particularly notable presidential candidate. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court. Berg is a licensed attorney. People need to know about Obama, whom we know NOTHING about. Angie Y. (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could place a citation needed tag on a comment I would, "It will most likely go to the Supreme Court" being the offending section. Berg may be a licensed attorney but that is not prima facie evidence the case is valid. It's based on innuendo, paranoia, confirmation bias and conspiracy theories. This idea of this article being notable because of its topic "just who is Barack Obama" is, apart from as previously mentioned a case of WP:TRUTH, a blatant case of coatracking. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Throw in fringe. I think someone should pass this very important information on to John McCain so he can use it in a speech tomorrow. PhGustaf (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angie, you still appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that assertions about Senator Obama are going to swing this deletion debate one way or the other. That's not the point. The point is that unheard court cases are not independently notable; Berg's filing of this claim is only of incidental relevance. John McCain, who was born in Panama, has been the subject of a very similar case. It gets one sentence of coverage here, which seems about right to me. In my opinion, coverage of Berg's case against Obama should be similar. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is just a case of a fringe nutball filing a lawsuit. It has had some play on conspiracy theorist websites, and been jokingly reported on by a small number of mainstream newspapers, and that's it. I could probably achieve the same thing by claiming in court that John McCain is literally a space alien. It certainly isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia, and in two weeks no one will even remember this. --GoodDamon 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating to speedy. This AfD is now being used to insult people who argue for deletion. The case, the sources, and the article are all nonsense. --Good Damon 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>*Yes, nonsense sources. That's why I hate The Washington Times] because they're nonsense </scarcasm> 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - GoodDamon posted that remark nearly an hour before you posted your link to the Washington Times. Mocking him for not predicting the future seems both uncivil and excessively demanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Times? Are you kidding me? We might as well be citing the Weekly World News. MissingNo (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the mainstream newspapers report on this, it turns it into notable nonsense. Many things that might not otherwise be notable become so when its about a major presidential candidate during the election. If the McCain has similar coverage, add it also. DGG (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither case has any significant level of mainstream coverage. See above for my analysis of the sources provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this is important and the case exsits which warrants it to be kept here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The press release for the case just came out on ObamaCrimes.com, listing all the admitted allegations against Obama. Angie Y. (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how that has any bearing. I can put out a press release about whatever I want. It doesn't make any bizarre claims about Obama I make more notable. And I've already told you once before, "obamacrimes.com" is practically the poster child for poor sourcing. Nothing from that site, ever, will make it into an article here. --Good Damon 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obama has been using a "the dog ate my homework" approach to disclosures ever since he started running for president, which was about the time he graduated from Harvard Law. He claims that he didn't keep his tax returns, even as his campaign demands and obtains 30 years of tax returns from Hillary Clinton. He refuses to release his legislative records from the state senate, even as his campaign demands and obtains hundreds of thousands of pages from Hillary's years as First Lady. He refuses to release any medical records except a terse, one-paragraph letter from his doctor, even as his campaign demands and obtains media review of thousands of pages of medical records from John McCain and from Hillary. He refuses to release his birth certificate, and there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that he may not be a U.S. citizen. Berg has made an interesting case, and it's worthy of a Wikipedia article. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a long manifesto of your personal assertions is not what a AfD debate is about. Please refrain and stick to WP:Notability. davumaya 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This is highly known, in-the-news material that should be covoered (especially per WP:NTEMP. Who would even consider deleting this article? It should be expaned, as it's a very public case, and will obviously have people seeking information on it...HERE. On the grounds of this being "in the news right now", that does not mean it will be notable if the case is thrown out. If something interesting happens with this case, then it would be more notable. Oh, and I can't sign in because I'm at work, but this is User:DigitalNinja, thanks, 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to be persuaded that this is 'highly known' or 'very public'. It's just an unheard lawsuit. And Wikipedia is not a news service, we shouldn't retain an article simply because someone might be looking for one. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point on creating any article if it's not because someone might want information on the subject? Doesn't that seem like violating the very spirit of the encyclopedia? Also, my wording "in-the-news" was an attempt to illustrate notability, not the fact that it is, indeed, in the news. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an encyclopaedia and a newspaper. This is the sort of item which gets into the 'Funny Old World' column of the London Metro, not Encyclopedia Britannica. I wasn't intending to criticise your choice of words, but simply to point out that the article is a reasonable subject of criticism under the heading of WP:NOTNEWS. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't think you were criticising my words, I was just frustrated because my original thoughts weren't put forth correctly due to my own wording! :) ~~I suppose I'll change my keep reason as per WP:NTEMP.~~ 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete - There are not sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. A claim involving such a public figure would surely get significant mainstream press if it were worth knowing about. Otherwise it is just junk of a sort that would make the encyclopedia impossibly bulky if we were to include all of the world's clutter at that level. The highly partisan nature of this and its connection to fringe POV conspiracy theories makes it especially suspect. However, this is without prejudice to recreation (or withdrawing my delete opinion) if significant major coverage can be found. Also please do note the anti-Obama SPAs and accused sockpuppet(s?) among the !votes here. Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be good to note the pro-Obama and pro-Obama socks !votes as well :) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Would both sides like to take any serious accusations of sock-puppetry here, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:NOTNEWS. All the supporting arguments here are incensed instead of sticking to WP points. davumaya 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the four references in the article, three are to primary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources) and the fourth is to an admittedly right wing blog. There are no mainstream reliable sources for this article, because they aren't treating this frivolous lawsuit seriously. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the media is in the bag for Obama (pro-Obama)? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing a verb there. I'm not sure your suggestion is relevant to this discussion, though. If it is, could you be a little clearer, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we never have to do business together. You'd order a office chair and I'd send you a bag of charcoal. Perhaps my keyboard hates me? :) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Does anyone else think we should ask the John McCain folks on that articles talk page to weigh in? I think we're getting an unfair balance of Obama lovers since this was clearly pasted on the Obama talk page for all to see here? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I added a new source to the article [83] here. I figure all this aurging about not having "sufficient" sources can be laid to rest if we get some well known sources into the article, such as the Washington Times. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start. You've done better than Pharmboy in finding a really reliable source. I still stand by my 'delete' argument based on WP:NOTNEWS, but the Washington Times is certainly a sufficiently reliable source. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete Ask yourself this question: If the case is dismissed out of hand, will it warrant an entry? Of course not. If it is found that Obama is in fact a US citizen, would this case warrant an entry? Of course not. It it is allowed to continue and has an impact on the world (i.e. obama's citizenship is found to be fraudulen) then it would warrant an entry. But at the moment, it's just paperwork for a fringe conspiracy.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So, regardless of what course the case takes, it's a real lawsuit, against a real notable person, with real reliable sources...so, what was your argument? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is: this case may yet fizzle out entirely, so it's not notable. Simply mentioning a notable person does not make a document notable, because notability is not inherited. The case against McCain mentioned earlier was not independently notable, and nor is this, yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That actually makes sense. I'm changing my vote. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This lawsuit simply doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page, since the person who filed the suit has presented no real evidence to support his claims and under that circumstance, it's frivilous lawsuit. Thousands of people every year file frivilous lawsuits, do they also deserve their own page? No. There is no credible reason to keep this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drphillips (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:NOTNEWS perhaps notable enough for a balanced mention on a 2008 campaign article --guyzero | talk 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to speedy --- it appears that all of the article sources are primary sources only. --guyzero | talk 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Added more out of political propaganda than notability. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it will be possible to write a truely neutral article about this pending legal case on the basis of the limited coverage it has recieved as a news story. Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (moved from above) The only reliable source (Washington Times) also says that Berg "has filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened." Those lawsuits are also not worthy of their own articles. See WP:FRINGE. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. It's not notable, it's a lawsuit so frivolous that only the fringe right media covers it (FOX News ignores it!), and there's so many things wrong with these allegations, it's not even funny. —MicahBrwn (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think who's covering it is the issue here, and I certainly think it's unfair to say it's "frivolous": that isn't for Wikipedia to decide. The fact that the defendants motioned for dismissal and protection, were denied those motions, and then failed to follow the court order to present the documents by the date ordered (all of which can be confirmed by reading the actual case on justia)give this case credibility. The fact that it's outcome could decide the legality of an Obama presidency make it notable. It's as simple as that. —123fakestreet 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per everyone else MissingNo (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, its just some right-wing conspiracy against Senator Obama. Lehoiberri (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
changed to delete I orignally said to keep, and I still think that it barely passes notability, however, the article seems to be a battleground for a soapbox of people whose interests are not Wikipedia, and instead want to run Obama into the ground. Maybe later, but at this time, I don't see how we can keep it and keep it neutral without constant reversions of links to website that are just anti-obama and not wp:links or wp:rs material. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PhGustaf 66.152.166.101 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything else said about fringe conspiracy theories, etc. McWomble (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Qualified Keep or Merge~~see following... I don't know if my vote counts any more or less as the article creator. I sat on my hands for a few days to see what comments came up. If the case goes nowhere, it should probably be merged into the main election article as a curious footnote. If it goes somewhere (high appellate courts) and causes enough questions to get national attention on the electoral process, it should probably be kept. I vote it be kept and updated at least through the Nov 4 2008 election and/or its resolution. We just need to sit on it so that comments of a particular political bias, or trying to argue the case itself, be kept out. Zad68 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prolonging this deletion discussion until the presidential election would be an obvious POV variation of the normal deletion process. It would be POV, in my opinion, on the grounds that the purpose of the case is to discredit one of the leading candidates in that election. If the election takes place, and Obama loses, the case is redundant. The timing of the election should have no bearing on our decision here. Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the next official decision about the progress of the case itself is due? A judge somewhere may yet save us all some trouble. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to wash my hands of this article, delete or not. It looks Obama will likely win, which means the lawsuit will be an ongoing thorn. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This case was thrown out by the judge: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html I agree now that it's a novelty case and not notable. Zad68 (talk) (pardon me for not logging in to make this comment)

The problem is that berg has filed a civil suit, which the US system is extremely lenient about allowing. It will be dismissed before going to trial, but it will probably take a while (more than two weeks) for all the judicial I's to get dotted. And, once dismissed, i think berg has some right of appeal -- allowing he or anyone else to claim the suit is still live. According to [|this] -- the Federal Election Commission joined obama and the DNC yesterday in asking for the lawsuit to be summarily dismissed. The case law on this favors dismissal -- similar suits against Bush and McCain were dismissed because the plaintifs couldn't demonstrate specific personal harm, the tack currently being pursued by the FEC, DNC and Obama. At any rate... is the wikipedia system being gamed? Absolutely. Is it annoying? You bet. Is it relevant to anything but the world of wikipedia? No. Will any encyclopedia, online or hard copy, have an entry on this in 5 years? Nope. While i would like to see this "article" deleted post-haste, if it takes a few more weeks because of wikipedia's rules, so be it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no indication that this case is notable or significant through coverage.. It seems that this person is in the habit of filing civil suits against politicians. The notability of Obama or the situation doesn't make this case automatically notable. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question: At what point does this endless stream of calls for deletion and end and the article actually get deleted? Curious.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD discussion typically lasts for around five days, there are exceptions such as discussions which are closed per WP:SNOW or when the nominator withdraws their nomination. Guest9999 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been found and added. Furthermore, Philip J. Berg, Esquire is not simply a run-of-the-mill "conspiracy theorist," but a former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General who is licensed to practice in a number of courts up to and including the United States Supreme Court. Whether or not Berg's claims are correct, the case is legitimate and notable because of its connection to Senator Obama.— 129.32.40.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Philip Berg was interviewed on both the Steve Malzberg Show and The Savage Nation today, two nationally syndicated radio programs, with regard to this case. I think adds a bit to its notability. —123fakestreet 21:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg is moderately notable, and Obama is unquestionably notable. But notability is not inherited; the court case doesn't deserve separate treatment. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! This is the most important lawsuit in United States history. Why didn't the Mesiah simply produce his birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.12.190 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC) — 76.83.12.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Don't take nonsense like the above statement into account. In regards to an earlier comment, nothing notable about it appearing on a far-right show like Savage Nation. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 05:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth rebutting every piece of anti-Obama hyperbole in this discussion? To my mind, this case is no different to the very similar one brought against McCain, and no more notable. Party politics don't really enter into it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Savage may be an insane rightwing nutjob, but he's an insane rightwing nutjob with an audience. Several million a night, in fact. What's the sound of 5 million rightwing nutjobs simultaneously telling everyone in earshot Obama is from Kenya? Notability. With regards to the case brought against McCain, that was dismissed immediately (basically on the grounds that there was no way to prove the plaintiff had been injured by McCain and thus could not sue.) Berg, however, filed for an injunction and orders of admittance, the latter of which was granted. The motions of dismissal and staying of disovery made by Obama and the DNC have been denied, and Obama and the DNC have failed to meet the deadline set for discovery and answers to the order of admittance: it is a very, very real possibility that the judge may rule in Berg's favor. —123fakestreet —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

keep per DGG this is a notable lawsuit that has received media coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since anyone can bring such action against anyone, the fact that it involves a notable person doesn't confer notability. Violates WP:CRYSTAL; only notable if it succeeds. On the 0.01% chance this case succeeds, it would become way notable, and can cetainly be recreated when that happens. --barneca (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Berg himself seems notable as a politician and media figure, but doesn't seem to have an article. If he proves to be notable, could we not create an article about him, and then include a section on this case there? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The likelihood of available reliable source material is very strong since Obama is in the news all over the place. In addition, a quick search shows plenty of reliable source material for the topic: * Clout: Law tells conventioneers to get the fork out, * Obama Enemies' Bid to Stain the Audacity of Hope, * Lawsuit questions Obama's eligibility for office Citizenship claim at issue, * Federal lawsuit alleges Obama isn't citizen of U.S.: Gadfly Philip Berg bases it on widely debunked rumors, * We're in the Golden Age of the Lunatic Fringe, * DNC Silencing Lawsuit Over Obama=92s Birth Certificate., * The jihadist vote, * Obama, DNC fight local man's lawsuit: Montco lawyer says Democrat wasn't born in U.S., should be off presidential ballot., * FEC joins call to throw out suit against Obama, * Fall City man to challenge Obama citizenship, * [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78671 Obama 'Admits' Kenyan Birth?], -- Suntag ☼ 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anyone considering deleting this article should read the three reference attachments at the bottom of the article first. There exists plenty of legal grounds for the argument being put forth by attorney Berg. Whether you are Pro Obama or not the law is the subject. Slim Chestnut (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC) — SlimChestnut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails WP:NOR, but with better resources and a strong rewrite I would change my mind. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Freakdomination (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Philip J. Berg, where it can be placed in the proper context of Mr. Berg's other similar activities directed against, e.g. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. bd2412 T 05:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment If the article is moved to Philip J. Berg, then this should be added to that article. 1.) Berg filed a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney for their involvement with 9/11, and asked for the arrest of Bush and Cheney on over 2,800 charges of murder, which they comitted on 9/11/01.^[1] 2.) Berg was fined $10,000 for misconduct in another case, with the judge stating "Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession."^[2] ~ priyanath ^talk 06:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote below Move to Philip J. Berg as cited above by BD2412. JakeZ (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. I would have said merge to Philip J. Berg but it's just a redirect. If someone actually creates the article on Berg before this AFD closes than I will change my vote. As it is, "move" really isn't a fair and viable option for a closing administrator. They would then have to go to the trouble of researching the person and creating an article. If this is something that you all want to see happen I suggest you create the article on Philip J. Berg and then suggest a merger here. Otherwise a delete is really the best solution.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it affects anyone's decision, it appears the judge rejected the lawsuit yesterday: [84] --barneca (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It clinches the matter that this case is completely non-notable.Nrswanson (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.With the suit dismissed as frivulous, berg has no standing, etc... i don't see why this can't be just moved to speedy delete. There is not claim of possible future notability now.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With the article obviously going nowhere, this page serves only as a magnet for loons of the same ilk as many above. Close it out with WP:SNOW or something and get the matter over with.PhGustaf (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW can't possibly apply here. Neither can SPEEDY, since the article makes a claim of notability (read the actual policies...) The case was dismissed, and all AFDs usually last 5 days. Give it a day. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 20:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be appealed to the Third Circuit Court, and if that doesn't go through, the Supreme Court. Know your judicial system, folks. Angie Y. (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If that isn't a WP:Crystal statement I don't know what is. The media nor Berg have released a statement confirming an appeal.Nrswanson (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP:NOTNEWS. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if berg does appeal (who knows if he will or he won't) that still would not make this notable. All we would have is a coatrack for a fringe theory, by a serial filer of lawsuits in support of fringe theories.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Friday night dismissal seals the deal. This isn't notable and should be removed. JakeZ (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is very little unbiased information about this case/controversy on the internet. This subject is small in comparison to most of the issues facing us, granted, but people who hear about the allegations will be curious and deserve a place to come to find factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.242.105 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 70.195 etc... is an spa.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "factual information" is there to know? A crackpot sued Barack Obama, claiming he wasn't born in the United States, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, including a birth certificate and an announcement of the birth in the local newspaper. The case was thrown out. There, that's the extent of information about it. It's a curiosity, not an encyclopedia entry. --Good Damon 23:47, 25 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. kur ykh 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc scott[edit]

Unreferenced BLP. Notability is not clear. POV issues. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly written, unreferenced, does not utilise NPOV guidelines, --tennis man 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent verifiable sources can be found that establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN is right JBsupreme (talk) 05:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belzebuub[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belzebuub
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark H. Pritchard (aka Belzebuub)

Non-notable person; sole assertions of notability are from their own webpage; google search turns up links to book sales but no substantial discussion in reliable, secondary sources required by WP:BIO.

Also note that I screwed up the nomination because the previous deletions were for Belzebuub and for Mark H. Pritchard, his real name (and can be found here - if anyone knows how to fix it, please do so! I've Mcguyvered a pseudosolution.) WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent reliable sources establishing notability can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable third party sources. And this article are deleted in another AfD for same problem. Zero Kitsune (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Beelzebub. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, ProQuest and EBSCOHost know nothing of Belzebuub. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite looking around a bit, I was unable to find any kind of independent coverage that would qualify for sourcing. Doesn't appear to meet WP:V or WP:BIO at this time. Shell ^babelfish 00:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 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. kur ykh 02:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rose Gedris[edit]

Article fails to establish notability, and provides no sources; but is not a clear speedy since the person in question might be notable. Search finds nothing verifiable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. OK, there isn't a whole lot on this lady, but hey, after some editing the article looks a lot better (see also the article for her webcomic). I did find one article, a brief interview with Curve magazine, which is a notable publication--but I can't rightly establish whether this was published just in the online version. I'm going to keep looking. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as far as I can tell she has produced a couple of non-notable webcomics. They may be more notable but there is no evidence offered for this and it seems like no on can find any. (Emperor (talk) 21:49, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per drmies. Even if published only online, it qualifies as wp:rs. I am betting there are some others out there as well (I didn't do a full search). The other links are mainly her work, so not really 3rd party, but still enough for at least a weak keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After searching extensively I couldn't find any more independent reliable sources for this topic. There just isn't enough independent coverage of Gedris (or for the articles on her comics for that matter) to pass WP:Notability.Nrswanson (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a ton of material, but enough to skootch by N, to be sure. Otherwise reasonable, useful and presented in an encyclopaedic style. Wily D 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only actual reliable source in the article is the Curve one, and that's not enough to satisfy WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered merging with YU+ME:dream and I Was Kidnapped By Lesbian Pirates From Outer Space but the only reputable source I can find for any of these is the single 5 question Curve Q&A, which isn't enough to show notability or help us write a neutral encyclopedia article. -Dragonfiend (talk) 06:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny rugby[edit]

How-to like, almost covered by made up in a day. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is poorly cite, no even one ex link.--Free way 8 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even one reliable source on the article. Schuym1 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note a previous AfD was held when the article was titled "Penny Football": Discussion resulted in 'keep'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadScot (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you could keep an article so easily via WP:ITSNOTABLE back then compared to now. MuZemike (talk) 07:24, 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) 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as ~~WP:MADEUP~~things with no sourcibility per search that finds no reliable sources or verifcations. Note that a search for "Penny Football" does find sources... while "Penny rugby" does not.
Delete, but not speedy as MADEUP isn't good enough for speedying except for blatant hoaxes. Still, there's nothing that proves its notability etc. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nyttend; unreferenced. It's certainly not MADEUP but it's close enough that AfD is the right deletion move. --tennis man 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, but this isn't made up by the contributor; essentially the same game was taught to me in school in north-east England in the 1980s, so it's more than 20 years old (probably significantly older). If sources are found I'd be inclined to keep (surely someone has documented this, somewhere?) but without them, it can go until someone gets some real sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classmates (1986 film)[edit]

Non-notable porn film. Tatarian (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Tatarian (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (with regrets) It does have coverage [85], and the film is referred to as a "classic" [86][87] by its industry, and they should know. Sigh. Yikes. Suggest a rename to "Classmates (1986 porn film)" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 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) 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's sources. Multiple reliable sources make it an easy keep, no weak needed. (could you put them in as externals?). I am neutral on moving to the new name, which could be done outside the AFD anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay.. I just did so... and feel dirty. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Hunter[edit]

Notability is unclear. No references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people).Nrswanson (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page was created by the subject himself[88][89]. Other similar, more notable, student politicians don't merit articles. No references. --cloudo (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible vanity article. Non notable no coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly as non-notable, unsourced, vanity autobiography. --Lockley (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't include student politicans unless they've had significant mainstream media coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:25, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Raffaelli[edit]

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. No references. Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:39, 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) 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no article. Plain and simple. I'm surprised this had to be relisted even. JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Superchargers released two records on Estrus Records according to Allmusic, which makes the band notable per WP:MUSIC. His strong involvment with The Donnas, which can be decently sourced, pushes him to a Weak Keep I say. I'll add some references to the stub, to source what's there. --Amalthea^Talk 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several references as well; it turns out he was mentioned in newspaper articles about The Donnas a fair bit. But his article is not a strong candidate for a merge to The Donnas given what Amalthea has found. (It appears that Wikipedia needs the article Supercharger (US band).) So I am left saying keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources are already in the article, with exception to http://www.grunnenrocks.nl/people/r/raffaell.htm coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:06, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Basher[edit]

This fictional weapon 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) 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fictional weapon with no notability. -- nips (talk) 20:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no notability + no references. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedence about fictional weapons. Punkmorten (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:20, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lahinis[edit]

Completely unnotable group of characters The Second Jungle Book. Lahinis aren't even really characters, its just Kipling's name for the she-wolves. Dic def at best. Failed PROD with PROD removed by editor who stated "I do not believe that deletion of this article would be uncontroversial as required for WP:PROD. Please use WP:AFD if you want it deleted." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 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) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as relatively minor characters, which is the correct standard. But the merge should have the basic information. DGG (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 23:18, 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. Sandstein 17:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse course[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There was a discussions about sources on the talk page of this article back in 2005. There are still no references. I can't see anything here that isn't covered by the Cold War and Japan articles. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:25, 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) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note: some references have now been added, but though they document the fact that the US reversed its course, they don't document the existence of "reverse course" as an entity. I still don't see anything here that isn't covered by the Cold War and Japan articles. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, with a more usefully specific title. Though it wasn't immediate obvious how to search a phrase like this, the search string "foreign policy" Japan gives thousands of ghits, of which this academic book, this academic paper on the very subject, and this report from the US Dept of State. I've added them. The term is used in the references in such as way as to make it clear that it's a specific-- the US Dept State has it in quotation marks, even. I know, I too didn't expect it would be an exact term. WP leads to a world full of surprises. DGG (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am delightfully surprised :) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:26, 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. kur ykh 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Helgason[edit]

Declined speedy deletion request because of (weak) claims of notability (national TV, etc). However, the only independent reference in the article doesn't mention the subject, the 19 non-wiki ghits don't show a whiff of notability, and zero gnews hits. Either non-notable, a hoax, or wishful thinking. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the page to the most basics that can be verified. Codatronca (talk) 17:52, 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) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect, does not appear to be notable on his own. JuJube (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to conform to our standards. The band article looks dubious too. Punkmorten (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna Kola[edit]

Non-notable, Please note it is no article about the main producers. AlwaysOnion (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found in English or Spanish. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:12, 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) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beverages aren't necessarily notable, and this one doesn't give any proof that it's notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Geoff (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 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. kur ykh 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernage[edit]

Band which fails notability criteria of WP:BAND. Article has been unreferenced since March 2008. DAJF (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Only major hits were for Modernage Furniture. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:04, 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) 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously claims to be important, but no sources appear to exist to prove that it really is notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 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, per consensus about notability and the addition of reliable sources in the article. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Weinberg[edit]

Non Notable, Unsourced Eatabullet (talk) 04:44, 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) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not an expert on Rabbis, but I know the policy isn't about an article being sourced (that is what tags are for), the policy says notability is about being ABLE to verify, not how many citations the article currently has. I found this and this and this and this and hell, after that, I changed my !vote from "comment" to "Strong keep". You know, as nominator, you are obligated to research the topic before nominating it. A lack of sources means you TAG the article. If you can't find any after a good faith effort, THEN you go to AFD. To make matters more confusing, there are at least TWO DIFFERENT rabbis named "Yaakov Weinberg" that qualify as notable. (one died in 1966, the other in 1999). This means the nom is wrong on two counts, and we may need a disambig page to cover BOTH rabbis. Oh, and I'm not even Jewish, I just learned this in 5 minutes of searching on the FIRST page of Google. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response As a Wikipedia user, you should assume good faith sir. A snarky comment with a HEAP OF CAPS does not demonstrate good faith, and your tone is attacking in nature. Second, you shouldn't accuse someone of not researching something without any basis to backup your accusation. I certainly did research it, and I found all the Google information you did. Unlike you apparently, I didn't come to the conclusion that un-sourced blurbs from religious institutions and audio downloads on a religious site to be significant coverage or reliable sources that are independent of the subject, especially when the subject is a religious figure. Finally, if you Google anything you can find links...that doesn't make the person in question notable, as seen here, here and here (oh, and this too). In fact, I EVEN FOUND TWO DIFFERENT Pharmboys, though both don't seem to be notable. Eatabullet (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A magazine that covers religion *is* independent of the subject if it isn't controlled by him (ie: he is the subject). By this same logic, you would have to conclude that Sports Illustrated can't be a reliable source when it comes to sports. And if you were looking for me, all you would have to do is go to pharmboy.org. The others are frauds. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Eatabullet: The subject of this article published many articles in English language Haredi publications during his lifetime, such as in The Jewish Observer, and there have been articles published about him in other serious Orthodox journals and sources not all of which are available online. In fact quite often he was a sought after senior rabbi who gave approbations (haskomas in Hebrew) for the books of other aspirant rabbincal writers. Rabbi Weinberg's is very famous name in the world of the American yeshiva world and no expert in the field of yeshiva history in America in the last seventy years would ever dream of excluding him. In addition, user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [90] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, an accredited college, appears to meet criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC—"The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." --Elliskev 19:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is a strong precedent that roshei yeshiva of a major institutions are notable. Jon513 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Yudel (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is one of the most important rosh yeshivas is post-WW II America. He was the only son-in-law and heir of Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman who founded the key Ner Israel Rabbincal College in Baltimore in the 1930s and whom Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg succeeded as its second rosh yeshiva until his death. He was a major leader of Agudath Israel of America, and there are many Orthodox Judaic articles written by him and about him and they can all be verified, even though not all may be online they do exist in verifiable and reliable sources. He definitely passes the WP:BIO and WP:N test big time. The article is essentially {{underconstruction}} and will no doubt be developed with time. The nomination is misinformed and should be withdrawn immediately. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Again, where are the sources? For all your claims, there are no independent/reliable references to back up your statements. I think it's incredibly biased to use random links to Yeshivot and claim that it constitutes a reliable source, no matter how many of the faithful may say it's ok. If you disagree that's fine, that's what the debate is for. Eatabullet (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I would just like to remind you Eatabullet that a notable figure is one who is considered notable by many. Having led a yeshiva that is 90 years old and with a student body numbering approximately 800 I think Rabbi Weinberg is quite notable. Nerguy (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The principal at my 135 year old high school led a student body of approximately 2000 for decades. Can he be on wikipedia too? Is that worthy of a wikipedia article? Eatabullet (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eatabullet: You are comparing apples and oranges and are thereby making a false analogy. It is also important to have a sense of proportion in these type of discussions. Based simply on realities, there are about 13 million Jews in the world and about 6 million in North America and of those about 10% are Orthodox, so that it is illogical to compare a population group of about 600,000 with the population of the USA which is about 300 million, or alternately, given that there are very few yeshivas of the size of Ner Israel which Rabbi Weinberg headed, if the comparison you give would be based on proportions, he could be compared to any of the deans and presidents of any huge university, and he was more than that given his status as a leading Talmudist. In addition, his influence went far beyond his own institution because he served as an active guide and policy maker for many other institutions as well. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Role as rosh yeshiva of Ner Israel is an exceedingly strong claim of notability. I don't doubt that there is a measure of systemic bias that needs to be countered here in which material about individuals such as Rabbi Weinberg cannot be found in the reliable sources that typically have articles and obituaries about far more minor notables. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article has now been expanded with more reliable citations, facts and references and is no longer a stub. More will be added. The nominator is again kindly requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:59, 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. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyo Records[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:35, 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) 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Lots of incoming links from notable artists/bands. Maybe tag with unref for cleanup? Lugnuts (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no establishment of notability or sources. "Tagging" won't do anything other than leave the same thing around longer. Wizardman 03:54, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Committee for Display Metrology[edit]

This seems little more than a summary of a project (in progress) from some random committee. Perhaps it is important work, but it is not encyclopedic. (Perhaps once their work is complete and it is covered by reliable sources, then we can revisit). ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--It seems that the article itself is unsure about what it is, though it's clear to me that this is not an article. The list of "Answers to be provided," for instance, is actually a list of questions, and would be more appropriately asked on a flyer on a college campus. Besides, there are no references. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 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) 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: although the words are sensible, the article isn't; it seems to be somewhat of nonsense. Definitely no notability for this topic, especially as the article doesn't seem to be about the committee. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete They and the standard may possibly be notable--but only once they produce it.DGG (talk) 04:22, 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 Withdrawn The CMT source is a good find, and has me convinced that there're probably more sources somewhere, just not on the 'net. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Barnett[edit]

Reads more like a magazine article. Some notability but it seems very thin (wrote a hit for Clay Walker, a few other minor writing jobs, very very minor acting roles), and the sources don't seem to cut it. Most seem to be personal websites or trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:56, 12 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)} 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:29, 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) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, someone !vote already… Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At first glance, subject appears to be somewhat notable. Article needs improvement, not baleetage. {{sofixit}}. [ roux ] [x] 16:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this good source but that's the only RS I've found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not my field, but aside from 3 bit movie parts, he seems to have written one and only one notable song? DGG (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial coverage in a biographical way cited. Passes N, therefor, at the least. Wily D 14:25, 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. kur ykh 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Resnick[edit]

Person is non-notable; after extensive editing to initial hoaxy article, we have an article on a person who doesn't need to have an article on Wikipedia Drmies (talk) 02:41, 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) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I almost, but don't quite, understand the nom. Oh, delete as not notable/fails wp:bio. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some small award like this, without demonstration of coverage otherwise, isn't sufficient to establish notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 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. Wizardman 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maddock (CBSO)[edit]

Person is entirely non-notable: at best this one sentence should be merged into the main article Drmies (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One sentence long not notable.--Free way 8 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 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) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. This doesn't need to be a separate article from the orchestra's page. Midorihana みどりはな 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Stephen Maddock already redirects to City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, and no disambiguation is needed. B.Wind (talk) 06:10, 26 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. kur ykh 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vamsi (film)[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable. Maybe merge into one of the actor/actress's articles? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources exist to show notability.[91] [92]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 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) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update and I have just expanded, sourced, wikified, and cleanup up the article and infobox. Added a few external links to the film and a couple reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets relevant guidelines. Thanks to Schmidt, for the work on clean-up and sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:34, 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. kur ykh 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackedout TV[edit]

Non-notable self produced comedy film series. Lacks reliable sources by any measure. Icewedge (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references in the article, and under 100 ghits for ""Blackedout TV" make me doubt any can be found. VG ☎ 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. I can't find a single Google search result with even a passing mention of the subject. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maïté Schwartz[edit]

Non notable actress Honey And Thyme (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Sources are available with the simplest of searches. Nom perhaps did not look and consider WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Using the sources so easily found, I have just finished expanding the article and show the notability it aserts, as she is an integral part of the cast of a notable show. The article should have been tagged for sourcing and improvement, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous sources that can be found with a Google search. TwentiethApril1986 said it all. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of sources found, and suggest that nom withdraw because all issues raised has been addressed. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich strategy[edit]

Looks like a monetary neologism. For the record, ostriches don't hide their heads in the sand -- they are actually quite fierce fighters (you go, ostrich!) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a Google search indicates that the phrase is in wide use in many areas, not just economics. Article should be widened. JJL (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the point of the article is economics, which is why I put it up here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 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) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JJW. See the fourth hit on google from the NIH. As to Ecoleetage's concern, I'd say just expand the article to include non-economic terms. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite anyone to expand the article. As it stands, however (it remains an economic article), it doesn't make the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google turns up plenty of sources, so notability is probably there. While the article needs expansion, that's not a reason to delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn as per Deor's exceptional editorial input. Job well, done, Deor! And kudos to the other editors who successfully argued for its inclusion. I am glad that this is being preserved. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark Southern English[edit]

Do y'all think this article has WP:OR problems? I reckon it does. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't have OR problems: it has copyvio problems. I'm removing the apparently copyvio text and ask that you withdraw the nomination, unless you believe that there are other grounds on which it should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your efforts, Nyttend, but I am going to let this AfD stand because I still see problems with WP:OR and WP:RS. I also believe the reference to the influence of the Branson, Missouri, entertainment scene is highly subjective (considering that non-Ozark stars like Tony Orlando and Yakov Smirnoff perform there). I have no problems if consensus supports your call and goes against my judgment, but as I am reading this article (in its current state) I feel it doesn't belong here. (That's a damn long-winded answer, isn't it?) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I said "unless you believe there are other grounds", so you've provided those other grounds :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak delete~~ I don't necessarily doubt the accuracy of the article, as there are different dialects even within different regions of North Carolina here, but not sure it is "notable" (ie: an accepted term for a unique dialect). It would have been easier if the article bothered to even have ONE cite or external link. And the last part can only be considered original research without citation. I have generously used the term "weak", with the hope the author will take the time to post some cites and prove us wrong. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kaip Ad shar lahke dis ertikl mor if'n ders ref-run-sus. Kin we-uns haing ontu eet fer awhyl?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is really, really sad, is the fact that I completely understood exactly what you typed without having to read any word twice. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't do that, but a couple of readings enabled me to understand it all. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 21 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) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There do seem to be sources out there that could be used to reference and expand the article, as Google Books and Google Scholar searches for combinations such as Ozark +dialect indicate. Suggest a move to Ozark English, however, as that term seems to be used in a pretty fair number of the book hits. Deor (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make you a deal, I removed my Weak Delete and will go Keep and ask you put up at least one decent citation that you found, and move the article per your recommendation, after the AFD. I didn't think to do what you did, and I am taking it in good faith you are correct in this. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Donna Christian; Walt Wolfram & Nanjo Dube (1988). "Variation and Change in Geographically Isolated Communities: Appalachian English and Ozark English". Tuscaloosa, Alabama: American Dialect Society. ISBN 0817304339 (ISBN 9780817304331). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    - Rebecca Haden (1993). "Notes on the for–to complement in Ozark English". Ozark English Quarterly. 1: 7–8.
    - Suzette H. Elgin (1981). "The Ozark WHICH/THAT". The Lonesome Node. 1 (2): 2–7.
    - Suzette H. Elgin (1983). "On Cows and the Ozark English auxiliary". The Lonesome Node. 3 (2): 9–16.
  - In fact, although our article doesn't tell you, Suzette Haden Elgin was an assistant professor of linguistics, who published extensively in the 1970s and 1980s on the subject of Ozark English in her newsletter The Lonesome Node (since published). The Annotated Bibliography of Southern American English (ISBN 0817304487) lists 12 papers by her. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I rewrote the article as a short stub, with references (before I saw the references supplied by Uncle G above). I think that a decent expansion will require some library research, but is this a good enough start? Deor (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Appears Deor did a WP:HEY job on the article, and it should stay. Looks like all keeps now. Hopefully someone will expand it, but being short is never a reason to delete. Good rescue. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:41, 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. kur ykh 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory-based semantics[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable theory advanced by one or two researchers, possibly with a commercial interest. See [93] and Talk:Knowledge Science. Beland (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. There are enough google scholar hits to warrant an article by Wikipedia standards [94], even though the topic seems completely WP:BOLLOCKS to me. VG ☎ 10:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further analysis (thanks, Phil) shows that the expression is used with different meanings by other authors. I don't see evidence that Ballard's Ph.D. thesis, on which this article is based, has gained a significant degree of acceptance. VG ☎ 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think you can assume that those Google Scholar hits are about this subject. Going by the snippets displayed by Google most are about such things as "possibility theoery-based semantics", "set theory-based semantics", "model theory-based semantics", "information theory-based semantics", "stit-theory-based semantics"(sic), and "graph theory-based semantics". We need more evidence that this concept has any currency beyond its originator's works. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 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) 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The actual article seems to be mostly a dogpile of abstract nouns without much sense or reference to the world of shoes, ships, and sealing-wax, typical of the knowledge management walled garden, and as such likely relating to some kind of management theory or computer programming method, and as such I share the nominator's fear of commercial motive. As Phil Bridger points out, the phrase "theory-based semantics" can appear in various contexts without being about this, whatever it is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 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.

^ "Press Release from Philip Berg - Seeking the "Truth of 9/11"". Scoop Independent News. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
^ Duffy, Shannon P. "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'". Retrieved 2008-10-25.

[1] "Press Release from Philip Berg - Seeking the "Truth of 9/11"". Scoop Independent News. Retrieved 2008-10-25.

[2] Duffy, Shannon P. "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'". Retrieved 2008-10-25.

[1]

[2]