Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

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

Old nomination

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Money Masters—not important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article in itself. I perceive it as an effort to promote this documentary and, indirectly, its point of view. Dpbsmith 13:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree -- Delete. -- The Anome 14:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. Who do you think you are to decide this and that movie or documentary is not known-enough for wikipedia? IMDB score? It's source for- and information package for people wandering into fractional-reserve banking. I've made it initially into a stub, but I'm planning to extend it to mention the issues it covers. Would removing the external link make you happy in the mean time or should I remove the quote that I did not include in the first place? Finlander 14:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - OK, I looked for it on imdb and couldn't find it at all. Where is it? Closest thing I could find was a 1915 silent movie, a drama called "The Money Master" which is characterized as a "drama" and no description other than "keywords: ambition, anarchist, based-on-play, industrialist, moral-reformation, new-york-city, nurse, poverty, revenge" Dpbsmith 15:05, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - Yes, it is not in the imdb and I didn't say it is (does imdb cover documents?). Finlander 15:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      - 36,074 of them, by their count. Dpbsmith 19:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - You might like to review the changes I made to the page and also, as you so allege that I'm advertising a small time document for my own benefit and not because it seems to be recognized and also I personally found it very enjoyable and informative, check out the "Reviews and Comments" page on the document's homepage and you will see that it has been recognized by several institutions, economic magazines and publishers and whatnot. Finlander 15:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with another article (but I can't suggest any atm). I see no reason to delete this article. It seems encyclopedic to me and the production named "Money Masters" and the concept it discusses are well-known among people who study similar topics. It is possible that somebody may search wikipedia for this thing, so we should list it, as long as it does not cause any harm to Wikipedia and its readers (and as it is now, it doesn't). However, I have no problem to merge the contents with another page if you think this is better, but certainly do not delete. Optim 17:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Three issues here - Is it advertising? Is it NPOV? Is it important enough for a Wikipedia article? The link is to a Web site that has a page that advertises the product, but this is not serious enough for deletion IMO. The article is a bit NPOV but this could be fixed easily enough. Is this documentary more important than hundred of other documentaries that can be seen on the History channel, PBS, BBC, etc.? Probably not. So how high do we set the bar when decideing whether an article is warranted? We have articles on Star Trek episodes, episodes of childrens show, chapters of books, verses of the Bible. If this is where we set the bar then the documentary should stay. - Keep, unless we are prepared to consistently implement a tighter inclusion policy. mydogategodshat 03:06, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Ghost Rider (stuntman)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources beyond "ghost riders" own web site and no obvious notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was snowball keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Merle (band)

Delete I thought this article had already been deleted? I don't think it clearly displays notability. Boleyn2 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, that was awful quick. I just had it restored at WP:DRV, noting that the group had charted on the Billboard 200. That's one way to pass WP:MUSIC; the multiple national tours are another. Or you could check Google News for USA Today profile, Washington Post article, and several more. Hurdles WP:MUSIC by miles. Chubbles (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was restored as a contested PROD, after a WP:DRV request, by me. I've also completed the AFD for the initiator. No opinion otherwise. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C2 & C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability has been established through coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per oodles of nontrivial mentions in reliable sources. Incidentally, I used to go out and drink with these guys...and found out later they were a band...--Smashville^talk 19:15, 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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth Night (Mark Knopfler & Eric Clapton album)

Not notable. Didn't seem to fit a speedy delete. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a bootleg, not an official album. Perhaps it should have been speedy. Lastcent (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy. A9 is only for albums/songs by red link artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently a bootleg. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete- I looked for sources, figuring that with two such notable artists, there'd be SOMETHING out there, but all I can seem to find are track listings.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:17, 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. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna fingers

There seems to be no notability for this cookie. The references provided are a link to the company's site which provides nutrition information and product description of the cookie. The other reference is to an article that never mentions the cookie at all. Please also see discussion at Talk:Vienna fingers#Notability. A merge was suggested there, but I'm not sure what would be merged to the company's article other than a short product description of the cookie being vanilla wafer and filling. Metros (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you read some of my notes, you must have read them too quickly. It is true that part of my argument is that the Vienna fingers page has more information than many other stubs (like Chips Deluxe). However, a more important part is why it is not only out of proportion with other articles, as all of the discussors have seen, but why redirecting or deleting the page would be harmful to Wikipedia. The page it is usually redirected to is the Keebler page. The Keebler page, if you would look at it carefully, does not show notability of the cookie either. It is barely even mentioned, just as another product Keebler makes. The Vienna fingers page in question shows an awful lot more information and notability, not to mention being even longer than the Keebler page. In summation, redirecting or deleting Vienna fingers would actually be harmful.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
- Where is the notability proven through reliable sources? The article says "it kept the company afloat" (more or less), but there's nothing there to provide that. Metros (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The one and only place I found any historical information about Vienna Fingers was on the Wikipedia page Sunshine Biscuits. A few months ago, I tried to use that as one of my references, but you shot it down right away. Recently, I put up the one reference given for that page, assuming it would have the same information. That particular article did not have enough references, and it was not deleted, so it seemed correct. However, Sunshine Biscuits is a Fortune 500 company, and as we know from the article, kept it afloat. Thus, Vienna Fingers are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - There is nothing in any reference that says "Vienna fingers is the reason why Sunshine Biscuits stayed afloat." Here is the extent of the mention of Vienna fingers in the Sunshine Biscuit article: "Sunshine also originated Vienna Fingers cookies, which are now sold under the Keebler brand." That's it. And Sunshine Biscuits is not a Fortune 500 company; it's not even a Fortune 1000 company (see this listing. Metros (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from the discussion page for Vienna fingers, where I came in as a third-opinion. The best argument I thought fudgecicle had was that you can get 4730 Google hits for "Vienna fingers" as a phrase (1.4m as separate words, but mostly hits such as "picking up Vienna sausages with your fingers"). Most of them are just utilitarian commercial links, a few of them were "reviews," and none of the ones I saw showed cultural significance. By contrast "ladyfingers" gets almost 300,000 hits, most of which showed cultural significance IMO - books, history, recipes, being used as a name, etc. Existing, being sold, and apparently being enjoyed by some aren't criteria for notability.
Support deletion. arimareiji (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While we're talking Google hits I would point out that there are 1450 Google News hits and 74 at Google Books. I don't have enough interest in the subject to go through all of those to find references to add to the article, but the sheer numbers make notability practically certain. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of the news search results look like they're ads/circulars in the papers giving you the price of the cookies. There are also a percentage of them that are articles on the company that used to make them where it's listed as one of the products they made. The book results mostly appear to be diet books where it gives the caloric value/other nutritional counts for the cookie (and, also, it appears that Neil Simon mentioned Vienna fingers in his script for The Odd Couple). I'm not sure that any of these mentions provides notability. Metros (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Metros's argument, but I admit they are quite tasty. Sam ^Blab 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I truly meant above is that Kelloggs, the mother company of S.B., is a fortune 500. Now, if Neil Simon mentioned Vienna Fingers in his Odd Couple script, that makes Vienna fingers culturally important. The Odd Couple was a very famous movie (or TV show, or whatever), though I don't know what it's about. One of the discussors mentioned that many of the links were ads; well, that also makes it important. If a product has large scale advertising like that, that means it is important. Furthermore, the fact that vienna fingers are mentioned in several diet books means that they are important to fat people because they are tasty and healthier than other things. This should make everyone sure that these references provide notability. I will have to put up some more info about the Odd Couple thing on the Wikipedia Article.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]

Just because it's mentioned in a notable TV show doesn't mean it's notable. Sam ^Blab 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV shows are part of pop culture. If vienna fingers are in a TV show, especially a famous one, that means that they are a part of the culture. Therefore, vienna fingers are definitevly part of American culture. Q.E.D.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]

So, you're saying that if someone mentioned me in a famous TV show, I would be notable enough for an article? Sam ^Blab 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first episode (I think?) of the Brit version of Coupling, Jeff mentions "unflushables" (aka floaters) as a metaphor for relationships you can't get rid of. Does that mean they need their own article?... Good grief, wait a minute - there is a subsection of his page devoted to that term! ;-) Fortunately, there's no mention of the objects that prompted the metaphor - nor is there an article devoted to them. But they did merit a disambiguation.

(Sorry, just thought the discussion could use a little reductio ad absurdum humor.) arimareiji (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Sam; that would make you much more culturally important.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle See? It does mean cultural notability! Arimaj-whatever agrees! Now, the only thing is that no one has come up with a definition for "cultural notability". Every example I have given is evidently not "cultural notability". If someone could actually give a definition for once, I'm sure finding a good reason would be easy. Until then, no one should really have any right to say what is or isn't "cultural notability".Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]

Strong and speedy keep A very simple Google search turns up considerable media coverage: [1]. Write-ups include the New York Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Deseret News, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, Contra Costa Times...even Noo Joisey's beloved The Record has written this up. Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965. The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be instructive if you include examples of the actual usage in context to show why there's notability. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_fallacies wrt Google hits.

For example, "Vienna fingers have long been considered a cultural icon" by (www.doesntexist.com) would show it.
But it's highly open to argument whether "Keebler, the maker of Chips Deluxe, Hydrox and Vienna Fingers" would. arimareiji (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_fallacies is an opinion essay, not Wikipedia policy -- people are entitled to their opinions, of course, but let's not mistake opinions for policy. Opinions notwithstanding, the fact remains that this particular product has been around for decades (a lot longer than all of us, I imagine) and is cited by major media as one of the flagship products of the Keebler organization -- which, logically, would be a confirmation of its notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did reliable sources write about this cookie? Yes, so it passes the general notability guideline. And if reliable sources have written about other baked goods, then those other baked goods are notable too. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:22, 30 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, Ecoleetage (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Google News links show, the cookies are the subject multiple non-trivial articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anything made by elves in a tree must be notable. Oh, and the secondary sources, too. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 by Jac16888, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freebiejeebies

Editor has deleted Speedy G11 templates twice without doing anything to change the article. Blatant advertising for this website. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just discovered that the article was speedy deleted and promptly re-created. Please salt. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 and G4 Recreation of previously deleted advertisment. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:04, 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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BISHOP A

Unreferenced, only external links to myspace, WP:BIO and WP:NB cf38^talk 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Zero hits on Google. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, yet another myspace novelty pushing their way here. JBsupreme (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:16, 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. Wizardman 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Benincasa

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO as an actress or entertainer. Cites are largely to youtube and other similarly unreliable sources, Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Newsweek and ABC sources in the article, along with others such as [2], [3] and [4] get her through WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in those sources is not substantively about Benincasa as required by WP:BIO. None of them appear to contain more than a paragraph or two that are about her, including two that are the same material from ABC about moose jokes. Otto4711 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability supported by reliable sources like this and this. See also these.--Evb-wiki (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Google News hits appear to be reliable. The others, as noted, are not substantively about Benincasa. Otto4711 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, included in the article, establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parodies of Sarah Palin, all the reliably sourced information about her seems to be part of the broader topic of parodies/comedic takes of the political figure. There is little biographical information about the person or their comedy outside of this context. Guest9999 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, aside from Palin, she's a cited political pundit. And there's WP:HOTTIE, and it's not just me who thinks this; see the Palin-irrelevant "Bloggers we want to see in bikinis: Sara Benincasa." Plus, bikini, monokini, mankini, nokini or burka, I like her: she's what Tina Fey might hope to be like if Fey wasn't working for a tired TV program that's nervous about advertising revenue. Uh, ILIKEIT isn't a reason? OK then, WP:HOTTIE. Tama1988 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. She seems to have very recently received enough coverage (see various links above) to satisfy WP:BIO. It's worth bearing in mind that this is early in her career and she seems likely to satisfy the criteria much more easily as time goes on.Paxse (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chubby Parade

Non-notable website, but asserts notability. Is one of the premium websites in its field, not a speedy. Porollostracuos (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Had viewed the article, agree it's not a speedy. I would like to hear what a consensus what have to say. cf38^talk 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is not a speedy, but this site fails WP:WEBSITE in that there is no sources or reliable third party publication that make this site notable. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe that no sources make this article fail WP:NOTGUIDE #3 (internet guides) in that there are no details on the website's achievements backed up by a reliable source. Beano (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 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 Delete, redirect to The Notorious B.I.G. made. --Tone 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biggy Smallz

Only info on the artist was from the usual webcrawling sites, allmusic and yahoo music. Also this: [5] seems to indicate that this person is in fact Christopher Wallace aka The Notorious B.I.G., and the source (Billboard) is a lot more credible than a crawler page.Terrillja (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think it is important to recognize that Biggy Smallz is a completely different artist than Notorious B.I.G., especially when listening to the audio samples and looking at the artist's record label displayed on the covers of the singles. ex:[6] and Listen to "Nobody Rides for Free" by Biggy Smallz. As for the link you have provided, the author of the book most likely inferred the statement. Inferences are not encouraged on wikipedia. However, Live-Squad.com clearly has reputable authority over the subject, much more so than the secondary-source based The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits. Lhw1 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree, citing the website of a group about a song that one of their members was part of doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. I would recommend that you read over WP:PRIMARY. In Wikipedia, a source with no personal, direct involvement (secondary source) is favored over a source with direct involvement (primary source). --Terrillja (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to know your stance on whether or not you think they are two separate people after you have thoroughly listened to the clips and examined the scans. It is requested that this article will not face deletion while we collaboratively look for the sources deemed "reliable". I would argue that the primary source I have cited is sufficient enough to keep the article, or in the least challenge contradicting allegations to the point that both opposing views should be taken with a grain of salt. Lhw1 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is clearly no notable person other than the late Mr Christopher Wallace going by any such moniker. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this artist fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BAND. He doesn't seem like anyone notable to be on Wikipedia, other than the fact that he wrote a few songs, was mentioned on a few songs from other bands, and that his nickname was the same as Biggy Smallz. Did he win an award? Did any of the music he wrote get national recognition or was placed on any top song charts? Does he have an article on a third party website, such as a newspaper, proving his notability? If someone messages me with a source that passes WP:BAND, then I will change my vote. Beano (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Notorious B.I.G. as plausible mispelling. JuJube (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is deleted, I suggest that a portion of the article be transferred to God Bless the Dead if one does create an article for it in the near future. This is valuable information and should not be ignored for clear reasons. Lhw1 (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then hard redirect as a plausible misspelling. JBsupreme (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't show enough notability of the artist himself but just B.I.G. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Biggy Smallz is a separate artist. He had two successful singles in the early 1990s. I think it's a shame that his career has been overshadowed by B.I.G.Lifted84 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Lifted84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Terrillja (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete under CSD G10 as attack page. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Hodari

This page seems to meet the deletion requirements for "vandalism", specifically as it includes "pages which exist only to disparage their subject". Though it's probably not worth getting into the merits of the particular accusations the page makes (given that regardless of their veracity it still exists only to disparage the subject) it at least bears mentioning that the charge that Dr. Hodari faced charges for illegal disposal of aborted fetuses turned out to be a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporquemada (talk • contribs)

Delete Per nom. Notability is not really existing, although asserted. Declined speedy G3 for not obvious hoax. So Why 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does appear to be merely an attack page, and there's also a serious problem with lack of reliable sources. Two out of three of the references don't seem to meet the criteria as such (one's a blog, the other is WorldNetDaily).Raven1977 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:25, 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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Johannine Comma (The Grammatical Argument)

This article is an essay, and another article on the subject (Comma Johanneum) already exists. If anything, content worthy of inclusion in the existing article should be merged and the subject of this debate deleted or redirected. Also, all implausible redirects associated with the subject of this debate (including Johannine Comma (2), 1 John 5:7 (2), and 1 John 5:7a should be deleted. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. If it were to be merged, I would have to suggest that it be linked properly. Right now, all I can read is a gigantic blob of a dozen paragraphs or so. Lady★Galaxy 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I decided to ignore stylistic concerns in favor of the more pressing issues, but I agree wholeheartedly. :) Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to essays not belonging. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Comma Johanneum covers the issue well.--Grahame (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced essay that is redundant to Comma Johanneum. B.Wind (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as redundant to Comma Johanneum, doesn't appear to be amything worth merging (although I did lose the will to live about two-thirds of the way through it and only skimmed the remainder) and not worth keeping even as a redirect. It also seems to be original research. Nancy ^talk 06:30, 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) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unilever Axe/Dove controversy

Basically, this article takes a complaint a few newspapers (and blogs) ran with about the Axe body spray ad campaign, and turns it into an article. It's not a totally non-notable concept, but it's hardly some raging controversy. It's a consumer complaint, a media critique... it's not a movement, and the complaints have largely come and gone, as far as I can tell. It's notable enough to mention in Axe (Lynx) and maybe Unilever (and it is mentioned in both), but to have a standalone article is basically to claim a few newspaper articles here and there make a mere product complaint notable. Rividian (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — should this article be kept, this must be renamed to exclude the / mark, as it gives the impression that there exists a subpage somewhere. MuZemike (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "controversy" could be mentioned in the articles on both Axe and Dove. It is not notable enough to stand on its own, being one event. Also the opening two sentences say that the criticism are policially motivated because Unilever is a multinationional company. This is uncited original research and could also be a BLP violation against the critics. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as notable as your average outraged parents campaign, which are a dime a dozen. Many average people usually don't make the connection between Dove and Axe being distributed by the same company unless someone rabble rouses their attention. The Axe criticisms are addressed in the parent article anyways.Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a place to air dirty laundry. Place referenced criticism of Axe ads in Axe body spray. Don't act like you're confused when a cosmetics conglomerate makes hypocritical advertising! Potatoswatter (talk) 08:32, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Todino

This guy was identified by wired as a spammer in 2003. But there's really no evidence of notability outside that crime story. He generates 100 googles [7] which is tiny for an internet story, and there's nothing on Google news. WP:BLP issues are here - we've one source and no real significance. Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:NPF. Doesn't meet notability standards. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. His 15 minutes of fame are over; all speculation should be removed should this article be kept. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BIO1E. Evidence of neither sustained nor multiple WP:RS interest found. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete can't improve on the nom's statement. Dloh cierekim 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShareNow

(prior AfD) Other than brief discussion here and here, article's subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The other sources used in the article are to non-WP:RS, non-independent sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article. There is also a conflict of interest issue here with the major contributor to the article, see [8] and COIN. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that the rule on notability being established by "significant coverage" was really enforced. Then WP would have about 10% of the articles it does now on contemporary topics. However going by WP standards as they are now applied, ShareNow is notable and I have to vote Keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references currently used in the article admittedly leave something to be desired when it comes to reliability of sources. However, I did find these ([9], [10]) articles from independent sources that speak of ShareNow in a non-trivial manner as well as these([11], [12]) that report on ShareNow while it was still known as Izimi. I think these should be enough to establish notability and verify most of the claims made in the article. Some cleanup is needed, though; we can start by removing the inappropriate ELs to individual ShareNow profiles et al. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I too wish that the rule on notability being established by "significant coverage" was really enforced, except to borrow a cliche from Ghandi, I'll "be the change I want to see". That's why I vote to delete this nonnotable advertisement. Themfromspace (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the outstanding thoughtful comment. However, it is still not enough to convince me that this article should be singled out for deletion when so many less notable remain. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a really good "keep" rationale... Cirt (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your massive AfD's on non-notable topics then. Project Scientology alone has 300 to 400 at least. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), please stop with the WP:POINT disruptive comments which are not related to this AfD. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I added some of the info from sources found by SWik78, note the refs now include stories by The Financial Times and The Telegraph. I believe the article just barely satisfies notability now. Raven1977 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets notability criteria, and WP is not a paper encyclopedia. In fact, as a WP user I find neutral, reliably sourced articles on current software and websites to be highly useful. Vendor claims tend not to stand up for long under editors' scrutiny. So let's keep this one. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs)

Billy Williams (spammer)

Barely notable, "one event", sensational BLP. Even the title is probably a BLP violation. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tens of thousands of events, not just one. Additional coverage is available: See http://www.kitv.com/news/5591303/detail.html , for example. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Essentially this is the report of someone who was arrested for a crime and convicted. Okay, there are citations to that effect. But while spam e-mailers are a popular subject at the moment, one person being fined for a non-violent crime doesn't strike me as particularly important in an encyclopedia. "Not News" is a gray area and a judgment call, but it strikes me that the only links/footnotes for this case are local TV and local newspaper, highlighting that this subject is not of national importance (and arguably not even statewide importance). -Markeer 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent rename needed. No opinion as to the viability of this article, but at present this individual is only alleged to have committed certain acts. To title this article "spammer" is a violation of WP:BLP and legally dangerous as there is a court issue currently ongoing. I would rename it now myself but I am uncertain as to whether article moves are allowed once an AFD procedure has begun. 23skidoo (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete huge WP:BLP problem and this person is really only notable for one series of events. JBsupreme (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was one of the first articles I wrote for Wikipedia, if not the first, hence the problems which abound. Don't feel bad about deleting it if he's truly non-notable -- I was thinking, not long after I wrote it and several other articles about spammers, that it might be better to amalgamate all the small-time spammers into a single article! Dave-ros (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G10 Dloh cierekim 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca's Kitchen

~~Contested PROD, non-notable book, no sources beyond Amazon.com Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Withdrawn A special thanks to the contributors who found the print articles. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found two reviews easily. I will add them to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a third one and I will add it to the article also. Schuym1 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazon is not a reliable source; it is just like IMDB or another other site that harbors information and takes in the rest as reviews from customers. All the references point to review sites. I found nothing on Google except more review sites. I don't think they even have an official website... other people already took their name and registered it as a .com. Maybe if we are able to dig up the Publishers Weekly article or an article about this book from a newspaper source or two, we could save it... Lady★Galaxy 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Did you see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Because if that were really true, I do wonder why we don't have an article for every single book ever published that has been reviewed on a site. Lady★Galaxy 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read it? Schuym1 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these reliable sources, then? Care to show me some? (Please, no review sites...) Lady★Galaxy 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those review sites are reliable and they show notability. I am done discussing this with you. Schuym1 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what everyone else has to say about this article. Keep it or not? In the meantime, I went to go post on one of those official Wikipedia support pages to ask about review sites. Lady★Galaxy 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I got the answer. See here!

A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability or non-notability. Lady★Galaxy 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links are online bookstores. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four links supplied as references, one is Amazon. Here, read the article: Amazon.com started as an on-line bookstore, but soon diversified to product lines of VHS, DVD, music CDs, MP3 format, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food, toys, etc. Amazon has established separate websites in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China and Japan. It also provides global shipping to certain countries for some of its products. One link I can't click, the other is broken, and the other is just a link to a site that is simply not a reliable source. It's no newspaper article or book on it. I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Lady★Galaxy 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is 2 links that are from newspapers.. I did not add the Amazon link. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Romantic Times is a reliable source because it is a magazine. Schuym1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I never heard of such a magazine. Must not be mainstream enough. Well, I noticed that one of the links is broken. Lady★Galaxy 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top of Romantic Times says The Magazine For Fiction Lovers so that's how I know. I fixed the link! Schuym1 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Also, reliable sources can be websites also. Schuym1 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it has three reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of your sources show notability. If a source was a New York Times article, I would say otherwise. I await more sources as this book obviously fails everything except for the first criteria on WP:NB. DARTH PANDA^talk 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article only needs to pass one thing. The article passes 2 things, WP:BK and WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Publishers Weekly and Albuquerque Journal sources show just about enough notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are just enough to meet notability standards, as per Phil Bridger. Needs some rewriting, though, as it reads like a bit of a puff piece as things stand. Fortunately, AfD isn't for cleanup. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can't withdraw because there is a delete vote. Schuym1 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the result is obvious so I will close it per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 18:28, 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 deleted hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jibber Skabing

This could be a legitimate activity, but it lacks any real context context or any sources proving that this concept does actually exist, or why its notable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed right after I posted this AfD, another contributor nominated this for speedy deletion as patent nonsense, but I did want to give the benefit of the doubt. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a hoax, and if not, certainly non-notable. Zero Google hits. Nadda. It's made up nonsense. Proxy User (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—should this be substantiated, it would make an interesting article. With no verifiability, however, it looks like nonsense. While I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt (and have removed the speedy templates accordingly), I don't want to let nonsense through. If sources aren't provided soon, this should be deleted. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likely hoax, if not, still failing WP:RS and WP:N. No hits on Google, either. — neuro^(talk) 21:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CS. I honestly would not have any objection if someone G1'd this article. Beano (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And don't blank the discussion. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like nonsense. No ghits. Looks like G1 material to me. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:27, 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 Speedily deleted. Housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Feet Store

Non-notable, advertising spam, original research, circular references... DELETE! Proxy User (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 I wouldn't mind going there, but this is pretty blatantly spam. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM cf38^talk 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Advertising to the max. — neuro^(talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per violation of WP:SPAM policy. Beano (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Oh SPAM, my SPAM - the taste, the smell! The sacred meat product, from Hormel. MuZemike (talk) 00:13, 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 speedy delete as a hoax article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Rationing in the United Kingdom

This is a hoax. The reference cited is, perhaps deliberately, confused: a mixture of the titles of two Nigel West books: MI6, British Secret Intelligence Operations 1909-45 and MI5: British Security Service Operations 1909-45. An operation like this would come under MI5, but I have checked both books, and neither of them mentions onion rationing, "Operation Omelette" or "Octolitehydroxide". Nor does J.C.Masterman's The Double Cross System, which is a history of deception operations like this. Google finds nothing relevant for Operation Omelette or for onion rationing. Finally, according to Austerity in Britain, the book cited as a source for Rationing in the United Kingdom, onions were not in fact rationed. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear cut nonsense. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clear cut vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. According to Google there was indeed Onion Rationing in WW2 the United Kingdom: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Rationing-in-the-United-Kingdom-during-and-after-World-War-II. And where does "vandalism" come into this? Proxy User (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Google link is a mirror of another erroneous Wikipedia article, which I have corrected - see Rationing in the United Kingdom and its talk page. And the definition of WP:CSD#G3 vandalism includes "blatant and obvious misinformation". JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the history of that article, which is interesting: "onions" were added to the list on 1 April 2006 (perhaps a significant date) but they were only in the position this mirror has them until 24 June 2006 when they were moved up into the main list. So the mirror has not been updated for over two years. It just shows that WP is not a reliable source and its mirrors still less so. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 Blatant vandalism/nonsense. Oh, Proxy User? I believe that NationMaster is a Wikipedia mirror. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:46, 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. Sandstein 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdetector

website fails criteria at WP:WEB, article makes no assertions of why it is notable and a thorough search reveals no coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be the personal project of a small non-notable author.neon white talk 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rockdetector has given its name to several books (listed in the article) that are related to the website, including the following: Rockdetector: A to Z of '80s Rock, A to Z of Doom and Gothic Metal, A to Z of Thrash Metal, The Rockdetector A to Z of Black Metal, The Rockdetector A to Z of Death Metal, A to Z of Power Metal, Ozzy Osbourne, and Rockdetector: "Black Sabbath": Never Say Die, all by Garry Sharpe-Young, who founded the website, and published by Cherry Red publishing. Doesn't sound like a small, non-notable author to me. Some significant coverage of the website in reliable sources would be good, though.--Michig (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the author is notable, he has no work published in journals, magazines or newspaper, is not quoted or cited in any known work, very little info in any sources. This is likely why he has no article himself therefore the website cannot inherit any notability from him. The books are published by a very small independent publisher. Regardless there is no criteria that says a website is notable because it has a number of equally non-notable books associated with it. --neon white talk 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He writes books, not newspaper or magazine articles. He has had quite a few published and they have been reviewed. This article isn't about Sharpe-Young, though, and nobody has suggested that Rockdetector should inherit notability from him. There are, however, 3 Google scholar hits for him.--Michig (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, owing to the website content being published by the independent, published-for-profit organisation Cherry Red. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not a criteria for notability. see WP:WEB. books are not independent of the subject and an author is not notable simply by being published. --neon white talk 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3 states The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators (admittedly then specifying specifically online media); Cherry Red is certainly independent of the creators and respected. I'm not sure if this criterion applies to media likes books. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rockdetector is the world's biggest rock database. You can see some sources about it here and here or the introduction of this. Some of those sources are from Blabbermouth, which is a website hosted by the record label Roadrunner Records. Rockdetector does not fail WP:WEB.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 09:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is a veriiable source. Blabbermouth is certainly not. In fact it all but admits as much in a disclaimer that it is "run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner". It fails WP:V and cannot be used as a source here. The same goes for http://metal-rules.com, absolutely no reputation or indication of verifiabily, what is needed are newspapers, magazines, industry journals etc not self published websites. --neon white talk 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your explanation of how does blabbermouth fail WP:V. The quote does not really make it non-reliable (but post the source if possible, please).-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth appears to be a professionally run website with content created by its staff. Being independent of Roadrunner Records makes it no less reliable. I don't see how it is less reliable than many of the world's newspapers, all of which would be accepted as "reliable sources".--Michig (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner is certainly reliable; it is endorsed by Roadrunner Records (hosting it is a fairly large endorsement) but is clearly independent of them- the disclaimer makes that clear. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed, but the disclaimer, which I guess is true, is however still unsourced.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to the sources currently cited. Blabbermouth is reliable, and Sharpe-Young (thanks to all those books) seems to be one of the few "experts" on heavy metal, which is certainly worth something. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayline SF

Highly likely to be a hoax, and if not, then it's certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. I can't find any sources (reliable or unreliable). Schuym1 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — no indication of notability, whatsoever. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does assert some level of notability - "Due to popular demand, Gayline only performs special venues." Which is why this should be open to discussion. But I doubt anybody would disagree if I prodded it. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per MuZemike. JuJube (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Either a hoax or massively non-notable. Zero non-wiki ghits, zero gnews hits, and no hits for this group at sfgate.com, the website for SF's major newspaper.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:33, 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 to Music of the Czech Republic. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music in the Bohemian Forest

This is a dubious topic and is certainly nothing but original research. Woland (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author:I have already added the sources I used so it should be all right. It is a description of the development of music in the Bohemina Forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macane (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not complete the sketchy Music of the Czech Republic ? yes, Bohemian Forest extends beyond its borders, but the article concentrates on Czech towns anyway. NVO (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Music of the Czech Republic. Article in question has some documentation, but merger will help fill the "holes" in both articles. B.Wind (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Music of the Czech Republic. I agree with B.Wind. The info fits well in that article, and the sources will help both topics. Raven1977 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that the article was already merged into the Music of the Czech Republic, but I'm a bit confused. I don't think, that the Music in the Bohemian Forest is somehow specific in the context of Czech music history. I've never heard of that before. The article contains many useful facts, however, as a whole it's not notable. It was merged into the Music of the Czech Republic, and the chaotic tangle of informations in that article went from bad to worse in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a fine, well referenced start article from a Wikipedian from a non-English speaking background - more please. I wouldn't feel qualified to propose a merge without input from the Music or Czech wikiprojects. In any case, the original reason for the AFD is no longer valid. There are multiple references to show this is not WP:OR. Paxse (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnected (song)

Non notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. Contested redirect. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no reason to delete it. "Disconnected" has been one of Face to Face's most famous songs as well as one of their biggest hits. Alex (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable song by non-notable band. Does every garage "punk" band get a Wiki page for all their "music"? Good grief. Proxy User (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hold on there, Proxy User. Face to Face is hardly a "garage punk" band that nobody's heard of. 12 years of activity, 8 albums, and a recent reunion tour...they've also played the Warped Tour and numerous other tours & festivals. They are comparable to Pennywise or NOFX and have shared labels & tours with both. "Disconnected" is their biggest "hit": It has appeared on 4 of their releases (1, 2, 3, 4 - twice on that last one), was released as a single and a music video and charted on Billboard. The article therefore passes WP:MUSIC as it is about a song that "ha[s] been ranked on national or significant music charts". Third-party sources therefore likely exist to support an article. They have to be found and added, of course, but AfD is not a forum for forcing improvements. I'm about as much of a deletionist as you're likely to find, but this happens to be a subject I know quite a bit about, and it passes the smell test. It's a legit single from a legit group and it charted. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that a user who's named themselves after No Use for a Name (a band which includes Face to Face's original bass player, who performed on "Disconnected", and are on the same record label that Face to Face used to be on) wouldn't already know that and would nominate this article for deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per IllaZillaKillaVanilla fee fi fo Filla. It charted, though not very highly, and there appear to be a couple sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. My username derives from a Vandals song (first appeared on this album as "Ladykiller", then on this album as "(Illa Zilla) Lady Killa") in which the chorus is "Illa zilla laydkiller". I have no idea what it means, but I had it on the brain when I joined WP. Anyway, your comment gave me a chuckle. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK, so the song charted, that still doesn't mean there should be an article. WP:MUSIC states, "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Will there ever be enough verifiable material to create anything more than a stub? No. Does charting automatically mean that a song should have a separate article - no. Further, personal opinion of a band should not cloud judgement on whether an article should exist or not. In this case, I still don't see any material that warrants a separate article that can't just be included on the album page(s). Nouse4aname (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that it charted, and that the artist is significant, means that it's likely that there are third-party sources available around which to build an article. I'm currently writing my masters thesis on punk rock, with special attention to the 1990s punk revivial. I'm sure I can dig up some decent sources, and that this article can be expanded to beyond just a stub. Charting is, in fact, an indication of notability and a good indicator that a song might merit a separate article. Articles don't have to be large to be considered our best work (Troy McClure comes to mind), and this one can certainly be fleshed out to at least Start or B-class with just a minor rewrite and a couple of sources. Note also that the personal opinion here was by Proxy User, who wished to delete. I countered with evidence that his opinion was off the mark. But I digress...you say there will never be enough verifiable material to create anything more than a stub. I disagree. Have you tried looking for any source material? I'm going to give it a shot, as I believe such sources exist. But if you haven't tried then you shouldn't be AfD'ing it, since this is obviously a legit topic, and AfD is not a forum for forcing improvements. See WP:BEFORE: "Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered." --IllaZilla (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: I've rewritten the article and added a number of references, cover image, changed the infobox, and added an audio sample. ~~Granted, except for Allmusic & Billboard the references are all primary sources at the moment, but it shouldn't be too difficult to track down a few more secondary ones~~. In any case it's clearly no longer a stub. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - After a little more digging I was able to turn up some more secondary sources. I'm pretty confident we can now close this as a WP:SNOWBALL keep. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow! The article looks much, much better now, and 100 times better than probably 90% of other song articles out there. I did have a quick look for some material, but couldn't come up with much. I think you may be at a bit of an advantage here with the topic of you masters! My nomination was on the basis that I didn't think enough material would be available to build an article, after a quick search (evidently not thorough enough) I decided it was unlikely it could be improved. I was wrong. Good work IllaZilla. I'll be coming by your page first with an punk rock song stubs that I may be tempted to AfD to see what you can do to them! Nomination withdrawn Nouse4aname (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per IllaZilla. — neuro^(talk) 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per IllaZilla. I may not have heard of them, but the sources provided do pass WP:MUSIC. Having never heard of the band isn't a reason to delete its article here. Beano (talk) 23:23, 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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Kaa Suroor 2 - Ae Himesh Bhai

Whether the movie will be made is not yet finalized KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. Unless a reliable source stating that production has begun is provided, this should be deleted. — neuro^(talk) 21:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search entries show all gossip columns which are not reliable sources. So till the movie is confirmed from sources - this article has to go. Usually film articles do not qualify for AfD based on the title which are always note-worthy. --GPPande talk! 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. If it has been released, it still doesn't mean it's a notable enough movie to warrant an article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. When the film is released and passes WP:NF, it can have a wikipedia page, but not now. Beano (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The film is out and geting coverage. You can see the bloopers and download the music. It was easy to find on Google... how could this have beem missed?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried all those links and none of them work. None of them render anything useful. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Strange. The links all worked for me. It must have been some sort of fluke when I searched. I must have been doing something wrong. No doubt the article will return So, I will withdraw my keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the google search page directs to pages which don't show anything useful-not even the Movie poster. The bloopers page is blank. Thats obvious as the film does not exist! You say "The film is out and getting coverage",..can you tell me when it was released? Not in India...am sure of that. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 15:39, 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 Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackjack Pizza

Withdraw~~15 days since notability notice. No change and no references.~~ --Kickstart70-T-C 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google News Archive search. There are references from The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News (which says that Blackjack Pizza is the "biggest Colorado pizza chain, where most of the 800-member roster work part time." Here's another article from Rocky Mountain News that is about Blackjack Pizza donating money to the Bonfils Blood Center Foundation. Also, the two perpetrators of the Columbine High School Massacre worked at Blackjack Pizza as seen in these sources: 1, 2, and 3. In fact, Blackjack Pizza was where Eric David Harris purchased "one of the guns used during the shootings from Mark Manes". There are also plenty of results from Google Books. I'll expand the article and add the sources when I have time, but this pizzeria is definitely notable. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Little more than advertising spam about a pizza joint that is non-notable and little different than any other random restuarant of the same type. Is Wikipedia to be a pizza chain index for every random pie maker? Proxy User (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article in a neutral format with information about its achievements and some not-so-flattering information about it being on The Boycott List its relation to the Columbine Massacre. It's not an advertisement — it's notable. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references mean that it passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per Cunard. — neuro^(talk) 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per Cunard. It is a small chain business that exists, and is passes WP:COMPANY with the sources on the article and the sources Cunard provided. Beano (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and if you're worried about a 15-day notability tag, there are some that have been on for years! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO (and only IMO), if that's the case, they should either be re-evaluated or put to Afd for a decision to be made.

Keep To be honest, I really don't understand why this article came up here. The sources are more than enough to prove notability, as they have been covered in many Colorado newspapers. This place is as old as some celebrities today. I searched up Google, and all the results were for this particular joint. That's a first. Lady★Galaxy 04:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are seeing have just been added since the Afd. This article has been around for a while without any citations or references. --Kickstart70TC 05:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A number of the pages I've recently put up for Afd come from the category of restaurant stubs. There's a lot of junk in there, and I've just been working on the A's and B's. If anyone wants to help out, it's appreciated. --Kickstart70 T C 05:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see about half the AfDs resulted in keeps and at least one notable restaurant chain got deleted. If you're going to go through them like that please be sure to do a google search and look through the results, even consider improving the article, WP:BEFORE nominating. In many cases an unsuccessful nomination still results in very constructive improvements to the article. So if you keep them at a few a day and don't overload the system that's fine. If you were to nominate 20 in a day as some people have, nobody can keep up. Also, if it's notable but has clean-up or citation problems there are tags for that.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with T on this, Wikipedia is not a restaurant listing guide. Proxy User (talk) 17:50, 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 Keep(non-admin closure) the article is now well cited. Icewedge (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.R. Guest

15 days since I posted a notability notice. No change and no additional references. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did ["B.R.+Guest" this Google News archive search] and found several references. I added some to the article, and notability is now clearly demonstrated. I think this is why editors should do a Google News archive search on articles before nominating them for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Eastmain's insert of third-party refs, notability is established. Raven1977 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now demonstrated as notable, nice job Eastmain. Paxse (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David I. Leavitt

This is an article about a non-notable journalist. The article cites no sources. Bryan Hopping ^T 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This individual is not notable. A Google search returns many results from David Leavitt, a notable journalist, so I refined the search by adding "Virilion" (Google News Archive with "Virilion") (Virilion is the agency where he works), Google search with "Hartford Courant" (Google News Archive with "Hartford Courant") (Hartford Courant is the daily newspaper where he serves as a freelance writer). These searches return few results that are not blogs. Most are not directly about him. I've also many results about a person with this name in a source like this Google Books, but this result is about David Leavitt the novelist, not David I. Leavitt the journalist. The same goes with this article, which is about David Leavitt the prosecutor, not David I. Leavitt the journalist. I've done many searches on David I. Leavitt, but I can't find enough reliable sources to allow him to pass WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Cunard. What else is there to say? Proxy User (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard. No non-wiki, non-trivial coverage found to satisfy WP:BIO. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 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.

STIR Future

The result was speedy keep, disruption. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is garbage. A bit like the liquidity in these instruments at present Sockpuppet II (talk) 14:48, 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 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCH Sharks

University sports teams with no reliable and independent sources referenced or likely to be available. British university sport is very unlike US college sport, in that with a very few exceptions British university sports teams are not followed by many - if any - outside (and even normally within) their respective universities. Pfainuk talk 14:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete all. As the nominator says, university sport in the UK is barely followed in the institutions let alone noted by the wider community (boat race excepted). As such, these all fail notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - university sports are a big deal in the US but, with a few exceptions, have ground level public profile in the UK. TerriersFan (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is rediculous, the sites should gefinately stay on american football is not followed as much in britain as it is in america but it is still a ever expanding sport. and being a player myself i think its insulting to be told we are not followed by our university. we have more fans at a american football game than any other team in the university. plus every year the american football makes a considerabe amount of money for various charities and is always top of that list.

these sites should not be closed down just because the sport is not understood by certain people, i think its rediculous that this ncan be even thought of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.240.40 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk Pfainuk talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The standard we use is notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I don't believe these teams make that standard - it's nothing personal against the clubs themselves. Charitable donations are all very worthy, but do not make a team notable. And when you say that there are "more fans at a american football game than any other team in the university", let's remember that this is not necessarily a particularly large number of fans - at most universities an average turnout of half a dozen people who are not club members would put you top of the list in this respect. Pfainuk talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure I have edited and kept many of these articles up to date and agree with the notability fact. But I also think that if these were to go so would many other American football and minority sport articles as these have not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". MrJ 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJ (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of these teams' home colleges don't follow their own cricket or soccer sides, much less American football. The anonymous IP editor above doesn't say where they are at college, or what reliable source could back up their claim of high attendance. But in any case, it's a moot point; none of these teams has done anything significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - The person above says "Most of these teams' home colleges don't follow their own cricket or soccer sides, much less American football." That is untrue. The annual xpLosION event hosted by the Birmingham University American Football team draws over 2000 spectators each year and is one of the most highly spectated university sports events outside the Oxford - Cambridge boat race. The University game has had national televised coverage with the Portsmouth Destroyers featuring on Skysports NFL coverage only last sunday as part of a preseason game (surely this alone counts as "notability"?). The people nominating this article for deletion are clearly just ignorant to the increasing popularity of the sport. (Just in case you dont believe we get national coverage - http://s284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/COACHSCOTT69/?action=view&current=skyreport.flv, and also, the current university national champions have been on bbc news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7424591.stm If you want to confirm it actually appeared on the televised news, see the feature video on http://www.buafl.net)stenard (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Portsmouth piece is a trivial mention (the video concentrates on the London Olympians, whose coverage is also pretty trivial), and the Southampton piece - from BBC local news - contains very little if anything about the team beyond the fact that it won the championship last year. If that's the only independent source we've got then that team does not need a separate article to say it.

Regarding the rest of this argument, the fact that the largest event involving the teams gets only 2000 spectators does not suggest to me that the teams that competed are notable, let alone those that did not. That it is one of the most watched university sports events (and I will accept this assertion in good faith) says more about British university sport than it does about the notability of the teams. The "increasing popularity of the sport" is irrelevant to this discussion except where it creates significant coverage in reliable and independent sources about a team - if there is none, as I contend for all of these, then our article on that team is inherently unverifiable and should be deleted. Note that I am not arguing to delete the article British Universities American Football League, which is also short on references. I am only arguing to delete the articles on the clubs that make up that league.

Finally, I note that I have added ~~two~~ one more, similar article. I believe that the arguments above cover ~~those two~~ that one as much as the others (as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy), but nonetheless if an admin or one of those who has voted to delete above wants to remove it then they are welcome to do so. Pfainuk talk 12:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: one of them was a already up there but I apparently forgot to tag it before. It is now tagged.) Pfainuk talk 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close this bundle nomination; as it is highly likely that each of these, considered individually, could be notable independent of the group. Nominate individually, after individually considering whether the subject of each meets the requirements of WP:N. We do not declare classes of subjects that cannot be notable; we have clear guidelines for notability that should be followed here; a task that is close to impossible in this bundle nom. This will become a mess if it proceeds as it needs to, as a bundle nomination. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doing a quick google news search for Glasgow Tigers brings back over 1000 hits, so apparently the media follows at least some of these. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a better search. It's more like a few hundred hits.[13] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That search picks up rugby and speedway results. Try this search that produces 9 hits:[14] TerriersFan (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glasgow Tigers are nevertheless a slightly different case to most if not all of the other nominations, in that they field a team in the BAFL — the highest level of the sport in the UK — as well as at university level. Not that I'm particularly arguing that that makes them notable either, only that it should exempt them from any mass deletion based solely on the discussion here. Jellyman (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see your point that Glasgow may be a special case because of the BAFL team. That said, the current article only mentions the BAFL team in passing and is mostly on the BUAFL team. I won't withdraw that one because there are delete votes against it, but as I say I can see your point that the case there may be slightly different. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nothing that can't be fixed, and therefore not a reason for deleting it. I've been working through various BAFL team articles so when I get to the Tigers, the BAFL aspect would be expanded, with the uni team moved to a separate page (or vice versa).Bettia (rawr!) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I vote keep the BUAFL Team pages and start to put references in them instead of a blanket ban. For instance, Today I have started referencing the Brighton Tsunami page and will also start looking to reference other BUAFL wikipages as well. Rather than deleting them, we should be looking to cite and ratify this articles. Brynprice (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- So far, one reference is self-published and the other amounts to two sentences at a site about speed dating. I don't think that meets the standard of notability: if I thought referencing through reliable and independent sources was possible for any of these teams I would not have brought them here. Since you seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia, I should mention that this is not intended as a blanket for-all-time ban on any of these teams ever having articles: we try not to make decisions that are quite so irreversible. Deleted articles can be recreated if the subject becomes notable (though you can't just recreate an old article if circumstances don't change). It's just that these teams aren't notable yet. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepthese clubs have meant alot to thousands of people over the last 25 years and have been extreamley important in the development of american football in the UK, there seems to be no reason to remove them other than someone would like to annoy people.So what if they are not attended as they are in the US, the effort given by the players legitimises it 100%, no different to US college Div 3 games I've been to with only a handful of people in the stands. Most games do pull in decent crowds, way more than other uni sports, simply because their is no professional league, the Sharks routinely have up to 100 spectators at home games and I'm sure some of the bigger more sucessful teams have way more.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/UCH_Sharks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.70.123 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are dozens of sports clubs in every university in the country, and most of these have athletes prepared to put an large amount of time, effort and money into their sport. But that's doesn't form part of our notability requirements, except where it creates significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. And the fact remains that we have seen no such source for any of the clubs listed. Pfainuk talk 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as Jerry suggested above. I believe all of these pages really ought to be considered individually, not as a bundle as some tams may receive more media coverage than others (for example, the BBC have a gallery of a recent Bullets-Blitz match). It should also be noted that all university teams are covered by Britball Now, which I believe would count as an independent third-party source. I also believe it's wrong to say that a team's notability is governed by the number of spectators alone - there are plenty of sports teams who get small attendances but still qualify for a page on Wikipedia. Apart from that, I suggest a Strong Keep for Glasgow Tigers (by virtue of them being a BAFL team - the senior and university teams really should have separate pages, but that's by the by). Bettia (rawr!) 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To add, BBC also have a gallery of last seasons UWE v Bath game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.13.103 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This is a fairly large league in terms of number of players playing a sport all over the UK watched by a relative large number of fans (our local team can get quite a crowd). How are some of the small soccer or rugby clubs (eg Leith_Athletic_F_C with less members and less fans going to seem more important than these. Where do you stop? Yes a lot of the articles need tidying and better references but definatly not remove. And I would say some Uni's would contest the fact that noone outside their universities support them. JamesCollins (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nominated as a group, keep as a group. First, I note that some article have already survived stand-alone AfDs, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrey Stingers. Second, the group is too large to allow for a reasonably well-considered deletion of then en masse. Finally, if any remedy is needed for the articles, it's merger—and that's a subset of the keep outcome anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep You have got to be kidding me. My old coach would have killed someone if he'd read this. I'd just come on to Wikipedia hopeing to find some info on my old team (Plymouth) and find some idiots stuck a delete at the top. UK uni football is big in uni's that run it (well all the ones round the south coast anyway) and this info should definatly be kept. 83.104.87.89 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. The fact remains no-one has actually demonstrated that any one of these teams meets the general notability guideline - we have not seen a single reliable and independent source that gives any of these teams significant coverage. The idea that a BBC Local picture gallery confers notability seems slightly bizarre - is this mosque notable, solely by virtue of being the subject of a BBC Local picture gallery? What about this event? I am also inclined to believe that had I posted 40 identical AFD's, I'd have had people complaining that I should have put consolidated them into one. Pfainuk talk 19:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the galleries, strictly speaking that would probably count as third-party independant coverage (as required by WP:N), although it would probably need further sources to beef them up. The point I was making by posting that gallery (and perhaps one I should've made clearer - apologies for that) is that coverage DOES exist for BUAFL teams (and the BBC is a very major source, I might add). More importantly, such sources exist outside Google, hence the need for WP:GHITS. When looking for sources on any subjects such as these, it's sometimes necessary to narrow down the searches to a more local level. As far as your complaint above about no-one providing a source giving significant independant coverage, I have already demonstrated that with Britball Now - it is independant from any team, gives coverage to the uni teams, and it's the biggest resource on American football in this country. Hot Iron is another site focusing solely on the Scottish teams, and I believe First Down magazine also covers these teams. I also want to draw attention to the already-closed AfD provided by C.Fred as it makes an extremely valid point - the size of any of the teams is irrelevant, what's relevant is the fact that they form part of a large, national competition. These teams aren't playing in a tinpot local competition to see who gets the drinks in after the game, they're competing for the right to be the best uni team in the UK. I've participated in a number of AfDs regarding sports teams, and the single most overriding factor is the status of the league they play in - if a league is of a high enough standing, that confers notability on every team that competes (or has competed) within it. In this case, the BUAFL is the top tier in the country at which they can compete, therefore all these teams ARE notable enough. Bettia (rawr!) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is rather that the fact that this is the highest they can get to doesn't necessarily mean much. I competed at university level in another sport, in competitions to see which was the best university team in the region and in the country. I shouldn't think even the eventual champions would be considered notable in general, let alone our team which generally had some difficulty qualifying. Wikipedia doesn't have articles even for the federations we were members of, let alone the individual teams (though this comparison is clearly not a valid argument to delete the articles noted here). I think that these teams are not notable enough for our guidelines, but I reckon I've said that enough times that everyone who reads this knows what I think, and so now might be a good time for me to step back from this. Pfainuk talk 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Once again I draw your attention to previously stated proof of notability; firstly the piece on BBC News on Southampton Stags after they won the College Championship Game 07/08. Another is the fact that Birmingham Lions get over 2000 supporters to their Xplosion game each season. All the above teams get substaintial coverage on the BUAFl website and also the BAFA website. Under Wiki's own Notability Guidelines: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Brynprice (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There is coverage on a number of teams but it is not all on one non-official site or online. Stirling are reguarly in their student newspaper but this is hard copy and not online. Apart from the official league site, team sites, fans pages and multiple forums (which brynprice mentioned), there are loads of one off sites and reports online - just type a team name into Google. I came back with several forums discussing the 2005 and 2006 seasons for the Bees, coverage on NFLUK.com for several teams and Portsmouth press releases in various places.

You cannot say there is not enough sources for this just becase they aren't mentioned on the articles which still need work - 90% of the articles on Wikipedia seem to need more work. Let's get some of these sources onto the pages and add records, team members etc so people can come on to here and find information about these teams rather than a generic page with little information or a page so full of information it's large and unreadable (I don't think we can have even a basic summary, results and roster for over 30 teams on one single page and keep the size down to within Wikipedia standards).JamesCollins (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close discussion and renominate separately - group nominations aren't acceptable if individual articles have already survived an AfD, as has been pointed out before. matt91486 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as above. If not for that issue, I would tend to favor keep, as they are the top university/college teams in a sport within a country. No, it's not nearly as big a deal as college football in the States, but it's the best Britain has. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTS Students' Association

fails WP:ORG, contains no references. contains no third party evidence of notability Michellecrisp (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the necessary sources to meet WP:ORG. The union is already mentioned in the main university article, a section that can be expanded if necessary. TerriersFan (talk)
Delete, per nom. Does not pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject, and trying to haphazardly merge it into the university article would make that article worse. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any suggestion that the merge should be haphazard. Stating "Notable subject" is not a valid argument; notability is defined in WP:N and you need to add sources to meet this guideline. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rebecca. There should be sources on the group going back to the VSU debate days, but I bet no one checked that. Student unions should be inherently notable, unlike student clubs. JRG (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that students unions are supposed to be "inherently notable"? There is nothing of the sort in WP:ORG or in any of the pending (or even rejected) notability proposals and I don't think this opinion reflects either past practice or past consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite; student unions are not inherently notable and JRG should pursue a guideline if he wishes to establish this. "There should be sources on the group" is not a valid argument; I can find sources but they are tangential on aspects of their activities; none of the sources cover the union substantively and in detail. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above 2 comments, I've actually participated in previous deletion debates where student unions have been merged or deleted. Every organisation must meet WP:ORG to be considered "inherently notable". A Google news search reveals some stories but more a representative of the association talking to the media. Very little that actually establishes notability of this association. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google news search would only show very recent articles. At the very least you and the other anti-keeping editors should do some more thorough research before making conclusions that the page is not notable. Around the world student organisations have usually been kept. JRG (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can do a google news search on all dates and it includes material that is available on pay per article news services. I still stand by my assertion of it not being notable through lack of third party evidence which I haven't been able to find. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Student organisations are generally the largest grouping at a university and are normally politically active. There will be oodles of source material should someone care to visit a library rather than rely on what google spits out. Certainly, the average student union would be considerably more notable than the average high school, lets say. Lastly, guidelines shouldn't be created de novo. Instead guidelines should be developed as the distillation of what is common practice. In this case, JRG, by suggesting that student unions are inherently notable, is attempting to get the ball rolling (Note that I disagree with his premise, nothing is inherently notable and all article topics should satisfy the primary criterion of WP:N) If, in enough cases the notability or otherwise of student unions is established, then a guideline can be created that summarises the arguments for that position. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Major student union at major tertiary institution. Inherently meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources independent of UTS or the student association indicating that the organization meets WP:ORG. AfD is not cleanup, but it is a place to discuss whether or not deletion is appropriate. Unless the appropriate reliable sources can be found demonstrating notability, deletion seems most appropriate (as most student organizations of colleges and universities do not meet WP:ORG. B.Wind (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thunderlords

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Doing songs for bestselling games and award winning games does not show notability because notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Had a hard time deciding on this one and reading great numbers of pages. What it does come down to is that within the gaming community they appear notable, and at the same time have a following as a "heavy metal for kids" band. News sources have discussed them over the space of three years. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I have seen news stories and online articles mention them independent of the Tony Hawk games. Weak keep. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added a reference, a Los Angeles Times article about the band, which says the album charted in the US, Belgium and Australia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 17:47, 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 Speedy deleted G7 Author request. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. Matthew McMahon

Non-notable author/web designer. Lots of self-published books and sources cited that are run by the author himself, so some concern over whether he is in fact notable. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Borders on spam. Definitely appears to be self-promotion. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. With all due respect to Mr. McMahon, he is the first and only author of the material here, material that rightly belongs on his "Goategg" user page. Where, in fact, it already is. --Lockley (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteThis is a biographical entry. There has to be one person to start the article, if you don't like it, change it to serve yourself. Who is notable and has renown anyway - what Us and People magazine tell us has renown? Can't be a self promotion if he didn't write it. I am not C. Matthew McMahon. I have never met the man. He live in Florida, I live in Minnesota. Goategg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

Delete. Little independent cover(a)ge of him personally or of his writings. Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, and I also agree it appears to be self promotion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cause who the hell cares. I just spent several hours of my life that I will never get back but I guess if someone needs to add criticism instead of just facts to make it a balanced article, so be it. Just delete it and get it over with. Goategg (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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Gilligan's Island

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The New Gilligan's Island

Extremely non-notable television program. Apparently it's being aired at a middle school in Nevada? However, I find no mention of it anywhere through Google. And even if we did, I'm not sure it'd meet the notable guidelines. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. However, am I on crack or was there a real "New Gilligan's Island" TV show sometime in the 80s? --Kickstart70-T-C 16:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Planet? Zagalejo^^^ 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and then redirect to The Real Gilligan's Island, the similarly named reality television program. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both A fairly elaborate hoax. I can appreciate the nominator's reluctance about wrongly accusing someone of hoaxstery, but this is the work of several people having some fun, particularly in their rewrite of the list of episodes. "If you spent this much time doing your homework, you wouldn't be making C's and D's, for crying out loud." Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either hoax or "something made up in school one day". Sources given are just generic websites. Perhaps redirect to The Real Gilligan's Island as a possible search term. 23skidoo (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is real, it's a non-notable public access show, but it's most likely a nade up hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:02, 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) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Madigan-Fried

No evidence of notability, no sources cited, fails Google News test with only one minor result, no evidence that HMMA is a major organization. Possible vanity page. Decided not to speedy since he does assert notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a local actor. JJL (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Young actor in non-notable local productions. The HMMA page on Freewebs looks hoaxish. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, no sourcing. --Nate 14 81 11:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author claims to be the subject, making this an autobio. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:27, 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 Deleted and userfied per author's request. Maybe it will be improved and reposted, then it can go through procedure again if needed. --Tone 07:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hartmann (USN)

Contested prod, the reason was No notability established whatsoever. Just happened to be in charge of a unit when it received an aircraft. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 09:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable U.S. Navy commander who fails WP:MILMOS#NOTE in every respect. References only mention him in passing. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is, quite likely, not acceptable per general notability criteria, but why did you invoke an in-project essay that is non-binding even for the project members? There are too many user groups with their local rules; don't expect non-members to follow them. NVO (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essays like WP:OUTCOMES, WP:HAMMER, and WP:AIRCRASH may not be binding, but they can provide useful guidance about the subject matter at hand. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice it was just an essay (though the criteria seem to be those used in military Afd's anyway). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Big ticket delivery but still fairly routine with primarily in-house interest. Without the unsubstantiated notability claim, this would be an A7 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely non-notable.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 04:36, 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 and salt G3 Vandalism . Mattinbgn\^talk 10:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Shaddock

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Shaddock (2nd nomination)

Speedy contested. Investigation found recreation of previous article. In the meantime editor copied the page on Peter Hans Kolvenbach substituting Tom Shaddock throughout. Recommend delete with salt. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlesy Volleyball League

Not notable. I can find no reference to Cowlesy + Volleyball. The article seems very similar in tone to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunchtime Basketball Association article. I would have suggested speedy, but would prefer to assume good faith and ask for consensus. The names of the team's players are almost certainly nom de guerres which causes further suspicion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) — no assertion of notability whatsoever. Also has other obvious problems such as WP:SPAM. MuZemike (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per MuZemike. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why this is even here. Should be A7'd. Beano (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I'm sure why this is here- because the CVL is a legitimate league and just because it doesn't have any facts about it on the internet, which is you lots only source of information, doesn't mean it is not real. The league is brilliant and I often go to watch it to see the likes of up and coming talents such as Ali Legmeister and Cowlesy Stojakovic. This wikipedia page may make more people aware of the league and increase volleyballs popularity in the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim'spirates (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with WP:ORG and WP:N. This will help you understand why this article is being considered for deletion. There is nothing in the article that mentions why this organization is notable for an encyclopedia. I tried looking the Cowlesy Volleyball League up for you, and I found nothing about this organization at all. Beano (talk) 01:36, 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 Speedy delete G3 Complete and utter bollocks. Mattinbgn\^talk 09:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besma Ali

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Besma Ali

Obvious case of complete bollocks, this seems to be a fictional vanity article for a teenager. Among the many absurdities, it claims that she has had 31 number ones in the States and 45 in Britain (nobody has ever had this many; not Elvis Presley, not the Beatles, and certainly not a seventeen year old girl), and that she recorded famous singles like Can't Get You out of My Head (I think you'll find that was someone else). Blatant enough to qualify as vandalism I think, but I'm bored edit warring with the creator and an IP over the speedy tag so bringing it here for hopefully a quick snowball delete. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. Per nom. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 09:06, 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 before official closing. --Tone 11:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Perrin

Not notable, seems like made up giberish Omegacommand (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:18, 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 delete (G11) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hodderway books

Blatent Ad Omegacommand (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when I explore Google I find that Hodderway are actually a professional writing company who will write your essays and term papers for you. I suspect that they are trading on the similarity of their name to Hodder Headline. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as advertising. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 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. The discussion about merging or stubbifying can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge Antilles

Article consists entirely of in-universe cruft, and does not contain any factual information or sources. If deletion is out of the question, it should be merged into the main SW characters page. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with recommendations to cut the in-universe content severely. Apparently an Empire (magazine) poll voted him the "favorite minor character" of the Star Wars movies, so he has received some recognition. [15] [16] And the character's being prominent in some Star Wars novels and videogames should count for something. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I recommend clean up with more cited sources. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wedge may have been a minor character, but in a major movie that spawned... well, a ton of stuff. Absent a clear Fictonal elements guideline that says he should be deleted, I don't see a particular reason do anything other than send it back for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - featured in too many VGs, films, and books. Hundreds of trivial references exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make drastic efforts to improve the article with out of universe material. Wedge is certainly a very notable character, so deleting/merging would be ill-advised unless the article can't be improved.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. Perfectly viable subject for an article, as this is a recurring character in the Star Wars universe, both in the original trilogy and in the expanded universe franchise. Plenty of notability there. 23skidoo (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion request may be withdrawn at any time. Still, there needs to be an easier way to bring completely in-universe articles such as this to attention, because templates and discussion page posts more often than not go ignored. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of SW characters. Fails WP:PLOT and WP:N even w/ above suggested cleanup, and unless significant secondary sources can be found, there is no need for this much character detail, failing the out-of-universe aspect of WP:WAF - though obviously a brief description of the character shouldn't be lost - the current text can go to Wookiepedia. (The only possible secondary source I can think of is how Wedge is a name of recurring Final Fantasy minor characters in the same light, but that is trivial). --MASEM 13:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify but keep. A dominant character in a host of EU material -- X-Wing comics and books, player's character in the Rogue Squadron series -- and I'm confident a topic of some third-party commentary (of only mildly beyond jokes as "the other guy who attacks the Death Star" in some "I love the 70s" VH1 special). Anyway, prominent enough in a broad enough array of Things and probably the recipient of enough third-party coverage/discussion. But, yeah, stubbify the hell out of it. --EEMIV (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as this is an important character in the Star Wars universe who had received significant coverage in many out-of-universe sources, much of it for being the only human non-lead character to survive all three original movies. - Dravecky (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but only on the basis of the poll mentioned in the first response here. Otherwise I can not see that he would be appropriate for a full article. But that poll can be argued to count as a notable award. DGG (talk) 00:04, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catia Lee Love

WP:BLP1E - she won Miss Gay America (which redirects) in 2000. No gBooks hits, gNews hits, and most (if not all) gWeb hits are self promotional. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches for her real name (Aron Harvey) bring up a few more hits, but no RS. Icewedge (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:01, 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 existing article The John Fisher School as boldly done by Eastmain. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Fisher School (purley)

No third-party references, notability not established. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom; not notable. Knippschild (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and purely promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 06:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The John Fisher School. This is a notable secondary school in England, and an article for it already existed. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 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 db-spam. Schuym1 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StudentFilmmakers Magazine

Promotional tone, notability not established, no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — contains spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam... MuZemike (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ugh. JuJube (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: db-spam. Schuym1 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged it as such. Schuym1 (talk) 13:51, 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 keep. Notability demonstrated, unanimous keep (6 voters). Non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Hospital

Created by an apparent COI SPA; promotional tone. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling (same author, same topic):

--KurtRaschke (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subjects are notable as hospitals and there is enough NPOV material to make a usable stub (working on them right now). nneonneo ^talk 04:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Promotional tone is something to be fixed, not a reason for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles about nonprofit organizations. A lot aren't even notable. Just keep it. There's no problem.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - uhm, tone is fine, notability is demonstrated, per WP:N. Wily D 10:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability demonstrated by Eastmain's references. If not for those sources, I would have preferred "delete". Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since when was tone a reason for deletion? If we deleted every article with a problem that was created, we'd have practically no new articles at all. Wikipedia is here for you to edit. Furthermore, meets WP:N. — neuro^(talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and make this a disambiguation page, because there are literally dozens and dozens of "Baptist Hospitals" in the US, and there's no good reason why Nashville's "Baptist Hospital" should be at that page name instead of, say, Memphis', or Oklahoma City's, or Lousiville's, or Miami's, or... WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 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) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Report: Internet Technology & Democracy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Report: Internet Technology & Democracy

Essay-like, no third-party sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — if anything, for spamming. MuZemike (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, badly fails what Wikipedia is not. I wanted to speedy this, but I couldn't think of any category under which it fits. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's almost original research, though it was not published for the first time on wikipedia. It doesn't belong here. I also want to speedy it but can't think of a reason. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYSurfFilmFestival

Created by a COI SPA; no reliable sources, notability not established, and a whole bunch of spam links at the bottom. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — this is like a Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. MuZemike (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a lifelong Monty Python fan I'm embarrassed to say that it actually took me a minute before I got this. Best AfD vote. Ever. 70.55.153.197 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Surfer Magazine is a reliable source, albeit a specialized one, then notability is established through the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - COI is not a criterion for deletion, especially where notability is demonstrated and the article is pretty reasonable. Wily D 10:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but an experienced editor needs to substantially rewrite it - it's very COI/spammy, but the event itself appears notable. It needs to be rewritten to remove the sponsors and the trivial detail. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with a need to seriously cut all the spam, per above. I added a cite news to the surfermag Web article in the lead.70.55.153.197 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Despite the aforementioned hit in some surfing media, it should be stated there is no credible coverage in any film-related media or New York-based media. This needs to be overhauled dramatically -- it would probably work better as a stub. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:24, 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 redirect to Christian Brothers High School (Sacramento, California). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian brothers sacramento

Notability not established, no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian Brothers High School (Sacramento, California). This is a notable high school, and there already is an article about it. Redirect to the existing article at Christian Brothers High School (Sacramento, California). -- Eastmain (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as redirected. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as redirected. No need to protract this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 01:46, 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 snowball keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vapor-Liquid-Solid method

WP:NOT a cookbook; no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a recipe; actually, a very significant scientific process for which there are many references from which it can be expanded. See here and here for example. Also see here and here. Smile a While (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability and verifiability requirements for inclusion, as Smile a While has shown. Lots of room for expansion. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability demonstrated - subtopic has article in print encyclopaedia - Wily D 10:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability standards. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a recipe, any more than Painting is. No reason to delete. Fg2 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to the article and the references that have been added. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Vapor-liquid-solid method (or process, or whatever). Liquid and solid are not proper nouns. --Itub (talk) 11:53, 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 snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Chavez

Nothing in this article really explains why this person is notable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanitas vanitatum. The 'sources' are strange/incomplete, to say the least; the claim of an award from Entrepreneur Magazine could not be verified on the magazine's website. This is nothing but vanity, without any notability proven. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--author claimed not to have been Chavez, or to be working for him, but this and this suggest otherwise. Let's add COI to the non-notability issue. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and it reeks of shameless advertising. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first, let me just say that I disagree with Beemer69. In fact, I had an article made about Bexley Pizza Plus and it was removed because someone said it was advertising and it's just horrible to say that. But just my opinion. Yeah, delete. No one knows who this guy is. Non notable.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, seems reasonably promotional to me. — neuro^(talk) 13:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well... I found this Nicholas Chavez resume on IMDB, I found an award here, I found his name in conjunction with Entrepreneur Magazine, I found him interviewed, I found articles about his company [17][18][19][20]... and the best I can come up with is that his firm may have notability, but he does not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE DELETE DELETE! PLEASE DELETE! This is Nicholas Chavez. Please delete this godforsaken article, it is a constant pain having to deal with the associated libelous vandalism. Please, please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.69.221 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Not worth keeping given the trouble it has caused the subject. John Reaves 20:25, 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 International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Since I suspect that there will be those in both camps who will be curious as to my reasoning in this closing, I will try to explain. First, I did not consider the three articles that were withdrawn from the AfD - Canada, Japan and ~~Australia~~ Iceland; those articles are closed as Keep. The nomination primarily addressed a lack of sources showing notability for each of the remaining articles to exist in stand-alone form. This complaint was not rebutted by those arguing for the articles to be kept. Instead, the underlying thread of the discussion seemed to be that there was a certain inherent notability to relations between nations. The keep !votes also frequently pointed to the likelihood that the articles would be improved and expanded as sources appeared. I felt that on the whole, the failure of the articles to demonstrate notability through reliable sources indicated that they failed our inclusion guideline to exist as separate articles. The fact that sources were able to be found for the three articles that were withdrawn from the discussion further illustrated that this was not a case in which it was impossible to show notability, but rather one in which there was simply a lack of sources to do so. The reason for merger instead of deletion is that our deletion policy indicates that when an article fails to demonstrate notability, but there is verifiable information, the preference is to merge. The delete !votes as a group did not make a case against merger, but against the articles' separate existence. In the end, it may be little difference as the essential content of these articles appears to be present at the target, however, I will attempt to add to it any significant missing content from the articles being merged. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan–Kosovo relations

The articles being nominated describe trivial relations which are otherwise covered at International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Deep searches done on the articles being nominated in this batch have not yielded any materials which would expand on these "relations" beyond the fact that non-Kosovo country recognises Kosovo. There is no evidence of notable relations between Kosovo and the countries listed in terms of political, economic, cultural, trade or transport ties. I have not touched some of the Kosovo-European country relations articles as each of those will need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons presented above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whoa, that's some list--but all the articles are basically the same, and nominator is correct--the 'factness' of the individual articles is covered under the main article referred to, even more comprehensively than on the individual articles--which, I concur, should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with Drmies and the nominator, all of the articles here, for right now, just contain the exact same information as the main topic article. I would say that we have to give this about 10 years before we even consider writing stub-like articles on this topic about relations between Kosovo and foo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are stubs and will be improved in the near future. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kosovo relations, we can improve the articles and save them from deleting. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 07:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For some areas, it will be damn near impossible to add information to. So those will have to be merged and deleted. For some areas, like Japan, I could have a chance to save if I can add information from relations pre-2008. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Turkish Flame, I have been very careful which articles I have nominated for AfD, in that there are no actual relations past the recognition of Kosovo's independence. They can't very well be expanded, no more could Belize-Nauru relations have anything past their diplomatic recognition. Or take Abkhazia–Russia relations; yes, it's a stub at the moment, and will be developed in future, due to the signing of various treaties between the two countries, in addition to the political, military, cultural, economic, and soon transport, ties between the two; so the article has a lot of growth potential; as does the analog South Ossetia-Russia article. However, Abkhazia–Nicaragua relations would not be a viable article due to there being no notable relations beyond Nicaragua's recognition of A & SO. Another editor recently put the Nauru–United Kingdom relations up for AfD, after I removed the prod which was placed based only upon the Kosovo–Nauru relations article, and that survived because there are notable relations between the UK and Nauru; another of the currently existing articles is Nauru–Russia relations; at first glance, again its currently a stub, one wouldn't think there would be notable relations between the two countries, and its welcome to be tested at AfD if need be, but once one digs somewhat, one would find that the Russian mafia funnelled some US$70 billion in the 1990s/early 2000s through the 'banks' in Nauru, and much was written about this and intervention by the Central Bank of Russia, etc. Whilst being a stub is not grounds for deletion, we as a project need to ascertain whether there are any notable relations beyond an ordinary act of recognition of independence, which we can use to build a viable article. It is upon that basis, and that basis alone, that I have nominated the listed articles after searching for those notable relations, whilst at the same time leaving the majority of the European articles alone in order for notable relations, beyond simple recognition, to be found so that they may be expanded into an article the likes of the Kosovo-France article. Not all countries are going to have viable bilateral relations articles for WP, and those that I have nominated unfortunately fall into that category. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. If any of these countries do go further than merely recognising the existence of Kosovo as an independent nation, then by all means create the particular article. However, I suspect that most of these bilateral relationships are in the nature of the Kosovo-Nauru relations article, for which the consensus was delete. I agree with the nominator that the European articles will have to be examined one by one, but these can be dealt with in a group. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The articles, like the subject itself, are relatively new. They are likely to be expanded in the near future. (In a certain case, there was some info that couldn't be found or deduced elsewhere, and that was the fact that Afghanistan was the first country to recognize the independence)

In my mind, they are not content forks.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The fact that Afghanistan was the first country to recognise Kosovo is covered at International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - patently silly nomination. Relationships between countries are "big deals" - to take the opening example, it's very easy to find good sources to demonstrate it's notability; see [21] for the first I found. Obviously as Kosovo is a young country, not all relationships it has are enough to write featured articles about - but there's demonstrated notability, and there's encyclopaedic necessity here. WilyD 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you linked states: "Afghanistan has "no economic or commercial links with Kosovo whatsoever. The reason for the recognition was just to keep America happy....."; trivial information such as the act of recognition of Kosovo independence is covered succinctly at International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the two above -- C D 13:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above, but also throw in a little crystal balling. That some of these articles may end up having a reason to exist in the future is not cause for them to be here now. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be decided on a case by case basis only. Certainly keep Japan–Kosovo relations as quite notable ([22], [23], J. Gilson, Japan in Kosovo: lessons in the politics of 'complex engagement'. Japan Forum 12.1 (2000) and many more), as well as Canada–Kosovo relations (perhaps even more notable), you might wish to withdraw these particular nominations, not sure about the rest. Colchicum (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relations between countries are important articles, even if they don't adhere to the strict Wikipedia standards. They can, and likely will, get updated and cleaned up with new information. A request to delete them is pointless and entirely unnecessary. --alchaemia (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the Wikipedia policy on stubs has been to expand them and not to delete them. It is a brilliant idea of the author--whoever he/she may be--to have these articles on Wikipedia. I urge you to keep the articles and contribute to their expansion. I will try to make some improvements when I get the chance.--Getoar (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them all There is nothing trivial about these articles. Some of the articles are small and don't contain much information, but we should not delete them for been stubs. They can be expanded in the future when relations develop more. If these articles are to be deleted then every stub on wikipedia should be deleted too. Ijanderson (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that they have not been nominated for being stubs, but rather because there are no notable relations between Kosovo and Afghanistan, or the other countries nominated. There are no trade, political, economic, transport, cultureal ties, etc which one could write about at this time. The same way I described above that Belize-Nauru relations would not be a viable article, only due to the fact that beyond the fact they recognise each other as sovereign states, there are no relations of any sort between the two. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except maybe Japan, Canada and Australia articles. These three have a chance of establishing notability and can be examined again soon. If we were to keep all the rest we might as well create a similar article for every country recognizing Kosovo in the future, a complete waste of space. Greece and Romania which have not recognized yet have more notable relations with Kosovo then most of these countries. These are clear content forks with no obvious prospective for expansion.--Zakronian (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, especially Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the first country to recognize Kosovo, making the article inherently notable. As for the others, relations between countries are inherently notable. I think deeper searches will reveal some level of relations between many of these countries.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 5 minutes of google searches found a page on the Japanese foreign ministry's web site entitled "Japan-Kosovo relations". They've exchanged high level diplomats and politicians! Even if other are deleted, Japan-Kosovo relations MUST be kept in light of this simple source. Also, I've found a reference and slight expanded Iceland-Kosovo relations.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend closure and relist separately - This is just a "for the record" opinion as at the moment the "keep all" or "keep most" side seems to be prevailing. I can't see how a blanket AFD could work for this. Some of these may be perfectly notable, while others may be too trivial. But it's impossible to judge in this venue. If I had my way I'd close this and relist them separately so they can be judged on their own viability. As I say, this is just for the record as a response to the format of this nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to exist--Giorgos Kollias (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there maybe some relations between any of these countries at any time, there is no point in deleting them. It is to show what relation they have between each other, even recognising the country will do by minimum requirements. These articles can be expanded in the future hopefully. Mohsin (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article on Kosovo. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kosovo and Metohija has no "relations" with these countries. These nations were just told by their masters to recognize and they followed orders like sheep. Nothing else will happen. These articles are trivial, lack substance, and are a waste of space. --Tocino 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Tocino above has used POV wording in his opposition by referring to Kosovo as "Kosovo and Metohija" and that "they followed orders like sheep", this may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHIS and his comments should be removed. Ijanderson (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Metohija is the official name of the Serbian province. Keeping these worthless articles is a violation of WP:POVFORK. --Tocino 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no violation. Please stop your denial of the truth.Max Mux (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "they followed orders like sheep"? --ProgressiveAeternus (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination for Canada, Iceland and Japan only I am withdrawing the nomination for Canada, Iceland and Japan only from this nomination. I am only withdrawing these on the basis of allowing people to find sources to build a proper article, and will revisit them sometime in the future. As to the rest, the nomination stands based upon the reasons given in the nomination. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Relations between the partially recognized state and other states are as important as state-to-state relations, if not even more on the recognition policy between them. RoyalMate1 02:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability in any that I checked, in fact no usefull information at all. Being a stub is not an insurance policy to keep ultimately worthless articles. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The articles can stay under the stub label, and further sources will be available soon. --ProgressiveAeternus (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and recreate individual pages as soon as there is substantially more to write about the topic than "X–Kosovan relations are foreign relations between X and Kosovo. Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008 and X recognized it on DD MMMM YYYY." — Kpalion^(talk) 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent of Ireland and Nauru--Avala (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - I'll admit that the selection of countries here seems quite peculiar but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and nobody would have battered an eyelid if it was a smiliar length article started like United States-Peru relations. We must try to be as neutral as possible and undoubtedly there is potential content to be added on any bilateral relations however "obscure" the countries may appear to us"westerners"Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the one which contain non trivial information. I don't care if this is Kosovo or not. The last month a whole series of XXX-YYY relations articles appeared. I, myself, have nominated other articles for deletion that have nothing to do with Kosovo. My rationale is this: If there exist N countries, they are N*N(-1)/2 different articles to be created with the vast majority with no special content. If a country X recognises a country Y and they both want have relationships, it's completely normal that X has an embassy in Y and the opposite. Nothing out of the ordinary. I recommend creation of these articles if a non-trivial information exists. The recognition of Kosovo is not that case because we have a whole article doing only this. If so unhappy that our article for the Nauru–Russia relations just says that these countries have ambassadors to each other and the only non trivia relationship is that "Nauru was a financer of the mafia in Russia during the 1990s". Is this about the relationship of the two countries? Conclusion, delete these and recreate if there is really something to be written. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it save time by just requesting they be expanded rather than deletinh and starting again? On your view of wikipedia we ought to delete every stub we have because there is nothing fully adequate currently written about them. Wikipedia is an ongoing development and project, potentially article about any bilateral relations between countries are encyclopedic whatever the country and there are undoubtedly editors who will come along, see a lacking article and try to expand it, thats the principle of wikipedia and how we have grown to date. Prime example France–Kosovo relations. I suggest that somebody google to see what can be written about them, If little or nothing can be added then delete or create redirects to the parent article which is probably the best thing to do at this stage. There are hundreds of other seemingly more pointless articles by country like Togo at the 1996 Summer Olympics, Nauru at the 1996 Summer Olympics etcwhich are similar and probably less could be written about them than these Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't believe that we have to delete every stub. On the other hand, I am not very confident that we ll have enough feedback to create a good article about Costa Rica–Kosovo relations in the next months for example. It reminds me like when someone asked to create stubs for all villages using a bot. I don't know what happened with that case. I think we have to establish some rules, similar to WP:SCHOOLS! Before establishing this, everyone was adding a school. We must reach a consensus when we think a X-Y relations article should exist. I not we end up with thousands of articles with no content. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, Wikipedia:Why should I care?. P.S. if you didn't know Blofeld's history, the village comment is unintentionally hilarious. MickMacNee (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know the story, I'm sorry. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Palestine surly doesnt have this type of template. In all fairness, both Kosovo, Palestine, are in the same legal situation.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Precedent decisions in virtually the same cases:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barackman

Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 03:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a few hits on Google, so there's no lack of third-party sources. However, the subject itself is non-notable, and there's conflict of interest as well; the article was posted by user "SBarackman." sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 06:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, autobiographic article. Found no hits on news search. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:58, 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 speedy redirect to Kinnikuman_anime-original_characters#Baracky.. chaser - t 03:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baracky

Not notable. A mention in one news transcript about the Baracky song is not enough information and there appears to be little to no other reliable source information. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Also, there is nothing to disambiguate. What it comes down to is that there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "anime character so onomatopoeiacally named" is not notable either. -- Suntag ☼ 03:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The YouTube link is dead since YouTube has removed the video due to copyright problems. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A1 Not enough context. Which anime? How is this onomatopopopipppiopopiea? (I can never spell that right.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:09, 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 redirect to Rickrolling. History retained if an editor wants to adapt it into the Rickrolling article, but would have to use approrpriate sources to do so. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Roll

Not notable. A three sentence mention in one news article is not enough information and there appears to be little to no other reliable source information. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL What it comes down to is that there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no relevant sources. Just another video, really. JuJube (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge this into the rickrolling article. It's something very similar to Rickrolling and was created by the same person. This doesn't deserve it's own article, though. In fact, another reason to merge is because.. pretty much all you need is a sentence. Most of the information on this Barack Roll article isn't really much of anything. PS: The video sucked. Hehe. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with possible redirect to Rickrolling#Other. Barack Roll is already mentioned there.Danski14^(talk) 14:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on rick-rolling, without prejudice against splitting it back out if more information becomes available. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rickrolling#Other. McWomble (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) Peacock (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NAC. This is an WP:IAR close. Schuym1 (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A.'s third studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M.I.A.'s third studio album

WP:NOT a crystal ball. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:HAMMER says it all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make this article MIA with a crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CBALL. Not enough substantial coverage on it yet. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 06:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystalhammer. No one knows much about the third studio album. It might not even be released in 2009. You know how these albums are.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it can be recreated when an album title is announced and more info comes to light later on. Cookie90 (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These rushed crystal album articles are getting beyond ridiculous now. Her new album came out three months ago! Gah, hammer it up. Nate • (chatter) 10:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually came out in August of 2007 Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I confused it with Paper Planes. Still no change in vote though. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, WP:CRYSTAL. — neuro^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Belongs in artist's page for now. Cliff smith ^talk 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Of all the listed things in this page, nothing actually says that she's even in the studio yet. Just clips from interviews of what she might do on her third album. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. This article can be recreated when more information is available. Lady★Galaxy 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, looks like the page is gone now. All we need is just an admin to close this up. Lady★Galaxy 03:11, 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. Non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS John S. McCain

There are only two USS John S. McCain ships and they are hat noted in each of the two article on those ships. Since the two article already link directly to the other ship article, USS John S. McCain is not needed. -- Suntag ☼ 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is standard for all ships who have the same name. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hatnotes are useful, but if someone types in "USS John S. McCain" (or its redirect, "USS John McCain"), they might not know this; if we delete the article, they might think that there's no ship of this name or that we don't have one. Moreover, neither one is the primary topic, so it wouldn't be good to make this a redirect to either of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for navigation. Zagalejo^^^ 03:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nyttend says it best: Good for navigation and search purposes, and a disambiguation is favourable in this case, where neither ship is a primary topic. It is common practice to have two-ship disambiguation pages for exactly these reasons, and if/when the United States Navy gives this or a similar name to a future warship, hatnote-ing becomes more complicated. -- saberwyn 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Very notable ship.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is suggesting that we delete the article on the ship. Punkmorten (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sensible disambiguation page needed to make a functional encyclopaedia; Wily D 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any issues, also per Nyttend. — neuro^(talk) 13:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard ship thing - causes no problems and helps search. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the event that someone searches for "USS John S. McCain". Punkmorten (talk) 17:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London College of Spirituality

School is not notable: commercial institution advertised in an article without any coverage. I have not been able to find relevant and independent coverage of the subject; the links on the organization's website are to advertisements, very brief notifications of their opening, and to 'press TV' programs. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as written is essentially an advertisement, sourced only to the institution's own self-advertising website. In its current form, it deserves to be deleted. However, the article asserts that the "college" has been covered in magazines and on BBC. Also, I got numerous Google hits for it, mostly to websites of astrologers, tarot readers, mind-body therapists, and other purveyors of New-Age/alternative stuff, mostly announcing or describing their activities in connection with this institution. This leads me to think that the entity may be deserving of an article (i.e. "notable"). If the promotional elements of the article were removed and citations to the independent reliable sources were provided, this would deserve to be kept. --Orlady (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--sure, but again, I have not been able to find anything that wasn't advertising and that I considered to be independent and trustworthy. If someone can provide such articles, it's a different story, obviously--but I do want to make it clear that I did in fact look for such coverage. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the claims of being well received by the press are not backed up with sourcing. In attempting to find such sourcing, I turned up none. Barring the appearance of these sources, there is no evidence for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = All I'm finding in Google for this place are copies of its public relations press release saying that it opened less than a year ago. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not seem to be an academic institution, clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reni Lane

COI, doesn't seem to be notable. Sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete She is a presence at Columbia, and a legitimate artist with several shows coming up in the next few months.
Delete. Yes, not notable, and no on the sources. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KurtRaschke (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been updated to include more current sources. Also, Reni LAINE the old page had several other links.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.0.16 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC) — 96.246.0.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment page needs history merge with the old location, so the possible CoI is not as large as it appears now. – Sadalmelik ☎ 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any reliable sources under "Reni Laine" either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had noticed this after a questionable move. I just don't see the sources that would verify it, particularly since it has been here so long. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 20:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per PHARMBOYOo7565 (talk) 19:15, 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. I'll do a history merge, and everyone will remember to use the "Move" function or WP:RM so we don't have to mess with this stuff, right? :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seat Cupra Championship

no need for this to be here, as there is already SEAT Cupra Championship. Cs-wolves (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The articles look pretty similar. If there's anything in this one that's missing from the other, just copy it over and turn this one into a redirect. No need for AfD really. —KCinDC (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created with a typo for SEAT. I transfered all content to the at the time non existent SEAT Cupra Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylesburyape (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have moved it rather than copying the content. Now someone has to transfer any changes from the old article to the new one and change the old article into a redirect. —KCinDC (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging at editors' discretion. Since content has been merged, edit histories should be preserved for attribution. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was done after this was pointed out. There are no transfers to be done and i write it all anyway. (Aylesburyape (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:20, 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) 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education Worldwide India

Only nontrivial coverage about this educational fair is from The Tribune. That doesn't confer enough notability to erase the strong stench of promotional editing and sockpuppetry from the page's author (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sidjain111). Blueboy 96 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree, there is little worth noting here besides the conflict of interest (deleted by an interested party, I assume). The references are weak, mostly announcements on websites. This is advertising. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not have any info which asserts its notability. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:29, 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 snowball keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

Candidate in a congressional election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ - Most politicians running for congressional office have a wikipedia page, however according to the policy WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". That sentence would constitute deletion, but if some reliable sources can be found then there is no harm in keeping it per WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article author). The candidacy has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, which is our only standard. There was a good story in The State yesterday, which I've added to the article. There have been others in the last few weeks. Chick Bowen 03:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the generic WP:N standards for substantial independent coverage. WP:POLITICIAN is supposed to augment WP:N, not overrule WP:N (and says this explicitly). Wily D 10:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like the soucres now check out with WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He won the Democratic primary. That's called an election. I really don't understand why anyone would want to pour gasoline on a fire. The general election is November 4, 2008. Anyone with any sense would wait until after that to suggest deletions. These partisan attacks on Democratic candidates aren't helpful to Wikipedia's reputation. And no, I am not going to sink to your level and start listing all the Republican candidates for deletion, as I am a responsible adult. I'm appalled you're an Administrator. Flatterworld (talk)
- Though I hope this article is kept, I don't think there's any reason to impugn Blueboy's motives--he has shown no political bias (on the other hand, you might accuse me of bias, since I wrote it because I admire Miller, though I don't live in his district). I also think there are many primary-winners who shouldn't have articles (if they haven't gotten significant press coverage). In this case, there is significant coverage, so there should be an article. Chick Bowen 03:41, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Cartoons

AfDs for this article:

One of those cases where the first AFD just got it completely wrong. A list of 100 items, presented in a defined order, is a copyright violation of the list. This article basically matches http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/cartoons/results.html in its entirety —Kww(talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because they left out The Angry Beavers and Chowder. No, seriously, companies make lists like this all the time, this one isn't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. Subject is a film which may indeed be notable, didn't realize there were more of these. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject appears to be a documentary film [24], not the list itself. Edit the list if that's the problem, and change the article's name to "The 100 Greatest Cartoons" to match the film. JJL (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; basically per JLL. Change title to The 100 Greatest Cartoons to avoid confusion. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is notable. Thousands of people have seen this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable list of random shows which probably violates C4's copyright. Nate • (chatter) 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability demonstrated. List may be removed due to copyyright concern. Wily D 10:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh come on! How is this specific time-filler any bit notable? Channel 4 has made a lot of these "The 100 Greatest X" shows (none of which are documentaries, bear that in mind) just to eat up 4 hours or so with clips and various voxpops. The damn thing is a near enough verbatim copyvio of their list and has the added benefit of not being able to adequately explain just why it is notable because it really isn't. I know there's others but really, it's a goddamn POV list and why people feel they want to keep it because it exists is beyond me. treelo _radda 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Channel 4's "100 Greatest Cartoons" and then Delete I had to laugh at the idea that this piece of fluff is a "documentary". Television networks like to do countdown shows -- greatest commercials, greatest cartoons, greatest suffragists, etc. They require virtually no writing, they're cheap to assemble from film clips and soundbite celebrity comments, people tune into them for awhile, and sometimes folks hang around for two hours for the suspense of finding out, during the last 20 minutes, what was selected "number one". I'd say the same for ratings done by "Cartoon Network" or "Nickelodeon" or "The Disney Channel". If anyone can demonstrate secondary notability (might have been the cover story for The Economist) that might be different. There is nothing from the article to indicate notability. Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:NOTE.[25][26][27][28] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about a documentary broadcast nationally in the UK by a major network. It is not a list article. As it is reporting the results of a broadcast survey, it is not copyvio, nor does it violate Wikipedia list policy. Specials, documentaries, and other programs broadcast nationally by nationally-available networks are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list in not encyclopedic. Channel 4 in 2004 conducted a public poll and then compiled this list. Channel 4 pre-selected 105 cartoons and then had a public poll rank them. Channel 4 is not an authority on this field and the poll was not scientific making the list random, biased and useless except for entertainment value. EconomistBR 11:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, haven't you been reading the discussion? The article isn't about the "list" itself. Nobody would mind if the list itself could be removed from the article, for this article is actually about the hard-hitting TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY that revealed, for the first time, that members of the British public enjoyed cartoons. Unlike any show of its kind before or since, "it included featuring the reminiscences of celebrities and media pundits interlaced with clips from the shows themselves." The night of 27 February 2005 will long be remembered as "when they showed that cartoon countdown was on Channel 4", and many a Briton today can tell you where he or she was on that evening. The list is irrelevant. It's about the documentary. And what a documentary it truly was. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to give my point. But who said it is documentary? I've never heard of documentaries about non-scientific entertainment public polls. What sort of documentary is that? Besides the article devotes 4 lines to this documentary and then lists all 100 cartoons, therefore IMO it's a list.EconomistBR 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is evidently notable. The issue raised by the nomination is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those gnews hits are worthless, most are either reviews, reports on who got number one (both outlets owned by the same parent company no less), overnight ratings stories and not much in the way of validly proving notability. Content editing won't save this given there is no content. treelo _radda 14:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just as a note to whomever closes this, few people in the UK would consider this list to be notable given how frequent similar shows come along. As per Mansford's explaination, it's not a documentary and only those who aren't in the UK and don't have an accurate picture to reference feel it has notability. treelo _radda 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak for yourself only, not an entire country. I am in the UK and disagree with your comments. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another hodgepodge list -- some of the entries are films, some are TV shows, some are just cartoon characters without any specific production attached to them. Also, echoing Treelo and Nate's comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, no Tooter Turtle ?? FAIL. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We have the American The 50 Greatest Cartoons, so why not the British 100 Greatest Cartoons? This isn't the greatest written article, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Rameses The Ram (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the American "The 50 Greatest Cartoons" had been a television show, then I would be in favor of deletion of that as well. While that article also might well be nominated for deletion, although I would point out that it was a book, rather than a television special, and that the book purported to be based upon a survey of "1,000 animation professionals" rather than a popularity contest among a network's viewers. I think that it's fair to say that in the case of both the book and the television show, the best measure of notability would be secondary coverage by independent sources. If the book was not noticed by book reviewers, it might not pass the test. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you saying that coverage doesn't count unless there is coverage of the coverage? --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either. We both gave our reasons for a deletion, although "What, no Tooter Turtle?" is more concise than anything I can say. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 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 Keep.. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox view of sin

The content of the article does not establish that the subject is notable enough to require its own article, as opposed to content in Sin or Eastern Orthodox Church. Mrhsj (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eastern Orthodox Church. Knippschild (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Eastern Orthodox Church is already 111K. This is a quite notable topic - the views of a major religion on one of it's central postulates. Merging is out of the question, deleting is out of the question. Wily D 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand that they are not in favor of it. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for exapnsion. The vast majority of the presetn article is actually the Eastern Orthodox view on sexulaity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, and improve references per above. Eastern Orthodoxy is certainly notable to have major doctrines broken out into WP:SS, and this article should play that role. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - it is a bit WP:ORish for me. Springnuts (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable as being about an important area of doctrine in a major religious tradition. Needs expansion and better sourcing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the topic may be notable, the poor state of this article suggests to me that it should be deleted. Reading through the article, there just isn't anything to merge; the portions that might be desirable there are devoid of sources. This article is essentially a lot of OR, and so should be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:01, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Blue

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable band. Only a single album released. Most notable award won by the band is from the Boston Music Awards. Millbrooky (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoops, I didn't even notice this article had previously been nominated at AfD as I came to this article via Avatar blue and noticed the duplication of the articles. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no substantial coverage from reliable third party outlets. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis of WP:MUSIC criterion #1—the band has had at least three mentions (which I have now added to the article) in Boston-area newspapers, for their award nominations primarily. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this listing is noteworthy - Avatar Blue was the jumping off point for at least two recognized musicians - Chris Phoenix (a Billboard award winning songwriter and producer who has worked with a number of Grammy nominated artists and Bryan Steele a renounced Jazz Tenor Saxophonist with a multitude of writing credits.) It does need additional citations, --John Pope (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too find this listing noteworthy - I would argue that according to the criteria for musician and ensembles that Avatar Blue qualifies due to items 6, 8 and 9. Item 6 - "Contains at .least one notable musician" - It contains 2, Chris Phoenix - himself a Billboard Songwriting award recipient and the winner of at least 2 ASCAP awards, and Bryan Steele - with compositions in The Amazing Race, American Idol Rewind, Dr. 90210, A&E Biography and All My Children. Item 8 - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" - Avatar Blue was nominated as best unsigned band by Musician Magazine but more importantly won a Billboard Songwriting Achievement Award. Item 9 - "Has performed music for a work of media that notable" - though borderline, Avatar Blue wrote the opening credits for film "Last Night at Eddies", closing credits for "Code of Ethics" starring Melissa Leo and music for The City (short lived soap on ABC) --NotkarBalbulus (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Both of the comments above are by users that have only edited the article Chris Phoenix (producer), a former member of Avatar Blue. --Millbrooky (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment on the note above. It is my position that contributers who only write about something they feel they are an authority on aren't any less valuable or valid. --MusicLegacy (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krrish Returns

I'm nominating Krrish Returns for deletion because it fails WP:NFF.There is no single source available on Internet to say 'Krrish Returns' production has started.i've heard somewhere, script of the film is ready.but i'm not sure about film production has begun.official website is dubious. WinningSpecialist (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a search shows nothing concrete. Fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Production hasn't been confirmed. Schuym1 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The series of Krrish is going to have another part in near future is known to all as both Rakesh and Hrithik Roshan have spoken of it in numerous interviews. So it's just a matter of time before the movie is put before media and all hype starts around it in Bollywood. Coming to point of notability - Krrish is Indian equivalent for America's Spiderman or U.K.'s Bond. So notability is not an issue at all. Official website is surely dubious but I did get few passing refs in google search but hawks may ask their reliability so I am not listing here. Overall, considering that movie release is just a matter of few months and this article is again going to pop-up I would rather leave it for some good soul to lay some solid foundation for it till then. --GPPande talk! 09:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF, film production has not yet started.CS2020 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It certainly is confirmed. I read it in newspaper but the production is not announced it still written. Once it is fully announced then it can be created. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:55, 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 Consensus is overwhelming, and there is no policy reason (eg BLP) not to follow that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidents by handedness

I want to say arbitrary listing, but as it has... something... I can not. It does however appear to be quite possibly the most blatant case of this quote: even if it is sourced, and it is factual, does not necessarily mean it requires an article on wikipedia –– Lid^(Talk) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if this list could ever be considered accurate due to left-handed repression likely to affect the early presidents. Mitico (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recent revisions lead me to believe this article is not a mere collection of indiscriminate information, but a viable article. Nice rescue in my opinion. Mitico (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Whether a president is left handed or right handed is not a defining character of the connection between the person and the office they hold. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. That's all. Keep--this is a difference of day and night; we now have an article, not a list. Kudos. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC) *Delete Honestly, it seems like a bunch of original research and unnecessary information to me. Even though it's referenced. It looks like it really would belong better on a blog or a website for these types of facts and not on Wiki. Lady★Galaxy 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very impressed by the progress that has taken place in this article, which leads to my change of mind. At first I thought it was a useless list, but now several sources have been supplied. All the sources are reliable and meet Wikipedian standards, being newspaper articles as they are. I poked around in the edit history, expecting to see dozens of edits... but I see that all it took were a few to clean this article up. If we keep it, then it can be expanded and it will contribute to the community. Lady★Galaxy 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every bit of information is encyclopedic. (Besides, I don't think McCain would like being called a "lefty".) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — trivial intersection. MuZemike (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People actually do care about this stuff, as recent news articles show ([29], [30], [31]), and lists like this have appeared in print publications: [32]. (That book doesn't include Truman as a lefty, but this one seems to suggest he was.)

~~.I do think Mitico raises a fair point, but we could probably limit the scope of the article to the presidents who are known to be left-handed, or generally suspected to be left handed.~~ Article is shaping up nicely. Good work! Keep. Zagalejo^^^ 07:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hmm, the article has made significant changes since I last was here. I think it should stay now. There are actually people who care about this stuff. Also, I disagree with anyone who says it should merge.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge It is interesting to see that Lefties only started with Hoover and have in recent times become the norm rather than the exception. A reference to a psych/poli-sci article discussing this issue (if one exists) might then merit keeping this info here. Perhaps this should be a list of JUST lefties and ambis in either the U.S. Presidents article or Handedness itself. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the new layout is a lot better than the old list version. It needs to be renamed, but the new content is on the right track. Or perhaps, the left track in this case. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But it has to make clear why this is a notable topic. People seem to miss the point here: this is not just a random variable, the fact is that the frequency of left-handedness in the last few presidents is almost a statistical impossibility (0.00009), and some have tried to explain why.[33]. The real issue here is what qualities and abilities are controlled by which hemisphere of the brain, how this relates to right/left-handedness, and how all of this relates to the qualities necessary for the office of the president. I'll try to expand it a bit later on. Lampman (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now expanded the lead to include notability of the list based on WP:RS, and reduced it to a relevant period. I would urge everyone to have a second look and reconsider. Lampman (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good work. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The real issue here is what qualities and abilities are controlled by which hemisphere of the brain", no the real issue here is this is a listing of US presidents based off which is their dominant hand. Anything beyond that is OR. Hell, this could be arguably OR (as someone pointed out before, in the early presidents time left handed usage was specifically taught against and you were forced to be right handed). –– Lid^(Talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if you just didn't read my post or if you don't understand what OR means. Anyway, have a second look. Lampman (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Highly trivial... and as for the merge vote, a.) where would we be merging to, and b.) your argument that it should be kept/merged just because it is 'interesting' is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. — neuro^(talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lampman. It is a rarity, so has its merits on WP.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be the same as WP:INTERESTING with the word "rarity" replacing "interesting". –– Lid^(Talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. Besides, I an imagine a lot of southpaws liking this article.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe not WP:INTERESTING, but definitely WP:ILIKEIT (in this case, we/they like it). — neuro^(talk) 14:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some of my own research. One of the sources that I came up with was the Guardian article mentioned earlier by Lampman. Another was an article in the Dallas Morning News (Michael Precker (1992-07-13). "The three leading candidates for president have a characteristic in common: They're all southpaws". Dallas Morning News.). Then there's the fact that several books all discuss the handedness of U.S. presidents, including ISBN 0871877627 which has a section entitled "Five (or Six) Lefties?". There's analysis of why the phenomenon might be in this article in the New York Times, and this article in the Washington Post.
This topic has been documented by many people over many years, and the possible reasons for the unusual preponderance of left-handedness have been discussed by psychologists. There's ample scope for an article to be written on the subject that is far more than a bare list that intersects two sets. And I say that before having even read the expanded article. ☺ Any problems with this article are matters of expansion and cleanup, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has value from a reference point of view, and therefore belongs in an encyclopedia. The article is reasonably well-written, well-sourced and could easily be a candidate for a DYK. The fact that the content has formed the basis for a number of journalistic articles surely makes it suitably notable topic for Wikipedia. Poltair (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is a good idea, but then the AfD would have to be ended before it becomes intelligible. It seems to be trending towards "keep", but this'll be the closing admin's decision. Lampman (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lampman and Uncle G. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has substantially improved since the AfD began; its sources, including those added just now by Uncle G make it clear that this topic meets WP:N notability requirements. Keep per Uncle G. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent cleanup work has taken place, reliable sources are now in place, all my worries are at ease. I was uneasy still after the expansion at first, but after a good meal I can see that this article should not be deleted. Good job. — neuro^(talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much improved, especially considering when I saw the title I could have sworn I would be !voting delete. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the title is the problem - some thoughts about this on the talk page. Lampman (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original version of the article was indeed a worthy deletion candidate, but the improvements have been massive - right now this is a very well-written and well-referenced article that discusses a rather obscure but nonetheless worthwhile topic. I'd say that this is a wonderful example of where "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" is an excellent reason to keep an article: the topic is very, very specific but well-referenced and summarised. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had trouble understanding the nomination until I checked an older revision. Nice save by Lampman and Uncle G. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Left-handedness. This is more a discussion of the treatment of left-handedness than that of the Presidents' being right-handed, left-handed, or (in the cases of Thomas Jefferson and James Garfield) ambidextrous. The title of the nominated article as it clearly does not discuss the entire set of 42 men who served as President; in fact, it begins at an arbitrarily-determined 1929. Should this be kept, the article should be renamed to reflect its inclusion limits. As it is, this borders WP:COATRACK territory. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lampman. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jengod (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that there are plenty of references to write an encyclopedic article for this topic. I have to say keep.—Chris! _ct 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lampman and Uncle G. Manxruler (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Being left handed or right handed is a meaningless metric to define a President, nor is it a requirement for the post. What next? A list of presidents by blood type? -- Alexf^(talk) 12:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just a disjointed list, but one with good formatting and an informative lead section and more than enough references. Especially because this intro explains why handedness is even relevant which is the main reason we're having this debate to begin with. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely irrelevant. What's next, a list of Liechtenstein Princes by soft-drink preference? --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we get multiple news articles discussing their preferences and the reasons for them, why not? Hut 8.5 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G and Lampman. Hut 8.5 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not simply a collection of trivia, and the fact that during election silly-season the newspapers will print any old trivia and dress it up as news doesn't make it notable! The fact that the articles on many of these people doesn't mention their handedness suggests that it is a trivial intersection, and it should be noted that all the quoted sources seem to repeat the same statistics, probably unchecked. We need to remember that even notmally reliable sources are infamous for not fact checking properly when running such trivial stories. Mayalld (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is far beyond an indiscriminate collection of information, it is a coherent and informative article about the fact that the number of left-handed US presidents is a statistical impossibility. If it were simply a list in for the form of Herbert Hoover: left-handed, Franklin D. Roosevelt: right-handed ... then it would be an obvious delete, however there is encyclopedic value in the information contained in the article. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lampman and Uncle G. This looks like a decent article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about as trivial as it can get. I can't grasp why this useful. Grsz ^Review! 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rename, but has in fact, been covered in reliable sources. No more trivial than list of presidents by height, which is the subject of more than a few scholarly papers. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that it has been renamed to Handedness of Presidents of the United States, as per that article's talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some less awkward adjective to describe a person by their left/right hand use? I certainly don't know it, but I would guess that it exists. But the new title is an improvement, thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a better word, but I can't think of it either, and thesaurus.com isn't being very helpful. :-/ Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I usually go into AfD debates about lists expecting to find some horrendous crap and usually I'm right. So it's nice to be pleasantly surprised for once. This list is well sourced, well set out and informative. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - List of left-handed Presidents of the United States was deleted. So was List of famous right-handed people and List of famous left-handed people. On the other hand, handedness is a legit scientific topic. See Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. -- Suntag ☼ 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps whatever in this article is useful should be merged in one of the handedness articles. Personally, I am now researching material for an article on Handedness of Princes of Wales. --Crusio (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales don't have hands. -- Suntag ☼ 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heart Wikicomedy. :) jengod (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close — No doubt about it, this is a good article, and of importance to left-handed people. I didn't even know there was a magazine devoted to them. Sincerely, a left-winger who is right-handed, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, casual intersection rather than encyclopediatic value. --Soman (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, and there's no reason to keep this hanging around.chaser - t 03:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Guglielmucci

Fails WP:BLP1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.". Besides lying to the press and his congregation about having cancer, and then confessing to a pornography addiction, he is entirely non-notable. Tan | 39 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:BLP1E --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Prime example of WP:BLP1E, in no way a legitimate encyclopedia biography. RMHED (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. —Snigbrook 00:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not News of the World. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:ONEEVENT Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a minister or a songwriter and fails BLP1E on the rest of it. Sarah 02:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS, all of the above. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren McKillion

Non-notable amateur sportsperson, fails WP:BIO. GNUSMAS : TALK 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Also, none of the references in the article actually mention the subject (incl. 1 dead link) --Flewis^(talk) 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much text, little of it documenting anything significant. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 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. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Egypt

Appears to be a non-notable, straight to video cartoon; I couldn't find anything like substantial coverage on Google. Prod removed without comment. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not on google but it is on the internet movie database. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but even its IMDB entry does little more than confirms that it exists. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 06:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films).Nrswanson (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use to own a copy. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I cannot see how owning a copy would be in any way relevant to this discussion. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:47, 25 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) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I use my memory I can put the plot in. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - If notability cannot be established, inserting a plot will not help the article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films) (as per Nrswanson). DARTH PANDA^talk 02:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, indeed no coverage, for an article that shouldn't be. And prod removing is just not good. Drmies (talk)
Comment If it's really by Peter S. Beagle, as IMDB says, that's at least interesting (but I can't turn up anything about it): there seems to be some work "The Story of Moses" 1996 attributed to him in other encyclopedias. N p holmes (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its made by a minor animation studio so of course there is not much information. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That is why there shouldn't be an article on it. Schuym1 (talk) 14:20, 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rakasiya

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) Option Two and/or needs very drastic improvements per Option Three. In addition, sources are not cited and I cannot find the place through Google at all. Finally, at least half of the article is in a different language. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per Nom. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Keep as location reference has been added. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a poorly written essay that's sure to be rejected as a policy or guideline is no substitute for an argument. Foreign language material can be transfered to the appropriate language version and probably moved to talk for now. Without it, it still passes the usual standards of inclusion. WilyD 13:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you confirm that this location in fact exists? Google turned up nothing for me aside from the non-English page that was copypasted into Rakasiya. DARTH PANDA^talk 13:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does exist: searching with the census code brings up Raksiya - alternate (mis)spellings are quite common in India. For example this is from some governmental/regional agency, this pdf-map from another gov site has Raksiya. There's few more tidbits, too. Probably at least spellings Rakasiya/Rakasija/Raksiya/Raksija are used, possibly even more. In case you are interested, here's "translation" of the text in wikimapia :D – Sadalmelik ☎ 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Digging around, I did find reference to it in two Indian Government publications, though one only confirmed that some road went there, and the other was equally as not terribly useful. It's certainly real, though. Wily D 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verification provided by Sadalmelik. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verifiable places are notable and Wp:N(Geographic locations) should be deleted. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD Withdrawn. Verifiable location with potential for growth. Sorry for the trouble. DARTH PANDA^talk 18:52, 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.