Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 26

< October 25	October 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZ-550[edit]

Moving for discussion on article deletion. The article does not sufficiently establish notability of the product to have its own article. Merge is a possibility Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this rifle less notable than the ones it links to? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You said it would be mergeable. To what article? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say that I don't see why it could not be merged onto the manufacturer's article Česká Zbrojovka being that they're both stubs. I admit that I may have been a bit too hasty recommending this for deletion, though I contend merging is still an option. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there specific notability standards for weaponry? I can understand that presence culturally can give certain small arms (IE M-16, AK-47, Desert Eagle .50AE) more notability than others, but do independent reviews exist for this firearm? Is that enough? I'm sure most guns have some non-promotional material on them, but I'm just not sure how much could be enough. It's undoubtable the gun exists, but where is the notability threshold? 69.210.56.62 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After looking around, (this is my first article) I would argue that since the CZ-550 is its own design, not a blown out version of another rifle action, it merits its own page. After looking through several other manufactures pages, I do not see rifles and other arms listed, instead they each get there own page. It is possible that if could be listed under big-bore CZ rifles, but this would be inconsistent with how other rifles of other manufacture are described.--JKBodylski (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ive taken the time to add some sources and external links to this page. It appears that there is an abundance of articles written about the CZ 550 when searching on google, including many reviews and forums. Still not quite sure what constitutes noteworthy though. --JKBodylski (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alright, my understanding of products getting there own page as defined WP:CORP page is that if a company's product list is too large as to make the main page about the company unwieldy, then the products get there own page. A quick look at Česká Zbrojovka Uherský Brod page shows in excess of 60 separate model lines, which would make the CZ page enormously cumbersome.--JKBodylski (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be significant and notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Fair City characters. Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Carney[edit]

An article for a fictional character with no real world information. Not even the actor's name is mentioned. No references, no media coverage. No sign of notability outside (not even inside) the show. Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fair City characters and merge anything salvageable (read:sourceable with reliable references) Since soaps go on for a very long time, it's simply impossible to cover the entire life of character in a concise entry. -Mgm|^(talk) 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note An AfD started for all the other characters of the show in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali O'Shea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Rachel Brennan AFD by Mgm|^(talk)) Close pending general discussion in progress Probably a merge of some sort-- I say probably, because I have yet to fully figure out the roles of these characters. i note that Talk:List of Fair City characters is now discussing a proposal by Raven on how to do this sort of merge, and this should be closed, probably as non-consensus, pending that discussion DGG (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Fair City characters where he isn't covered yet. No apparent notability for a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per sgeureka. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge article does not have notability on its own.Mrathel (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic[edit]

Not-notable under our policies for firms. Self-promotion. Also substantially copied from http://www.nclegalclinic.org/aboutus.htm Camillus 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page was also tagged for copyvio of the website. Looks like a copy/paste job in many areas. I put a note on their talk page about use of the encyclopaedia for promotion as they are a newcomer. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, page is Not-notable and Self-promotion.Nx133 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Self-promotional style. Their cause is probably worthy, but that doesn't excuse copy-viol - unless they license it properly. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 5 January 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.

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanzen Na Hiruma[edit]

Non-notable; the band doesn't have a page, so how can this meet notability? Seegoon (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No article in Japanese Wikipedia and no third party sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet notability WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Notability issues aside, all articles are entirely unsourced, failing the core policy WP:V. The "keep" arguments do not address this issue, preferring to focus instead on less relevant issues in terms of policy, such as whether these articles should have been listed separately. Sandstein 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruach Ganeden[edit]

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías. TTN (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per discussions given by the nominator. -- nips (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías and per the whole discussion in the other 3 AfDs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and the other AfD's. We seem to have a pretty good batting average for this particular series. I'll be honest and say I'm not going to google all of those, but I checked a sample of a few and didn't find any RS. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and the related AfD pages. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and consider individually on the talk pages for redirects. Does the nominator claim to have checked each of them and found there are no secondary sources? does he even claim to have actually looked at all of t hem? Do any of the commentators above? Can an argument be offered for each of them why a redirect is inappropriate? the related afds are a very bad precedent indeed for removing material on the basis of vague impressions, for deleting on the basis of itlookslikeitmaynotbenotable. I would ask TTN for a discussion of each one of these in terms of each of the factors in the nomination. Then it can be judged whether there is a case to answer--or whether he might be correct. Just to pick one criterion for one example, I examined Laftkranz, and do not observe any plot summary--that particular charge is not correct for that article. To pick an alphabetic sequence of articles and assert that none of them can be referenced is wanton destruction. DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make the case that even one of these is dissimilar? SRW is a series built on the appeal of silly cross-setting slugfests between disparate licensed mecha. The original characters are not the draw, and indeed original-generation games are the least successful in Japan. These are filler characters (or worse, objects) to glue the setting together, and are already covered in an appropriate level of detail (specifically: in passing if at all) in the articles on each SRW work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nothing easier, just spot checkedanother one, Granzon/Neo Granzon and it contains no plot summary. That makes 2 out of 2 that do not fit the nomination. Proof therefore that the nomination was not done properly with respect to the examination of the actual articles. The merit of SRW as a game is not the issue here. Are you yourself prepared to assert that you have examined all the articles and looks to se if they can be sourced? DGG (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed, some are characters who pilot ships, some are ships. That makes them clearly and obviously dissimilar. I and probably others are much more ready to remove articles about fictional hardware than fictional people. DGG (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Technical and Historical" in Granzon/Neo Granzon is entirely plot or backstory, with no reference whatsoever made to the real world. (In fact, it's so poorly written that I can't even tell if it's story or backstory.) Likewise in Laftkranz; the only reason it doesn't appear to be plot or backstory is because it makes no reference whatsoever to the object's role in the story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Sourced mostly to enthusiasm and speculation, excessive plot detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Found a trivial mention of one of them here, but not significant enough coverage to assert notability. If someone believes appropriate sources exist, I'd gladly change my position if they WP:PROVEIT according to our verifiability policy. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Wiki should change to a pay encyclopedia with actual, qualified editors if they want to get respect as an actual encyclopedia. People like you merely deleting articles that are actually informative, if niche, won't change the already established opinion of wikipedia. 71.195.245.135 (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC) — 71.195.245.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please be WP:CIVIL in this discussion. Oh, and for charging money, you may want to read Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 55#Eliminating Vandalism: An Economic Perspective. MuZemike (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Improper bundling of unrelated subjects - characters and ships - that should be listed separately. Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what they are... they all fail the same guideline/policy. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Pacific University[edit]

I'm by no means certain, but I have a feeling that this article may be part of an elaborate hoax. No one will be happier than I to find that this is not true, but I'm looking at the following facts:

The address listed for this university is actually, according to Google Maps, the location of the University of Alaska-Anchorage
The university is listed as being a member of the "Eco League"; the article Eco League is completely unsourced, but I looked at the listings for the other ostensible members schools, and the first one I looked at, Green Mountain College, has no sourcing other than the "official" university website, and the address given therein for the school does not exist, according to Google Maps
The article College of the Atlantic, another EcoLeague member, says that the college is located at an address that Google Maps says is the location of Acadia Senior College. The article also says that College of the Atlantic is located on Mount Desert Island, but that article doesn't have any mention of the college.
The Welcome message from President North of Alaska Pacific is identical, word for word, with the Welcome message from President North of Thornhill University.
The only one of the EcoLeague schools which I had personally heard of is Antioch College, which has, conveniently, closed down.
One of the universities websites (I'm sorry, I can't any longer figure out which one, I must have 60 websites open looking at all this) has some good links, but also has links that go to pages like this
All of the EcoLeague university presidents have 100% non-sourced wikipedia articles

And so it goes . . .

I'm not 100% positive on this; indeed, I really want to be proven wrong--I spent a lot of time cleaning up the APU article last year. But what this looks like to me is an elaborate hoax created by some very talented college students. If this is true, then they have created extensive websites to make this look pretty real. Why would anyone do this? I suppose because Wikipedia is now a big player, and if you can make fools of Wikipedia, then that's about the ultimate punk to pull now. And if this is a hoax, then I guess maybe the whole EcoLeague thing is, too. I don't know what to think, this is a bit overwhelming to contemplate, that someone might create not only a dozen Wikipedia articles but also websites to go with them. I'm sure hoping that someone out there can provide truly independent corroboration for these institutions.

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

If the problem I fear is real, then these articles are as suspect as the APU article, and
If the problem I fear is not real, then this will draw more people in to this discussion, people who hopefully will be able to offer corroboration of these institutions.

Unschool (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Unschool (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry. The other articles that I am co-listing for nomination with this one are listed ~~on the talk page for this page~~. If that is the wrong way to handle it, I would appreciate someone else letting me know, or, better yet, correcting my error. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legit Unless the pranksters also snuck info into the local newspaper, this extract from | Anchorage Daily News contains, some way down the page: "BUDDHIST SERVICES: Join the Rev. Yuho Van Parijs at the White Lotus Center for Shin Buddhism/Myoko-in Temple at Alaska Pacific University Chapel, Atwood Building" (my emphasis). I doubt a local paper would run an ad for a non existent local university. I also doubt that someone would seed false leads so thoroughly as to have fake services in the local newspaper. the very obscurity of this reference makes me believe that this is not a hoax. (Anything put in place for a hoax would tend to be far more detailed and directly related, I would expect) keep MadScot (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a notice of a new hire by the university in this article in ADN. Again, I can't see a local newspaper reporting on a non existent local institution. MadScot (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alaska Pacific University - This University is listed in numerous guides, for example here, where it is stated that it is eligible for US Government grants. From the cited Thornhill University all links lead to an advert for an ISP which makes me wonder about the nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean, TerriersFan? Unschool (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN coverage The College of the Atlantic article has a ref to CNN which explicitly mentions the college, indeed it is the subject of the CNN report. That seems to verify that college. I have little doubt that these all exist; indeed, Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that any contradictions in the articles are simple editorial mistakes, and that there are redlinks and lack of coverage because they are SMALL colleges. But to set up such an elaborate hoax, including inserting info into major media.... that really stretches credulity. MadScot (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the others - bulk nominations of universities is a really bad idea since each one has different claims to notability but mixing in some individuals (who frankly look pretty marginal) is against policy. TerriersFan (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it might be easier to simply sort out the confusion. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To-may-to, to-mah-to? Google News search has 15 hits for APU [[1]] and 95 for U. Alaska Anchorage. [2]. Perhaps it has 2 names, an official one and a common one. If the two article refer to the same campus/school, they should certainly be merged or one should be deleted. More research needed. Edison (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I honestly don't know where the idea of APU and UAA having the same address comes from. The wiki article on APU lists no address. The APU website lists "4101 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508" . UAA's website gives their address as "3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508". Those appear to be different. MadScot (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are two parts of the same road. UAA and APU are right next door to each other. They share a library. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unschool, I suggest that you start with pages 96 and 1120–1121 of ISBN 0768917492. If this is a hoax by university students, they probably deserve some sort of award for getting it into a university admissions guidebook. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- APA is also listed on page 22 of ISBN 0375764062, so these students managed to fool The Princeton Review as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hint: You can use these as sources to make the article better, too. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn! This is what I was looking for . . . I'm convinced. (As to the address issue, Scot, insert that 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508 address into Google maps--it shows that as being smack dab in the middle of the UAA campus. I would now have to guess that Google has made an error in their maps.) So how do I get this speedily kept? (I'm so ignorant of these processes.) Unschool (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is off slightly - APU show their little campus further to the east, with a little loop road with the buildings round it. UAA and APU have a shared library, so it's not surprising the two campuses (campii?) are adjacent. MadScot (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But WAIT Please do not close this AFD until it is revealed: Is it two colleges, or one college with two names? ("Two, two, two mints in one!", "Her name was Magill, she called herself Lill, but everyone knew her as Nancy..." "He lived under the name Sanders") Edison (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two colleges. They have independent web prescences, and APU refers to "sharing" library facilities with UAA, which it wouldn't have to say if they were the same facility. And tracking the history of both gives different stories, as you'd expect for distinct institutions. MadScot (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something like Columbia College and Barnard College? Or are they more tightly integrated? What is the point of two colleges at the same place? Edison (talk) 03:00, 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.

Leonard Parris[edit]

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

The result was Delete JodyB_talk 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are claims of notability in article (first world-wide network of emergency dental clinics), gsearch not coming up with independent, reliable sources to show notability. Gnews has 17 non-wiki hits, all press releases or passing mentions. Prod contested by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF, and I'm not seeing the sort of independent, reliable secondary-source coverage that would rescue this article from being an advertisement. If such sources exist somewhere, I'll reconsider. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails to verify notability through references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:22, 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.

Nicole Westall[edit]

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

The result was Delete JodyB_talk 21:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. There are no references to a player by this name - no record on Arsenal's website of this player, a Google search of her name with either Arsenal or Manchester City come up with nothing but Wikipedia & forks. A player with this degree of achievement would have received far wider coverage. Qwghlm (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with assessment as hoax, note that account creating this page has made no other substantive edits not associated with this (non existent) footballer. MadScot (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Hoax. For someone that should be protected from the media limelight after being asked to conduct many media interviews the media blackout for several media companies seems to be working as there appears to be zero coverage of this imagined person other than facebook. It is also implausible that a 16 year old would play for the national team without media coverage of some sort, and unlikely that a player would be excluded from a squad to go to New Zealand because of concerns for he safety (sic). --ClubOranje^Talk 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as hoax. Giant Snowman 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoax. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news says no - so do I. Paxse (talk) 14:48, 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. There is a lack of consensus to delete, therefore, default to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Linkery[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to be non-notable. Smashville^talk 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I am this article's primary author) - Why does this article not appear notable? It has a verifiable, reliable 3rd-party source that address the subject directly in detail. If anything, the article lacks substance as it currently written, but isn't this to be expected from a stub? I fully intend to add more content to this article when I have the time, but until then, how can its notability be questioned? I am aware that substantive coverage presumes notability but does not guarantee notability; I do not think this article qualifies WP:NOT. --Beefyt (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For starters, there are no non-trivial sources and no assertion of notability. --Smashville^talk 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you consider 3124 words in the New York Times Magazine trivial? Of course there is no "assertion of notability", that would be original research. --Beefyt (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article is not about The Linkery. It is about tipping and it uses the restaurant to frame its subject/argument. And asserting notability is not original research. Every article on Wikipedia is required to have an assertion of notability. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I understand your point now, my mistake. If by assertion of notability, you mean that the article should establish that the topic is remarkable in some way, I have attempted to do that with the addition of mentions of The Linkery in several top-100 lists.--Beefyt (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Bingo. I guess we'll just have to disagree over the interpretation of the source, though... --Smashville^talk 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are sure a LOT of negative reviews about this place. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Restaurants with only one location usually don't meet the criteria for notability as businesses. There are no references to provide evidence that the restaurant is notable from a culinary point of view, such as being listed in Restaurant (magazine) Top 50. There are no references to provide evidence that the restaurant is notable for its physical location, such as Windows on the World or Machus Red Fox. There are no references to provide evidence that the restaurant is notable as a tourist attraction or cultural institution, such as Café du Monde. So, just why is this restaurant considered notable? Dr.frog (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does this restaurant need to be notable based on one of your point of views? Its notability is demonstrated by satisfying the notability criterion. Just because we don't have other articles like this doesn't mean this one should be deleted. --Beefyt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The coverage in the Times makes this reasonable as a keep. But I'd say only about half or a third of the article is about the restaurant. Do we have any second reliable source other than the Times article? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to full keep The additional sources now added to the article push it up to meet notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is notable enough to merit an article, it shouldn't be limited to just two short sentences. Peter ^Isotalo 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've expanded on the article a bit more now, but there is still a lot of information that I would like to add. For instance, the Linkery is unique in that they employ a blog and newsletter as marketing tools to engage their customers. This may not be notable for a business in general, but for a restaurant its remarkable. I am now attempting to find more sources before proceeding. --Beefyt (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that this organization meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for commercial enterprises. Granted, they exist and have been written up in a few reviews. They were also mentioned in passing in articles which were primarily about other topics. As restaurants go, that's trivial coverage.
The mentions in those "top 100" lists is equally unpersuasive. If you parse the list's starting parameters far enough, everyone can become number one at something. That's not a useful basis for determining notability. Those lists were too specialized to provide more than supporting evidence. Rossami (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think its fair to dismiss the NYT article as a passing mention. Of the 35 paragraphs, 22 specifically mention The Linkery, its staff, or its policies. I grant that the article doesn't discuss the food or other traditional aspects of maintaining a restaurant. That's exactly what makes this article and this restaurant so remarkable and notable. Their policies are so notable that the NYT devoted 1800 words of a 3000-word article to it. The article is about The Linkery so much as it about tipping or not tipping. --Beefyt (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming that you are talking about this article, I disagree with your interpretation of it. The topic of the article is about the social construct and economic behavior of tipping. The article uses this one institution as an example throughout but only as an example. Being a well-written article, the author picked one clear example and stuck with it - he humanized the concept quite well. But that doesn't change the fact that this article is not primarily about the restaurant, it's about tipping. Under the accepted usage of the rules at WP:CORP, I consider that a passing mention. It proves that the entity exists but little more. It is certainly not sufficient to support a full encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see anything in WP:CORP about "passing mention" specifically. Do you mean to say that the subject of the NYT article is not the Linkery? Or that its inclusion is trivial? Or incidental? What kind of criteria are you using to make this judgement? --Beefyt (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't clear to me how using it as an example is that relevant. If we had a 500 page book about the history of tipping and it has this much content on the Linkery as an example that would still be a reliable source with non-trivial content. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 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 Speedy delete, NAC Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the End (Kat DeLuna song)[edit]

Completely unsourced, is this a single or a track? Did it chart, music video, notable commentary? Can't see anything. — Realist² 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart, no sources, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this a try.... Speedy Delete - A9 non notable recording. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:26, 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.

Survivors of the September 11 attacks[edit]

The result was Withdrawn nomination. NAC Tavix (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED, NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AFTER COMMENT ON THE PROCESS BELOW This article is different from the one nominated for deletion about a year ago. It no longer has a list of survivors' names. The main body of the text describes how few survived and where they were located in the building. This could be easily merged with the main article or the WTC article. I am not aware of any reason why this needs to be a separate article, though this AFD could offer explanations.
There is no political agenda for the AFD. I am not trying to eliminate information about 9-11 nor am I opposed to mention of survivors or lack of survivors.
This article doesn't seem to meet WP criteria for people, i.e. notability. Nor does it meet the requirements of criminal acts, which is covered by the main articles. This article doesn't offer any information which a merge could not accomplish.
At this point, I recommend and merge and redirect. Editors who have worked hard on this should be encouraged to continue to do so after the merge, if that's what is decided. Chergles (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for deletion. It is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please don't nominate articles here unless an administrator hitting a delete button is actually what you want. Deletion forms no part of the article merger process. If you want an article merged, the correct tags are {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. {{afd1}} is not the tool for every job. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I saw people vote "merge/redirect" so I thought one could AFD it. I will withdraw . Chergles (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People who want information on a subject like this don't have a lot of places to look, therefore Wikipedia should have lists like these to supply interested people with relevant information. A merge would only clutter associated articles. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a valid article. DGG (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawnChergles (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Indie punk[edit]

The result was Keep, wrong place for this kind of discussion. NAC Tavix (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a genre, should be a redlink rather than a redirect. Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm afraid AfD isn't the place for this. The right venue would be redirects for discussion. Just for the record, though, I would vote keep because it's at least plausible that somebody might look up Indie Punk. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what M&E said, including the keep. Gsearch shows widespread use of the term, so while it may / may not be a genre, it's something people would look for. Best to send them somewhere rather than nowhere.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down[edit]

Fails the notability guideline for books. A review in the republican leaning Washington Times and a middling review in Politico does not suffice. There are hundreds of books slapped together every election year, this is merely one of them. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy / snowball keep (from article creator) - absurd nomination, suggest withdrawal. Satisfies formal criterion #1 by a mile. Nominator should contemplate WP:BEFORE. It was not created in response to the vice presidency, and in fact the story of how a minor political biography was blown up into the "definitive" book on a vice presidential candidate is an interesting part of the story that many papers have picked up on. #3 on NY Times besteller list, by the way.Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The washington times called it the definitive biography--I'm not prepared to accept that as fact. Notability isn't inherited from the subject of the book. There are thousands of non-notable biographies of Shakespeare, even though he is clearly notable. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a google search while I expand the article. You gave it 19 minutes. Moreover, Washington Times is a reliable source, despite its conservative leanings. But there are plenty more sources. The book is covered in most major newspapers.Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has received ample coverage from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. WP:WHATABOUTX is never a valid argument for deletion, and is amply rebutted by staying on The New York Times best seller list for six weeks. Notability has nothing to do with getting good reviews, nor is a 19-minute drive by AfD appropriate given what was in the article and the article's subject. I will be happy to create an article for every one of the Shakespeare bios that satisfies this criterion. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion argument isn't WAX. I'm arguing that the subject of the biography doesn't have any impact on the notability of the book. WP:NB sets a high bar for books on wikipedia. That's the basis for the nomination. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See "There are thousands of non-notable biographies of Shakespeare, even though he is clearly notable." The bar on notability has been met. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage already in the article (not including [3]), peaked at #3 on the bestseller list. Clearly notable. Hut 8.5 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A variety of sources/coverage is already in the article and it is high on the best seller list. Worth keeping. Brothejr (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note: Wikipedia, as an international resource giving encyclopedic coverage to so many genres of literature, should not entirely discount sources merely for their being sectarian/partisan/&cetera. Just as New York Yiddish-language newspapers (such as Der Blatt) would reasonably be relied upon as a reliable source for English translations of notable books in Yiddish -- or Catholic magazines, for notable books about Catholicism; Mother Jones, for notable books dealing with the Labor movement; &cetera -- wouldn't it seem that National Review, Hugh Hewitt, The Washington Times, &cetera, likewise might be relied upon as pointing to the more notable books on personalities within American conservatism? $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book has been on the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks and been reviewed by several notable publications. RMHED (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a few sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 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--Tone 20:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire It Up (EP)[edit]

This was previously deleted at Fire It Up ! (EP). I tagged it for G4 but it was declined per the presence of an award. However, the Motor City Music Award doesn't seem to be a very notable award, and the only sources don't give anything else than a track listing. Therefore, I feel it fails WP:MUSIC criteria for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:56, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement of the Judoon[edit]

Unnotable, unpublished future book. Being a ~~novelization~~ novel adapted from Doctor Who does not make it notable on its own, particularly when it hasn't been released yet. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Tagged for notability since August with no change. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. A future book without reviews should merit, at most, a short blurb in a general list, not its own article. RayAYang (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Officially announced release in a major franchise. It is not a novelisation, it is an original novel, and has been officially announced by the publisher. 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being announced does not make it notable, nor does it being an "original novel" versus a novelization. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Announced, there is information, not a novelisation of an episode (that would be in the episode's article). There is no reason to delete it. So Why 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, being annouced does not meet WP:BK nor WP:N. Nor does it being an original novel versus a novelization (I was using novelization in the general sense, but I've adjusted my wording above since folks seemed confused by its use). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as a formally announced book in a notable series from notable author Colin Brake from notable publisher BBC Books. Books like this are why we have a {{Future book}} template. - Dravecky (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the notability for this book? Being announced doesn't make it notable. Being by a notable author doesn't either, and certainly who publishes does not. Being in a notable series also does not automatically make it notable. Where is the significant coverage of this book in reliable, third party sources? So far, all it has are publisher's announcements as sources and a borderline copyvio summary from one of those sources. The Future Book template is for books that are notable prior to their release with extensive coverage in reliable sources, same as future film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable information exists about a topic it is inconceivable we will not have an eventual article about. Given that, it is useful to provide the information available at present. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Sandifer — it's verifiable and will be notable. If deleted, it will inevitably be recreated after publication, so why bother deleting? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This isn't out till April. If it was out in November or December then the above would apply, but having an article with no references for almost 6 months is a bit much. 86.160.163.183 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good thing there are two references. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither source is usable. The first is a publishers announcements giving a plot summary only, and making no assertions otherwise. It could not be used as a 3rd party source even after publication. Even the BBC is in essence just an advance advertisement DGG (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The publisher's site establishes the basic facts about the book (author, title, publication date, etc.) and is perfectly usable as a primary source for verifiability. - Dravecky (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Phil and Josiah, it will just be re-created again in a couple of months, seems like a waste of everyone's time to delete it and recreate it. --Lemming64 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009 is in 6 months. And we are not sure the book is going to be notable. I generally am against with the creation of articles for future books based on TV series, future episodes, characters who appeared in the very last episode, etc. I think it's WP:RECENTISM and usually these articles provide poor information and sometimes inaccurate, so delete. I have no problem if the article is recreated in the future, after its release and when more evidence of notability is available. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a significant break with precedent if this book did not have an article upon publication. Off the top of my head, I can guarantee you a review in Doctor Who Magazine (not published by the BBC), which gets you halfway to even the most stringent application of WP:N. But more to the point, the precedent is that such articles exist. Given that, and given that there is genuine information in the article at present, I have no problem (and in fact appreciate) that we are providing that information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 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; author asked for deletion.. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey's Sports Blog[edit]

Non notable blog, no reliable sources, bringing to AfD since last deletion was disputed. Terrillja (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OC register article just says that blogs from ESPN to Joey's Sports Blog are picking x team, no real coverage of the blog. --Terrillja (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a repost, isn't it? Delete, it should be speedied. Non-notable blog, complete COI in its creation. Dayewalker (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Repost of a page which was speedied twice. This is its first AfD

Keep Per argument on the Talk:Joey's_Sports_Blog. Please visit the talk page of Joey's Sports Blog to read it. Jtsports92 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Delete Fails WP:N, WP:WEB. 0 Gnews hits. nada on Technorati as well. RayAYang (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable sports blog that isn't backed by a major media organization. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Against Censorship}}

and that Wikipedia has been diverted from its purpose by becoming a hierarchy obsessed with censorship and vandalism; thus, depleting the free-will purpose Wikipedia was created with.--Jtsports92 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've left a message on this user's page asking if he intended to vote twice (once to keep, once to delete) in his own AfD. If he votes to delete, we can db-author this and end the AfD. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB for having no reliable sources attesting to notability. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Comment From Author As per this comment [4] on his talk page in response to my question, the author of the page now is asking for deletion. Would someone be so kind as to wrap this up here? Thanks. Dayewalker (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Jammin' Jungle Parade]][edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mickey's Jammin' Jungle Parade

Doesn't seem to be notable, no sources found, reads like an ad. Was created with a hangon tag, oddly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disney's Animal Kingdom. It's a ride at the park, with no especial notability of its own Gnews search provides about 35 hits, mostly ads and incidental mentions RayAYang (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect). Will always be insufficiently notable in isolation from the park itself. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause For The Devil[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable release. Allmusic listing has no album art or review, no other sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:07, 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 as a combination of a user test and a copyright violation. I searched for several parts of this article, and was unsurprised, given the article title (which matches the name of a web site that purportedly provides a plagiarism detection service that uses search engines), to find that they had been lifted wholesale, word-for-word, from various published articles and papers, sometimes written by the authors cited, sometimes not. Wikipedia is clearly being abused for some form of test. What the exact form of the test is matters not, really. Whatever the purpose of uploading this content here was, it clearly wasn't to contribute an encyclopaedia article to Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarismdetect[edit]

Apparently an essay, fails WP:V and WP:NOR, title makes me wonder if this is a hoax Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an essay, not encyclopedic. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't really agree with most of what's been said so far. It seems to me that it could be a good faith attempt. The title is very suspicous but that could be a simple editing error - it makes no sense otherwise. I don't think WP:NOR applies and I see no evidence of any POV pushing. WP:V is more difficult, it does give references but they are incomplete, so difficult to check up. I have tried to find them on Google scholar (which is nowhere near 100% definitive) and only one out of the first four refs gets a (possible) hit. Suspicous, but not definitive grounds for deletion, and in any case, references for such a subject are easy to come by so the article could, in principle, be fixed. However, what the article actually seems to be about is bioethanol, on which we already have an excellent mature article. This article is lightweight by comparison and completely non-wiki house style. I say delete per WP:CFORK and point the author to the existing article which he/she may be able to improve. SpinningSpark 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Soapboxing and blatant POV-pushing. I also have no clue as to why the title is called as such. MuZemike (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering that this is an essay on ethanol, the fact that this essay has such a title makes me suspicious that this is indeed plagiarism. Also it falls WP:NOTOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTWEBHOST as Wikipedia is not the place to post personal essays. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It definitely fails WP:OR and, as others have said, if it was cleaned up it would be renamed Bioethanol at which point it is redundant anyway. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:40, 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.

Anabel Barnston[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Coming of Age (2008 TV series). JodyB_talk 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a biography of a young actress who has had roles in a handful of television episodes according to her IMDB profile. At this point there do not seem to be any reliable sources that discuss the actress or her career and so I do not think a verifiable article can be written. Guest9999 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, I'd say. No really significant roles so far. FWIW, here's the only article I was able to find on her on Gnews. RayAYang (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep as I have just cleaned up, sourced, wikified, added external links to the article. Very weak. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources you've added is from an open to edit (wiki like) site that cannot be considered reliable and should not be used to verify information in a Wikipedia article. One is her agents website, one seems to be a database of everyone who's appeared in any entertainment product which contains only a two line listing and no biographical information. The only other source is from a local newspaper which are also generally not considered to be reliable sources (with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). This is not the kind of sourcing that should be acceptable for any Wikipedia article, let alone in a biography of a living person. Guest9999 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about those weak self-submitted websites included by Schmidt -- I agree with you and they should be excised. However, you can blame me for adding her press agent's link and the newspaper article. These were only included to meet WP:V about her roles and as attribution about her current work from the statement by her agent. The newspaper, although small, does meet the standard for WP:RS (being owned by Newsquest and Gannett, it is required to meet their standards of fact-checking) and as stated in WP:RS, it can be viewed as "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (italics is WP's). — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for pointing out my mistake but I'm still not convinced by coverage in a local newspaper. When they are used as sources in articles, to me it's mainly an indication that no other sources exist. They tend to cover anything and everything related to their locality regardless of importance (I know someone who had a short article written about him after asking a question on Question Time). For example the publication used in this article currently has articles about a theatre performance in the local pub and an exhibition in the local art gallery. I don't think it would be possible to write Wikipedia articles about either the acting group in the first or the artists in the second using only the local newspaper source. Guest9999 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're dancing around two different issues here. The first is that you have based your Afd nomination on WP:V, not importance of the sublect. That means you are saying that it cannot be verified that this actress actually performed the parts for which she is being credited in the article. This press release by the BBC is enough to satisfy that alone. The newspaper article provides additional independent verification. (I understand what you're saying about local newspapers, but not all locals are equal -- some are simply shopper rags and others are like this one -- owned by reputable publishers and contractually held to the same strict standards because the parent co. is responsible for libel.) On the basis of verifiability, this Afd could be closed. But I think we should address the issue of notability raised by RayAYang. I agree that the examples you use of local artists and local theater wouldn't qualify for WP, but we're not discussing a local actress. This person stars on a regular national television series. So the question here is: Does an actress who stars in three television shows (one a 5-part drama, another canceled after only one season) meet the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER of "significant roles in multiple television productions"? I think she squeaks by. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've scrubbed the reference list and included her refs at the British Film Institute archive. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, given the current discussion my nomination statement was incomplete. However, despite all the good work that has been done to the article it is still essentially a list of four or five minor acting parts with no real biographical information. Even the slight embellishments on the list don't really stand up to much, it opens with "is best known for..." but there's really no reliably sourced evidence about what she's best known for which can be arrived at without editor synthesis. The article with the information it currently contains would be best suited to a list of roles (such as an IMDB listing) not an encyclopaedia article. WP:BIO gives a basic criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I think it is questionable that she meets this criteria as as you say not everyone with a local newspaper article about them is considered notable and that's probably the only independent source. In cases where the subject of an article fails the basic criteria but meets an additional criteria (such as WP:ENTERTAINER) the guideline suggests merging the content to where it can be presented in a broader context, do you think this could be done in this instance? Guest9999 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. That is probably the best solution here. Merge her information into Coming of Age (2008 TV series) and redirect this page. One other cast member has even less of a page that requires the same treatment; and one cast member has a redirect there already. If Barnston ever has a definite break-out role, then she can get her own article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ (see comment below) - Just passes WP:ENTERTAINER for significant roles in multiple TV shows. Actress stars in a prime-time TV comedy series on a major network (although the reviews suggest it won't last beyond this one season). Leading roles in two previous tv series including this one nominated for a BAFTA children's award. Is currently receiving some coverage such as this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - I'm striking my previous weak keep, in favor of a merging this information into Coming of Age (2008 TV series) per the discussion above. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There was some stupid invalid information, but it's not hard to correct it (which I've just done). After that, it can be kept as a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.201.63 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - Common sense: she was 12 when she did Young Visiters, only 17 now. If she has a career, she'll get her own page, but not yet - not when there's no content to include - IMDB is for entries like this. The disputed Newspaper story has no extra info of any interest, and could easily be dropped as a reference since the BBC press release duplicates the essential detail. 82.11.194.209 (talk) 01:46, 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. Sandstein 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Gretzky[edit]

Delete - subject does not pass WP:BIO as an actor or WP:MUSIC as a singer. Her notability comes from being the daughter of a famous couple bu notability is not inherited. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added three reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1(talk) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a fourth one. I will add it to the article. Schuym1(talk) 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:COMMON. As I ask myself "how likely is it that someone would come to Wikipedia looking for information about this person, and how reasonable is it for them to expect to find something here?" this one definitely passes the sniff test. There's also something to be said for the fact that this article has been around in some form or another for nearly five years, and this is the first time deletion has come up that I can see. Newsaholic (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article includes multiple articles listed as external links that are clearly about the article's subject, not her parents. While the claim of notability not being inherited will be trotted out religiously for any article about any relative of any celebrity, the presence of multiple reliable and verifiable sources that are undeniably about the subject establishes that this article satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard. This article will benefit from improvement by having the material from these sources better integrated into this article as references. A need for improvement is not an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate debates that fall into this category: Paulina's notability is 100% dependent on who her parents are, not via anything she's accomplished. That said, she's clearly been the subject of multiple, independent sources. This might be one of those very rare cases where notability for being the child of someone famous is enough. Reso lute 23:07, 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 redirect to Alice Cooper. Warning: the target article has an infobox photograph so disturbing that it will haunt me in my dreams. Sandstein 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calico Cooper[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Article fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alice Cooper. Notability is not inherited, and she currently fails WP:BIO. RayAYang (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but allow back. There is The Insider, but really not enough for a 2 year career to show any sort f notability. A redirect imight be okay, but her short film career has nothing do with her father. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until the subject receives non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:17, 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 redirect to Power Rangers. Sandstein 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlizer[edit]

The content of this article lacks coverage in reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Power Rangers. Not independently notable. Schuym1 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rick lay95 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
- Why? Schuym1 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research. Redirect to Power Rangers. B.Wind (talk) 02:24, 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 Speedy delete by Oscarthecat, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Society of Cinematographers[edit]

Devoid of content. Seegoon (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article satisfies Speedydeletion under Patent nonsense. I've nominated it for that instead,but haven't removed your deletion nbotice. Looneyman (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chic Today[edit]

WP:COI article on online magazine that does not show any real notability. Lacks independent reliable sources. Claim of award win is not true, nomination only. Award appears minor. Prod removed, no reason given Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN magazine. Also, article is somewhat promotional. --The Firewall 19:53, 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, Protonk (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article about a non-notable "gratuitous" magazine... originated and repeatedly edited by Simone Biffi, who just "happens to be" the editor of Chic Today (side issue: the Simone Biffi article should be deleted for the same reason - written by Simone Biffi!). Too much spam and (apparent) conflict of interest, although I find it hard to believe that a magazine editor would be making the same types of mistakes that are apparent in this article. B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 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 redirect to Lacrimas Profundere. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

…And the Wings Embraced Us[edit]

Entire article contains one line: "... And the Wings Embraced Us is the first studio album by Lacrimas Profundere." followed by the track listing. Fails to meet Notability per WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The band seems to be somewhat notable, so there must be some sources somewhere for this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lacrimas Profundere until a more complete, sourced, article on the album can be written. The redirection will preserve this article in the history until someone wishes to expand and source it. B.Wind (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting this would be disingenuous. It's a stub, but one of sufficient notability. Shorter medical articles exist. Seegoon (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping. The length of an article is irrelevant to this issue as we've had valid three- or four-line stubs and invalid multi-page-length articles (including two whoppers that have been deleted just in the past 24 hours). B.Wind (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nose Hill Park. We are not a webhost for school reports. Sandstein 21:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nose Hill Pond[edit]

Article is a high school project, original research. JNW (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nose Hill Park. Original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Nosehill forest from the same stable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 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. Sandstein 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota (band)[edit]

Possible non notable band per WP:MUSIC. A lot of history about the band in the article but not much to prove their notability, other than implying they are "notable by association". Article was tagged December 2007 for needing more sources or references. The final wording in the "history" section says: Alternative Press magazine tipped the band to be a breakout star for 2006. The band mounted a full US tour throughout the beginning of the year but upon arriving back home, Ramirez announced he was moving to Los Angeles. Lakota broke up shortly afterwards. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources are mostly reviews, but they should cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. These sources certainly exist: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I'm inclined to think that these are enough.--Michig (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am only asking but do we allow reviews of albums/demos/EPs/ etc to be considered "Significant coverage" on the artist? I thought an album review/press release was only considered for proving "notability" for an article on that release, not on the artist their self. Also the Alternative Press link is for a staff submitted Recommendation, much like a video store having a list of staff recommendations for films or a library having a staff recommended "new release" for books. I am not discounting it but these are sort of like blogs that many magazine and newspaper have now. EDIT: (Just an FYI on Alt Press - here is a link to the Submit News section) Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the altpress Submit News link, the BBC has something similar [12] - I don't think it makes them an unreliable source.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:MUSIC lists 12 items under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Item one states that the artist may be notable if they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Next is the section that seems to cause problems: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:" and it lists items such as "reprints of press releases", "advertising for the musician/ensemble" and "newspaper articles that simply report performance dates". In any case where a newspaper or magazine has a "community events", "upcoming concerts", "user submitted news" or the like it is information that came from a press release. If a publicist, artist, family member, friend, label rep, studio rep posted "Y is going to release a new album on mmddyyyy and contains the following tracks: ab, nf, wk, pf, lq" on a fan site or personal blog it would not be considered a notable source. If that exact same information was put into a press release and placed on the label or artists official website it could be used to verify that an album in coming out and what the tracks are but it would still not be thought of as one of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself". Now if that same press release were uploaded to a website such as AP than some Editors would feel it is part of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself". That is what I am saying - the source of the uploaded information may not be unreliable however if it is "user submitted" there is no way to know for sure and because these small blurbs only contain a reprint of a press release or a list of tour dates they can not be considered part of the criteria for determining notability. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are correct that press releases or reprints thereof would not count as reliable sources, but I see nothing to suggest that any of the links above are reprints of press releases. Some/all of those links are from music sites that have a staff who write the articles.--Michig (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ack - ok, go back to what I first asked - "do we allow reviews of albums/demos/EPs/ etc to be considered "Significant coverage" on the artist?" Then I mentioned the AP link was not an article but a staff pick, much like a video store or library does "Staff picks". Then you mentioned the BBC has a user submitted section as well and I replied to that. So to be clear - For an article on an artist the guidlines suggest there needs to be "Significant coverage" on the band, not only reviews of albums, listings of concert dates and so on. As for *this* band you provided seven links. Six of those links are to album reviews - four that review "Hope For the Haunted" and two that review the "Acquaintances" EP. The last link is to "AP Recommends", which is where various staffers that work for AP recommend an artist or an album - in this case it is recommending "Hope for the Haunted" but if you look very close you see this was "Posted by Rob Ortenzi" (director of new media - ie: web - for AP) even though the actual "article" says "Scott Heisel" (Music Editor at AP). I am not discounting this coverage fully, only saying that the band has had their album reviewed. That is coverage of an album and the songs on it, and none of the reviews are very long. They do not seem to fit the "multiple non-trivial published works" description. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My judgmnet would be that these sources are sufficient. If you're looking for a clear-cut clarification of the guidelines I think you'll need to raise it on the WP:MUSIC talk page, as the guideline is not that specific.--Michig (talk) 06:13, 23 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relist: Only one person has commented on the sources listed in the weak keep !vote, making it difficult to tell if there is a consensus for deletion here. Let's give it five more days for more examination of the quality of the sources before deciding which way the balance is tipping.

Weak keep They fall under a couple major labels, the sources are acceptable, just barely notable enough for inclusion in my opinion. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:MUSIC, just, but a keep none the less. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source and keep. US national tour qualifies them for WP:BAND. The sources are about (see above), but the citation needs to be added to the article and not just posted here. B.Wind (talk) 02:39, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nosehill forest[edit]

Openly presents itself as an high school project (at the end). Original research and Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per RHaworth. I placed a prod tag on a very similar article yesterday-- Nose Hill Pond-- (same research, presumably same authors), for same reason. There may be historical and geographical segments which, if well sourced, could provide basis for a future article, without the science class original research. JNW (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there already is a main article covering the environs: [13]. JNW (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor[edit]

Unlikely title, uncommon phrase, next to no content. At most, this should be added to Corporate welfare or CC-PP game. JaGa^talk 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-part of other arguments, not argument in itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.211 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's such a famous argument worth its own article.--Sum (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was glad to see this heading and all its references. Merge it or expand it, but don't delete it without taking further action.Maryly 21 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryly (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with the proposer that this could be merged into overlapping articles such as Corporate welfare, or possibly even Moral hazard, but I think it possibly stands on its own. Certainly, "corporate welfare" tends to be used in the context of bailing out corporates, but I think the originators of this phrase may have been arguing for wider socialising forces in modern economies (i.e. away from business failures). And I would disagree that it's an uncommon phrase - I've heard it used from time to time, although its probably lost currency to Corporate welfare in recent years. Anyway, I'd like to see it expanded and clarified (i.e. some discussion of the mechanisms by which its proposed to happen; some case studies/examples). But I'd go for Merge if this doesn't happen within a month or so. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete not distinctive enough as an argument or a sloganDGG (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After the beginning of the deletion discussion, I´ve undertaken some research on this argument, also in related wordings, and have included the most relevant quotes I found in the article. The original objection of an "unlikely title, uncommon phrase, next to no content" no longer applies in view of these additions. It has clearly been raised several times by famous persons, even starting from Martin Luther King, Jr. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only is this a well known phrase (recently adapted by former Sec of Labor Robert Reich on The Daily Show on Oct 16, 2008): "We have Socialism for the Rich, and Capitalism for everyone else.": http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188622&title=Robert-Reich -- which I have added to the page, many would argue that the bailouts curently being made by world governments are a prime example of this saying in action.

--StevenAArmstrong (talk) 18:38, 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, Sandstein 16:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep acceptable as expanded. DGG (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Certainly needs a re-write to make it more encyclopedic in tone (as it is, it seems rather disjointed) But the concept itself is notable. As an aside- I think I remember an interview with Paul Krugman recently aired on Fresh Air in which he used the term (or a variation of it), which further lends notability, I'm not sure on that though. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much better now that it's been expanded. Thanks Chris Howard - good work. Copyediting, as per Umbralcorax's comments, would still be a good idea. --PLUMBAGO 17:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work Chris! --Sum (talk) 21:14, 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 all.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Eyed Poker[edit]

Contested prod. Album of an apparently non-notable band. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both artist seems to fail notability, so albums should go too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band is not notable, and the album is not more notable than the band. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. These will take care of themselves under CSD-A9 once a decision is made about the band of course. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just realized their was an AfD on either of these as Tyler.dawson is going around and blanking pages and removing CSD and AfD tags on anything they are involved in. (One Eyed Poker diff, The Thieves diff, The White Line diff) But that aside - this album does not meet the WP:NALBUMS guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - along with the rest of the linked articles; I've had to block Tyler.dawson (note the blatant COI) for disruptive editing, as he continued to remove AfD notices. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 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--Tone 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thieves[edit]

Contested prod. Apparently a non-notable band. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reason to suspect this band of notability. In fact, I think I remember speedy-deleting this article this morning; how strange that it still seems to exist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Totally fails WP:MUSIC (as per Ten Pound Hammer); not notable at all. Also delete One Eyed Poker and The White Line EP as they are albums of this non-notable band. --Belinrahs (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nn band (also with COI problems and a disruptive editor (brother of band member?) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Aside from the non notable element Tyler.dawson just blanked the article page and remade it sans the AfD notice. (Related: I have opened an AfD on Jamie Dawson) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:51, 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 List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Falcon[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, unnecessary plot details, and extremely trivial model details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list Given there are several hundred of these Zoids figures, we have to do something rational about them. Incidentally, I tend to wonder at delete reasons starting "yet another...", and giving no specifics about the article in question. DGG (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' wonder about them. There are a staggering number of nominally distinct entities in fiction. A hundred ships of the line in Star Trek. Hundreds of planets in Starship Troopers. Hundreds of Zoids. This manifold complexity is unconstrained by (naturally) what would constrain articles on each as subjects--we require third party coverage, this is certainly not required by the content creators :). Eventually the response will be resignation on the part of participants. Protonk (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTPAPER. If there were not hundreds, but thousands of each, we could still cover them as long as people will write the articles. And there will be, because if they are created, its because there's an audience--and some of that audience will be writing the articles. DGG (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you would have a higher estimation of my understanding of wikipedia than to spit NOTPAPER back at me. There is no limit to what we may physically have coverage of. However, there is a limit of what is covered in reliable, third party sources. The point about thousands of weapons/mecha was to say that the creator of the work of fiction can churn out new ones at will, but only outside coverage and note allows us to write an article on them. To despair that we have deleted enough of these so that the discussion has become rote is to miss the point. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Gnews. Nothing on Gbooks. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DDG. While I don't think that these should be deleted, I also watched all of the Ace Combat weapons be deleted so.... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:53, 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 redirect to List of Zoids. the article has been redirected, knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant; verifiable information seresin ( ¡? ) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephander[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, unnecessary plot details, and extremely trivial model details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to a slightly expanded treatment in List of Zoids, with a few lines identifying each. The details here are wildly inappropriate. DGG (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 22:41, 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, Sandstein 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Gnews, Nothing on Gbooks. A redirect is fine too. Protonk (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Zoids per DDG above. --Lockley (talk) 19:50, 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 redirect to List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units. The content is unsourced and merging it would fail WP:V. Feel free to merge it from history if you can provide references. Sandstein 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS-12 Gigan[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto List of Gundams of the UC timeline or List of Gundams of the UC One Year War era 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units is already quite large, as the UC timeline is quite large. May I suggest a better merge target, such as List of (series) mobile units (where "(series)" is the name of the series, as this is copypasta as your !vote)? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable fictional weapon. -- nips (talk) 22:02, 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, Sandstein 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge and let the people who know the series decide where. Elaborate articles on these are unjustified, but there are better ways to dealwith them than deletion.DGG (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to appropriate list. It is not the mobile suit of lead hero or villain, but the "grunt" mobile suit (non notable as a Zaku). Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Gundam UC mobile suit list. This did not even appear in the TV series and is not deserving of a stand-alone article. A one-line blurb in the list is sufficient. --Polaron | Talk 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG, others. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The gundam articles are awful, completely unreadable and I don't blame the gundam project members for that, they are overrun with ip editors who don't get what we do here. It's a complete ghetto. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather then complain about the general mess, pick a category and start cleaning up. --Farix (Talk) 02:04, 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) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killerdome[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, unnecessary plot details, and extremely trivial model details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fuzor (Zoids) as the term is used in that article... that is, unless and until the latter article is deleted after another AfD. B.Wind (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dark Spiner, it should be merged with what it is coupled with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.53.227 (talk) 01:52, 27 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, Wizardman 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fictional weapon with no sign of notability. Article seems as original research to me. -- nips (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of sources. There are probably some for the series as a whole in japanese, but the main article looks mighty slim to me. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 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 per G7 by Gwen Gale. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon g segaram[edit]

Was blanked by original author. Unreferenced BLP. Author also created Adaxial UK, which this person founded. It's unclear if that is a notable label. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G7) - I was the original person who tagged it for G7 and then removed my own tag, as I felt it was notable enough. But if others don't, I'm willing to put back my G7 tag (as I have already done). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I brought it here because the speedy tag was removed. It was added back and deleted. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original author... please delete this page and not Vernon G Segaram because i made a mistake with the Capital Letters in the subject name. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankar1987 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 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 deleted (CSD G3) by Rmhermen. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 05:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dads[edit]

No references to support that this doesn't fall under WP:NFT. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) — No indication of notability whatsoever. MuZemike (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure vandalism (or if not, notability not indicated). Either hoax, vandalism, or non-notable term. DavidWS (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources to verify this exists,[14] and it strikes me as vandalism. Speedy delete per A1 or A3 - patent nonsense or vandalism. Doesn't matter which. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:01, 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. Reliable sources has been added. Schuym1 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Murray railway station, New South Wales[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article doesn't require references. All railway stations are inherently notable. That having been said, print-only references such as local newspapers probably exist. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that it is inherently notable? Local news does not show notability, or else there would be an article on mostly everything. Schuym1 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's often said at AfD, but I don't believe railway stations are inherantly notable, not according to WP:OUTCOMES or WP:STATION anyway. All articles require references, but at the very least this should be redirected to Unanderra-Moss Vale railway line, New South Wales as a valid search term, not deleted. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the overall article Unanderra-Moss Vale railway line, New South Wales does or will link to all the stations on the line, including this one. Tabletop (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs to be notable. Schuym1 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can't dispute the existence of a railway station. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about existence. It's about WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to above, the article now has more references establishing its notability. Its buildings are heritage listed, it played an important role when it was an active station. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - precedent over any such ideas has been established extensively throughout the Australian project prior to this - this afd is effectively out of order in relation to previous discussions in numerous places, if necessary some longer term editors could provide the points where this issue has been hammered out before Satu Suro 00:27, 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 delete. Again. Sandstein 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seventysomething (term)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A re-created article after 16 months of absence after 2 previous Afds. Georgia guy (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, this is a clear-cut speedy delete. However, I wonder if a better compromise would be to redirect this term, and all other age-related slang terms that don't have enough notability outside a dictionary definition, to a single article on age-related slang. Anyway, my vote is to Delete, Redirect or Transwiki to wikitionary, whichever is most appropriate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinquagenarian for more prior discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that when the articles in Uncle G's above link were articles as opposed to re-directs to Ageing, they were just lists that were very difficult to mantain. Georgia guy (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki This is a slang term. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Either transwiki to wiktionary, or delete. DavidWS (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created an article on this at Wiktionary. Assuming that it meets policy/criteria (which it should, it is a VERY common slang term), I will create pages for twentysomething, etc. and then we ought to be able to delete these articles. Does everyone agree, or do you guys think there is a better way to do this?
- There's no reason (as far as I know) why you can't create all these articles on wikitionary. Whether terms like twentysomething or thirtysomething would get transwikied is another matter. You'd have to create a fresh AfD for those terms, and since these terms are in more common use, they may survive an AfD. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Gonzalez Hernandez[edit]

Completely unsourced article with little content at all; simply being a football player doesn't mean inherent notability.

Delete as nom. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The athlete passes WP:ATHLETE. So in this case, notability is inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schuym1 (passes WP:ATHLETE) DavidWS (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nom is correct to say that "simply being a football player doesn't mean inherent notability", all professional footballers, by dint of being professional, are notable. Moreover, this guy appears to have played for the national team: if that's not professional, surely that's the highest level of amateur competition, as required by WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator - while I don't doubt the veracity of the information contained in the article (he exists, his DOB, and the fact that he's a professional sports player), isn't there at least some level of verifiability required, specifically "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject" (from WP:BLP)? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article only needs to pass one thing and it passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found sources that can probably verify it, but the problem is that the sources aren't in English. Schuym1 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which I can't read. Schuym1 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are other policies to consider beyond a notability guideline... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to pass WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD is only a forum for deciding whether or not the subject of an article is encyclopedic - it doesn't have anything to do with the actual content. ugen64 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Has played for a professional league. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep played in a fully pro league BanRay 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have initiated a pump discussion of the policy application here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with everyone else. He passes WP:ATHLETE Captain panda 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The fact that the article is currently very short doesnt matter. The fact that he passes WP:ATHLETE means that the article can almos certainly be improved, and it's worth trying rather than deleting it. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes ATHLETE; has played for a professional league. I think that the nominator is mistaken in what AfD is for, and should probably read deletion policy and BEFORE. Formally, if something can be fixed by regular editing processes, then it isn't a good candidate for AfD. Informally, that means that AfD is only for the discussion of the notability/encyclopedic-ness of a subject. If an article is deficient in ways that can be fixed through editing, then AfD isn't a solution. That is, the article can be improved, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with the subject, so there's no reason to delete it. There's no deadline, and we can improve the article. I hope I've helped to clear that up. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:17, 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--Tone 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance of lazarus[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, article asserts their label is Roadrunner Records, which is distributed by Warner Music Group. Also please note, as the reviewing admin I didn't "contest" the CSD tag for speedy deletion, I declined it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad ... PRODs are "contested", CSDs are "declined". :-) — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) And when they get declined, it's often a hint AfD should indeed be the next stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Googling it does find some coverage outside of the MySpace page. However, the article should be renamed Bengeance of Lazarus for proper capitalization. If someone wants to look at what they find on Google (I will later) and review whether or not they are valid sources, that would be good. DavidWS (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They don't have their first album out yet, and I couldn't find any significant coverage from a Google search.--Michig (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; no evidence of notability. The article for their to-be-released album Vengeance of Lazarus (album) should also be deleted on similar grounds. Murtoa (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No releases, no references, just another non-notable group per WP:BAND. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 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 Withdrawn by nominator [15]. So Why 22:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova & Co.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Casanova & Co.

Fails WP:FILM, no references or external links cf38^talk 11:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's in Leonard Maltin's guide and there's a review (with cast and credit information) on TV Guide's website: [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Have finished ~~begun~~ expansion and sourcing. Request immediate closure of this flawed AfD. Per WP:ATD and WP:AFD, notable film should best have been tagged for sources, expansion, and cleanup... not for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 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. Schuym1 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fair Department Store[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability Schuym1 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It already exists here: The Fair Store. I will close this. Schuym1 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Certainly no consensus to delete; opinion remains also divided about whether it should be merged, but that discussion may continue elsewhere. I note that the article has been much improved since its nomination, so the earlier "delete" opinions are taken into account less. Sandstein 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sexual act)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Coprophilia. And what mikkalai means is that the disambiguation page shows that quite a few things are actually named after this, proving it is (relatively) widely known and thus notable. --131.211.156.215 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Etymology, notability and legal aspects now supported by reliable sources. Nomination rationale no longer applies. McWomble (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In response to the nom, no it is NOT an obvious delete -- note that this article has survived multiple AFDs. WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyway, it's got sources that establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sex act itself is clearly notable, so that's not an issue. And this isn't a "Wikipedia's Not A Dictionary" issue, because we're not talking about a word, per se, but a sex act; deleting this would be similar to deleting the article on fellatio. The article needs to be expanded, I think - right now it's little more than a stub - simply because the "dirty sanchez" seems to be an example of a sex act that exists more in the public consciousness (through jokes, pop culture references, etc.) than in actual practice - Dan Savage once claimed that no one has ever performed a dirty sanchez, that it's "completely fictional," [17] which in and of itself makes the dirty sanchez an example of an interesting phenomenon. Fumoses (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep References to the "Dirty Sanchez" appear throughout our culture and the prevalence and usage of the term is increasing. A compilation of verifiable information about this practice and its place in popular culture is consistent with the Wikipedia's mission. How many AfD's does an article have to survive until people will no longer assault it? Guess this is attempt number 4. WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still a dictionary definition with an etymology (also fitting for a dictionary). But wait, Wikipedia is not a dictionary you say? Get rid of this crap. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete surprisingly not notable, with most hits in WP:RS not actually being about this act. [18]. Sticky Parkin 01:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that this article survived five ~~four~~ AfDs, with the dicdef argument strongly played, show that the community has spoken over a period of time. Sorry, but I don't see this as a obvious deletion, rather I see it as a obvious keep. I also fail to understand why yet another AfD was initiated. The term is clearly way more than a dictionary definition since it about a sexual act, not just a word. It's notable, as shown by sufficient RS and cultural references. Although it could be expanded. — Becksguy (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:CCC. The sources provided within the article are either not substantial or unreliable. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, McWomble (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers Hill Bombers[edit]

This is an article about an amateur football club that does not indicate notability. Grahame (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local amateur club, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WWGB. claims to be reported in mainstream media but no references supplied. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a victim of crime does not make an organisation notable --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:12, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraline[edit]

non-notable school project, at least that is how I interpret this article - not really clear what all this about. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a school project. This is a successful implementation of a way of providing IT support to school teachers with no background in IT from the local universities. I note that the organisation has won a national award for innovation - which appears to be awarded by the Federal President. This would therefore appear to be notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of 365 winners out of a pool of 1500 participants, see 365 Landmarks. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a joint LEA/University project and seems notable. I don't read German, and the 'Web Resources' needs thinning out and organising by someone who does, but I see no reason to delete. The nominator's argument "not really clear what all this about" is not a deletion argument in any policy that I have seen. TerriersFan (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- to clarify, notability requires secondary sources, the only secondary source given is an article in the Frankfurter Rundschau, and Fraline is only mentioned in passing (Special support at the Fachhochschule is furthermore gien to the computer-project Fraline) - the article is about the Fachhochschule in general, not about the project). I could not find any other news article about this project - the project seems to be mentioned only on pages of the project and their support partners. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haven't researched it in detail, but I've looked at the references: President Köhler is patron of the "Land der Ideen" sponsorship program (as he is of many other ones). Being awarded a sponsorship from that program isn't making the project notable, and thus far I haven't found significant coverage of Fraline in reliable sources. --Amalthea^Talk 23:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked a little longer, but as indicated above, I don't find significant coverage that would warrant an article about the project. Fails WP:NOTE. --Amalthea^Talk 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge to Frankfurt am Main. There appears to be several German language news stories on it at GoogleNews. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the 30 gnews hits again, and discounting the press releases there really isn't anything left! The ones that aren't declared press releases by google and are about the project are [19] [20] [21] [22] and [23]. The first four are all on www.juraforum.de and list releases by de:Informationsdienst Wissenschaft, a platform which distributes press releases, and the last one is only a name drop with no information whatsoever. --Amalthea^Talk 14:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Update my suggestion to simply merge since I trust Amalthea's reading of the news coverage. There is still adequate verifiable information to leave it at Frankfurt am Main, where it can be expanded should reliable sources develop. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:57, 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 G4 speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clone Nancy ^talk 15:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clone[edit]

Film doesn't seem to exist, let alone be notable... Pretzels^Talk! 08:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quick google search finds us as the first result, little or no content, definitely not notable. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 09:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No ghits to mention. Article was deleted and immediately recreated by OP. Classic case for speedy if you ask me. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content, no sources, not notable. DavidWS (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found article was already deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clone -- Alexf^(talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added db-g4 to it. Schuym1 (talk) 13:30, 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--Tone 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of imambargah[edit]

Long list of redlinked and unlinked locations, no sources. This would no more be a meaningful list than would List of churches. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of mostly red linked locations. Schuym1 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have removed the personal contact details and duplications. However, I can't see that there is evidence of notability of these particular ones as opposed to any others. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little in terms of sourcing... not much salvageable content here. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vandalism in March removed much of the content. I have reverted the vandalism. The dicdef nomination is therefore probably moot. Sandstein 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macabre[edit]

WP:Dicdef with only definition and "uncertain" etymology. As the word has little definite background and describes an artistic quality rather than a movement, there is probably little room for expansion. Propose a history merge with macabre (disambiguation). Potatoswatter (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The paper encyclopedia Store Norske Leksikon has an encyclopedia entry on the Norwegian counterpart "makaber" (although their article is very short), so it is clearly "encyclopedic" in the sense that an encyclopedia has covered it. Our article is in fact pretty good in that it covers the etymology in some detail, along with examples of macabre work which account for its current name. When this discussion is longer than a paragraph, we are outside the dictionary realm, and it should not be in a disambiguation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't longer than a paragraph. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the etymology section is a long paragraph, and the article as a whole is more than a paragraph. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's pretty close to failing WP:DICDEF. What puts me on the fence is that DICDEF is actually startlingly broad if fully applied. IMO, this article needs to be rewritten to emphasize the use of the word to describe literary themes--that works for me as an encyclopedic use. As it stands right now (short def, etymology section), it is basically a good candidate to go to Wiktionary. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expandable and sourceable. Protonk is correct that there is no intrinsic separation between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. A good deal of NOTY is excessively rigid if interpreted literally. Perhaps its time to downgrade most of it to a guideline, to make explicit the flexibility that in fact we do use in interpreting. DGG (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if we could reconcile the text in WP:NOT with WP:DICDEF. The summary in WP:NOTDICDEF is much harsher than the actual text of WP:DICDEF. We ran into this in the Nucular AfD and DRV--I can read WP:NOT and conclude that policy says: delete and read WP:DICDEF and conclude that policy is less stringent. Looking at it closely, I'm not sure exactly what to change, but we need to make it clear that something like this is borderline and not a flagrant violation (which a look at WP:NOT would lead us to believe it is). Protonk (talk) 06:28, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre (musician)[edit]

No assertion of notability as per WP:MUSIC. Multiple albums, but not on a notable label. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not establish notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes on significant coverage. There's a bio and 3 reviews at allmusic, a dusted review, a Montreal Mirror review, a review in German magazine Skug, and that's just from Googling one of his albums.--Michig (talk) 06:31, 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, Tiptoety ^talk 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviews above don't seem to have much to say besides that he is a rapper with "ideas". They do not provide encyclopedic content on which to base an article. Links currently in article go back to his personal pages. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the allmusic bio? It is also included in the book All Music Guide to Hip-hop [24]. The Illness also makes #29 in Piero Scaruffi's "Best hip-hop albums of all times" [25]. There's also a bio on Scaruffi's site [26]. There's plenty out there to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have expanded the article with more than adeqaute sources. Maybe the Delete !voters would like to take another look.--Michig (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allmusic alone is comprehensive and reliable enough for our purposes. the skomorokh 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added references from the Baltimore CityPaper about his movie Crooked and am adding more citations and references now. He seems to be a prolific artist/entrepreneur and there are several articles out there on him and his work, unfortunately most from smaller publications.--Feddx (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rajeshwari[edit]

Fails WP:NOTFILM - no references/citation for WP:V or internal links from other wiki articles. Flewis^(talk) 07:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Google, and the Wikipedia article for the star Ramya Krishnan, it seems the film is actually titled "Sri Raja Rajeswari", so if the article is kept, it probably needs a rename. With that as the search though, there's one review found, [27]. The Google search doesn't find much else, however, other than false positives. And I'm not sure whether one review satisfies notability criteria, so I'm leaving that to others to debate. raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Raven1977's hint, notability is assured. I was able to find enough english sources to be able to improve the article. [28], [29]. I'll get to it this evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have cleaned up per film MOS, expanded, wikified, sourced. Raven is correct in that the name will require changing if kept. Comparing crew and production I found it as "Raja Rajeshwari", "Sri Raja Rajeshwari", and "Sree Raja Rajeshwari". Let me tell ya... that got confusing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After Mr. Schmidt's efforts in sourcing and cleaning up the article, I believe it's in a good enough state to be kept now.Raven1977 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:42, 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 Gentrification. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migration of the disadvantaged[edit]

This article utterly lacks any documentation to suggest that it is anything but the creator's own original research/opinions. This is especially evident considering that the only attempt at a reference made by the author (whose page indicates that he is from Finland) is what appears to be his/her experience with the alleged phenomenon in Finland. The article, taken as a whole, seems to indicate a leftist bias on the part of the author, and it is in any event a useless article since the concepts the on which the author tries to speak are covered in the gentrification article. Articles like this are a disgrace to Wikipedia; let's clean this up quickly, folks. E Pluribus Americanus (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hodgepodge of references don't seem to support this as more than a commonly used, incidental phrase. Disadvantaged people often migrate—DUH! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It only took me two minutes with Google Scholar to come up with:
- Frederic B. Glantz (July 1975). "The determinants of the intermetropolitan migration of the poor". The Annals of Regional Science. 9 (2). Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/BF01287422.
- R.S. Torrecilha and G.D. Sandefur (1990-04-26). "State characteristics and the migration of the disadvantaged". University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Demography and Ecology. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- W.H. Frey (September 1995). "Immigration impacts on internal migration of the poor: 1990 census evidence for U.S. states". International Journal of Population Geography. 1 (1): 51–67.
- Mark Nord (2002-12-07). "Poor People on the Move: County-to-County Migration and the Spatial Concentration of Poverty". Journal of Regional Science. 38 (2). Blackwell Publishing, Inc.: 329–351. doi:10.1111/1467-9787.00095.
As Potatoswatter states, poor people migrate. And as the above shows, people make serious study of their doing so. There is no reason that a verifiable encyclopaedia article cannot be written on this subject. And no, it's not the same as gentrification. The only reason for thinking that is that this article is currently bad. That's a reason for Cleanup, which AFD is not. I notice that the nominator even mentions wanting this article cleaned up. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, poor people do migrate--they also eat, sleep, use the bathroom, and so forth. That said, the topic "bathroom habits of the disadvantaged" is perhaps suitable for a less-than-interesting doctoral thesis, but certainly not for Wikipedia. E Pluribus Americanus (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject for a good thesis? Quite possibly. Subject for an encyclopedia article, at this point? No way. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gentrification. When wealthier people move into a gentrifying area, the previous/disadvantaged residents don't just evaporate: they move out of the gentrifying area. The term gentrification is about what happens to the geographical location; migration of the disadvantaged is about what happens to the humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is Finland specific. I've personally never heard of poor people moving out to rural areas from the city. There are many reasons that is backwards from most of the world: farming is difficult, initial transportation to the rural area is expensive, and more property is necessary for survival. A title like Urban exodus in Finland would be less outrageously broad and ineffectively covered. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete there's already a lot of relevant migration articles. Don't even get me started on how we define/contain "disadvantaged" for the purposes of an encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in part to Demographics of Finland or some other Finland-related article. The article describes a phenomenon apparently specific to (or, as far as we know, only identified in) Finland. As such, it is inappropriate for a standalone article at this point. Sandstein 21:08, 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 Delete--Tone 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor figures in contemporary art[edit]

It's unclear why someone who is minor belongs on WP. There are many external links in the list. It is not maintained. It is not clear what constitutes a 'minor' figure. I'm not aware of similar lists. Clubmarx (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no (and perhaps will never be) any meaningful criteria to separate minors and majors. It will never rise above an arbitrary collection of names, as compiling a complete list of minor artists is practically impossible. NVO (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lol, the definition of listcruft. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Potatoswatter DavidWS (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey, where's my name? I'm pretty minor as far as these things go. But, yes, this should be deleted per all arguments above. freshacconci talktalk 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The category contradicts the very criteria for notability. JNW (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. Even with a lot of work, this page by definition could never be objective or complete. --Lockley (talk) 19:44, 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. kur ykh 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrorshow magazine[edit]

non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no assertion of notability. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete - I can find nothing about this magazine other than places on the web to order it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 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--Tone 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneTalk[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. I have found no reliable sources mentioning it, most of the 97 google hits are from postings or some such by Kirk Lorange himself. So far from significant coverage that I'm not suggesting to merge it anywhere. Notability in question since June 2007. PROD declined. Amalthea^Talk 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significance from independent, reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no assertion of notability and Google fails because of all the other people talking about airplanes. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I feel bad about saying that. Googled for "planetalk guitar" and got pages of links of ads. Sticking to delete. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:47, 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 Zoids. Sandstein 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godkaiser[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, unnecessary plot details, and extremely trivial model details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 17:56, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Not independently notable. Redirect to Zoids. Schuym1 (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits on Gnews. No hits on Gbooks. A redirect is fine, too. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 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 20:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Day[edit]

Not notable event. Possible original research. Spiesr (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. —Spiesr (talk) 15:25, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve to remove OR; pieces of OR alone is not subject for deletion. I don't see problems with WP:GNG. Spiesr: as a representative of SD you probably know better about the subject; if so, speak up, state specific arguments. NVO (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to set this apart from other homecomings that isn't WP:SCHOOL. Also this is very easily confused with the National Hobo Convention, which also refers to itself as "hobo day." Potatoswatter (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter is a rationale for disambiguation, not for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak delete Remove OR and it might be an okay article (see the SDSU website), but it seems like a school homecoming type thing. It's also not mentioned on the South Dakota State University page. Either delete or merge, but don't keep. DavidWS (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is mentioned, at South Dakota State University#Athletics and activities, which in fact links to this article, and was very probably the redlink that encouraged the creation of this article in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some justification for the assertions of original research. Which editors have actually read the cited source, the book by Dunkle, and compared what it says to what the article says? I've not read it, but I've read all of the other cited sources, and nothing in the article leaps out at me for being overtly contradictory to what they say. I've also read some people quoting bits and pieces from Dunkle here and there, and what's quoted seems to support this content, too. The claim that this is original research seems to be ill-founded. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides numerous reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. This search for "Hobo Day" in Google News Archive turns up 42 reliable sources to expand the article and reference the term. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one of the pages for the University. This sort of material is not appropriate for a separate article. Not everything sourced is notable., DGG (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a reliable source can be found, merge with South Dakota State article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:46, 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--Tone 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfram 2[edit]

Non-notable game. There is no coverage in reliable third party sources. DDDtriple3 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:15, 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, Cirt (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:N and WP:sources. The article is completely unsourced, and there is no proof of notability. EconomistBR 11:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:RS. --Pmedema (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Notability.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:03, 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--Tone 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Consciousness[edit]

The article is basically a essay. Has no sources for any claims made. My apologies if I made any mistakes with the AFD I haven't done this in awhile. M8v2 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow discussion of this article. I contend that "the article is basically a essay" is not grounds to delete the post. My situation is similar to you saying you havn't used AFD in awhile, since I have never posted on Wikipedia before. There are no sources because I did not use any sources. I swear upon my life and my honor that I thought of this independently. Since writing the article I have searched the internet for articles on consciousness and a theory of consciousness, I have found no reference which resembles the theory. I humbly ask for this article be read and discussed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyang (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh been so long I can barely remember how to edit in links. Read here and here. Eh maybe I'm just nitpicking so I'd like to get thoughts from other wikipedia users. To be fair though a good place for something like this would be everything2.--M8v2 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I thought of this independently", ergo original research. McWomble (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. Btw, what do you think of the theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyang (talk • contribs) 06:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check your talk page.--M8v2 (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and hope this AfD won't ramble as much as the article. If this content belongs anywhere here (it doesn't) it's inside the article on consciousness. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the author admits it is original research. McWomble (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like it, but unfortunately WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V trump WP:ILIKEIT. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author admits that this article is in breach of WP:OR. — neuro^(talk) 11:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, so it is WP:OR, per the author's own admission. Further, I can't imagine how this article could be salvageably encyclopedic, short of a complete rewrite, as the whole article is an WP:OR essay. Thus, I favor deletion. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Further backing ∫Æ_S, The author -on his own talk page- says: "I had an idea for a science fiction story and it ended up being what you see" , so it is definitely WP:OR hence eligible for deletion.--Elhawarey (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm sorry. I just woke up and attempting to find wiki sources to back up what I have said and to get rid of the vagueness. However, it doesn't belong under "Wiki: consciousness" as they, like all consciousness articles I've read, only relate consciousness to the human experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.13.146 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can expand consciousness with a section on research on non-human creatures. Doesn't mean you should start a new article. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drayson Bowman[edit]

Nonnotable junior hockey player. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE.There is a long established precedence that major junior hockey players are not notable. Smashville^talk 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All junior athletes are NN per ATHLETE. This should probably be PROD rather than AfD. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod was contested. --Smashville^talk 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:ATHLETE Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he seems to have received enough coverage from multiple reliable sources to make him notable. Although WP:ATHLETE says that he's not notable simply for being a junior hockey player, it does not say that junior hockey players aren't notable: if James, Viscount Severn (a British prince plainly notable) were to become a junior hockey player, it wouldn't make him nonnotable. Rather, ATHLETE says that they aren't notable unless they become notable other ways, which (in my mind) is true of Bowman. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's faulty logic. The prince is notable for being a prince. Bowman doesn't have coverage for anything outside of being a juniors player. The coverage of the juniors player is based on game results for his being a juniors player, not for something outside of playing hockey. --Smashville^talk 21:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the "seems to have received" construction is unacceptable. Either he has received, as WP:BIO requires, "significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail" or he has not. So far, no evidence has been proffered that this is the case, and simple "Bowman scored a third period goal" references in articles also mentioning several other players are just the kind of trivial mentions disallowed by WP:BIO. Delete. Ravenswing 13:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage he has recieved has been only for hockey and that coverage is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. Black ngold29 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree that junior hockey players can be notable, either by winning a notable, high profile award such as a POY or being a first round draft pick in the NHL, this one is not notable. His highest profile award is being a member of the 2008 Memorial Cup All-Star team. Patken4 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he ever plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 20:25, 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. kur ykh 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hamilton (writer)[edit]

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

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

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

Notability Bonfire of vanities (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I can find no evidence of Notability and it appears that this page has been speedily deleted in the past. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete ugh, people who need to write about themselves. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save Scott did not create this page, I did, in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Scott's blog is in the 22nd most-read blog in NZ and the only genuinely left-wing blog to counter the many right-wing blogs that flood the cyber-ways. I say keep this entry. He's an excellent writer, think W.H. Auden at his least reverential. A definite guy to watch, and highly influential by people in NZ and in the (Chomsky-Flynn-Social Democrat and further left) web-world. Cheers, Sherry Hamid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.120.30 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC) — 202.150.120.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I don't see clear evidence of notability. The blogging would only make him notable if it was a very well-known website and I don't know if 'independently published' means 'self-published', or if the book sold a copy. There aren't references to show notability. The originial title was Scott Hamilton (NZ poet and essayist). This user has created several pages on Titus publishing and their writers, many of which have been deleted or PRODded and then not taken further when someone removed the PROD. (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

god! who doesn't have a political blog now? I don't think he makes the cut. Interesting blog, though, plan 8 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE: I don't see the problem, Scott reviews widely in international socialist papers, reviews online for Scoop review of books, has published a collection of poetry with a well-known New Zealand publisher and operates one of the most popular blogs in New Zealand, which also gets an international readership. If people want to wiki him to know more then he needs an entry up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.59.230 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC) — 123.255.59.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Vanispamcruftisement. It appears that the subject of the article writes, but is not written about. This is the critical element to having a biographical article on the subject. And a good rule of thumb is: if they have to come here to learn about him, we shouldn't have an article. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that's if they have to, ie have no other options, as opposed to simply wanting to. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save reviews, translations and references now reinforce notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.124.135 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Most of those are on his own blog or his publisher's website. To me this is "trivial coverage" and does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for Authors or Academics. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear evidence of notability. Looking at the contributions of the user who created the article, and the discussion here, it appears to be a possible COI. NZ forever (talk) 21:13, 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 speedy delete per CSD G4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

SFS Technology[edit]

Recreated by author. Still no notability. Chealer (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 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. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph sweet[edit]

Non-notable author whose works are all self-published described in an article sourced, per the author's own writing, from an personal interview with the author, which hardly counts as a reliable secondary source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is only one link, and it is to a personal blog. Clubmarx (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to be notable and I can't see anything in this article worth keeping.Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete

Some sources of news on Joseph Sweet which led to this, are http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=77E13949-66D5-42F6-A37E-5062C2888807&gsa=true for a story on the October book signing some information was obtained from news10now.com one such news article, complete with video interview, is http://news10now.com/Default.aspx?ArID=38751 The watertown daily times, watertowndailytimes.com has information in the archives of the first book publishing and of the last book signing. a press release for his first book, "Hell 101 can be viewed here, http://www.pr.com/press-release/62395 if any question is being made due to self publishing, see also "Marcus Maston" also listed on wikipedia, who was invited along to Joseph's book signing coming up on November 22nd, and has also self published his second and third books himself. Maston was also part of a book signing earlier this month at which Joseph Sweet, and children's book author Hope Irvin Marston was present. If self publishing is an issue, I think an exception should be made in this case. Because one chooses to self publish, does not mean their work is not noteworthy. And with the reviews and praise this author has received, it is obvious that his readers do not mind. Maston, a self published author, by his own admittance is listed here, and Stephen King: Very well known and legitimately published has been self published in the past as a matter of public record. Give this author his due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) One last note of interest. Joseph's first book, both the paperback: # ISBN-10: 0615159397 # ISBN-13: 978-0615159393 and the hardcover: # ISBN-10: 0615163874 # ISBN-13: 978-0615163871 are both listed through Bowkers books in print as published by forsaken press, and are available through Ingram (one of the biggest book distributors in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs)

It's not a very convincing public record, I must say, as a search of various library databases has turned up for me not a single record showing any of the books listed nor even its author--and that includes the US depository Library of Congress, the British Library, and Worldcat.org. If there's a single library in the entire world which holds any copies of any of Sweet's books, there's no record I can find. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long personal advert for an unpublished writer. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Links have been added to some reliable third party sources, and a simple search on yahoo, google, and msn.com, all bring quite a lot of results. Someone being "notable," does not necessarily mean "world-wide" knowledge of that person. And a search on bookfinder.com, and bookfinder4u.com both show results, as well as a simple search for any store online that sells books. They all carry his first book. What else is needed to show that there is genuine, building public interest for this writer. And as for personal advert, that would only be the case if the author himself made this page, which I think is very obviously not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.40.19 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) — 71.255.40.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~

As per Wikipedia definition of Notable "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

It seems as though three separate news media sources are secondary, reliable and not related to the source. --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface !vote stricken; you get only one, Horrorfan. Deor (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rambling bio discusses his life more than his work and smacks of WP:AUTO. Likewise the "keep" arguments here seem to know an awful lot about him, so I hope they will be discounted. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's basically an autobiography (WP:AUTO), it's written horribly, and the author is not notable at all. He's not published or anything. DavidWS (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Continued argument to keep~~

If you don't like the way it's written, rewrite it to suit you. For a first entry, I don't think it's that bad. It's not an autobiography. I think if it were, it would be a great deal more biased. For instance. I could have written about how much I personally liked his books, having read the first two. I left that out, not stating my own personal feelings at all. The public stigma on self publishing is well known. It's very easy to know an "Awful Lot about someone" when you spent two weeks talking via email, and pursuing every link. for other authors who are self published and have pages on wikipedia, please see Margaret Atwood, William Blake, Lord Byron, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Hardy, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf, along with many many others. listed with his own page also, is another author from the same area, already mentions in my previous argument who chose to self publish as well. So I think we've heard enough "he isn't published" argument. can you come up with some better reason? I am preparing to put up my second article on here. I'm just waiting on the results of this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC) --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out -- one vote per editor please.

Every author listed above may have initially been self-published, but they all achieved sufficient success to become well-known and widely published. This is possible with the passage of time, and in time, Mr. Sweet may also achieve such notability, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible for a self-published author to be notable, but it is very rare indeed and takes very reliable sourcing of notability from major publications. Stories in home-town newspapers are not sufficient for this. We'd want at least reviews in nationally known sources, & probably best-seller status, or major awards. DGG (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Further argument to keep~~ --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe News watch 50, News10now.com, and fox 7 and 28 are pretty reliable sources. and to be featured on all three is not something that is achieved merely by publishing a book. There has to be enough interest publicly in the work, and also, an independent blog that reviews hundreds of books per year as a matter of record is hardly biased or unreliable. It should be more reliable in the sense that they have no connection with the writer, and no reason with which to lie. Blogs are becoming the new source of news, like it or not. Not to mention a fan site, created by a fan in Sweden? How often does that happen to an unknown, non-notable author? you can check it out at fanpop.com by searching for Joseph Sweet. Someone on the other side of the world heard of this guy, bought his books, and his music by the way,having done a review of his CD also at associatedcontent. and thought it was so good that they built a fan site. I believe that I have stated a pretty strong case as to why this author is notable. In fact, I believe he will continue to grow more notable as time passes. Now I have to go fight for my other article on another author, so if you'll excuse me... --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out- duplicate

Delete Any arguments for notability are weak at best. Stealthound (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Continued argument to keep~~

So you admit, that there is an argument, if weak, that this author is notable? It's beginning to seem to me that there is so much argument against this author, not because he's not notable but because you guys are jealous that I'm trying to get him listed on wikipedia and no one is listing you. If this makes you feel unimportant in any way, that was not the intention. But if we can get past your insecurities, I think we can agree that this author deserves a spot. This author also has a book signing on November 22nd at Borders Books and Music. It's one of the biggest book store chains in the U.S. They don't host book signings unless they know the books will sell, because they purchase all of the books in advance for the signing. --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ad hominem attacks are really not appropriate in this forum. It is unlikely that anyone involved in this discussion is also an author who is jealous of Mr. Sweet's article. The point is that notability is established by SIGNIFICANT coverage(once again, please review the guidelines at WP:BIO). The coverage at NewsWatch50 contains a brief mention of his appearance at an event with other authors. The article at News10Now is somewhat more substantial, but is still little more than a local interest piece, containing no review of Mr. Sweet's books themselves. And press releases almost never count as reliable sources, as they are almost always self-published. Provide significant, non-trivial coverage, if any is available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And stop striking out my arguments. They aren't individual votes, and they aren't duplicates. Each one says something different. This is a debate. Usually in debates the person, or persons attempting to argue their case tends to go back and forth with the people arguing against them. So I have every right to argue against what each person says, if I feel it helps my case. Stop being biased, and trying to belittle my argument.--Horrorfan7610 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attempt to belittle your argument, but rather a following of protocol. Each Keep or Delete is regarded as a vote. Please use Comment unless you want to change your original vote, in which case you need to strikethrough your original vote. Thanks. Stealthound (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article as it is seems to be primarily derived from original research, press releases and interviews with the author. Given the current lack of independent reliable sourcing I don't think it will be possible to write a neutral, verifiable article on the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~More argument to keep~~ Wikipedia rules state that self published sources can be used, and also says that using News sources is acceptable. It also mentions that News sources are considered to be reliable. Blogs are listed under Notes and references on the same page.

So let's summarize the sources here.. We have a blog that reviews hundreds of books per year. We have Three reputable news channels. We have a fan site put up by a fan. Reviews on Associated content by someone who has reviewed hundreds of products, music and writings, without bias. And Borders which its wikipedia article claims, is "the second-largest bookstore chain in the United States" is not only carrying the books, but hosting book signings. What more do we need here? Wikipedia's rules put this just within acceptable bounds as far as i can see. Please also search Marcus Mastin on here. He also is self published, lives in the same area, has about the same amount of press, and is listed on wikipedia. As I'm sure, are many others who meet the same guidelines as Joseph Sweet.--Horrorfan7610 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existance of one sub-standard article is not an argument for keeping another sub-standard article. Nor does it transform Joseph Sweet into a Notable author, which he does not appear to be. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. GcSwRhIc (talk) 16:32, 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--Tone 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jones (director)[edit]

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 03:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a CV--and a very short one, at that--showing little to base an biography on nor giving any indication why one would do so. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many guys named Ben Jones to find with a search... some 20+ on IMDB alone. Combining my search with the article claim of his working with partner Greg Fay, a "Ben Jones, Greg Fay" search broought ne a few things, but not enough to even approach notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:20, 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. More like weak keep, in fact. Not all of our resident mathematicians are convinced of his notability in terms of the guidelines, but it appears that his biography is considered useful nonetheless. Sandstein 20:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torkel Franzén[edit]

This poor guy fails WP:BIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources qualified by our WP:RS guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I have established as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although it pains me to !vote delete for a fellow mathematician). May be considered under WP:PROF or WP:BIO but does not appear to pass either. MathSciNet lists 5 math publications by him, none appear to be particularly widely cited according to MathSciNet, WebOfScience and googlescholar[30]. I also looked in JSTOR and Scopus to see if there was significant coverage there of his philosophical writings, but did not find much there. His "Gödel's theorem" book is well-carried by the U.S. academic libraries[31] but it does not seem to be widely cited (at least not yet) or extensively reviewed (although its review by Wilfried Sieg in Mathematical Reviews was very favorable and it starts with "This book is a welcome and extraordinary addition to the literature."). There are very brief bio mentions of his death at the AMS site [32], in the MAA newsletter [33] and at the SF site[34]. Unless somebody else finds more, there does not seem to be enough here to pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ changed to: Keep The authorship of the books is sufficient, a major scholarly work with a very strong review in the standard reviewing source shows notability. DGG (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the MathSciNet review, if we were talking about a different discipline, I'd be inclined to give it more weight. Mathematics is fairly unique in that MathSciNet (and also Zentralblatt Math) provides third-party reviews of essentially all peer-reviewed mathematical publications. Because they have to deal with such a massive volume of papers and books to be reviewed, the quality of these reviews is generally not as high (even though they are extremely useful), and there is a substantial element of luck and chance involved in who gets assigned to write a review. Because the review is essentially mandatory rather than selective and the choice of people who write them is less careful, I would assign less value to such reviews than to selective reviews in other disciplines. MathSciNet does have a category called "featured review" where a publication reviewed is considered particularly important, the review is longer and more detailed and the reviewer selection process is more careful. The review of Franzén's book was not one of these. In my experience with MathSciNet there is one other factor that is a good indicator of notability of a particular paper/book: how often its review has been cited in other reviews. In the case of Franzen's book its review has been cited only in two other MathSciNet reviews, both of which are of other articles of Franzen's. MathSciNet also allows one to see how often a particular article/book has been cited in other recent publications reviewed in MathSciNet. This citation data is not complete and generally covers the publications for the last 6-7 years or so, with some publications not covered. Still, Franzen's book is listed there as having been cited only once, again in an article of Franzen himself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm moderately inclined to say "keep" on the grounds that I found an occasion to cite a good passage from one of his books in a paper that may be published next year. (I suppose that's a somewhat subjective endorsement, since I'm not ready to opine on the value of his books generally, even the one I cited the passage from.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep from someone who disagrees with Franzén's work I've almost finished Franzén's book on Gödel's Theorems, and it has me very annoyed. It's billed as for the non-mathematician, but 1) is largely incomprehensible except to a specialist, 2) ignores the all-important philosophical aspects of Gödel's work in favor of Franzén's own hidden and idiosyncratic philosophical agenda and 3) is totally inadequate in terms of covering the historical background which is necessary to a book aimed at a lay audience. Nonetheless many, including people whose expertise in the field commands respect, recommend this book. It's often, I'm sorry to say, suggested as the standard source on Gödel's work for the non-mathematician. I knew more or less what I was in for, and avoided reading this book for as long as I could. Franzén is notable. His bio in my humble opinion is a must keep. Damn. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to accept the argument that Franzen's book is considered a/the standard source on Gödel's Theorems for non-mathematicians, but I'd like to see some more tangible evidence for this. E.g. is the book widely used as a texbook/reading material in logic-related courses oriented on non-mathematicians? Is it often cited in other popular books on the subject? Something of that nature would be convincing. Nsk92 (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit strange defending Franzén, since I'd be one of the abusers of Gödel's Theorem he decries. Here for example is a Franzén fan page saying that we have "special circle in hell reserved for" us. Torkel Franzén was the crown price and remains the patron saint of the "Gödel minimizers", those who wish Gödel's popularizers would go away or at least tone it down. If you search for TF's name on the Web and on the blogs, you find many people singing his praises, looking for collections of his old sci.logic posts, etc. For praise of the suitability of his book for laypeople, see the reviews on Amazon.com. I'm at a loss to understand what these people are talking about, but there they are.

TF may not have been notable as a mathmetician, but the 2006 Notices of the AMS article indicates that at his death he was considered the expert on how Gödel should be popularized.

As one approach, you might try posting on sci.logic, that TF's article is up for deletion. I'd expect a very strong response in favor of keeping the article. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources that you mention (except AMS) seem to be reliable independent sources. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense I'm using them they are reliable. I don't say the Amazon reviews are accurate -- quite the opposite. I say they exist and reflect a sentiment, and that Amazon's page is an independent, reliable source that they exist and say what they say. I don't say the many Web page, sci.logic and blog comments are accurate or reliable -- I don't believe that. I say they exist, and reflect a sentiment, and that the Google hits are independent reliable evidence that they exist and say what they say.

I agree that if any of these reviews or Web pages were used as a source for the contents of TF's article, they would have to be rejected as unreliable. But here the criteria is notability, and popularity, even among unreliable sources, is enough to create notability. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I utterly and completely disagree with you. There was a lot of brouhaha a while ago when it was shown that many Amazon "reviews" were actually written by the authors of the books that they were supposedly reviewing. Amazon is utterly unreliable as a gauge of anything, be it notability, popularity, or whatever. At best, the "editorial reviews" posted on the site can point you to real reviews that are published in reliable and independent sources (if you can find them, that is). --Crusio (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! That would be WP:CANVASSING; it's the same reason I wouldn't post such a notice on rec.arts.sf.fandom, where he is missed by the old-timers. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on the grounds that OtherCrap exists. This subject sounds like a combination of two other cranky old men, John Boardman and Petr Beckmann; their articles are useful, and this may be too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is invoked to argue why something should be deleted, not the other way around.... --Crusio (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Variety is the spice of life; it was going to be said anyway, so I might as well say it first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Godel book fulfilled a real need, and represents a very mainstream (mathematical logic) view. Was looking around for it but couldn't find it, but a look at google books confirms that it was blurbed by Solomon Feferman, a well known logician and editor of Godel's collected works, and John W. Dawson, Jr (Godel's biographer). Gbooks links reviews from the Mathematical Association of America [35] , the Notices of the AMS [36] and Philosophia Mathematica [37] . So I think it is a well-known and notable book, in the ordinary and wikipedia senses, and is enough to support a keep for his article.John Z (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging these up. Feferman and Dawson are two of the editors of Gödel's Collected works, and the first two in order on the title page. Dawson is the author of the only scholarly biography of Gödel, a much-needed work that he executed brilliantly. These are gold-standard blurbs. How they can praise TF the way they do, I dunno, but one of TF's most annoying traits was to pretend contrary opinion didn't exist or wasn't significant, and I don't care to imitate TF in that respect. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -> Keep Crusio's point about the unreliability of Amazon reviews makes sense. I know TF has many fans on sci.logic, and a look there can confirm that, but he was a frequent poster and his following there is at best modest evidence for notability. And I now note that Dawson and TF had the same publisher, A. K. Peters, which might explain why Dawson blurbed TF's book.
On the other hand, I've been hoping TF's book would go away for 5 years, and it hasn't. I've just finished it. While reading it, I turned to Wikipedia trying to find out more about TF. I found a nice concise and AFAIK accurate summary. Won't there be others like me? The page averages ~10 hits a day. While I no longer see the case for a strong keep, I think there is still the case for a keep.
As an aside, the Gödel literature has gradually become dominated by people who, like myself, are optimistic about application of Gödel's work to philosophy and other fields outside of logic. A book stating the more skeptical point of view, clearly and fairly, would be a useful counter-balance. It's a shame that TF did not write that book. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your keep, but point out that even in subject I know, (and this is not one), I do not judge notability by my personal estimate of the work. I save that for when I write an actual review. Here we go by what the profession thinks in its published evaluations. DGG (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put off commenting here for a while, to think about it. I have been familiar with T.F.'s book for some time; it was widely advertised to mathematical logicians and displayed at book tables at conferences. I have a copy in my office. But I am not convinced that T.F. is notable enough for a biography. My main concern is that we seem to have extremely little biographical information. If there really is no more info, so that our article will forever remain just a bibliography, then I think T.F. is not notable enough for an article. On the other hand, if new sources arise that allow us to fill in other information about his life, that might tip my opinion the other way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 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 redirect to Cherry Red. No sourced content exists to be merged. Sandstein 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry red TV[edit]

Non-notable web TV station, no coverage in reliable sources. Being produced by Cherry Red Records is enough to avoid {{db-web}} but not enough to merit an article. Icewedge (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can see the only outside coverage it's getting is from artists/managers noting their own appearance on the station. The brief mention in Cherry Red encompasses the content of Cherry red TV. Could be redirected to Cherry Red, although that would seem self evident. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 05:20, 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, kur ykh 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Cherry Red Records. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect as above. not enough content to justify own article. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:43, 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 speedy delete. has already been deleted by User:Orangemike TravellingCari 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Fall (TV Series)[edit]

This seems to be a hoax; there is no evidence for TV series or Australian Channel 3 that it is supposed to appear on. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also likley hoaxes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of all Australia doesn't have a Channel 3 network at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you meant to say "Speedy delete of all Australia"? I did not realise that there was an admin button for that! SpinningSpark 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. The IMDB and TV.com links, I'll note, go to a different Australian series called Blue Heelers. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete agreed hoax, Channel 3 Australia does not come up on Google. SpinningSpark 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Free Fall (TV Series) was deleted (CSD G3) by Orangemike. Cliff smith ^talk 06:01, 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 keep. Non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 11:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Godfrey-Smith[edit]

Per WP:NOTE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this Google Scholar search. Tenured academics at Harvard University are usually notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability (WP:CREATIVE) as author and educator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Full professor at Harvard, enough said. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. Today, by coincidence, It snowed where I live. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. I commiserate with Pete and the shoveling he has to do and am afraid that the sunny and warm weather today here in Southwest France will not be much of a consolation to him.... But at this AfD, it's clearly snowing :-) --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 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 WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan G. Gross[edit]

Per WP:NOTE OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability (WP:CREATIVE) as author and educator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A googlescholar search (which is usually absolutely terrible in fishing out citations in humanities) gives significant results for him[38], in particular with 348 cites for his book "The rhetoric of science". Googlebooks search results are also impressive 296 hits[39]. I also did some searching in WorldCat, which is mainly a book holdings search but also has some (rather incomplete) data about journal articles. There are 27 journal articles listed there with reviews of his work[40], including review articles called "Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric, Alan Gross and Arthur Walzer"[41] and the like. This already tells me that he is quite a notable figure in his field. Clearly passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! He's a two-fer! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:PROF. — neuro^(talk) 11:11, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence J. Prelli[edit]

Per WP:NOTE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author and educator per WP:CREATIVE, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this Google Scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N. — neuro^(talk) 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF. Verbal chat 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article provides three reviews of his book. That must make him notable as an author even if he has failed notability as an academic. SpinningSpark 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UNH isnt Harvard ,but I wouldn't call being a professor there an unsuccessful or necessarily unnotable career. The GS search is sufficient to show it is in this case. DGG (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that Harvard isn't the standard for notability, but this person is hardly notable. Is there even one article on this project, except for the one about him, that would link to this article? Just one? If I were rewriting the University of New Hampshire, would I even include him? I doubt it. He lacks any reasonable standard of notability, including a Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize, something other than one book? Based on that standard, someone needs to write an article about me on here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Not a single article on all of Wikipedia links to this gentlemen. That means, IMHO, that this article exists solely in its own universe with no relevance to any other article. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and hence, is not notable even by Wikipedia's low standard of notability. Shot info (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did a search for refereed articles written by him in Academic Search Complete, which catalogs articles in his field, to see if he could met the academic/professor notability criterion #1. Got three entries only, in disconnected areas. Number of citations: 2 for two of the articles, and 1 for the other. Five citations total in that database; definitely not enough to meet criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO not even remotely notable. Paste (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources or received prestigious awards or any of the rest of it. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Communications professor that has written 3 books [42]. Few reviews. Books are not referenced often. No other scholarly work. Fails all criteria on WP:PROF. - Atmoz (talk) 18:54, 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. kur ykh 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radical skepticism[edit]

Completing an incomplete nomination by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs • count) who had earlier suggested that this was original research. ~~I am neutral.~~ Eastmain (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous Google Books hits and Google Scholar hits confirm that this is a notable topic in philosophy, albeit the current version of the article may not cover the topic particularly well. Let's tag the article for expansion, but I see no reason for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research and essay-style article. Only two sources provided, one of which appears to fail WP:SOURCE. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been policy since 2003, if you are challenging something for not being based upon sources, you are supposed to look for sources yourself. Please read User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Checking just the sources cited in the article is insufficient. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tallnapoleon you realize a source doesn't have to be online?YVNP (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a position frequently referred to in academic philosophical discourse. For an online example, see the IEP entry on contemporary skepticism [sic] here the skomorokh 16:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is clearly a notable topic, but we may have dealt with it elsewhere. For example, what is the difference between radical skepticism and Pyrrhonism? We also have an article on Philosophical skepticism: how does it differ from that? I am aware that some people favor the phrase "radical skepticism" over "Pyrrhonian skepticism," but I'm not sure that calls for two separate articles. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 12:37, 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 per A9 by SatyrTN. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of TK[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:47, 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, kur ykh 02:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Tynisha Keli. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL issue because of this link, but it still isn't notable. 13:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuym1 (talk • contribs)
Delete YouTube and a blog? classic unacceptable references. SpinningSpark 20:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am CSD A9-ing it as the parent article has been deleted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:08, 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. kur ykh 20:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinito 2017[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable rapper/writer with no real assertion of notability. A speedy deletion was declined and since the previous AFD was two years ago, I'm re-nominating it. Still fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even notable, or just bioliving things. I saw one source is myspace, it's definitely non-notable.--Free way 8 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting the dodgy refs in the article to one side, there are a few interviews in there, and there's another ay Hip Hop Elements, which with the decent Allmusic biography (you searched allmusic, right?), should be enough in my view. Allmusic knows about 3 albums by him - the discography in the article needs cleaning up as I can't believe all those listed are albums. I don't believe trying to speedy-delete this was remotely appropriate, by the way.--Michig (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 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, kur ykh 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source I can turn up is the Allmusic interview, and that pretty explicitly shows that he fails WP:MUSIC: no charts or awards during his career.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article passes WP:MUSIC on coverage - the allmusic bio is significant coverage, and there are several interviews and reviews in the external links. If sufficient coverage exists, chart hits and awards are not required.--Michig (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews aren't secondary sources and don't establish notability. The article itself says nothing about his music besides listing the album/track names. It's just a laundry list bio and therefore likely WP:AUTO. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My inclination in this one is to delete, but I have to ask Potatoswatter, if the interview was from an independant source, then the interview itself counts towards notability does it not? Or am I misunderstanding the notability requirement of WP:MUSIC. If there is only the one source then it has failed the requirement for "multiple sources", so would be a delete. SpinningSpark 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My thought is that any interview is automatically a primary source. It's not just independent sources, but reliable secondary sources. There are a lot of interviews linked but I'm not qualified to judge which are legit popular websites. In this day and age an interview is just an IM or email transcript. If a "real source" does "really care" they'll write an actual article... Allmusic wrote a couple paragraphs. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:24, 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--Tone 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Permiso[edit]

Non-notable political magazine. This article was created about six months ago, and I've been hoping it would work out to get some attention and be worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have gained much attention. There are nine hits on Google News -- and most of those seem to be either reprints of articles from the magazine itself or other articles written by people who list their previous articles published in Sin Permiso in their bios at the end. The article here is unreferenced, and I don't see possibilities for fixing that problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable subject Cabe 6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 20:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe cite is Spanish text, should go on Spanish Wiki. Delete.--Freeway8 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, cites can be in any language, although English cites are preferred when both English and non-English cites are availible. Thus this is not a valid argument for deletion. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 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, kur ykh 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being Spanish doesn't disqualify it here, but notability is hard to judge due to its grandiose and dodgy journalistic practices. Most of the content not by its editors appears to be interviews translated from English. The list of other notable "editors" is clearly at least a partial fabrication. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After six months and still no references, its the model for WP:DEL#REASON all attempts to find reliable sources have failed. SpinningSpark 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marah and Kapri[edit]

The characters covered in the article lack coverage in reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They appear to already be covered in the two articles they would be useful, and not sure a redirect would be beneficial, so would agree in this circumstance that a delete would be in order. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 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, kur ykh 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Schley[edit]

Nonnotable third-party Congressional candidate; no other notability shown. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 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, kur ykh 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Communist or no, third party candidate or no, he has coverage in independent reliable sources and passes WP:PEOPLE. Google Google News Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "City Room" of the New York Times is local news, and they report he got 6000 signatures in his district of New York City, which is not a notable accomplishment. Not everyone who gets on a ballot is notable. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Schmidt, meets WP:N in that the coverage is non-trivial. As far as I'm concerned, this is an utterly unimportant subject, the existence of which I would have been happily unaware if it was not for this debate, and will continue to never want to read the article after the debate is closed. But notability has been established so its got to be a keep. SpinningSpark 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Local third party candidate. Coverage is only in the context of a local race. RayAYang (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Gibzen[edit]

Non-notable music producer. May have produced for some minor but notable artists but no good sources can be found. 391 Google hits turn up his name mentioned with major acts but only on user-editable sites, and there's no notable names mentioned on his own website. I call shenanigans. In any case, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 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, kur ykh 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as any claim to notability cannot be confirmed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 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 A7 by DGG (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mascot union[edit]

WP:Unverifiable: the article gives no references, and Google returns nothing for "Mascot Union of America", or really anything relevant for "Mascot Union". Hoax? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... its gone now. Somebody blank the page? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. kur ykh 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward Tentacles (character)[edit]

Article is crufty with no third-party sources, and is redundant since the character already has its own section on the SBSP character page. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed; it fits quite nicely into the SBSP list, so if any information is lacking in it, then it can be merged from that article. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 03:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I hate Spongebob. No, seriously, because there's not enough out of universe info and the main character list alreasdy covers him enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. Article is a wreck, but a little ~~tentacle~~ elbow grease will get it in order in time given the sources shown below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Gosh golly, I think the character is sourceable.
- We've got coverage in scholarly books [43], [44],[45].
- We've got him in an article on "the worker's plight" [46]
- A brief description [47]
- Movie Reviews. Lots and lots of movie reviews where the character is at least briefly described.
- And just plain reviews. In Time [48] and other places [49], [50]

Seriously. This was the #1 kids show in the country. There are ~90 book hits, 386 news hits, (13 in the last month!). And I hear he's in Entertainment Weekly's ""24 TV Characters Who Just Turn You Off." [51]. Iconic and sourceable. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The article as it stands is horrible. But the topic has no problem with the GNG. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An undoubtedly awful article. The sources already in the article and the ones listed above establish that the character has independent notability to merit a standalone article. Beyond that, the description that the article is described as "crufty" in and of itself ought to be the best argument for retention. Need for improvement has nothing to do with deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the numerous sources found by Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 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. Next time just CSD; no need to AfD it. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Robinson[edit]

While this 12-year-old girl is indeed a Scholastic Reporter as per the link in the article, her notability seems questionable. Speedy tags removed three times and claims of writing abilities equal to Victor Hugo now added to the talk page. I considered cleaning up the article, but there would be only the single statement that she is a junior reporter for Scholastic.com. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 so tagged. Autobiographical article asserts no notability. The speedy tag was removed three times by the author herself, so the speedy tag should remain. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 bio, maybe with a temporary pinch of salt. no assertion of credible significance. – Zedla (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7; no notable information was even inserted at first in the article. Firebat08 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article begins with pure unadulterated nonsense ("scales are scary" - what?) that kills off any shred of credibility instantly. Plus, anything described as "kewl" does not belong on Wiki. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This seems to be someone writing an article on Wikipedia about themselves or a friend or an attempt at a Myspace-like profile. Does say exactly why this subject is notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:30, 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 keep. kur ykh 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Honda Karizma R[edit]

Entire article is copy-pasted; see: [52] fraggle (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete but it would be more appropriate to tag it with {{copyvio}} Potatoswatter (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article has been rewritten. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that it is a copy vio, was planning to clean it up a bit more and add some more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakesht (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed the copyrighted content, need to add some more details, also recommend renaming the article to Hero Honda Karizma since Karizma R is just a cosmetic upgrade and almost all the reviews are based on the earlier versionTrakesht (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1982–1983 United States network television schedule (late night)[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide. We don't need the TV schedule for 1982 on an encyclopedia. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination fails to go beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Latenight TV programming from each year in the history of broadcasting has had substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, easily satisfying WP:N. For the 1982-83 season, for the Johnny Carson show see [53] 2110 Google News archive hits, including Time magazine [54] . The threat to Carson's show from his competition in the schedule is discussed at [55]. Carson's competition with Alan Thicke is discussed at [56]. Other articles also discuss the competition, Carson's sometimes slipping ratings with respect to the competition, and Joan Rivers becoming a regular guest host. An AP story April 12 1983, presented in NewspaperArchive,com in "The Capital" also discusses the scheduling ot=f the Thicke show against Carson, and Carson's loss of audience to Nightline, CBS movies, and independent stations. "David Letterman" gets 1670 Google News hits for that season [57] and again many are substantial coverage of the show and of its success in the schedule. "Nightline" gets 935 Google News hits during that season [58]. This is not at all TV Guide, which tells what is occurring in a particular day's episode of a program. It is a notable part of broadcasting history and a useful navigational aid. Edison (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on the presence of this or any other of the series of annual articles that the editor is in the process of creating, some of which have been Speedied in the recent past. However, please be aware that whatever decision is made the precedent will be set to either accept or remove all of the articles. As an aside, this editor has a history of removing Speedy and AfD tags without explanation - I've just reverted one for this AfD. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent holds that such information is encyclopedic, and the nominator fails to indicate why this particular grid is unacceptable when there are plenty of other late-night grids (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not applicable). US television programming schedules are of encyclopedic interest and can be easily sourced. Doesn't violate any policy that I'm aware of, and is in fact covered off by several WIkiprojects, to boot. 23skidoo (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artticle is wiki-worthy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia now catalogues outdated TV Guides, might as well catalogue the up to date ones. Since when the TV schedule of TV stations during some year is notable and worthy for an article? Let's do then foreign TV stations schedule. Oh, wait! We are already doing it... 2007 Australian network television schedule. Why stop there? Let's do cable and radio too. Everything that puts out an schedule we're cataloguing it! I am sorry for the sarcasm. EconomistBR 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TV Guide tells who is on tonight's show, as was noted above. This article covers the programming schedule. There is a difference, and this difference is noted at WP:NOT. Other than "IDONTLIKEIT" what basis is there for removing an article with the many reliable and independent sources discussing it in depth noted above? The articles are not mere schedules or listings of programming. Please read the preceding comments before chiming in. Edison (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, this list and others like will be kept, but TV schedule is not and never will be encyclopedic. We are the only ones treating old TV listings as if it were historical artifacts worth preserving. IMO the articles are indeed "mere schedules or listings of programming".EconomistBR 10:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "mere listing of programming" would say "April 6, 1983. Johnny's guests include Suzanne Pleshette and Calvin Trillin." or "November 23, 1982. David Letterman's guests are Grant Tinker, John Sayles and Harry Anderson." Now do you understand the difference between that and a schedule showing graphically what programs were on what networks at what times? This article is not TV Guide. Edison (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NOTDIRECTORY now explicitly excludes US TV listings: they are acceptable wikipedia content. It appears that one part of the divided community enforced their pro-life opinion through a policy while others probe changing consensus elsewhere. Either obtain consensus on WP:NOT, or close this debate as keep. NVO (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful index, verifiable, well scoped. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per previous precedent and consensus established numerous times. The national network TV schedule for any given year is discussed substantially in reliable sources, as noted by Edison above. Schedules like these are covered in general in national magazines, newspapers, and specialized encyclopedias. Per the first pillar we incoporate elements of specialized encyclopedias (as well as almanacs, where you also can expect to find timetables). The explicit exemption of "historically significant programmes schedules" in policy is due to the perennial requests to delete such articles, which have continued to result in keep or no consensus to delete, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night). DHowell (talk) 22:27, 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--Tone 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlies van der Kouwe[edit]

I think this fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Van der Kouwe was not notable in her own right, and, now that the suspects have all been arrested and the body found, there's no reason to believe that this is going to become notable in the unfortunate way that Holloway did. PROD on this basis was placed by another editor and removed by yet another editor. I will point out that some may believe me to have a COI: this event took place a few hundred meters from my home. —Kww(talk) 00:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. that WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E apply here. JJL (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Abduction of Marlies Elisabeth van der Kouwe, which is notable and the subject of much coverage in reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that the subject of this tragedy had some notability before the abuduction and murder, or some related repercussions/events stemming from this murder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Kww who has no COI, the test for COI is whether you're editing at variance with the desire to improve articles. In any event, this article ought to be deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 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. kur ykh 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elsweyr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article lacks reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Only source is "The Imperial Library" which is an unreliable fansite. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" based on idea that article could be improved, but that we should "relist in a few months". After nearly one year, it's reasonable to conclude that this article cannot meet our content guidelines and policies. Randomran (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the exact same policies/guidelines. (Also, they have been proposed to be merged. But a merge is inappropriate as it would fail to resolve the issues with WP:N and WP:V.):

For your consideration. Randomran (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elsweyr. Fails WP:N. For the uninitiated (and since this isn't readily apparent in the article), Elsweyr is a section of the game world of the The Elder Scrolls series. However, as almost all of the games in that series have taken place in different portions of the game world, it can't really be considered as a "setting" common to all 4 games. It is still mentioned in the games, but only in vanishingly little detail (especially so in Morrowind). The most likely source for third party coverage of this would be a review or retrospective of The Elder Scrolls: Arena, however, non-trivial coverage of the game setting is unlikely given most of the types of reviews these games see. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Tamriel That is a little more likely to have some coverage, as it is the overarching setting for most of the TES games (-morrowind). Protonk (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with Protonk that Tamriel has a better chance of having reliable third party sources than Elsweyr, the fact remains that there are no such sources for either article. A previous AFD on Tamriel closed as no consensus one year ago with zero sources found, and none found since. I think this is decent evidence that the article just won't hit its sourcing requirements, and should be deleted. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into game article. Summaries of plots, other in-universe stuff should go into whatever Wiki covers this game. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elsweyr, tentative keep Tamriel - Per Protonk. — neuro^(talk) 13:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Someone could write a rather awesome "Universe of The Elder Scrolls" article sometime, in which none of the material in these articles has any place because it's written from a wholly different focus. User:Krator (t c) 00:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Cruftastic. The bulk of the citations for Elsweyr are from fictional books O_o. Marasmusine (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither assert notability at this time. If sources are found, they should be added to the parent articles first, and potentially split off if there is enough information. TTN (talk) 21:30, 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 IAR delete. This word has less than ten G-hits, all of which are blog posts and comments on forums which were obviously made by the article's creator. Considering its similarity to a certain other word, we had better have sources, and not a few. Since there simply are no sources period, let alone reliable ones, the word was obviously made up by someone. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swigger vote[edit]

This is administrative on my part as two editors are edit warring over a prod tag. Usage of the term is largely unsourced, appearing only in blogs which are not necessarily reliable sources TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 02:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my prod, no sources which meet WP:RS, possibly a hoax, possibly attack on McCain, who knows, since so little is out there on it. --Terrillja (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Terrillja's rationale. I found one usage of this in a Google group entry and, of course, in the Wikitionary link that was created by the same user who created this article. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:57, 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.