Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johns[edit]

This article has no verifiable sources and is mostly about people he claims to know, rather than himself. I don't think he is or his book is notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because it it about a book that has no verifable sources and it also appears to be non-notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hiding T 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial coverage can be found in reliable secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly because there is no information on the page thanks to this edit, and the previous edits:

Breached WP:BLP
No sources
Breached WP:NPOV

(At least, they did in my opinion. But I'm new to this.) James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 07:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin, Please note: This message is here because the "sister page", Palm Springs Confidential: Playground of the Stars, is still in existance. It was supposed to be deleted along with the "Howard Johns" page. James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Royal_Flush_Gang#Justice_League_Unlimited. MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (Justice League)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't fully meet the requirements of WP:WAF either. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment any reasons why merge or redirect is not OK? Preferably with some reference to the actual article in question. DGG (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The events involving the character is important to the DCAU so I agree that it should be a merge. Schuym1 (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: to Justice League (animated series). Schuym1 (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of independent notability & no need for a redirect or merge. Eusebeus (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole point of it being a merge is because the character doesn't have independent notability. Schuym1 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there is always a need for a redirect if it's a likely search term. Schuym1 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect And move content to Royal_Flush_Gang#Justice_League_Unlimited which is where it should be. rootology (C)(T) 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, and unlikely search term due to disambiguation parantheses.Yobmod (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yobmod - not notable on its own and an unlikely search term. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this character establishes notability independent of its series. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't do any of this. This is simply a copy of the nomination, with the meanings reversed. -- how do you turn this on 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, OR, not notable etc. I'd be happy for it to be redirected though, but not merged. -- how do you turn this on 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Flush Gang#Justice League Unlimited. Ace is a member of this group, and is not notable enough for its own article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Macbook Air#Advertising. Has already been done. Sandstein 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macbook air ad[edit]

Whilst a mention of the manilla envelope reveal and possibly the advertising campaign might be suitable for inclusion in the main article about the laptop I do not think the advert itself has received the kind of attention from reliable sources that will allow a verifiable article to be more than just a summary of the advert. The advert has been mentioned but as far as I have been able to find only in the context of describing the product itself, not on its own as an entity. Some adverts (such as this one) receive significant critical commentary and discussion from reliable sources in there own right I do not think that this ad/campaign has at this stage. Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Macbook Air — content, given proper sourcing, fits in perfectly with the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Macbook Air per MuZemike. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Macbook Air the policy for notability states that web content must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Bassbonerocks (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- Good fit for parent article and likely non-notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- Over 2 million hits on youtube, but I remember searching for it also, but only for the song title. Without any citations, I can't tell if this thing meets WP:NOTABILITY but the merge makes a lot of sense. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendor lock-out[edit]

The term 'vendor lock-out' appears to be a neologism that plays on the much more common term 'vendor lock-in'. The article was created four years ago but Google still only returns about 60 hits on the term, most of which appear to be blogs. The article also has no sources, and none are likely to be found. Warren -talk- 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary doktorb _words^deeds 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources exist. -- how do you turn this on 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (Copyvio). Alexf^(talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeann Low[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What does WP:PROF have to do with it? I see no evidence in the article that she is or should be evaluated as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio from http://home.singtel.com/about_singtel/board_n_management/senior_management/boardmgmt_seniormanagement.asp, so tagged -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li Yuan (disambiguation)[edit]

This is a disambiguation page for people named Li Yuan, but the only other person than the most famously known Li Yuan (Emperor Gaozu of Tang) listed is a snooker player without an article and without showing of any notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to disambiguate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. If the other article existed, I may have a different stance. -- how do you turn this on 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ mazca ^t|c 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Smallz[edit]

Contested speedy. Does not meet any of the biographical guidelines, especially WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ('Twas me who declined the speedy.) – According to The New York Times (July 20, 2006), "'Southern Smoke' is a brand name belonging to DJ Smallz, from Florida, and it’s among the most reliable brand names in the notably unreliable mixtape world." DJ Smallz was also mentioned in the same paper (January 28, 2008) for a different compilation, got some press for being nominated for the 2008 Mixtape Awards, and, as the article notes, he hosts a show on Sirius Satellite radio for which has received some press. These are not trivial mentions. There's enough for WP:N, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep short article about a notable subject; the solution is to expand the article. The nominator has been making borderline bad-faith deletion nominations for weeks now in the subject of hip-hop. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple interviews by independent publications proves notability. However, article needs to be expanded. LK (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik, the sources cited suggest adequate notability to me. RFerreira (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King of the Hill. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strickland Propane[edit]

Prod removed. Fictional store with no assertion of notability. Personally, I could not find any third-party sources for this through Google. Whatever can be found about the aforementioned that makes the store an important part of the plot can fit on King of the Hill. « ₣M₣ » 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The store plays a central role in this long-running, important TV series. Majoreditor (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like you're proposing a merge not a delete. If so,close this, & try adding and discussing a merge at the talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the article goes into detail about the store without specifying what makes it "play a central role in this long-running, important TV series." Whatever can be found about that statement can fit on King of the Hill. All it just basically says (without going into insignificant details) is that the main character has a job there. « ₣M₣ » 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge to King of the Hill where it has notability and merit. No need for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of this separate article somehow. No reliable secondary sources, and since the show uses an episodic format there's hardly a subject here to begin with. WillOakland (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to King of the Hill where it is currently inadequately covered. RMHED (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a blatant copyright infringement. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Shepherd[edit]

Claims to be an article about a notable kickboxer, but is written like an advert and fails to offer any valid sources. Only source/external link is to a webshop (since removed, see in history [1]). Quick googling doesn't turn up anything to establish notability. Possible copyright infringement of [2]. Borderline speedy candidate. Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing borderline about this one, its definitely CSDA7 material. JBsupreme (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyright violation. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The reason I didn't speedy this is because it's an old article, and it's hard to tell which one existed first, the WP article, or the linked one. Also, this might be a bona fide kickboxing legend, in which case the article would need a complete overhaul & sourcing. In it's current state it's little more than advertising. --Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12) — Copyvio. Content was directly cut-and-pasted from http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/SteveShepard.htm, which is under copyright of the International Kickboxing Federation. MuZemike 03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

Does not meet WP:RS, has had 6 months for improvements. The entire reason for the page is the subject's conspiracy theories, which have not been properly sourced and probably could never be properly sourced due to their very nature. LowLevelMason (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is not appropriately sourced nor does it appear that it can be JBsupreme (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he invented the board game,Scruples how can he not be notable. Clean up and source, should be easy enough if true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.48.155 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of what Makow says is abhorrent, but he is the author of two legitimate books (Long Way to Go for a Date and Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order) in addition to being the creator of Scruples. Much of what he spouts is BS, but there are sources to back up his notability, though not the views he espouses. I'm going to be in the air for much of today, but I'll beef up the article with citations once I've gotten back home. A ni Mate 16:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per notabiliy can be established [3], even if only for the boardgame. His beginning a newspaper column at age 11 will be an interesting citation as well. Notable? Yup. Lovable? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanup, wikifying, and sourcing. I don't like this guy.... but he may have enough notability (read noteriety) to pass WP:Bio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "I don't like this guy...." how is that even relevant? JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that his books have not sold, and if Wikipeida allows anyone with a book and a PhD (unrelated to most of his conspiracy theories, by the way) to have a article than were going to be covering millions of non-notable people. 69.134.34.140 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Present on Google Books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANGEL Learning[edit]

Privately held company, fails WP:ORG--coverage that is documented appears to be non-independent and/or non-reliable, focusing on company products. Previously deleted as advertising in 2005, relisting for AfD on presumption that speedy may be declined due to the passage of time. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impressive amount of effort expended on spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another editor nom'd this as a G4 speedy, which I declined, as the current version is not substantially the same as this one. (It's close, but there's been an attempt to address the sourcing and notability issues.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, that was me, too) Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the "improved" article stills reads like a CV for investors. Remove all the self-prasing blurbs about their product line and the products-in-development and it would be more encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete as the company is a notable one in the educational e-learning space. The links provide evidence of this company's notability. 1) Major companies provide content or integrations to their main product: Houghton Millflin, Pearson Education, and Wiley. 2) The company has been named a company to watch by the state of Indiana. 3) Michael Feldstein (a noted e-learning expert) estimates their market share has gone from 5% to 9% in a single year and the Kelly School of Business has recognized their growth as well. 4) Their main product has recieved two CODiE Awards, signficant recognition in the technology space. 5) Their products have been covered in main educational publications: Campus Technology and T.H.E. Journal. I've done some editing to help this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFezOn (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) — TheFezOn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Awards are nice but don't represent significant coverage to me. Otherwise their products seem unremarkable for a keep. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Distance learning and virtual education is one of the fastest growing educational movements in the country. While Blackboard is the biggest, ANGEL, Desire2Learn, and eCollege are all important products in this category. If ANGEL is deleted, so should Desire2Learn and eCollege. They are all, however, notable products and recognized in the educational market as important products. The CODiE awards are the "academy awards" of the software market, important designations as the best of in a given category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcapitald (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is clearly too promotional, but I think there has been enough small coverage pieces to establish weak notability. Tan | 39 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a guidebook seicer | talk | contribs 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviansie[edit]

Per WP:NOT, a guide to making money in Runscape should not be here. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikpedia is not a how-to. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong snowball delete per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:VGSCOPE, these are a single type of enemy from a single dungeon in RuneScape, utterly trivial in the grand scheme. Someone another 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a feeling this would snowball like it did, but no speedy delete template seemed to fit, and prod would have probably taken even longer and run the risk of being removed with me noticing. Would you guys say there is sufficient support among the AfD regulars to revamp CSD a little? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably would've prodded it myself if I came across it, but I think trying to leverage on CSD would very well be considered gaming. Just let the AfD play out. If there is a whole bunch of users unanimously voicing to delete, then admin might close it early under WP:SNOW. No one's going anywhere, I don't think. MuZemike 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't trying to wikilaywer, honest. I was just thinking, in the future, what if there was a speedy deletion rationale for articles like this? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd just add "speedy delete, if possible" to your rationale, to tip off the admin that if its a clear WP:SNOW case, they can deal with it. But as noted, this really isn't a CSD case. --MASEM 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#GUIDE easily. Doubtful this can be put into any article under the Runespace topic (individual common monsters rarely get coverage in reliable source), but if can, redirect name to that article. --MASEM 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, and if a character in Runescape belongs here it's under the name of the game itself. Otherwise, who's to say we shouldn't have thousands of articles for all video game entries? Also, as others have mentioned, the article is written as a how-to. -FlyingToaster (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the guide comments, and simply not that notable. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE, as with everyone above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WolfTeam (Video Game)[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable online game, created by a company whose Wikipedia page has been deleted on grounds of... notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Wolf Team (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The game is very notable, with many players. There are many servers, and official website, and thousands of players. The authors page shouldn't have been deleted either, because they are also the makers of the games Gunbound, which has an article. This is not a good reason for deletion. I have properly marked the article as a stub, and will have other add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — Techdude300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Not another MMORPG trying to assert notability with no sources present with a very strong sense of COI. MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Rally cry from the WolfTeam forumites to defend their article! MuZemike (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trying" to make it "another" game. This is a valid game, with valid players, and if people want to find out more about it, they come to Wikipedia. If Runescape has an article, this should too. It's not how good YOU think the game is. It is a valid game, this is not trash, and Wikipedia could benefit with an article such as this. And no MuZemike, it's not an MMORPG. Read the friggin' article. It's an FPS like Halo you play with others online. Stop your stereotyping and why don't you actually check the game out at the VALID website of the VALID game played by many Valid players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude300 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- MMORPG, MMOFPS, what-MMO-ever! MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good You went to the website. You get a cookie! If you can pull wikipedia rules out for your own selfish crap, I could easily say that the reason for deletion was pure bias, and that you are in violation of rules. And no, i'm not taking the time anymore to properly clean up my posts with fancy formatting. You can do it if you want uber censorship power, because that is what wikipedia is apparently about. If I was an admin, I could pull this crap on something you worked hard on. But, alas, I'm not an abusive admin. Stop YOUR bias, because if anybody contributes to the page, its because they want to, not because i told them. --Techdude300 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (reviews) needed to demonstrate notability, found an interview at MMOsite but no reviews from reliable sources. Someone another 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete the page, on one condition. YOU make an article, or find somebody who will, that fairly represents the game and uses your "quality" standards. Better get started, because I won't shut up about it until it's done. Good Luck! =)--Techdude300 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't. That's the point of the notability standard. Nifboy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There do not appear to be any non-trivial mentions of this game in reliable sources to verify its notability. In reference to the comment above: That seems to be impossible without any reliable sources. As such, the page will be deleted. If your condition was possible to meet, the article wouldn't be deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claims for notability. Alexius08 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I find some better sources and work really hard on this. Thanks for the input (sorry I can't log in and officialy sign this at school) -Techdude300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.138.28 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Note — User in question has been blocked for harassment as well as block evasion. Corresponding IP account has also been school-blocked due to persistent vandalism. MuZemike 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha wheat[edit]

References do not support notability -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything that makes her notable. The article (and certainly the Chicago Reader ref) are more about her famous boyfriend. ~~SIS~~ 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting our notability requirements yet. rootology (C)(T) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason whatsoever to not delete this article.....Modernist (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

READY[edit]

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage and no references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another WP:crystalball issue. Myspace isn't wp:rs, even if it is "official" site. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy Not enough information to warrant an article. The release date hasn't even been announced yet. Wait until the album is released, when more info and sources appear, then try again. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get READY to delete that. Its subject is not notable. Alexius08 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Oswalt[edit]

I think that this is most likely a hoax because I can't find any sources. Schuym1 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any sources.[4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe not a hoax, see [5], but there may not be enough public info for article.John Z (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe not a hoax but still not notable enough for this encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one turns out to be a clear keeper after all - spelling variation strikes again. "Eva Ostwalt" is how her name is usually spelled, and there's even a book about her. - see [6] and google translation, and a film about her - see the german wiki at de:Lust am Leben - Mit 103 in Amerika. [7] and [8] are two gnews hits about her. John Z (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of Gamers[edit]

Subect does not meet notability guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colony of gamers is not a company or organization. It is a notable website and Internet community serving a unique network of affiliate websites. AniAko (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that it is a notable website. It also doesn't appear to cite any reliable sources. Accordingly, it also fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website is composed of almost all the former staff of Evil Avatar, quite the notable website. Industry contacts have moved over and an established community has migrated with it. Simply because the name is new, doesn't mean the established value of the site is (which falls under "Alternate Criteria->Non-commercial organizations". Deletion of the article at this time will only result in other users adding it again and again, wasting everyone's time. Regarding "Primary Criteria->second sources", there is currently advertising for the organization going through the process of distribution (I'm not at liberty to discuss details, obviously) as well as the organization being international in scale containing many industry developers.
Also falling under "Primary Criteria" is the audio show for the organization, In-Game Chat. The name change is new effective last week, however we still have the old DNS in place pointing to the new show moniker [9] You can see various sources for it and the notable guests/coverage performed by our organization (again, many sources do not reflect the new name change):
Part of the All Games Radio Network
Interviewing Game Developer Jonathan Blow
Interviewing David Hayter (of Metal Gear, the X-Men movies and other fame)
Charles_Duke - Noted that astronaut Charles Duke was interviewed on the show.
Those are links I found in just a minute or two on google, I could form an exhaustive list if you require further sources. But again, it's rather moot. The only real issue at question here from what I can tell is that due to the community name change, it takes extra effort to find the notability at this time. That will change shortly enough. But removal of this article serves no one (certainly not users utilizing wikipedia for reference). This site is just as relevant as many others wikipedia has articles for (examples being Giant Bomb or 1UP). My apologizes if I sound curt on this, I'd rather just not see this turn into a "thing" and would rather nip this misunderstanding in the proverbial "bud". If there's more notability that you require for me to track down, please let me know. Note: I also fail to see how "verifiability" was called into question, when checking the wikipedia notes for that. AniAko is a new member on the site, it would seem silly for that to fall under any type of autobiography (why would someone who didn't know of the site write an article about it?), again I can think of numerous other examples where wikipedia articles were written by people in the same position (and just as in his case, are not directly connected to the organization to be biased, nor is any of the data in the article incorrect, from my reading it over).
TrackZero (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability of one organization cannot be established because of the notability of a non-related organization (and the notability of Evil Avatar is questionable in itself, but that is the subject of a different debate). If the Evil Avatar site had simply changed names, that would be a different issue, but the fact is that CoG is a NEW organization, and will need to establish its OWN notability. If 15 engineers from Microsoft decide to form a new start-up software company, there is no guarantee that the new company will achieve anything notable. If the 15 engineers have become 500 within a year, and released a major national product, THAT would be notable. The fact is, Colony of Gamers is simply too new an organization to have established notability. The site may disappear next month. When the site has achied the required notability (e.g. independent press coverage in one of the major gaming publications), then someone can create the article. Also, I believe you failed to note the word except in the description of notable primary sources: the site's own advertising and audio show are explicitly EXCLUDED as reliable primary sources. Finally, I believe that TrackZero (talk · contribs) should not be involved in this discussion, as he has obvious ties to the organization involved, constituting a significant conflict of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough Dan, but I'll remind you that you brought me into this discussion. Again, you'll be seeing other people creating this article in the future (no, not me), so just be prepared to spend time hounding it. (Also, Giant Bomb during its launch was a new site as well, yet their wiki article had no issues going up from what I saw.) And again, In-Game Chat (part of CoG) WAS simply a name change, and all it's sources are valid.TrackZero (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they aren't Evil Avatar, and as such this isn't just a name change for a web site. As a new site, it has not established notability. If it happens in the future, that's fine. I've no objection to recreation with reliable sources when it does establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should In-Game Chat then split off it's own article? As it's notability is established and it is simply a name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrackZero (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evil Avatar was made up of the staff as a community and the only reason it existed was the same reason Colony of Gamers exists, the community. Saying we aren't Evil Avatar is completely invalid for that reason. Colony of Gamers will only grow and have much more to add to the wiki as many other start-ups and new websites do.Aggort2 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Aggort2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment What WILL happen is not yet known. Wikipedia can only base notability on what HAS happened. When your predictions come true, feel free to add the article then. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside a narrow interest community who cannot prove required sources. doktorb _words^deeds 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Cortez[edit]

Non-notable, no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches have not found notability in Releible Sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Pro wrestlers don't often make waves in the traditional media. Mixed feelings here, but when I poke around he does come up a bit. I can be convinced otherwise. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong steroid-induced delete. Hey now, lets not resort to excuses. Either the article meets biographical guidelines for inclusion or it doesn't. This one doesn't. JBsupreme (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flying clothesline delete Does not pass WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks Lake[edit]

No verifiable source indicates that this lake exists. Google Maps satellite photos of the area show no unnamed Y-shaped lakes. Google search for ["Tanks Lake" "Wolf Lake"], ["Tanks Lake" Chicago], and ["Tanks Lake" Hegewisch] return no relevant results. Official City of Chicago Hegewisch Community Map and Hegewisch.Net make no mention of the lake. Article has had verification flag for more than one year. Travisl (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If editors can come up with verification of existence, I'm not against having a minor lake cataloged in Wikipedia. I couldn't find anything in a brief search though. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no assertion of notability. I was also unable to locate via USGS GNIS[10]. It does have Wolf Lake, but I can't see a Y shaped lake near it. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Tanks per nom and Dual Freq. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks but no tanks per Clarityfiend. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars characters. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinman Doriana[edit]

No citations to any sources; no evidence of third-party coverage to establish notability. Prod contest five months ago; no edits to the article since then, and no substantial content changes in more than a year. --EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Star Wars characters. Notability may be there... but it sure ain't here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Lack of sources, and Original Research. Would be happy either deleted or redirected. -- how do you turn this on 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources, which means unoriginal research.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Weinzierl[edit]

Non-notable figure skater, fails WP:V. At age 14, she's never even competed in senior nationals, which means she fails the WP:ATHLETE criterion of competing at the "highest level of amateur sport." With only 76 unique G-hits [11], almost exclusively Wiki mirrors and figure skating websites, there are no reliable sources evident that would fulfill the general notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment. RGTraynor 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RG. Fails WP:ATHLETE -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition she competes at the ISU Junior Grand Prix event in Great Britain in two weeks. If she does, she's a notable Junior skater, who will make her Senior deubt this season. Kolindigo (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't keep articles on something that might happen. Even if she is at the Junior Grand Prix, that is not the highest level of amateur competition and still wouldn't meet the expectations of WP:ATHLETE. As far as figure skating goes, the highest level of competition would be competitors in the Olympics or the World Championships. Also in general "junior" anything is not considered notable because the competition is not the highest level available, the highest level available always has no restrictions on age beyond a minimum age. -Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proxy User (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you care to proffer any grounds for your view? RGTraynor 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not sure we would accept competing in a junior event as notability, and we certainly cant accept the possibility of doing so as notability. 04:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah[edit]

I shudder as I write this rationale, but this entry is just about a run-of-the-mill child molester and murderer. There is nothing unique about his case. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: keep it or delete it, I don't care. Lately the article has attracted the attention of an anon editor with unsubstantiated claims that Bar-Jonah was a "war hero." __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Apparently his case was used in the context of lobbying/campaigning for sex-offender registration laws which makes him more than just a random criminal. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Unfortunately like a thousand other child molesters, why is it here in the first place? Good grief, there are other Web sites for listings of non-notable criminals. Proxy User (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. This is the second freak that I've seen in AFD today. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources saying he was any more notable than being the murderer that the nom said. Changed to Weak Keep per Pixelface --Banime (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nathaniel Bar-Jonah was a notable cannibal.[12] [13] [14] He was profiled on the 1st and 8th episode of the television series Most Evil. I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:ONEEVENT apply here at all. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well they say accused cannibal, but I'd still say that's enough for notability. I'll change my !vote to weak keep. --Banime (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: Coverage other than articles that are newsy and featured in a television series. Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which counts as significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing notoriety due to appeals to Supreme Court of the United States. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? He's dead. That makes the appeals moot, yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Bearian, was it the State of Montana Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court? DGG (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despicable, but evidently notable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sick dude glad he's dead...Some one needs to ban the IP for the idiot who keeps changing it to "war hero". Isn't the fact he's overriding Just Plain Bill's edits over and over cause for banning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. Everyking (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magykal Papers[edit]

Not yet released book. The title is speculation and in effect it fails a book's equivalent of WP:HAMMER. No reliable secondary sources to show why it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N or WP:BK. Delete now, recreate when (if) sources become available. PROD already declined. JD554 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though there's a source (Amazon) for the title and the release date, the remaining content is unsourced, probably unverifiable right now. Huon (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. What more is there to say? Proxy User (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think its WP:CRYSTAL. Remake it later. --Banime (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:BK, no reliable sources available, also WP:CRYSTAL applies. Captain-tucker (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MACO[edit]

Entirely in-universe plot summary with no citations to any sources, reliable or otherwise. --EEMIV (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Trek:Enterprise 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge as usual since no reason given not to. DGG (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Entirely in-universe plot summary with no citations to any sources, reliable or otherwise." - reason not to merge. --EEMIV (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — to merge we would need sources. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle, we cannot merge information which is not verifiable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a very significant piece of the universe to deserve an article even with references and since we can't merge without them, delete. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. There are sources mentioned in the article; just because they aren't listed as footnoted citations on the bottom doesn't mean they don't exist. The sources are the episodes "The Xindi", "The Augments", "Borderland", and "The Forge"; and the novel "Last Full Measure". In addition, a published source for information on MACOs can be found as well: page 263 of Star Trek 101. Maybe it's not enough to satisfy notability, but there's enough verifiable information to support a merge. DHowell (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited coverage. No good reason to merge. "no reason not to merge" ==/== a good reason to merge. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot.. Nom has redirected the article, no delete votes.Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4x4 Garage[edit]

Article should be deleted and redirect applied to bassline house. Also article is mostly nonsense. JV-CDX (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only because the AfD contains very little in the way of description of issue. Proxy User (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While an article about this topic may well be written, the "keep" arguments ignore that the currently contested content is completely unsourced which means that, per WP:B (in particular WP:BURDEN), it has to go. Sandstein 20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent movie boom[edit]

A bit of undercooked WP:OR that adds nothing to the comprehension of its subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, no reliable sources. States that "During this time it seemed more inependent films were made than ever" and "Film scholars have argued exactly when the start of the independent movie boom began, although most agree it was sometime in the 1980s". What's left of that article is more of the same. original research filled with weasel words. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spot of Googling quickly shows up uses of the term to refer to a particular period of film history. Article is unsourced and needs cleaning up, but this is a viable topic, and the article is a viable stub in pursuit of that topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Independent movie. Doesn't look like there's enough material to support this specific facet of the "independent movie" topic to warrant its own page at this time, whereas that page already has substantial historical perspective. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DMacks. Proxy User (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is nothing to salvage from this article, and if there is any substance to this boom, discuss it at the article independent film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To independent movie. rootology (C)(T) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History_of_film#1990s:_New_special_effects.2C_independent_films.2C_and_DVDs, no real content here that's worth merging anywhere. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All Saints episodes. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justice for None[edit]

This is just a one sentence episode stub. Notability is not asserted or established. TTN (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are just unnecessary plot reiterations that also do not assert notability:

TTN (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:EPISODE. No notability, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Don't convert to redirect, no reason for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Justice for None, but leave the others. They should also probably be deleted, but I wouldn't tie the AfD for a episode substub with one with actual plot summaries. (However unnecessary they might be.) JRP (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all that don't assert notability to List of All Saints episodes, per WP:EPISODE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of All Saints episodes. I honestly would just delete Justice for None afterwards as that seems like an implausibe redirect. JuJube (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all maintaining what content there is. I don't see how the name of any of the episodes is an implausible redirect, even if there will be almost no content in the merged list. DGG (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the respective season articles (not the LoE), reasoning per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Waiting[edit]

Off-key on non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable members, one self produced CD 5 years ago, and "has since played numerous clubs throughout the Cape Breton area". Google doesn't throw up much and neither do other music related sites. Can't find anything about that CD anywhere, either. ~~SIS~~ 01:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, can't find anything about this band either. --147.70.176.164 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable assistant professor; does not meet BIO seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophal Ear[edit]

I stumbled across this and myself didn't see any claim to notability, and then saw that similar concerns had previously been raised on the talk page. He has published some work in the field, but I don't see how he meets WP:PROF. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant professors are almost automatically not notable, and this fellow doesn't seem to have any claim to fame other than activities normally associated with being an assistant professor. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no claim to notability, per nom & RJC. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RJC. Misses WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above comments. A junior scholar, does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments ^^^ coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grue (Freedom City)[edit]

This article has no sources to demonstrate notability of the particular fictional extraterrestrial race. It seems to be loaded with original research in the comparisons that it draws to other fictional creations, not backed by any reliable references. A brief summary of this material already exists at a merge target of Freedom City. My attempt at redirecting this article to that target was reverted, hence the reason it is here at AfD. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons, i.e. there's nothing that demonstrates notability, and many seem to be the subject of original research in the comparisons to other fictional creations. Several of these have been redirected to the same target Freedom City but have been reverted. As above, please note that there are brief summaries of many of these already in that target page, hence I think there is nothing that need be merged there.

AEGIS (Freedom City)

Atom Family

Centurion (Freedom City)

The Collective (Freedom City)

Crime League (Freedom City)

Curator (Freedom City)

Factor Four

Farside City

Fear-Master

Freedom League (Freedom City)

Meta-Grue

Next Gen (Freedom City)

Omega (Freedom City)

Doc Otaku

Psions (Freedom City)

Star-Khan

Talos (Freedom City)

Ultima (Freedom City)

White Lion (Freedom City)

Delete, or Merge to either Freedom City or better, Mutants and Masterminds. No notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Schmidt. BOZ (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and replace with redirects to Mutants and Masterminds to discourage recreation. If there's any content that can be merged into M&M, by all means do so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without removing content. Perhaps that;s why bare redirects were reverted. That should have been discussed elsewhere, but since you've brought it here, I note what has been said in various places against trying BOLD as a multiple redirect prior to discussions. It might be more strategic to try to get agreement first, and there's more likely to me agreement if content is preserved. See WP:Dispute Resolution for some suggestions. DGG (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so we move all of the original research and editorial speculation into another article? Okay... no wait, most of it's already there as I pointed out above. Many of the "[this character] is analogous to [that character] in [well-known comic book X]" is already present in the Freedom City article. I don't believe there's any particularly relevant content to merge that isn't already there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and discourage recreation. Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all due to their notability and discourage renomination. Redirects should be discussed on talk pages, not in AfDs. Maybe if your attempt at redirecting was reverted it a show that the community wants it kept and not redirected. Now obviously you were okay with a redirect. Brining it to AfD a DELETION discussion is NOT the way to go, because it isn’t what you’re really after.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all I'm not finding any solid RS for any of this. Delete is a reasonable option, but I don't know that there is a lot more to merge. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per, hmmm, CSD A7 will do ... and WP:SNOW. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Tyler[edit]

Fails WP:N. Poor writing. AlwaysOnion (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:BIO Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Speedy Delete Abhishek ^Talk 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, WP:N, WP:SPAM and WP:BIO. Rosokokolapo (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Banime (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7/Steak sauce) — First, nothing indicating anything remarkable about her besides her "abilities," which meets A7. Second, no content, which meets A1. I would also say borderline G10, but there might actually be some truth to that. MuZemike (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it already por favor. JBsupreme (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Light[edit]

An EP by a band whose article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flood of Red. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does not meet the criteria for albums, singles and songs. Prod was removed thus this is here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of reviews or other significant coverage about this EP-- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saint Laurent[edit]

This is a strictly autobiographical article written by an obviously extremely egotistical man. He is not notable in any way, shape, or form, and if he did not make this page, no one would continue to know who he is. He claims to be 'one of the most famous pro wrestling commentators in the United States', which is absolutely ridiculous. He operates on a lowscale level and if he's granted his own page, why not give a page to any two bit independent wrestler in the country? CraftyOlSal (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article ITSELF doesn't appear to make any of the claims written up in the AfD nomination and it sounds rather pointy. I'm not finding GREAT sources, but there are some sources that seem to indicate he has done professional wrestling. On the other hand, the page creator claims to to be the subject of the article and obviously has some issues, since he *has* made the claims above (and some other hilarious ones aside on the article talk page). About 500 ghits once you strip out the shitty myspaces sites and low-quality YouTube videos, and one newspaper article that I just blew $2 to verify actually mentions the guy by his full name as well as wrestling name. Still, it's not a very strong claim to notability, despite his very high opinion of himself. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not much else to say, CraftyOlSal hit the nail on the head. Proxy User (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete- not notable.[15] Sticky Parkin 01:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody delete this page already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.84 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. King[edit]

At first glance, this article appears a credit to Wikipedia. It is is detailed, has many external links and mentions several respectable publications. It's thoroughly wikified. But Peter J. King is not notable according to WP:TEACH. There is not a single reliable source listed in the article. Every external link leads to something written by Peter King or his associates. There are no third-party reliable sources about Peter King. Nothing in the article shows that he is notable, merely that he is a living academic. Matt's talk 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PROF defines as satisfying inclusion requirements those academics who are "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". Dr. King has held lectureships in philosophy at several colleges of Oxford University, ranked by the (all-too) authoritative Philosophical Gourmet Report as the second best department in the English-speaking world. His work One Hundred Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers has been translated into several different languages, and his papers have been published in journal s of such prestige as Think and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. That King is an academic of greater note than average should not be in doubt, to say the least. the skomorokh 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (persons). He is a respected reviewer. He has a notability that can be searched. Unesco.com, Experiencefestival.com. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but I'd be grateful if you could elaborate a little. What info are you getting from the Experience Festival link? I'm just seeing WP mirrors. Also, note that Dr King holds copyright to the UNESCO article, so there's still not a single third-party RS. The Human Nature review is a useful find, but do you think one book review is enough for notability? Matt's talk 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His views are so respected that he was invited to write an article for UNESCO. No surprise he retains the copyright. He is a respected reviewer. These sources speak toward his notability and with conjunction with the points epresented by User:skomorokh show he is qualified per WP:Prof. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a stipendiary lecturer at Pembroke College[16], i.e. he's not a college fellow, and he's listed on the staff list of the philosophy department under "Researchers, Temporary Lecturers and College Fellows" [17], below the 70+ "Senior Staff" and the 20 "Permanent and/or Senior Postholders in other Faculties, Colleges etc". This implies he's paid by the college (not the university) to give college tutorials (not university lectures) and doesn't have an office in the philosophy faculty building. I see no sign he fulfils any of the nine criteria at WP:TEACH. If his one book is notable (not that i'm sure it is), there could be an article on the book. Qwfp (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by M.R.Forrester). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete does not meet WP:PROF in my humble opinion, there have been no reviews of his book in the mainstream press, nor has he been called upon to comment there and there are no mentions of him.[18] He has written essays/contributed to a few books, but is neither well-known to the public in the slightest, not the head of a department at a university. Plenty of people have a Ph.D and are lecturers, they are not noteworthy unless they are a head of a university department or something, or have popularised their ideas and had them commented upon to a more than average for the field amount in WP:RS.Sticky Parkin 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no major research publications, and teaching at a notable college does not make one notable--no matter how important the college. Qwpf seems to sum up the situation properly. DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Qwfp & DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the detailed analyses of Qwpf and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per QWFP and DGG. If we were to keep this primarily on the basis of one book "One hundred philosophers..." (which seems to be a book of a reference nature rather than of novel research), I would want to see more substantial and explicit evidence of its importance and influence. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He appears just about to meet the criteria. Several of the works listed appear (contrary a statement above) to be in academic periodicals. I suspect that the arguemtn as to paymetn by college/university is a spurious one for Oxford and Cambridge, and is merely the result of their unusual structrue. Note: the subject is a namesake of mine, but unrelated. I have no conflict of interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

query I've been looking through Google scholar [19] for evidence of academic impact, ie evidence that he meets criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but havn't seen any so far. Can you provide evidence that his work has had a notable impact on the work of other scholars? Or suggest another criterion met in WP:PROF? Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for joining the debate; it's fun to have a Peter King discussing Peter King! But I'd like to back up Qwfp's point about the uni/college thing. An Oxbridge university lecturer is a senior, permanent position. A college lecturer is a the lowest rung in the hierarchy, renewed on an annual or termly basis, and can be a doctoral student (as was the case for Dr King). In North American English, a teaching assistant. Cf. this discussion and some examples. Matt's talk 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- I'm coming down to keep on this one, but mostly because I don't want a user named "peterkingiron" to be a reason to keep an article about "Peter J King" -- but in all seriousness, the article looks good and helpful to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG. rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some expanding to show the impact of philosophy work - between the website and writings but I see this as a borderline keep because it has gaps and the writing could be better. I don't fault those who are unaware it's better to overref and bludgeon the reader with the obvious in the lede - these are then WP:Problems to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment if there was any evidence showing any impact of his philosophy work, then I'd be tempted to chanve my !vote to "keep". But as it is, there is no WP:RS evidence of such impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:PROF or any other standard. His work is not widely cited (figures on GS are single-digit). Association with Oxford colleges is casual, and in any event notability is not inherited. I'm hoping to see a higher-quality decision on this AfD, in comparison to some of the "no consensus" decisions we sometimes get when there are several keep votes: in this instance, as I see it not a single keep vote here gives an argument that is both (1) true and (2) relevant to WP:PROF or some other standard of WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryar Nizar[edit]

Non-notable musician; does not pass WP:BAND. Can't find any independent references. Lists playing at universities and winning a battle of the bands contest as major accomplishments, which isn't too promising. His "album" appears to be an Internet release. Claims (without reference) to have played the Roskilde festival, but I can find no independent verification of that (granted, Roskilde is in Denmark and I don't know Danish, so I could be missing something). Likewise, the North American tours are unreferenced and too vague to be verified. Article was started by User:Sheryarnizar (and much work has been done by IPs who seem to be him or close associates as they add personal information), strongly implying WP:COI. — Gwalla | Talk 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and could have been speedily deleted. Utterly non-notable and not a reliable source to be found. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was giving it the benefit of the doubt, but the editor in question doesn't really seem to respond, so meh. Kill it with fire! ;) Prince of Canada^{t | c} 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page, under various names, has already been speedily deleted at least twice (see the author's Talk page). Speedy was declined here due to a claim of international touring being an assertion of notability; this is (arguably) valid, but doesn't apply here, of course. Merenta (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua T. Harris[edit]

Non-notable service casualty. While I'm sure he served honorably, he received no major decorations - despite the links describing him as "highly decorated," he topped out with a Bronze Star - and fulfills no elements of WP:BIO. Prod removed by creator with a bare "Josh Harris meets Basic and some Additional criteria of WP:BIO." Wikipedia is still not a memorial. RGTraynor 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The death was notable enough to be covered by the Washington Post and New York Daily News. The third footnote in the article links to an article that list at least 13 medals that were awarded. The article does meet the basic criteria and an additional criteria of WP:BIO. The article was notable enough to receive a class promotion from an established editor. This article doesn't fit any of the reasons for deletion listed on WP:DELETE. Out (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be WP:BIO and WP:NOT. As far as the mass of medals awarded, most of them are service ribbons and medals that every soldier in-theater receives; "highly decorated" is a term far more often reserved for the Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross or the DSM. As far as the coverage, it was much the same as awarded to most battle deaths in the Middle East these days, and I question whether Harris would have received as much as he did were it not for the erroneous presumption that he was the 500th battle death in Afghanistan. RGTraynor 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BIO criteria does not require a "mass of medals". Is the Bronze Star not a notable award? Apparently most of the medals awarded were notable enough to have articles on wikipedia. The words "highly decorated" don't even appear in the article but 17 service medals is considered highly decorated. I hope we come to consensus based on wiki policy and reliable sources and not one editors speculation that is based purely on opinion. RGTraynor I suggest you take your own advice and "take five minutes to follow up a few Google hits and realize the genuine notability of the subject." The article meets policy requirements and the sources are reliable. There really isn't much to discuss about this article. Out (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expected to see the traditional memorial page -- born, enlisted, died in service to his county, and little more -- but found a reasonably-thorough and well-sourced biography of someone who was not the typical deceased soldier. Harris' art background and the display of his work at notable sites, covered by reliable and verifiable sources, establishes notability above and beyond a memorial page. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about Harris as a person from a broad range of sources across the country satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad story, but none the less not notable. Proxy User (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate a little please? Out (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a traditional memorial page. Sad, but since a Silver Star doesn't confer automatic notability, neither would a lower decoration, and one art exhibition doesn't do it either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you decide that a Silver Star or a Bronze Star were not notable awards? Are Valor devices not notable either? Out (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands of Bronze Stars get awarded. RGTraynor 03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody said the awards weren't notable, just the awardees if their notability primarily depends on them. I didn't pull this out of a hat. It appears to be the consensus. I recall someone with a much higher award being Afd'd. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom Masterhatch (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although my heart goes out to Mr. Harris’ family and friends, he simply is not notable by WP:BIO standards. WP:BIO states, “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.” With the exception of Mr. Harris’ obituary, there is no published material available about him (results). As far as his artwork goes - the only mention of that is in the obituary; I cannot find evidence of it anywhere else. The Bronze Star is his highest commendation; the rest are majoritively awards granted to anyone who has been in a particular theatre of operations. The Bronze Star itself ranks just above the Purple Heart and as such does not make Mr. Harris notable; thousands are awarded every year. Sabes3 Chatty? 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a tragic story. He does not meet WP:BIO. -Djsasso (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while tragic this does not meet WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not a memorial wiki either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thakkiya[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Abhishek ^Talk 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. MuZemike (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ DMD[edit]

Non-notable producer/musician, fails WP:MUSIC, unsourced. Boffob (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do any of these serve? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 October 2008[reply]

Comment - If you have particular sources that you feel show substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the artist, please cite them specifically. (From the first five pages of that Google search, I see a whole lot of nothing (blogs, myspace, etc.) and a link to Rolling Stones website mirroring AMG's info: a bare bones discography with no other info.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... no particular cite at all. I was just posing the question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, per WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and the nominators reasons. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and the reasons cited above by the nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Two albums charted, although not as high as I'd like to see for a strong keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Fabrictramp; please add more reliable sources if possible. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Garguillio[edit]

Self-promotional, vanity article which, despite its many links, has no actual reliable sources to establish notability. Boffob (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep While I agree that the artice feels a bit like self-promotion aqnd vanity, and most sources in my search are blogs that address his work, I did find [20][21][22]... as well as a lot of podcast and video stuff. Its minor... but its there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
- Comment: all the links you posted are either a press release (not acceptable to establish notability), a self-published message and something without any reference to Daniel Garguillio at all. Web presence is not the same as notability.--Boffob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything that shows notability. There's not even a mention or claim on his own website[23]. The blogs and such show that the man really exists, which I don't doubt, but notable? No. ~~SIS~~ 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there aren't reliable sources about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has been a guest on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory (which led to my writing the article in the first place), as well as many other real-world media outlets. He is a well-known, if controversial, figure in the paranormal investigations field. DaimonHellstorm —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

See discussion on the talk page. All of the sources in the article are primary sources or provide primary information. There are no reliable third-party sources that actually discuss the song, and it doesn't look like there are any that could be added. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. I mean, seriously, why does everyone make pages on songs the instant they're announced by the artist? Wikipedia isn't going anywhere anyitme soon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Beyonce Knowles Discography. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM. Song wasn't an actual single and failed to chart; it just appeared on the Japanese edition of Dangerously In Love, Live at Wembley DVD, and so on. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Mellgren[edit]

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

Non-notable teen figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE for never appearing in senior competition RGTraynor 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this Google News archive search for evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage shown by User:Eastmain. Notabiliy is established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing on that "search" is six links, all to brief competition recaps. Eastmain, you know full well that "significant coverage" means an in-depth article about the subject, not - to take the first link - a seven-sentence recap of that particular competition which mentions Mellgren twice. So far, it looks like you're just sticking up indiscriminate Google searches and declaring the list as passing WP:BIO on the strength of that, well, there's a Google list. (Heck, googling MY name returns three times as many general hits.) RGTraynor 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, those sources don't meet any standard of proving notability. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above Rosokokolapo (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) — Rosokokolapo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RGTraynor 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think she does meet the WP:ATHLETE requirements, having "competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing": Gold in 2006, bronze in 2007. ~~SIS~~ 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read the next line WP:ATHLETE. Must compete at the highest level of their sport. Junior is not the highest level, the highest level would be senior level events like the Olympics or World Championships. -Djsasso (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A matter of interpretation, I think. In her league she is at the highest level. According to your logic only senior Olympic or Worldchampions would be notable. I'm not sure if that's the case. ~~SIS~~ 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I don't believe they have to be Olympic or World Champions, but I do believe they have to compete at them. -Djsasso (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be a very strange "interpretation" indeed to believe junior competition to be the "highest level" in that sport. It is, of course, senior competition. RGTraynor 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said "in her league", not "in that sport". ~~SIS~~ 11:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A five year old can be at the highest in her league for 5 year olds, but that doesn't mean they warrant a wiki article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The text of WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Her standing at her own level of competition is quite irrelevant; as Djsasso correctly points out, your POV declares any kid who's at the top of his T-ball league to be prima facie notable. RGTraynor 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're using WP:WAX?? We're not talking abot an article about a 5-year-old who is best at his mini-league in T-ball... and if that 5-year-old does get an article, we can discuss that one then. We are speaking here about a young woman who has competed at the highest level for her age group, and who has won numerous medals. When she competes in senior division or in professional divisions, that will be added to her article. You cannot be saying that young women cannot in any way be notable until they hit some arbitrary age? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm saying that young female athletes who fail to pass WP:BIO generally cannot in any way be notable unless they pass WP:ATHLETE, which requires that athletes either compete in a fully professional league or at the highest level of amateur sport. In figure skating, the highest level is senior competition, not novice or juniors ... and here I'm being generous, because a number of people think that senior international competition is the highest level. Until she does, she is no more notable in Wikipedia's eyes, and has achieved no more, than the aforementioned T-ball star, who likewise has outshone his age group. Now if you disagree with WP:ATHLETE, feel free to go to its talk page and try to win support for your POV, although broad consensus is for tightening up the criteria, not loosening them. Here's not the place to argue around WP:ATHLETE's provisions. RGTraynor 15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and is missing non-trivial sources, those sources mentioned above are trivial. -Djsasso (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable enough for own article. sorry but true. Masterhatch (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Streubel[edit]

Another in a string of non-notable teen figure skaters who fail WP:ATHLETE by way of never appearing in senior competition. RGTraynor 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Google search and Google News. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "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." That's just the top page of a Google search. Googling ME returns three times as many hits, for what it's worth. Your methodology is also terribly sloppy if you're claiming a 3-hit Google News search, the top one of which is plainly a WWI era soldier. RGTraynor 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inre WP:Athlete & "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. Are we allowed to ignore his 2005-2006 Montford Trophy? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We sure are, given that the Montford Trophy is a novice competition award. We're just as free to ignore the trophy Streubel won for being tops in his 8 year old skating class. Look, if you have genuine evidence that this fellow has appeared in senior competition or genuine, specific evidence that he passes WP:BIO, feel free to present it, but these sloppy trivialities just waste our time. RGTraynor 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my input to this discussion is considered by yourself to be a "waste of time"... it was a discussion after all. And where might one look for evidence that an medaled 8-year-old has competed in adult sports? Sorry... just musing over your helpful suggestion. Delete as you will. I withdraw from this discussion as you have yourself deemed it closed and pointless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete sorry, not notable enough for own article. check out WP:Athlete Masterhatch (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICER Brands[edit]

No notability. None of the references specifically mention ICER at all (at least, from what I saw). Smacks of advertising/PR. Perhaps some of the info can be merged with Nobody Beats the Wiz. Also, note that article creator is essentially dodging a repeated speedy deletion of ICER Brands, LLC - right or wrong. Tan | 39 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged the original ICER Brands, LLC article for Speedy Delete when it first came online. Time to cut the spam again. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM failing WP:CORP. Reads like a WP:CV for investors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note... WP:CV deals with copyright problems. I assume Michael Q. meant to say that it reads as an investment CV or similar. Tan | 39 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I did mean a corporate curriculum vitae. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy-worthy spam. Bongomatic (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete, no showing of importance at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only echo the reasons above. doktorb _words^deeds 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Wieczorek[edit]

Non-notable teen figure skater, as with other recent AfDs fails WP:ATHLETE by way of never even appearing in senior nationals. Ravenswing 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per this and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "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." That's just the top page of a Google search. Googling ME returns three times as many hits, for what it's worth. Ravenswing 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dotzauer[edit]

Non-notable teen figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE by virtue of never appearing even in senior nationals. Ravenswing 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as squeeking past WP:GNG with this

Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "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." That's just the top page of a Google search. Googling ME returns three times as many hits, for what it's worth. Ravenswing 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ATHLETE and there is no non-trivial reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage and failure to meet ATHLETE guideline. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dobbs[edit]

Non-notable 15 year old figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE by virtue of never appearing even in senior nationals. Ravenswing 16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as passing WP:GNG with this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "... published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" That's just the top page of a Google search. Ravenswing 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed myself from this discussion as the nom has made it clear that it is impossible for a gifted minor to ever gain notability in their sport. This Afd is closed already. Discussion is unaccepted and unneccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is certainly happy to make clear that whether a gifted minor achieves notability or not in novice competitions has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE. An athlete can pass WP:BIO in one of two ways: qualify under the general notability criterion (which this subject does not) or qualify under the specific criteria of WP:ATHLETE, which requires nothing other than having competed professionally or at the highest level of amateur sport (which this subject has not). You have been asked for specifics to back up your assertions of notability in several of these skating AfDs. You have failed to provide a single one in any of them. Demonstrably, one of the governing philosophies of WP:ATHLETE is that no level of competition below the "highest level" stated in the black-letter guideline can be considered notable, however well a particular athlete might do in those lower levels. Ravenswing 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... as I have never spoken toward WP:Athlete and have been specifiacally told by the nom that my partcipation in these discussions is a "waste of time". ~~The nom seems to have already made up his mind that Amanda Dobbs does not meet WP:GNG, and so then must have already decided~~ However, can it be assumed that continued coverage of her in "Amanda is the only Junior level competitor from the US to be sent twice to the Junior Grand Prix", "Olympics or bust", "Junior Grand Prix (JGP) Mexico results", "Intermediate Dance and Pairs Skate for Gold at U.S. Junior Championships", "U.S. skaters score three golds at JGP Mexico", "U.S. Wins Three Gold Medals, One Silver at JGP Mexico", "Ralph, Hill and Witkowski in medal contention", et al do not constitute notability through WP:BIO. I never claimed she met WP:Athlete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Let me reiterate some of the elements of WP:GNG for you:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion.

So let me go down that list of links for you. Dobbs' skating club's website is not an "independent" source. An online hometown weekly's website is not often held to be a reliable source. A skating website's list of winners isn't "significant coverage." www.usfigureskating.org is probably reliable, and when it talks about Dobbs at length a lot more than a mere "Rounding out the medalists were Danielle Seitz and Brandon Moore (Indiana World Skating Academy), and Amanda Dobbs (Peninsula SC) and Christopher Trefil (St. Moritz ISC), who placed third and fourth, respectively," we'll talk. icenetwork.com is a "reliable" source? Finally, I believe Slam sports is a reliable source, but once again, the reference is trivial: "In women's singles, Americans Amanda Dobbs (50.46) and Alexe Gilles (49.91) are in first and second respectively ..."

Finally, I have not said that your participation in these discussions is a waste of time, which would be very uncivil. I have said that throwing up waves of trivial links and Google search pages is a waste of time. We need significant, reliable sources discussing the subject at length. Match results do not qualify. Trivial mentions do not qualify. Google search pages filled with obvious links to other people do not qualify. What will qualify is something like that hometown weekly piece, only in the San Francisco Chronicle, an interview on network TV, something along those lines ... and nothing short of it. Ravenswing 16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" The only criteria that could possibly warrant her being here is placing in the national Figure Skating Championship, and 5th place isn't really placing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.61.234 (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has just qualified for the JGPF. Can someone please give me a list of all the figure skaters who have just been nominated for deletion, and also please list them at WP:FIGURE? I've been off wiki for a few days and I come back and see a list of AFDs. Can they please be listed together if they all have the same reason for deletion? Thanks. Kolindigo (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Junior competition is not the "highest level of amateur sport" and thus does not meet WP:ATHLETE; when she competed at senior nationals (and only when she does), then she'll be notable. As far as a bundled AfD goes, it's inappropriate. There's no particular thread linking them, beyond that they're figure skaters who have not yet competed at the senior level, and I preferred to list them separately. Ravenswing 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Pack (group). Black Kite 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stunnaman[edit]

Fails WP:NM, non-notable person that asserts no notability and has no substantial third-party coverage. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete a.s.a.p No notability whatsoever.[24] Sticky Parkin 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability. Bongomatic (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

He was signed to Jive Records along with The Pack -He has collaborated with major artists such as TYGA and Too Short. He is featured on Too Short's recent album along with The Pack http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/16/entertainment/main3374265.shtml This article states his name as Keith "Stunnaman" Jenkins along with the other "The Pack" members. He is also known as "Stunna" and "Young Stunna"

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/fashion/11skaters.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=15e1d5b348cce6d0&ex=1352437200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-17450553_ITM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnmhorn (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention doesn't constitute "significant coverage". Bongomatic (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does prove that he does have credibility and he's not some random person. He fits in the guidelines of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.156 (talk • contribs)

No he doesn't. Read Wikipedia:Notability again: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. A single-sentence mention in article about a completely different performer is not significant coverage. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he does fit the criteria of band member page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.156 (talk • contribs)

Sadly, no he doesn't. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to The Pack (group). The coverage in the links provided by Jnmhorn are really for the group, not the individual. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Mac Intosch[edit]

Non-notable youth player, hasn't played an official game for Ajax yet. Name is spelled Calvin Mac Intosh, btw. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) — Nothing indicating anything about this person. This person is also not on the AFC Ajax roster, so I have good reason to believe that this is a WP:HOAX. MuZemike (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a hoax, Mac Intosh is a youth player. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jeez, that person must've had a hard time in school as a kid with a name like that! In either case, I still stand by my recommendation to A7 this article per the reason I stated above. MuZemike (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The author appears to have created articles for just about every Jong AFC Ajax player. Only Laurent Delorge, Stanton Lewis, Edgar Manucharyan and possibly Daylon Claasen are notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per WP:GNG and this. Article needs expansion and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reliable sources in that Google search, could you elaborate.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. The other youth players should all be deleted too. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several players in the youth team are actually established players who have been kicked out of the main squad (Delorge, Manucharyan) or who have met the notability criteria with other clubs (Lewis, Claasen). So it shouldn't be a blanket deletion, it should be done with caution. Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to this page, he has only played one youth game so far. He does not meet notability criteria for footballers at this time, so delete and recreate if and when he makes his senior debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Entirely non-notable seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE PUNK/FUNK VOODOO COLLECTION[edit]

This is a non-notable album which fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. The album was recorded by a band called The Outsets which was previously deemed non-notable and deleted as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Outsets. Furthermore, the text in this article is a cut-and-paste copy of text found towards the bottom of this external page. A Google search brings up no additional hits for this album. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only lists two of the '45' bonus tracks, no details about sales figures or anything like that. Falls short of the standards required in my opinion. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per common sense that if a band fails our music guidelines, its albums don't get articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band not notable, ergo album not notable.--Boffob (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources showing notability. The failure of the band at AfD is a strong indicator that none can be found. gnfnrf (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene (youth subculture)[edit]

What we have here is an article about a slang term, not an article about an actual subculture. The article refers to the subculture(s) that surround hardcore punk and emo music, but "scene," "scene kid," and "scenester" are slang terms for (some) of the people in said subcultures. The fact that this article is backed up by references from Urban dictionary does not help its case. Once you take out all of the unreferenced neologisms you are not left with much. "Scene" and "the scene" as slang terms are much older terms, dating at least back to the '60s, but are very difficult to reference. As it stands, this article is nonencyclopædic and unsalvageable.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Original research/neologism of questionable existance/complete and utter miscomprehension of a slang term. Either way delete it. --neon white talk 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This previous discussion is somewhat relevant to the current AfD. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought i'd seen it before! --neon white talk 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough reliable sources to establish notability or clear definition without OR.--Boffob (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT neologism/original research, and the "Urban dictionary" is not reliable source. --Kmaster (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to subculture. "Scene" is an adjective which should be in wiktionary or urban dictionary or whatever, but I can hardly conceive of an encyclopedic article on the subject. Kellen^T 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do not salt nor redirect. "Scene" is established as a label of a certain dress style and attitude, from what I've seen is a reaction to emo. I have not seen anything resembling a reliable source on the matter, scene kid on Google seems to give a scattershot of answers, but there does seem to be something there. Frankly, to judge the "scene" scene as a misunderstanding or delusion is presumptuous, and the opportunity to write something once reliable sources emerge shouldn't be removed. hateless 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My problem with you caveat, hateless, is that the AfD I linked to above is nearly two years old, and the article is essentially identical. In that time, no one has found a decent source to define this neologism---or, rather, this particular use of this very-old slang term---and the article has been recreated at least half-a-dozen times. If this is not deleted and salted, we will be having a similar discussion in another 6 months or so. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is recreated verbatim, G4 will suffice nicely. When another article is written in six months (given the pattern, it's not an issue of "if" anymore), WP can handle another examination or debate on it. Salting will just cause the next article creator to use a different diambiguator next time. hateless 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kellen, but do not salt. I could imagine this being a dab page for various communities that commonly refer to themselves as scene (e.g. warez is a distinctly different scene). But this article doesn't have any of that info, and assumes the only scene is the one from a certain music genre. VG ☎ 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the above to Scene (community). No point in having a separate Scene (youth subculture). VG ☎ 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scene (youth subculture) (not a duplicate vote, my first !vote is for a different article). "scene" is just a synonym for the word "subculture". Searching google scholar, I see a paper on the Journal of Youth Studies [25], a US Department of Justice report using them as synonyms[26], a book about goths says how the term "scene" is sometimes preferred to "subculture" but it's going to use subculture because it represents the goth shared identity better [27], this study on punk makes a convoluted argument on how "scene" is more useful than "subculture" for illustrating some complicated argument [28], the first page on this list treats them as synonyms[29]. First ten pages of a Google Books search don't appear to give any book about a youth suculture called "Scene" [30] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scene (youth subculture); its existence is noted in the Sydney Morning Herald; it could be expanded. Please note that even if you have not heard of something, that does not mean it does not exist. Whatever404 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would need alot more than one very poor source considering there isn't the slightest mention anywhere else. --neon white talk 10:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first one - non-notable neologism, that isn't even true. If i asked a student if they were "scene", it would mean the sort of young gay who spends all his free time in gay bars. (Szene in German too). It is an old slang term which changes it's meaning depending on who says it. Having no knowledge of history or society does not mean wikipedia can redefine words. -Yobmod (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yobmod is right. There needs to be a single disambig page about (the) scene, possibly with some redirects. The current state of affairs is pretty crazy. VG ☎ 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT! This page now has pictures and adequate references. Not from urbandictionary but from a diverse range of websites. Most of the original research has now been removed Scene is definitely a subculture (somewhere between punk and heavy metal). I used to be one many years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick19thind (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, Nick, but the content you added is not nearly enough to save the article. The photographs really tell us nothing. I looked at all the sources you added, and not a one of them mentions the word "scene"---to be fair, the last "reference" is not in English, so I have no idea what it said. A link to Hot Topic is certainly not adequate and absolutepunk.net seems to be a message board, so it is not acceptable either. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has other names. I have added other sources (several music-related and an encyclopedia article). The subculture even has its own website. What more proof do you need?

Those sources are of very bad quality :( Nationmaster is a mirror of wikipedia, so it's as if you were linking a wikipedia article. The scene website has two pages, apparently made by only one person (actually, it seems to be a skinned blog). That they claim to be the official website that not mean that they are such a thing. Other not acceptable source are a Yahoo! answers page, for example. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still nothing more than a personal essay. I call get a blog! --neon white talk 09:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order I have cut the Gordian knot here and moved all comments regarding The Scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the talk page. This AfD is becoming completely unmanageable as is. If users desire for The Scene to be deleted, kindly open another AfD. Cheers, HiDrNick! 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've trimmed the article to a stub, removing ALL original research, and leaving what is reliably sourced. Hopefully, now that the OR problem is fixed, the article won't be deleted, and we can go about looking for sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which was promptly reinserted. The article is pretty much a personal essay. --neon white talk 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even with all that rubbish cleared out, we still are left with a vague article about a nonnotable "subculture" (by all rights, it does not merit being described as such) that is too new for there to be any reliable sources. The newspaper article is all but useless, and the other source is about straight-edge, not "scene." In my opinion, nothing has changed, and it is still deserving of deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's crap. Nothing is "too new" to be covered in reliable sources. The newspaper article is proof of that. "Useless" would be your opinion, but here on Wikipedia, that's called a reliable source. The fact that it gets covered in reliable sources means that it's notable, and that it can stay. If the article is not as detailed as you'd like it to be, that's because it's a stub! Don't demolish the house before it's even been built! --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires alot more than one very poorly written article. --neon white talk 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost a case of countering systemic bias. Teenagers, and (in my case) huge amounts of people who have teenage kids in many western countries will know this phrase, but - surprise surprise - it doesn't have a huge amount of coverage in "reliable sources" (and it's difficult to search for, as well). Still, here's some random articles (the first one is notable, as it's from a BBC series that has an episode about various teen subcultures, and 'scene' is one of them) - BBC, "Scene kids will destroy democracy" (heh!), [31], UK Newspaper. Black Kite 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job unearthing those, Black Kite. I've put them in the "Sources" section. It will take time to source all of the specific statements, but those sources cover a lot of the claims in the expanded version of the article, so no one should revert it, IMO. Whatever404 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those back up this article's misunderstood claims. They do not establish the term as anything other than a slang term for a community, not a specific subculture. We already have the Scene (community) article. Try improving that article. Nobody is suggesting the term isn't used as a slang term for a community but the author of this particular article has utterly missed the mark and failed to understand that it does not refer to a particular community. The article is frabricating a new term, for a supposed 'subculture' which has little or no sourcing to associated it with that term other than how the term is already defined in Scene (community). And Whatever404 please do not continue to add your original research to the article, everything added to wikipedia requires a source, you can't just make stuff up. --neon white talk 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a subculture would necessarily be wider than some, but I would point out that not only does the BBC article quite clearly delineate "scene kid" seperately, but it's part of a series (there's a 7-minute video on that page) on different cliques. The Yorkshire Evening Post article clearly states "...Goths, emos, scene kids and moshers" (and it's also from 18 months ago, which suggests it isn't a new term). This one is from about the same period. Black Kite 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Scene (community) to subculture. Wikipedia is not the place to try and turn our favourite slang words into concepts using original research and synthesis. When the original research is removed, we're left with little more than an unsourced definition that common sense suggests is completely incorrect. --neon white talk 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acision[edit]

A speedy deletion as blatant advertising was overturned at deletion review, to allow for an examination of the notability claims beyond the current problems of tone which I have partly remedied by removing the latest additions that triggered the speedy deletion. No further opinion from my side. Tikiwont (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to LogicaCMG) - I think they meet WP:CORP. There's a lot of press about them [32],[33],[34],[35], and they have an extensive WP article under their old name LogicaCMG. ~~SIS~~ 15:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I filed the DRV, and will quote my defense here: "The article isn't great and various stubs have been deleted before, but it's the the world's largest vendor of certain types of telco gear ($500m revenue last year), handling over half the world's SMS traffic, and definitely notable in its field. I'll undertake to improve the article if it's undeleted." I do not support merging it with Logica, because it's now a fully separate company. Jpatokal (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if reliable sources can be found. Notability isn't in dispute here (assuming the article is true). It needs to be watched for spam though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes strong claims of notability and does have sources. These can be improved with the hundreds of available articles out there about the firm. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combalicer Consignment Business Model[edit]

Doesn't meet Notability. The model was created less than a month and half ago. No references about this specific model, no google results. Also, if you check the article's image information, you'll see that the user who created this article, Ashinomori, is John Combalicer (the model bears his name) Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to understand article about a non-notable neologism or non-notable consultancy business, likely stealth spam intended to advance a commercial enterprise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be honest, I don't understand a word of it. But since the model hasn't yet existed for 2 months ("was developed (...) in August 26, 2008") and Google has never heard of it, it completely fails WP:N in my opinion. ~~SIS~~ 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it isn't outright nonsense--it's written in crypic Buzzwordese spoken by pointy-haired boss types--then it's some sort of advertiseent or another. The lack of any Google hits indicate this hasn't exactly taken the business world by storm in the 5 weeks or so since it was invented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ample reasons are given above --Anshuk (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johns[edit]

This article has no verifiable sources and is mostly about people he claims to know, rather than himself. I don't think he is or his book is notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because it it about a book that has no verifable sources and it also appears to be non-notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hiding T 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial coverage can be found in reliable secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly because there is no information on the page thanks to this edit, and the previous edits:

Breached WP:BLP
No sources
Breached WP:NPOV

(At least, they did in my opinion. But I'm new to this.) James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 07:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 whatsoever, no matter which way I count registered or unregistered users, new or established users, and so on. However, unless the page is improved, I expect it'll be back here before the year is out. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Addendum[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}}.

Delete This article is about the sequel to Zeitgeist, the Movie, but does not inhert notability from it. This article fails to demonstrate notability through multiple reliable sources. It is somewhat telling that this article only uses the movie itself as a source, and thus cannot be neutral. --Phirazo (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Merge this into Zeitgeist, the Movie as a section, and redirect there, so that people coming to Wikipedia looking for information will be provided with it. Redirects are free after all. Hiding T 12:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - The film has just been released, we could wait for some reliable source to post a review and improve the article. I would not recommend a merge, due to the major differences in content of the two films. Let's improve it and find reliable sources as it goes on, it's already drawn significant attention among the blogosphere, let's see if the mainstream media respond. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There really isn't anything to merge. Zeitgeist, the Movie already has a section on Zeitgeist: Addendum. --Phirazo (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- So the sensible thing might have been to redirect the article there. Hiding T 08:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article cannot be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.165.251 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? --Phirazo (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop trying to delete things, like others have noted - this movie has only just been released. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.21.31 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above, else delete. I don't even think the first one is notable, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zeitgeist, the Movie. It's not automatically notable simply because the previous one was. When there is non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources, it can have an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: The movie is a sequel of Zeitgeist, the Movie. The notability of this new movie is established by its presentation at the Artivists Film Festival where the movie was "attended by a sold-out audience of 600 people" and after it won an award at this festival. This movie is not a fiction and not exactly an unbiased documentary either as it represents a point of view that could be considered an essay#Film. Rather than merging this article with the first movie, I would recommend to improve this article and limit the extent of the description of this new movie in the first title. A main difference with the first movie is the large representation of The Venus Project as a proposed solution. uiteoi (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: Notability is a matter of time regarding brand new objects/events. By observing the fast growing notability of the Addendunm one can easely project that its notability will surpass the Wikipedia required notability, it actually probably already surpass it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanHuguesRobert (talk • contribs) — JeanHuguesRobert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and improve as film has gained its own notability outside the original film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: The movie is famed. It very well deserves its own article. It's a very new release, however, so of course it doesn't have massive amounts of readily disposable information. Give it a little time and allow information to be gathered, and it should expand to the size of the original Zeitgeist article. If anything, I think it should be marked as a stub. There is plenty of information to be included in this article that just hasn't been typed up yet. GAMEchief (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve --Fathermocker (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zeitgeist the Movie per WP:NNC If it had "its own notability" or "is famed [sic]" then it should have reliable secondary sources, which the article does not. I'm going to skip a search for them because so many people have already voted keep that I presume that they would have taken the time to add any extant sources; as is, I see at most one reliable, independent source. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Free online film shown at minor festival lacks demonstrated multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage needed to establish notability. Notability is not inherited from the previous film. Edison (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zeitgeist the Movie, which only BARELY meets notability requirements due to a SINGLE third-party mention of note. This particular incarnation has nothing supporting it and until such time as it's released, you can track it's so called "information gathering status" at the main article. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - Yes, it is true that this article is poorly written, but it is a notable movie and demands a re-write, not a deletion. Altonbr (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve I think it's rather strange to sugest an article for deletion so shortly after the subject comes in existance. Give it time. Webmind (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Assertion: Google search for "zeitgeist addendum" Shows 92,900 results. Among them: Digg score 2718 and 875 comments; numerous blogs such as Dogmatic; Technorati indicating 83 blog reactions including one blog with an authority score 133 Web TV Hub. I believe that this quick search shows that this movie is already very notable in cyberspace and therefore cannot be rejected on the basis of the lack of notability. Out of Cyberspace, the film has received the award of "Artivist Spirit Award - Best Feature" from the Artivist Film Festival which, BTW, does deserve a Wikipedia page of its own (i.e. not as minor as claimed above) as noted by the LA Times, LA Weekly and multiple organizations such as the United Nations. I also do not see the point of trying to improve an article while under the threat of deletion and will not edit the article myself although I believe that the article could be very much improved and that I watched the movie twice. Although I disagree with some conclusions of the movie, this is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned and I therefore vote to Keep the article. uiteoi (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Have stricken second !vote by this user. Uiteoi, you get only one boldface "Keep". Deor (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have removed the additional "Keep". uiteoi (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Google test isn't useful for demonstrating notability. The number of results is an estimate, not a real number. 2. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Digg is infamous for inaccurate articles being "dugg", and blogs are usually inappropriate for inclusion in an article. Mere existence of a source is not enough, the source has to be usuable. 3. Even if the "Artivist Spirit Award" is notable, notability is not inherited from it. --Phirazo (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digg is famous for evaluating the notability of blog articles. Likewise the reference by numerous (83) blogs is also notable, and Technorati is a recognized place to judge the notability of blogs using their authority ranking system. The Google ranking system is also notable and generates billions of dollars in revenues. All these arguments are just 'the Internet is irrelevant'-arguments and are the same arguments used by many opponents of Wikipedia. uiteoi (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not equate reliability. But regardless, "It is ranked <big number here> on <website here>" is not a good general argument for either. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The film was only recently released and should obviously be improved upon. It is already generating a lot of interest and deletion of the article would be premature. Nebu_Bei, ^Nebu_Bei 21:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To editors voting "Keep and Improve" - show me a source that demonstrates notability. Not a Google search, not a blog, a real reliable source. I've been to plenty of shows that aren't "Wikipedia notable" that were sold out and sat many more than 600. --Phirazo (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is a conspiracy documentary that is not notable in and of itself, and the majority of the above comments have occurred due to the faithful adherents of the film posting on online message boards for everyone to come to wikipedia and stop the nomination. LowLevelMason (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some people like to have a clean and neat wikipedia, but can articles also atleast get a chance to aquire sources for notability, this article is less then a week old and already marked for deletion. That sounds absurd to me. Webmind (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content of this movie is a conspiracy theory, and I believe they are wrong in their analysis, but this is not the point. The point is about notability. The movie is notable after receiving an award from an independent film festival, period. We need a balanced article to possibly explain why the movie is wrong by providing counter arguments to the content of the movie. We cannot do this if the article is deleted. uiteoi (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uiteoi, after your numerous comments here, I can only implore you to take another read of notability and notability of films. Notability is judged by independent coverage in multiple reliable sources (read that one again too). While (as stated in the second link) certain facts can permit the assumption of notability, receiving some minor minor award is not one of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the number of comments limited by policy? When multiple arguments are made, this requires multiple answers. This is a discussion and in a discussion one is allowed to talk as many times as deemed appropriate until the debate is called off. In the case of this movie notability has been largely asserted by multiple reliable sources. The possible remaining questions would be merge or keep. uiteoi (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're interpreting something from my comments I never actually said. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. deletion of the article would be premature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.157.100 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve Given the high popularity of the previous title, it is just a matter of time spotlighted by notable media. Oh, by the way Digg aleady gave some interests already. 66.117.137.91 (talk)— 66.117.137.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CommentWikipedia is not a crystal ball. Edison (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This is a blatantly inaccurate and anti-semetic conspiracy doco that is not notable in and of itself, just promotion. Critical reviews are vital in the original title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.131.223 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve The film was given premiere status at Artivist Festival sponsored by both UN and Nobel (according to website), which gives it legitimity --Roberth Edberg (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTIVIST is a 501c3 non profit organization endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION and the INTERNATIONAL NOBEL PRIZE. www.artivists.org at bottom of index page

Notability is not inherited. Besides, there are 1664 NGOs associated with the UN DPI/NGO. It doesn't seem that hard to partner with the UN [36]. The association with the Nobel Prize is that they got Claes Nobel to show up and accept an award. He isn't on the Norwegian Nobel Committee, he is the great grandnephew of Alfred Nobel. --Phirazo (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE This article needs improvement, but deletion is a step backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.8.179 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If sources are found, use them to expand the section in the parent article. gnfnrf (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect It would make sense to have something that calls itself an "addendum" on the original page, especially when it lacks its own notability and largely shares its predecessors message and identity. Elithrion (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect since keep and improve cannot work due to the nonexistance of reliable sources (i.e. "improve with what?"). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film. We should not "wait for sources", without sources the article should never have been written, as it is therefore orginial research. Redirect to section of first movie.Yobmod (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge and keep.this sohuld be merge to the original article.It is also not conspiracy video but a philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Phirazo is a deletionist as stated on his user page Phirazo. Nobody can therefore believe that his opinion is not biased towards deletion. uiteoi (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what? Fix the article, and the deletionists "lose"--fail to fix the article, and it gets merged. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asnwer: Deltionism is dogma and as such is biased. Phirazo is asking for straight deletion, not merge and redirect which would have been more appropriate. Asking people to edit an article while under the threat of deletion is like asking people to contribute for nothing. I am opposed to the merge because I believe that each movie should have its own independent article even when it is from the same author(s). Furthermore this new movie has acquired its own notability through an award and the subject is very different from the first movie. As much as the first movie was a 9/11 conspiracy theory, the second movie contains a proposal for a new system not relying on the banking system. Deleting this article is akin of asking the deletion of articles regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. We need these articles to help readers understand that conspiracy theories have answers. uiteoi (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin will settle the !vote by policy. If there's a good and reasonable merge target, deletion is a deprecated option. I'm not a deletionist either, but I've found that they have a valuable insight into keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic, and since they force me to think in those terms, deletionists make me a better editor. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. The new movie is so different than the first that I think a merge is not appropriate. One major difference is that the first movie is by all means a conspiracy theory while the new movie is much more subtle and addresses a problem with a solution with The Venus Project. Comparing both articles really shows how different and independent these movies are. I would like to see criticism of the article content in order to provide a balanced view of the movie rather than this request for deletion and now for a merge. uiteoi (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article content can't be "balanced" for precisely the same reason many here have argued for merge or delete. And that is because no reliable sources have actually been presented that discuss the movie. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Out of the 83 blogs, and probably more by now, commenting on the movie, I would be surprised not to find a balanced view. Of course this assumes that the blogosphere is not irrelevant and can be reliable. Considering the blogosphere irrelevant or considering it unreliable a-priori is a prejudice. uiteoi (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a "Criticism" section and references into the article after finding reliable sources critical to the movie. uiteoi (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge The sourcing on this is pretty awful. IMdB and Google Video both prove that this exists and little else. The link to Artivist Film Festival proves that it was screened, but the Acton Institute reference doesn't even mention the film. Shouldn't there be some critical reaction? At the very least there should be references not intended to promote the film. Instead of arguing about the validity of the views expressed in the films, the keep !votes should be finding reputable, third party sources, something I note they have failed to do and I have been unsuccessful in locating myself. A ni Mate 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Phirazo: You main argument for the deletion of this article is flawed. You state: "It is somewhat telling that this article only uses the movie itself as a source, and thus cannot be neutral". Please take a look at the Loose Change (film). That references itself quite often. In fact, every article references itself at one point or another. IF ANYTHING, add a 'criticism' or 'controversy' section to make it non-biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.102 (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are self-references allowed when it comes to certain types of media? Absolutely. Loose Change certainly references itself quite a bit, however this article only references itself and websites used to promote it. There aren't any ~~third party references~~ secondary sources. Find some, preferably not from a blog, and the article won't be in danger of deletion. Simple. A ni Mate 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This motion picture is based ONLY on third party sources! Jacque Fresco is a 3rd party source, as the movie greatly involves the Venus Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.102 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again. Third party/tertiary sources are encyclopedias and stating you needed to find them was a goof on my part. You actually need secondary sources, such as magazine articles or newspapers. Find reliable secondary sources that discuss the film, and you have a well referenced article. If you can't find any sources, then the film isn't suitable for Wikipedia. The theories and information contained in the film are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. We're not here to discuss if the message of the film is right or wrong or well sourced. If this article is to be retained, you must find sources that discuss Zeitgeist: Addendum specifically. A ni Mate 03:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine articles and newspapers are not the only valid sources of information. Internet-borne medias are no more, and no less, valuable than legacy medias. uiteoi (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but they must satisfy WP:RS. If they don't, then they can't be used as sources. For instance, MetaFilter and the "unnoficial blog" of the UK Libertarian part aren't reliable. In fact, they're downright terrible. A ni Mate 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. While a written reliable source is no more or less valuable than a web-based reliable source, there is still a need to demonstrate that the source is actually reliable. Given that anyone can create a blog, the base assumption is that all blogs are unreliable for controversial facts (facts that contradict other sources, and any kind of criticism), and that they are no good for demonstrating notability. To consider one so requires a demonstration that this blog has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Someguy1221 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course acceptable to use the movie itself as source for the claims it makes. However, this article only uses the movie as a source (unlike Loose Change (film), which cites plenty of indepedent sources). The LA Times article is unusable as a source, and the mentions is so brief that it can't be used to claim notability. You can hardly call the Venus Project "independent", as it is pitched as the "solution" to the monetary "problem". We can't stare into the crystal ball and predict notability. If there are new sources later, you can always take it to WP:DRV. --Phirazo (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Fresco's Website? check it out: Jacque Fresco's website says that Fresco's Venus Project will be included in the movie, and he will attend the premiere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there any independent sources? So far we have the film, a festival where the film was shown, and someone whose work is featured in the film. Are there any sources that don't benefit from promoting the film in some way? A ni Mate 21:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but I suspect there will be. I think it's fair to PREDICT that the NOTABILITY of this article will grow. After all, the first film is the most downloaded video on the net, and has magazine articles/Festival Awards and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we actually don't predict things here. That's actual policy. Also, if there are magazine articles, why aren't they being used as sources for the article? If there were reliable sources in the article, this debate wouldn't be happening. A ni Mate 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...ok, I understand. Well, This Los Angeles Times article discuses the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good start. Now, if we can find something reliable that actually discusses the film's content, we might be able to salvage this article. A ni Mate 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Section Critical to the Movie I was surprised to see that the section I added about criticisms of the movie was removed. By removing references critical to the movie some people are trying to make the point that references to the movie only portray a positive attitude towards the movie. There are plenty of balanced opinions regarding this movie on the Internet and these opinions are as valid as those from any paid journalist from legacy newspapers and magazines because an opinion will always be an opinion and is by nature subjective. The opinion of what is relevant, reliable, etc will always be subjective too. Blogs are just not recognized as reliable and this needs to change. The fact that this movie is not mainstream enough to justify mainstream media coverage is not a valid reason to deny coverage in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia deletion policies. uiteoi (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is basically reliable sources aren't necessary for this article? Or is it that all blogs should be considered reliable sources? A ni Mate 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what Uiteoi means is that, just as not all mainstream sources are reliable, not all blogs are Unreliable. That has truth to it. Nevertheless, I still believe that we don't need a second-hand source that doesn't profit from the film. The Film exists. It is notable. It's notability will grow. It deserves an article. Period. Let's stop arguing and start looking for good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is clearly an argument better left for WP:RS/N, not here. Unfortunately, what you assert as consensus is at odds with Wikipedia policy, which is to delete or merge articles until and unless they have reliable sources, regardless of the number of partisans who advocate otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead horse delete as original research and advertising. WillOakland (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a notable movie! It won best feature artivist spirit at Artivist Film Festival! Stop nagging! Please let us digg into this movie sources instead. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Have changed your keep to a comment; you already !voted; in fact, your comment was essentially identical. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve.The movie won an award. Not sure why this is even being debated. Give the article a chance, it has only just been released.Zenbabyhead (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- The film exists, and covers an important topic. The information in the article is concise and pertinent. Why this is being considered for deletion is beyond me... : ViperBlade ^Talk!! 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the author(s) of these articles are fanatical in keeping out any criticism of the video thus it is serving a biased advertising and promotional agenda. I wonder if the author(s) involved in starting tehse articles are the creators of the zeitgeist video? I can be persuaded to change my mind to keep if criticism of the video is allowed. We can't have high standards of peer reviewed criticism like you would for say an article on aids or some medical article when we are talking about an original research google video riddled with biases and misinformation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Keyshia Cole album)[edit]

Article about an unreleased album. Google returns nothing, no sources (reliable or otherwise) provided to prove it has ever been mentioned. User has a history of creating hoax articles about RnB music. Papa November (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few (bloggy) mentions of her working on, or going to work on, a new album. That's hardly surprising since she's a recording artist. Can't find anything specific or reliable about an upcoming album called "Love". Crush the crystal. ~~SIS~~ 12:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal, hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've removed everything I possibly can from the article without blanking it, and I'm half minded to speedy it as advertising. Is there an rfc or arbitration case regarding the user in question? Hiding T 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No RfC that I'm aware of, but I've blocked him for a month for disruptive editing. If he continues hoaxing and ignoring image use policy after his block expires, I think RfC is the correct route to take. Papa November (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll try and keep an eye on things. Hiding T 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL; nuff said. --Mhking (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shonai FC[edit]

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

Non ontable amateur football club. Previously prodded, but prod removed. 73 distinct Google hits[37], no Google News hit. No reliable independent sources. Claims to fame could not be verified. Their official website[38] gives an idea of the prefessional level of the club. Sad that this can survive on Wikipedia for over three years (first at Shonai fc) ... Fram (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the claim that the club plays in the Tokai league (4th level in Japan), which would probably make it notable, this does not appear to be the case.[39] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Number 57, there's something here which doesn't add up. The club website shows them winning the Tokai League in 2005, yet RSSSF.com's page for the same tournament is very different with only one team (Shizuoka) showing up in both (the dates shown and number of games played are also different). I would assume the 'Tokai League' won by Shonai is perhaps a regional amateur tournament rather than the 4th level league. Either way, amateur teams are usually non-notable and I would say this is one of those occasions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion about this particular team, but it is not true that simply being amateur makes a team non-notable. We accept articles on English teams six levels below the bottom professional level. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those amateur teams (such as Sheffield F.C.) play in leagues which form part of the national league system, and they play at a sufficiently high level in that system to make them notable. This team (along with many other amateur teams) doesn't, as far as I can tell. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied, take your pick, no context to identify the subject, patent nonsense or vandalism. Hiding T 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards Brea Stadium 10 West[edit]

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

In my opinion, this movie theatre does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who may possibly have a conflict of interest. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - It doesn't even meet the criteria for common sense: "The lucky few that have seen it claim to have used a " waterless urinale" and hear the moans of Paul Shore..." I think a speedy G1 or G3 is appropriate. ~~SIS~~ 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object Prevalence[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I'm the original article creator. This was previously PRODded as "this is just spam" and "lets not allow article like this to ruin wikipedia", and subsequently deleted. I restored it because I contest the PROD. However, I'm bringing this now to AfD, because I'm honestly teetering on whether this thing should be here or not. On the bad side, the article is crappily written by My Incompetent Hand, and doesn't cite sources that much. The article may have also been touched a little bit by the creator of concept. However, "Object prevalence" does get me 277 distinct Google hits, it was discussed in Slashdot and IBM developerWorks, and there's multiple independent implementations of the idea. I'm regrettably not following our Notability criteria that well these days so I don't know if this is enough. I've brought it here mainly for discussion since I disagree this would be "spam" and we should at least try. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and just checked Google Scholar above; some of the articles seem to be related to Prevayler or other Prevalence frameworks. Regrettably I don't have more time right now to be more thorough... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, doesn't seem to be spam or otherwise deleteable. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem strong enough. [40] is quite solid and well-linked to by things like [41]. Add in this talk [42] and we have met WP:N. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article strikes me as so seriously lacking in context that I could easily understand why other editors might find it unintelligible. It's uncertain from the article whether this is some kind of management philosophy or a product of some sort.

On the merits of the subject itself, I would question whether we really need detailed articles about every label given to a management plan or "model" for supervising computer programmers or making collective programming more efficient. These things tend to be rather esoteric, and of limited interest outside of corporate computer programming, which may make them not notable. They also need to be carefully watched for commercial conflict of interest, as well as bad corporate prose style. Not sure whether Slashdot counts as a reliable source, either; no opinion about the IBM site.

That said, no opinion about the merits of the current article. It surely can be improved, and be clearer as to what it's about, so I'm willing to wait. Note also that it should move to Object prevalence if kept. That is what the Prevayler article links to, whatever that is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably keep-worthy. You might want to ask over at WP:Wikiproject Computing to see if anyone over there might give you some help. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fair number of mentions on Slashdot and O'Reilly books on the subject make it keep-worthy. I've moved the page too. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment- page was poorly named, the more commonly used name as discovered by Tux, seems to be "object persistence"- I think more hits are evident for that name. Sticky Parkin 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "object persistence" is an important topic in programming and wikipedia should mention it. In fact, it already does: Persistence (computer science). "Object prevalence" has a similar meaning, yet it does not belong to computer science: it is a made-up buzzword to promote the Prevayler "framework". Then Merge to Prevayler until this pattern becomes a recognized standard(never?). --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now find myself agreeing with M4gnum0n and the page should be merged. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, but that page has borderline notability too IMHO. Sticky Parkin 00:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stratton United[edit]

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

Originally PROD'ed with rationale "Amateur team (stated as such in the article) playing only at level 15 of the English football league system. Fails WP:FOOTY project's notability rule of thumb of having competed at level 10 or higher or in a national cup. No sources found to pass GNG. Probably COI based on name of creator.", PROD then removed by article creator with no explanation whatsoever, so here we are..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what the problem is with the page, it references the fa site, our squad, and its 100% accurate. We dont play in a high tier of english football, but why does that matter...we are still an established club in our town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenCollett (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the very well established criteria. The above comment suggests a hefty dose of WP:COI is also likely. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they fall well short of the Step 10 mark. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, currently playing in Step 15. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest with a factual page? Im not expressing my opinions....everything on the site is 100% fact. Its a resource that people can look at when they draw us in cups etc. I really dont see what the problem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenCollett (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Resources for people to look at should be placed on your own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting the general notability guidlines, but with the added flavour of failing the aforementioned football specific criteria too. Ben, the conflict of interest that 57 refers to is the fact that you play for the club, making your edits look like self-promotion. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resources for people to look at should be placed on your own website, not Wikipedia?? The article is in the same format as every other football club on wiki...that statement makes no sense. The whole point of wiki is so that people can easily access factual information in one place...if 'resources for people to look at should be on their own site' then wiki would lose half of its pages. The only difference being that I do infact play for the club. But half the lower league sides on wiki (Cirencester Town for example) are made and updated by people involved in the club. Not to mention the fact that all of the football club articles on wiki will be created and maintained by die hard fans of the clubs....more COI? Anyway...if we dont meet the league standard to have a page then thats fine... BenCollett (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Cortez[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Net search finds many other people named Julia Cortez far more frequently. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two minor roles almost 15 years ago, no awards, no significant coverage, I think she fails WP:BIO-WP:ENTERTAINER. ~~SIS~~ 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I appreciate the notability concerns, but what you are looking at here is an instance where it shouldn't apply, because the article informs people and improves Wikipedia by existing. If she'd only been in one film or the other, I'd go for redirect. Yes, we need to draw lines in the sand. They don't however, have to be straight. The other option is to consider writing an article on a few of the more notable Julia Cortez's and then making a dab page on which an entry could sit. But I think deleting this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Notability is only guidance. Improving the encyclopedia is policy. Hiding T 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a marginal BLP with no cited sources. The name is relatively common, but even with confounding terms removed, no news cites show up that aren't just a mention of the characters she plays with her name in parentheses. Web searches show up automatically generated filmographies and the like. There is nothing with which a biographical article could be built. We do not need this article to serve as an intersection between two roles in a movie. As for "lines being drawn in the sand", we have them already. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lines in the sand aren't straight or infinite. My personal opinion is that we're a better encyclopedia with this article than without it. And that is the only debate that matters. I'm happy for people to disagree, and will respect whatever consensus forms, but I'd we didn't kid ourselves that anything is more important than building the best encyclopedia. This isn't so much aimed at you so much as it is just an iteration of the fact that rules are subservient to the encyclopedia rather than defining of. As to the article being unsourced, that isn't true, it actually cites two movies. Hiding T 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, free to feel that only some debates matter. I suspect that the encyclopedia is better off if we do not have an article on a human being that is only sourced to two casting lists. I also suspect that the community (in general, although far from unanimously) feels that we are better off without articles that cite no independent sources covering the subject. I am not kidding myself at any stage of this. This is just a difference of opinion. Neither of us feels that the rules govern the encyclopedia without exception or reason. You feel that the encyclopedia is bettered with the existence of this article. I do not. The motivations behind those feelings are different enough that we two can simultaneously hold them in good faith. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she appeared in notable films, her presence in both productions is too minor to justify inclusion here. Sorry, Julia. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network programming block articles[edit]

These articles don't really have a purpose but to act as programming guides and are cannot be sourced reliably as the schedules they detail change regularly and Cartoon Network doesn't publish a static schedule in order to verify the content. There's little chance any are bit notable enough to warrant separate articles, they fail on WP:NOT#TVGUIDE, WP:N and WP:V. treelo _radda 10:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 10:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all no merge, no redirect. These are programming guides. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, point 3 states that articles should not contain lists of these nature. A stipulation is historically significant, which does not apply here. These are standard programming blocks which come and go, and there's no real significance for this information. The information is ultimately not verifiable, as Cartoon Network doesn't maintain an archive of programming, and any second-party sources would be stuff like tv.com and tvguide.com, which are generally rated as unreliable sources. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per ~~Shnitzel~~ Treelo, programming guides, TV cruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge em all. There are likely plenty of sources for each one, but editorially they make sense as a single unit. I only looked for sources on the first one and found [43], [44] (looks like a PR but the site claims copyright) , [45] (article on Variety which mentions the host of FD is 10 years old) [46] behind paywall but includes more about the host and show. That's just for one of these. As a group, WP:N shouldn't be an issue as this one meets the letter of WP:N by itself. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to challenge these sources. They are almost, but not quite entirely, ~~unlike tea~~ trivial mentions. The first one is a ratings report for a specific show which just happens to air during one of these programming blocks. On the second one, two of the four paragraphs are devoted to programming details. The third one is almost trivial, but of the actual information, there isn't really enough to satisfy multiple non-trivial mentions. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a more generous view of them, but even if these are fairly weak, this is only for one of the above. I'm proposing to merge them all into one article. If they each have that kind of coverage (and a quick look indicated they do) then as a combined article WP:N should be met. You agree? Hobit (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cartoon Network or Merge all per Hobit SNS (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We aren't a programming guide. News or web mentions of these items are likely to be "blah show on XYZ programming block...", made mostly because the PR people at CN are paid to hassle guide writers to include that stuff. No reason for us to give free advertising to CN. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's a great source, but do look at [47]. It goes into more detail than that for certain. Again, between all of these WP:N doesn't have a problem. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that assessment of that diff. I see that the source notes the creation of this programming block and then notes what shows are on it. It is no Adult Swim (although that article is poorly sourced). Protonk (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why you are referring to that link as a diff (typo? some common term I'm clueless about?). As you note, it discusses the creation and what shows are on. But it also spends 1.5 paragraphs describing the host (a 10-year old) and how he's being presented. Seems like a solid (if only 4 paragraph) RS. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Miguzi which should probably be merged to Toonami as it was (IIRC) a spinoff aimed at a younger demographic. JuJube (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Of course sources exist, but they do not change the fact that WP is not a TV guide. I could check 5 TV guides and verify these, but it is still not encylopedic.Yobmod (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that all the articles except Fridays and Toonami should be deleted. Like what I did for Cartoon Network's wedgies, it is insignificantt.Bgnkid (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) This comment was moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fried Dynamite as a courtesy. treelo _radda 10:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asrav[edit]

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

Contest prod (I'm assuming all the recent anon IP edits are in fact made by the author). The article is about a "secret" language that has just been invented and is used, if at all, by a small group of friends. Fails WP:MADEUP, WP:VER etc. andy (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This ignores almost the entire WP acronym collection. OR, N, V, NFT, NOT, you name it... ~~SIS~~ 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Causteau (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch civil wars[edit]

While the topic may itself be notable, the article establishes no new information other than that stated in other wikipedia articles. No references, inline citations for verifiability. Flewis^(talk) 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I created this article and I object to delete it. After the placing the deletion tag, the article has been improved at some extent and also two good inline citation have been included. It will take some time to fully comprehensive on the topic. So please don't remove this article. Thanks. Marrigreat (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now contains new information, references, and inline citations for verifiability, so the nomination is moot. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 5 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, Stifle (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Article seems to be mainly about Mir Chakar Rind (and in fact the "30 Years long War" section is copied verbatim from that article). Any other information is covered in better detail in History of Balochistan. The single useful source seems to back this up, being an account of the history of the region rather than expanded detail of this one historical event (which is actually what I would expect). There doesn't seem to be any reason to single this conflict out; put simply, notability of this event is not asserted. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What do you mean by "lack of citations from reliable sources"? There are two in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm unable to verify those. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can verify the first one online, and the second by going to a library. Again, there is no requirement either in verifiability policy or notability guidelines for sources to be freely available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to Stifle's opinion, this is properly verified. As the nominator states that it's a potentially notable topic, and as the problem of no references has been fixed, there's no reason that this should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm still concerned that this is a stub of a larger article that only duplicates information. The sources are more general histories of Balochistan, rather than solely about the civil war(s). As I'd said before, I would expect the sources to be dealing with the specific event, as opposed to a general summary that briefly mentions it. Being familiar with this, I'm still not sure why this one event is more worthy of an individual article than the region's other conflicts. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it is; I don't know much about this subject. All I see is that the article is sufficiently referenced, so it shouldn't be deleted; I'm not going to say anything about the propriety or impropriety of merging this with anything else. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lack of articles on other notable regional conflicts is no reason to delete this one: it's a reason to create articles on those other conflicts. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't suggesting that as a reason for deletion; I'm simply saying that the references don't point to this conflict being notable in the history of this region. Also, the bulk of it is copied verbatim from the article on Mir Chakar Rind... as such it talks about him, rather than going into more detail about this event and its importance in history. I've tried to find sources that assert that this conflict is notable in its regional sphere, but I'm not having any luck. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 07:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important and notable topic with references to verify the facts. JASpencer (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Track[edit]

I have attempted to find references for this article that show that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE) - and here is what I was able to come up with: One passing mention in TIME magazine. A few very brief mentions in books - but only passing mentions of less than one-line and no significant discussion of any kind. These include one sentence in In Praise of Sociology by Gordon Marshall, a one sentence mention in Protestantism by G. P. Geoghegan, a passing mention in Cyberculture Conspiracy by Kenn Thomas, a few passing mentions in L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah Or Madman? by Bent Corydon, but these are not of significant discussion and mainly basically just WP:DICDEF stuff, one passing mention with no significant discussion in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements by James R. Lewis. Other mention: passing mention by Margery Wakefield in What Christians Need to Know about Scientology (not sure if this satisfies WP:RS). Zero results in searches of several database archives including Westlaw, LexisNexis, Infotrac and Newsbank. If the subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I was unable to find it. Cirt (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clarifying that my sentiment is delete, not merge or redirect. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the subject overlap enough with Space opera in Scientology doctrine to support a merge and redirect? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Space opera in Scientology scripture could certainly use some work, but I'll leave it up to others if any info from here should be added there - of course it should be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. My take is that it's not really noteworthy enough for a merge/redirect, no. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy enough for a redirect? Almost without question. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. It is not correlated enough with that specific article for a redirect to that article to be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you say is covered by "the whole track" that is not covered by "Space opera in Scientology doctrine"? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether one is "covered" in the other or not, just that they are different topics. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that that is a completely legitimate use of redirects, right? To guide people to the most nearly related article to the one they searched for, which doesn't have its own article? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I just don't see these two topics as being related enough for that redirect to make sense. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep It is marginally notable and there are some secondary sources mentioning it.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but a "mention" is not "significant coverage". Cirt (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently it looks like a page created to expand on a single consept in the Scientology doctrine, and I don't really see anything of substance that isn't already covered in other articlesCoffeepusher (talk) 04:16, 2 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, Stifle (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the lack of citations from accessible, reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pretty Ricky. (commenting admin closure). Hiding T 12:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eighties Babies[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC as a non-notable album. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pretty Ricky. Hiding T 14:01, 1 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, Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pretty Ricky. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning toward keep so default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aylestone Park F.C.[edit]

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

Disputed prod, procedural listing The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like their current league is at Step 7, so doesn't this count them as notable? (I can't find the notability guideline for this - could anyone point me to it?)--Michig (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:FOOTY rule-of-thumb cut-off-point is Step 6 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see any mention of a step cut off at WP:FOOTY. The notability link only seems to apply to players. I'm happy to go along with consensus on notability, but I'd like to know where this is documented. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's written down anywhere but has been established by precedent in many past AfDs such as all these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. OK, cheers Chris. Might be an idea for the footy project folks to document this as a guideline to make it easier/quicker to deal with cases such as this.--Michig (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Neutral until we get some documented agreed notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response in the other, similar, AfD.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think the players on this team probably aren't notable, but the team seems to be. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Leicestershire Senior League was a de facto Step 6 type league from 1999 to about 2004, when all three Midland Alliance feeders were dropped to Step 7 (The WMRL and Mid Comb since regained official Step 6 status while the LSL didn't). I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "Step 6 = notable" and "Step 7 = non-notable" by default, let alone the fact that a single FA Vase appearance gives notability, but if that is the consensus we are working with, Aylestone Park pass. - fchd (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Rundle. matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The argument that the LSL Premier was "de facto" Step 6 is weak and flawed! The KCL and Essex Olympian League are still "de facto" step 6 but that hasnt't stopped any of their member clubs (who havent played at "proper" step 6 before on in the FAC or FAV) having their articles deleted. Sarumio (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But were they ever an official feeder to a league now at Step 5? The LSL was. - fchd (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a consensus can be reached on the cut off level, I would also suggest the connection with Gary Lineker and Joe Mattock also adds a bit of notability. Skitzo (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Rundle. Giant Snowman 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurmaston Town F.C.[edit]

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

Disputed prod, procedual nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they have only played below the generally accepted cut-off point for English teams (Step 10), as confirmed by the FCHD. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't the Leicestershire Senior League Premier, where they currently play, at Step 7?--Michig (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed. But the WP:FOOTY rule-of-thumb cut-off-point is Step 6 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents for notability.--Michig (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Neutral until we have an agreed cut-off point for notability (step 6? step 7? step 10?) - the football project should really get to grips with this. Totally unsourced articles such as this should at least meet some agreed notability criterion if they're going to stay.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm aware, the football project has "got to grips with this" and Step 6 was the decision. Nobody in this AfD appears to be claiming that Step 7 is notable, and Bettia's reference to Step 10 is an error, based on the fact that Step 6 is the 10th level of the overall English football system (you've got the four fully professional levels, then Step 1, then Step 2, and so on) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, it does not appear to be documented anywhere, and it seems clear that there are differeing interpretations of notability in these discussions.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, I don't think we need to set in stone a rule like Step 6=notable, Step 7=non-notable. Take each case on its own merits, and keep those with the multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is surely a level where clubs are notable by virtue of playing at that level. A guideline stating when a club will generally be notable would(/should) not mean that clubs that don't meet the criteria in the guideline are necessarily non-notable, but would help to avoid unnecessary deletion debates.--Michig (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really understand the argument that we only keep articles with multiple, independent, non-trivial reliable sources, while at the same time !voting to keep this article, which has zero references.--Michig (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Leicestershire Senior League was a de facto Step 6 type league from 1999 to about 2004, when all three Midland Alliance feeders were dropped to Step 7 (The WMRL and Mid Comb since regained official Step 6 status while the LSL didn't). I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "Step 6 = notable" and "Step 7 = non-notable" by default, let alone the fact that a single FA Vase appearance gives notability, but if that is the consensus we are working with, Thurmaston Town pass. - fchd (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Rundle. matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The argument that the LSL Premier was "de facto" Step 6 is weak and flawed! The KCL and Essex Olympian League are still "de facto" step 6 but that hasnt't stopped any of their member clubs (who havent played at "proper" step 6 before on in the FAC or FAV) having their articles deleted. Sarumio (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FCHD. Giant Snowman 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no consensus has been reached on the cut off level Skitzo (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zirk[edit]

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

Not notable. Page started in 2005, deleted (prod) in 2006, restarted in 2007: still hasn't gotten any independent reliable sources. No evidence that this party organisation is in any way notable. Unclear which search terms would give the best results, I could not find any good ones through Zirk soundsystem. Fram (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tempted to speedy as A7, thoughts? Hiding T 13:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Federation of Parasitologists[edit]

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

Non-notable organization per WP:ORG. Fails WP:V, no sources could be found Smitty (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the page tagged was a redirect. I've corrected the header of this section and tagged the correct page. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep WP:V isn't an issue. [48], [49], [50], [51]. Not sure if anyone can write an article on this or if it meets WP:N/WP:ORG, but WP:V is easy and I tend to favor inclusion of verifiable professional organizations. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - the author must provide a couple of independent references. Adding 'of' to the findsources above gives better results!
Weak keep. Google Scholar finds this article about the federation's awards and this one which, according to this snippet, discusses its founding. This sort of academic organisation tends to keep its head down as far as publicly available sources go, but I think there's just about enough here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Diu Ban" Fashion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The "Diu Ban" Fashion

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

a delicate subject, but i think it fails WP:NEO as even tho it has refs its not an english phrase. Mission Fleg (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT for a start. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the event has caused the phrase to be common (as claimed), then I don't think ONEEVENT applies. That said, other than the claim in the article, I don't know that it has become a common phrase. Hobit (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find anything, though language problems and the fact this term is a location makes searching nearly impossible. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, article doesnt make much sense to me, seems to be about a single event, i fail to see what the 'fashion' refers to. --neon white talk 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Brac FC[edit]

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

Article was PROD'ed (and PROD2'ed) with the rationale "I question the notability of this team" but as per usual PROD was removed by an IP without explanation so I have brought it here. This is an article on a two-year old youth football/soccer team whose greatest achievement appears to a be a runner-up spot in the local under-16 league, very very non-notable ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - under-16 teams are most definitely non-notable. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G2) by CambridgeBayWeather. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 07:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Thomas Vuskovic[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax, since Google searches for this name do not turn up anything relevant to the content. TML (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Stivic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established through secondary sources. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of numerous third party interpretations; [52], [53], [54], and many more. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fee Fie Foe Fum, not only All in the Family, but the spinoff show Gloria was reasonably successful too. A lack of RS's would be scarcely believable, and is clearly not true.John Z (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that we should delete because even though sources exist (listed above) they aren't in the article or are you disagreeing with the sources as being reliable?
  - Those aren't sources, they're Google Books searches. I would expect to see specific references to non-trivial coverage in specific books or (better) news websites. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources supplied above. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central character in an esp. notable TV show, starring character of Gloria (TV series). Often parodied. The character is independently notable. JJL (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep core character on one of the most notable TVshows of all time. Subject of a spin-off series, multiple Emmy wins. Ridiculous nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources in the article is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Lack of sources existing would be a reason for deletion, but noone appears to be alleging that such is the case here. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised to find an article that was not more fully developed. One of the key characters in a series that was one of TV's top rated. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television character of the 1970s and 1980s, major and ongoing character in one of the most influential TV series ever produced for American TV. Plenty of third-party works out there about the TV show and the characters within. I am very disturbed at the attempt being made here to invalidate Google Books as a resource considering the purpose of Google Books is to make printed texts available online. This is the first time I have ever heard of Google Books being questioned! 23skidoo (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create List of All in the Family characters and merge there. And merge the even less notable Stephanie Mills (All in the Family) to that list too. —An gr 05:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fee Fie Foe Fum has demonstrated that sourcing does exist to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources exists to establish notability and article. That it's not currently sourced is a fixable issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Any redirect discussion can be taken to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE World Chess Championships 1998-2004[edit]

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

Administrative delete. I am the creator and main editor of this article, but it has now been made redundant. This page covered 5 world championships, but there are now pages for each of the individual championships at FIDE World Chess Championship 1998, FIDE World Chess Championship 1999, FIDE World Chess Championship 2000, FIDE World Chess Championship 2002 and FIDE World Chess Championship 2004. I've copied all the important text to other articles, so this should be safe to delete now. I was tempted to delete using WP:PROD, but just in case some editors think this article should stay, I'm notifying at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess and following AfD procedure. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — you could tag the article for G6 if it's just plain housekeeping. MuZemike (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator, the article is redundant now. Voorlandt (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am not too enthused about simply deleting without leaving a signpost behind, and some sort of overview of FIDE's knock-out championships is still in order even though we now have individual articles for each event. I suggest redirecting to World Chess Championship#Split title (1993 - 2006), where some overview of this championship is covered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm not sure there's any need to "leave a signpost", because I don't think there are any significant links to the article which aren't easily fixed. Apart from discussion pages etc, there are only a handful of internal wikipedia links which I haven't fixed already, and I'll change those ones soon. Externally, I can't find ANY google hits for "FIDE World Chess Championships 1998-2004" which aren't Wikipedia mirrors. I agree a general article on chess knockout tournaments is probably a good idea, though. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voorlandt. However, the articles into which this has been split are chock full of original research. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with GFDL. Hiding T 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure it should be deleted. This is the period when there were two different "championships", and this was one of them. I think it might be good to have this article to give the overall perspective, even if all of the information is in the individual articles. Bubba73 (talk), 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't the nominator tag it for speedy deletion as per his request? Alexius08 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been other non-trivial contributors. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IN ACCORDANCE WITH GFDL. Sorry to shout, but it seems that nobody actually noticed Hiding's comment above. If content has been copied to another article then history has to be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you can redirect it to the other article instead. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nom (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desdemona (Othello)[edit]

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

Notability not established through secondary sources. Except for a very brief description of Desdemona's background as a WP lead and a very brief list of actresses who have performed the part, there is nothing to justify a stand-alone article. No analysis, no history of the role in performance, no history of the role in other media such as opera, film, comic book, etc. Article is a regurgitation of the plot of Othello and should be deleted. What little it contains of use can be taken immediately to its main article Othello. The article has been tagged for some time with no interest in upgrading and has given undue weight to pictorial illustration. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that maybe it's unusual to have a page for a Shakespearean character, but many other fictional characters have their own pages. And I agree that there are no secondary sources quoted. But to nominate her on grounds of notability??!!! We'd be better off adding some sources. Speedy Keep and add sources.81.159.209.118 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps creating a List of Othello characters and MERGING what little is of use in the article into a list would serve, then spinning off stand-alone articles as secondary sources are acquired for individual characters. Incredibly, several minor characters from Othello have separate pages without secondary sources. I think they all belong in one article.ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, setting aside for a moment that this is a major character in a Shakespeare play, she is analyzed in many books [55], [56], [57], and a monograph by John Quincy Adams, [58]. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again per Fee Fie Foe Fum. There are tons of RS's, having to argue for notability is absurd. The nomination is astonishing.John Z (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination is not astonishing. As it stands, the article cites no sources whatsoever and is nothing more than a rehash of the plot which is found in the main article. The article and its stand-alone companion articles about Othello characters should be deleted, or merged into a List of Othello characters. There are only a few characters in Othello who need more than 50-75 words written about them and all could be dealt with neatly, concisely in ONE well-written article. For the most part, the stand-alone articles about Othello characters do nothing more than rehash the plot found in the main article Othello -- one article after another. They really don't need stand-alone articles; just one article where all the characters have been gathered together. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep never mind that the nom will respond to this vote with basically a rehash of his nom, ignoring the points everyone else raises. This nomination is ridiculous on its face. JuJube (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This AFD seems to be frivolous or vexatious. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Eve[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable series, and no assertion of notability. Given its relative youth and the fact that it is streamed I find it unlikely that it is in fact notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Watch it. It's notable, with big name voice actors and big money budget. ~Ladholyman
- Comment: Can you provide some third-party references establishing notability? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://gigazine.net/index.php?/news/comments/20080801_time_of_eve/ Gigazine's report on Time of Eve premiering in France.
  - http://www.rbbtoday.com/news/20080807/53415.html RBB Today's article about the show itself.
  - http://digitallife.jp.msn.com/article/article.aspx/genreid=111/articleid=345227/ RBB Today's article on the second episode streaming.
  - http://bb.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/news/23373.html Yahoo Animation Japan's news report. ~Ladholyman
Keep Relative youth is not a sign of non-notability. Streaming might be, but digital distribution in English by the parent company seems no less notable than a more traditional release. ANN coverage generally satisfies the third part reference requirements for anime articles. Doceirias (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment: That ANN's news division has noticed it is, as Doceirias notes, indicative of notability. I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia does not have clear guidelines for the notability of online broadcasts, as opposed to the older forms of air, cable, and satelite broadcasts. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Done by same staff as Pale Cocoon. edhoprima (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harper[edit]

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

Not notable, and not neutral. Chris (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have edited it to keep it in line with policies while it sits on our servers. Hiding T 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kid Sister. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Date[edit]

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

PROD removed without comment by anonymous user. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kid Sister. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Stifle. Hiding T 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lectonar , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Trivedi[edit]

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

Not notable enough, methinks. Chris (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn-bio. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Stivic[edit]

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

Notability not established through secondary sources.ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create List of All in the Family characters and merge there. And merge the even less notable Stephanie Mills (All in the Family) to that list too. Joey at least had an anatomically correct doll based on him. —An gr 05:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character appeared in four television series in three different decades (albeit as a regular on only one of them), and inspired a major toy company (Ideal Toy Company) to create the first "physically correct male" doll, for whatever that is worth. Note that the character and the corresponding doll probably received more news coverage around 1976-77, before the rise of the Internet, than at any later date, which means that secondary sources will be more difficult to locate than would be the case for contemporary television characters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character needs published secondary sources for inclusion at WP. I don't believe a doll or other spinoff item would qualify as a secondary source. It appears that the article is OR based upon the primary source, AITF episodes. ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of book sources [59]. The first is just about the show, I'm guessing Joey has a fair bit of coverage in there. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently a WP:POINT nomination--see other AfDs from this nom. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major ongoing character in All in the Family, notable regarding the influence via the toy, and also appeared in several television series. Plenty of sources exist on AITF. 23skidoo (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichi McFarlane[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Vanity article. Bongomatic (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to cite, so unless they are added I will have to say delete. --Banime (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Ten-a-Key[edit]

Per WP:BALL and WP:HAMMER. No sources at all (the only source provided doesn't work). Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:HAMMER is about upcoming albums whose names aren't even known, so it doesn't seem to apply. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that confirms the title. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Buck. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Worboys[edit]

Article originally PRODded by me with the comment "Non-notable business person. The "references" do not actually refer specifically to Mr. Worboys at all" The PROD was disputed by the author of the article in an incorrectly formatted AfD with the comment "I'll update the sources so they better reflect 'notableness'... Give me a couple of days." The good faith attempt to create the AfD has been deleted to allow the creation of a correctly formatted page. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sounds like a very important person, but there's nothing in the article to justify it being here. - Longhair\^talk 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like one of the tens or hundreds of millions of exceptionally accomplished individuals who are not notable in the sense of meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bongomatic (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as stated above by the contestor of the PROD, it's been more than a few days, now. No verifiable secondary sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm unable to find any substantial sourcing beyond that in the article which doesn't meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Connect[edit]

Speedy deleted as advertising. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 26 determined it was not blatant and deserved an AfD. Needs work; may or may not meet WP:CORP. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 05:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup — at least two reliable sources in the article establish notability. Needs to be cleaned up to get rid of the advertising tone. MuZemike (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak delete — coverage is there, but seems to be mostly press releases. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stifle- I added two more reliable sources. One from DABCC (A trusted web-site about access virtualization and terminal services) and also one from Brian Madden (an industry analysis company). Hope that helps. MacJarvis (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm only finding press releases, which are not sources independent of the topic. There seems to be some effort to improve the article. Giving it another three months before AfD#2 might be what is needed. -- Suntag ☼ 21:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey guys. So I have a few points to mention about my article. The article has been in AfD for six days now. Shouldn't a consensus be reached after 5 days? That was my understanding in the Wiki description of AfD. When the article went into "deletion review" the consensus was to overturn. I have done my best to make this article live up to the Wiki standards. I addressed the issues that editors had. I took out sources that seemed redundant or were too much like a press release, have no sources that actually go to the company's website, and have added more third party sources. I have said before that I tried to mirror this article after another company that I know who does a fairly similar thing. I've been studying VMWare, Parallels, Aqua Connect and other IT companies who do access virtualization and wanted to add an article for AC since I couldn't find them on wiki when starting my research. I can't help but notice that the VMWare Wiki page has only 11 references, 6 of which reference directly to the VMWare website. On that wiki article, it also lists all of their products and links to a new page that describes these products. The VMWare Fusion wiki article has 7 out of 9 references that are directly from VMWare's website. I don't understand why these articles meet Wiki criteria, yet the one I created doesn't. In comparison, the article I created sounds far less like an advertisement. I think my article deserves to be a page now. Thanks guys. Sorry, but I just had to put that out there. I've been watching all of the comments, and at this point I really feel that my article is worthy of Wiki. MacJarvis (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate was relisted because no one had commented after 5 days--this happens routinely. As for the other articles you mention, they may indeed not be very good, and we may get around to challenging them eventually, but that doesn't really bear on this debate--see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for advertising, I still think the page is not really neutrally presented. I will remove some phrases I see as problematic, but I also think more balance is needed in general. For example, the Computerworld review you cite criticizes the use of VNC--why isn't that criticism in the article? Chick Bowen 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made some edits. Another thing you might do that will help is to tone down some of the IT business jargon. For example, I have no idea what a "thin client" is. Chick Bowen 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the suggestions and clearing up some of my questions. I will work on making the article readable for non techies. MacJarvis (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Maglio[edit]

High school athlete, drafted by MLB, never played pro, now high school coach. Hate to say it because Maglio sounds like a fine person but it dawned on me that I was completely unable to find a meaningful way to categorize the article. He never played pro, never coached on the national level, apparently never sought to be in the spotlight. Local personality but it's impossible to build a meaningful article. Pichpich (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — lack of verifiable secondary sources establishing notability. A shame that I have to do this to someone from my town. MuZemike (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona Envisions the Future[edit]

A big mural but is it notable outside Pomona? I get a strong feeling that there is an element here of advertising by, or on behalf of, Kevin Stewart-Magee. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: This project was the brain child of Judy Chicago who is a world reknown artist. She also did The Dinner Party piece which is in the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Kevin Stewart-Magee was just the facilitator and lead artist. The mural took two years to paint. Many artists painted the mural. The City of Pomona just made it an official piece of city art by installing a bronze city plaque.

LouisBrownstone (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I don't know if I understand the above comment correctly. There are citations from reliable sources in the article. A list of all newspaper articles, books, documentaries about the mural is included along with links to the University library section that has research documents about the mural. There are pages devoted to this mural in the major Southern California Art websites. It is mentioned in other articles in Wikipedia. Some important artists such as Judy Chicago, Judy Baca, Magu, Dextra Frankel, Donald Woodman contributed to this mural.

I took a look at other murals of note in Wikipedia. They have articles yet they don't have as many references, images or information as this mural. Why do people want to delete this article? What should be included in this article to keep it from being deleted?

One note. The article didn't include an image of the third wall which is an homage to muralist Diego Rivera. Can someone post one?

I also think it's "artifact" and not "artefact." Thanks. Hope I did this right.ArtWillSaveTheWorld (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This mural is culturally significant, was made by well-know artists, has its own website, there's good information on it from reliable sources such as Pitzer College and Cal Poly Pomona. There's plenty of room for improving grammar, syntax, POV, etc. Nonetheless, I do consider its relevance to be encyclopedic.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sehgal[edit]

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined. — X S G 05:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books [60], News Archive [61] and even Scholar [62] searches show obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references you've pointed to appear dubious at best, with respect to "reliability". Perhaps adding them to the article will put them more into context? Otherwise, I'm going to have to go with a delete... — X S G 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you saying that The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Hindustan Times, The Los Angeles Times etc. are not reliable sources? Or academic books published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Blackwell? Or that, for a rapper, the All Music Guide to Hip-hop isn't a reliable source? There are so many reliable sources found by the searches I linked to above that it would take longer the the lifetime of this AfD discussion for me to go through them and sort out which ones to put in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, I'm saying I didn't see those reliable sources and they didn't appear in the article. — X S G 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't quite see how you managed to miss those sources when you looked at the Google links I provided: they're right there on the first page of results in each case. But, anyway, thanks for changing your !vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be sourced to a WP mirror. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The note at the bottom of the article explains its origin (but not its sourcing) as another GFDL compliant Wiki. I've added some references which I hope make notability crystal clear for those who couldn't see it by looking at the searches that I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. OK, I see that this was copied from a Wikipedia mirror, but it doesn't detract from the fact that this article was sourceable (and is now sourced) to many reliable book and newspaper sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the excellent sourcing work recently performed by Phil Bridger. Kudo, Phil! — X S G 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had nominated the article for undeletion last month. But only a few revisions have been restored. I have asked the admin User:Chick Bowen for a complete restoration dating back to 2005. By the way, what is "Prod"? Jay (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. "Prod" is the proposed deletion procedure for deleting articles without discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question. Is there any evidence that the smashits version predates the crazefm version? If not, then the smashits article is a copyright violation and ours is too. Chick Bowen 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The Smash Hits version says that it is a copy from Wikipedia, presumably from one of the previously deleted versions, not vice-versa. I'm sure you'll find that the CrazeFM version is also a copy from Wikipedia. This could be clarified if the complete history was restored as suggested by Jay. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording "(citation = his website (see external links))" makes the CrazeFM version look very much like a copy from Wikipedia, as it doesn't make sense in the CrazeFM profile but would in a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the "external links reference" suggests a copy from Wikipedia (in which case it's a GFDL violation for them, of course, but that's a different matter). I've restored the complete history. Chick Bowen 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a well known rapper in India. I think the question is no longer on the notability but on the quality of the article. We should fix the article and not delete it. --Anshuk (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsang_Lodrö[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kelsang Lodrö (2nd nomination)

This page doesn't meet the criteria for notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." "Lodro" was the religious name of a Buddhist teacher who has since stopped teaching. He was one of hundreds of teachers in the NKT, and is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, especially given the fact that he's gone. Peaceful5 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of Woodside[edit]

Doesn't appear to be currently meeting our notability standards, from what I can see. Note that if you do straight web or news searches for "Citizens of Woodside", not to consider random mentions about "citizens of Woodside", which almost got me. rootology (C)(T) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:WEB. "local children’s cow art"?! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Majoreditor (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasson Khakshouri[edit]

Non-notable "tennis promoter" who fails WP:BIO and general verifiability via reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I've outlined above as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person has received a fair amount of coverage (including at least one article entirely about him) in The Jerusalem Post as can be seen in this search. There's enough to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: the article entirely about him is: Leon, Jack. "Sasson Khakshouri: Bridging between Moscow and Ramat Hasharon", The Jerusalem Post, 1992-03-22, p. 8. Several other articles have non-trivial mentions of him. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article needs a lot of work (especially on the NPOV side of things), but the subject certainly seems to be notable enough. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden River Marching Festival[edit]

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

With only 24 Google hits, dominated by Youtube vids and devoid of reliable sources, this high school band festival's claim to be "one of the largest in the southeast" lacks any supporting evidence. Only three G-news hits, all small town weekly newspapers referencing this as one of the festivals the local high school band will attend or has competed in. Fails WP:V, WP:ORG. RGTraynor 04:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of pictures and genereic references to existence of group across various sites, but no obvious way to assert [[WP::ORG]]. Chaldor (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:V. I've noticed a steady trickle of articles about high-school events and such recently... apparently word is out that articles on school clubs are usually speedied, but one can get around this by ostensibly writing about an "event" istead, avoiding speedy. Time to expand A7 to include obviously and indisputably non-notable events? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bongomatic (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Spicher[edit]

Matt Spicher does not appear to be notable. He did not win a Grammy, nor did the song "There is Power in the Blood" win a Grammy, nor did Lari White record an album entitled "Amazing Grace 2", nor did an album entitled "Amazing Grace 2" win a Grammy. The best thing that can be said is that Matt Spicher is the president of an independent audio company. The web sites for “Mystic Studios” does exist on MySpace here, and Mysrtic Biscuits website is here. There does not appear to have been any media attention to Matt Spicher. He does not meet minimum notability standards of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people). There is not any independent coverage, much less significant coverage of him in published sources. The material in the article that might have provided a semblance of notability, was not verifiable, and in fact, based on the official Grammy award website is untrue. The specialized criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music) do not seem to apply because he does fit any of the categories, and he does not meet the criteria of Others, namely no cited influence, no “school”, etc. This does not appear to be a hoax, despite the inclusion of the spurious Grammy Award, but rather an attempt to promote Matt Spicher and his company. Bejnar (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant sources, spurious, unsourced claims. As for Lari White, Amazing Grace 2 was a compilation she contributed to. The only thing he's got going is that he's the president of Stellar Cat Records, for whom Pam Tillis records, but even that isn't enough considering Stellar Cat doesn't meet WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not the subject of any WP:RS independent material and thus fails WP:BIO. Chaldor (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.mysticbiscuits.com/mysticstudios/about.html -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Proposition 11 lists[edit]

Listcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information. Surely this is published elsewhere and can be linked to? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Although it could be useful, wikipedia isn't the place for it. Tavix (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to slipperly slope. This is a completely arbitrary list of people that some group thinks supports them. I have no idea what prop 11 is - but I know a bad article when I see one. --68.122.7.3 (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a list of organizations (and opponents) of a major california ballot question. Ballot questions live or die based on the organizations people trust support (for or against it).. This list of organizations would not fit on the main page as part of the article for obvious reasons. The simple linking of a list off another site is a less then viable option due to the fact that the list changes daily.. and one source is not a complete list of the supporters. The ballot commission does have an occasionally updated list of supporters that could be listed (and is referenced) however other additions from other places (press releases etc) should be added and referenced. As election day on nov 4th is fast approaching it is best that this info (for or against) is known in a timely manner which the individual campaigns may be unable to accomplish (california is a pretty big place..). I would not support deleting this info at this time.. At least if a decision is to delete.. it should be held off until after november 4th, (when a list from one source is more stablized and likely not to change) as the list in question is definatly not Indiscriminate and is defiantly pertinent to the original article. Also the list is not arbitrary.. thats why we source things from original releases from the companies and any groups listed by the individual committes would not be up long if they were just "people that the group thinks supports them". Organizations don't generally appreciate being labeled for or against a cause they are not. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to summarize what you are saying: This article is unverifiable by readers, contrary to our verifiability policy, because "the list changes daily", and is not here to be an encyclopaedia article but to be political advertising, that can be removed after a vote is concluded, in contravention of our Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. You have successfully made a strong argument for deletion, in accordance with our deletion policy, no matter that you have prefixed it with the wrong boldfaced word. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's source can easily be linked to from the Proposition 11 article, as noted by the nom; lists of supporters and opponents is definitely listcruft. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it changes so frequently, it inherently fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Korenfeld[edit]

Notability is not proven. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 September 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) 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any substantial info to help this article prove notability. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Proxy User (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Basement Productions[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable small theater company that does not pass WP:ORG. Should we bring the curtain down on this article? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently no independent references to assert WP:ORG. Chaldor (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Wong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 04:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article, virtually unchanged from its first AfD in 2005, is little more than a disambig to his two games. Our standards, especially for BLPs, have gone way up since then. Nifboy (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable secondary sources establishing notability per WP:BIO. MuZemike (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Original Generation[edit]

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

Duplicates content from Pokémon (anime); no reason to break it out separately Mhking (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the problem, it displays the details of the original series. Would the title be diffrent. It displays all the character and movies that only exist in the original series.--Wikialexdx (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Absolutely nobody calls this show this at all, it's just plain Pokemon. Wikialexdx, you would be advised to stop creating so much cruft which is anal in detail and not known except to the extreme fans who are usually pushed aside by a fan community. Everybody could care less about things like program airing patterns and just care about the characters and the story, like they're supposed to. Nate • (chatter) 07:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSCRUFT. Also, you don't speak for "everybody" and what they could "care less" about, let alone what they are "supposed" to care about. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I heard that, before? MuZemike (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I learned it from another afd. ^_^; 208.245.87.2 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just saying if the fandom doesn't acknowledge it, no one else does either. Also, I'm trying to point out that Wikialexdx has been going on a cruft-spree involving All That and Nickelodeon marathons that in the grand scheme, do not deserve articles here; I don't want to see him move on to the Pokemon articles when the members of that project have been doing a great job keeping things in control. Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what you just said I couldn't understand at all. Give me reasons on how this seems a duplacate of Pokemon (anime). Do you not see info about May, Max, Burch, Dawn, her mom, Rowan, or their pokemon, plus the Advance Generation movies + DP films. I don't think so. All I see on this article is just the first five seasons, Kanton, Orange Islands, and Johto. I apologize for whatever I did wrong on this article, and I just want this to say present, like how the Advaced Generation, and Diamond and Pearl have and article. Plus maybe because you entered P: OG on Google wrong, no quotes, but I do understand what you mean by that on Google, so If this is the right thing to do, then go ahead, deleted all the hard work I put into doing this article. --Wikialexdx (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:LOSE. I can point to essays, too! MuZemike (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, the original search string combines the results with the accented "é" and the plain "e". Removing the colon gives the same results. Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No verifiable sources present. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered by Pokémon (anime), plus title is dubious/original research.--Boffob (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What if the title was changed to this: "Pokémon! (Original Series)" or : Gotta Catchem' All!--Wikialexdx (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The content is at issue. The article should not exist in its present form. Period. To paraphrase a recent trueism, you can put lipstick on a pig... --Mhking (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Stop!! You cannot make up article titles at all. You have to go with the original title, and this is a duplicate of the original article for the series. Nate • (chatter) 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a Mess (merge/redirect/delete): Let me see if I have the organization correct:
- Pokémon (anime), the parent article, which briefly summarizes each of the main characters
- Pokémon: Original Generation, Pokémon: Advanced Generation, and Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl (anime), which covers three "sets" of seasons and all participating characters.
  - Comment; both of the other articles cited here are listed as WP:AFD candidates as well. --Mhking (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten individual lists-of-episodes with plot summaries, with varying naming conventions and seasons ten and eleven condensed into List of Pokémon: Diamond & Pearl episodes
- A dedicated List of characters in the Pokémon anime series, which most of the individual character articles have been merged into.
All that having been said, it becomes pretty darn obvious this and the other two "set" articles (Pokémon: Advanced Generation and Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl (anime)) are 100% redundant with content found elsewhere (including EACH OTHER), except where it goes into too much detail, i.e. the lists of pokemon used by the characters. Nifboy (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, I also agree the article way too big, so I shorted the Gym Leaders to Sides instead of sections, and decreased the info on the episode list. If this still doesn't please anyone, I understand. I just wanted to improve this.--Wikialexdx (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged without opposition. Content is now at Alice Springs Reptile Centre. Redirecting there for GFDL compliance. Sandstein 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Australian zoo killings[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the news, and not this is unlikely to be of lasting interest even in Alice Springs. Grahame (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per... eh, they already said it. Way too early to judge whether this'll have any lasting significance - and chances are, it won't. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is not the news. --Mhking (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oh dear what a joke, like the next kid who runs over a cat. Notable of course if he killed a monkey.... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter what he killed, or what he did at all. If this has been substantially covered in the press—no matter how inconsequential the event may seen to you—it's notable. Here I am on the other side of the world, and I saw multiple articles about this in the press when it happened. If that's not notability, I don't know what is. Everyking (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep important, plus it is interesting. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Refer WP:INTERESTING. It would be helpful to understand why you consider it important. Murtoa (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial press coverage demonstrates notability beyond all doubt. Everyking (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... but substantial press coverage doesn't counter the claims that it's a one-off news story, thus falling foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Murtoa (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - In your opinion, how does being a "one-off news story" reduce its notability? How much news coverage do you feel is necessary to justify an article? If an event widely reported around the world is not deemed notable, then our definition of notability is meaningless. Let me just point out that the sources already listed in the article include Reuters, BBC News, The Guardian, and CNN. If a subject can get that much attention and still be deemed non-notable, then we have truly hopped headlong into the chasm of deletionism. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not only notable for the amount of mainstream, global news coverage it received, but for also it's notability under several different subject areas, including zoos, juvenile delinquency, and 2008 in the history of Australia. Disclosure: I learned of this discussion on WR [63]. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please start an article about the Alice Springs Reptile Centre, so this rather trivial incident can be merged into a good article about the zoo. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On it. fish&karate 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Redirect to Alice Springs Reptile Centre. For GFDL attribution, there probably needs to be a history merge; if the closing admin doesn't feel confident in doing this (or if it's closed by a non-admin), poke me on my talk page and I'll take care of it. fish&karate 09:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete~~'Merge Many things get covered by the news. It doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here necessarily. This is a one-off event by the looks of things, that will soon be in the distant past. Try Wikinews if you want to write news articles (which this is). -- how do you turn this on 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't support merging/redirecting to the Reptile Centre article, then? Everyking (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good idea. Yes, merging would be a good idea, if it can be re-written in an encyclopedic manner. It's just not worthy of an article on its own. -- how do you turn this on 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information about this at Alice Springs Reptile Centre is plenty of coverage for this incident. Captain panda 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because the content was merged. We can't merge and delete—if you want to keep the content, you have to vote to either keep or redirect. Everyking (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the zoo. For a zoo, an event like this is of profound importance, but not so much outside of that context. The massive media coverage is more to do with the age of the person than the death of the animals. No need for history merge, just leave the redirect in place. A redirect won't harm anyone, remains a reasonable search term, and keeps a good record of our page history. History merges distort the usefulness of the history tab, since two different articles wind up intertwined there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously verifiable from multiple reliable sources around the world. Follows WP:NPOV and WP:NOR because it accurately reflects what the sources say. WP:NOTNEWS is merely an essay; this article meets all 3 of our core content policies and should thus be retained. *** Crotalus *** 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat the exact same thing under everyone's comment. Besides, the closing admin will know NOTNEWS is an essay. That's all that matters here. -- how do you turn this on 19:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad ascalon[edit]

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

Living person of dubious notability. The article has some claims of notability (e.g. his profile in Wallpaper*) but no references at all to back them up. The article appears to have been created after an earlier article, under the name Brad Ascalon, was repeatedly created and deleted before being protected from creation. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4, but it turns out that does not apply to articles previously deleted by the WP:PROD or WP:CSD processes, so decided to take it here instead. Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, it seems an article was previously deleted under this name as well. Someone has been trying very hard to get this person's biography onto Wikipedia... Terraxos (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the explicit claims of notability in the article, it seems that someone has been trying very hard to get this article deleted. I'm not sure what the purpose was of adding a prod tag and then creating an AfD five minutes later, but one edit conflict later and the article has a reliable source to support the claim of notability. I will try to expand the article further, but the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't for the "up-and-coming"; it's for the "up-and-arrived". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia:Notability policy talks about independent coverage in reliable sources, nothing about coming vs. arrived. Is there any Wikipedia policy that justifies deletion? Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep ~~Single source only.~~ Per improved sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Mhking (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. There are two sources referred to in the article - the Philadelphia Inquirer story on him , and the Wallpaper* international top 10 list of "most wanted" young designers Someone should link to the latter story. 2RS =N. John Z (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wallpaper* doesn't and won't count until enough information is added that it can be found by a person trying to look it up in a collection that has either an electronic or paper copy. Feel free to add that while the AfD is in process. Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero doubt that the reference exists, which is enough on any natural interpretation of the general notability criterion. The refs do not have to be provided in the article for purposes of deletion.John Z (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt it exists. Poof, certainty evaporates. Rather than dispute here, find the reference and add it to the article, and I'll gladly change my !vote to keep. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one wants to engage in skeptical doubt, why would one doubt the existence of references any less after they have been added to an article, or linked to, or even apparently physically held in one's hand? One can always say Poof. This isn't a serious example, but references sometimes can be difficult to find. But, once significant, reliable references have been proven to exist by objective evidence, the consensus has always been that that is enough for AfD. Many articles have been kept on much less. In any case, Ascalon's site has pdfs of the *wallpaper and a philadelphia magazine piece on him, I'll put in the links.John Z (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue date and page number would have been sufficient--as they were lacking before. Unfortunately, without information that Ascalon's site has a license to display those pages, the link itself violates WP:ELNEVER as linking to copyrighted material. Regardless, you did provide proof that a second RS existed, and I'm changing my !vote accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As is customary, the !votes of new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association[edit]

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

A lengthy article on a university student union, that establishes no notability and includes no external references. Wikipedia is not the place to publicise every organisation within a university. Harro5 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominator. There's BLP issues there also. Moondyne 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a growing, but valuable account of the organisation's recent history. The organisation gets some media attention and has a membership of 14,000. There are a couple of external references (although not linked well). It is the only Post-grad student organisation at the University and the largest in Australia. 17:00, 7 October 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.103 (talk)
Delete nn. These uni clubs are mostly just glorified lunch and drink clubs. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered searching this organisation? SUPRA is not a student club - it's a representative organisation for post-graduate students. It's like the University of Sydney Union but for post-grads and is definitely notable. You need to do some research before making stupid comments like that. JRG (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it officially is not a club. It's still nn, like the one at my uni. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you still haven't bothered to check media archives or anything like that. JRG (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the unregistered user who commented above is correct. SUPRA (the name under which you should search for the organisation as it is more well-known as that) is the largest post-grad organisation in Australia and there would be plenty of references in news and media talking about it. The controversy surrounding the ex-President Gigi Wong back in 06-7 certainly got a lot of media coverage. I don't have time to add sources but this is definitely a notable organisation. JRG (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of corruption isn't notable. If that's the case we'd be full of articles on pedo teachers, as for student politicians, that kind of troublemaking is standard stuff. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 08:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Yellow Monkey really seems to have something against student organisations.... I would really point out that SUPRA is a representative organisation. Its role is not really social. It provides valuable represenative services including free legal advice, help with appealing against grades and advocacy to the University administration. I should also point out that the corruption involved was fairly substantial >$200000 and ended in a court case.... Legalchemist 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. supra is an invaluble resource for postgraduate students everywhere. I reckon at least one of the people listed here will be properly famous in the next 10 years. 10/10/08 19:17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.186.8 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time-space (de)compression[edit]

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

This appears to be an essay or academic paper in article space; the mentions of 'this chapter' suggest it might be a copyvio from a book. Whatever it is, it's composed of original research, and entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. (The presumed subject, time-space compression, already has an article; though short, it's infinitely more useful than this one.) Terraxos (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whichever it is, it doesn't belong here as is. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and probable copyvio. The existing article referenced by Terraxos is much better; once I've actually read its cited source, The Condition of Postmodernity, which is waiting for me at home, I may even edit it myself. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeOS[edit]

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

Page is written like an advertisement. Sure it might have the references, this does not account on why the article is written like an advert, though. Weak references. Lacking any significance factor. Message from XENU^{u, t} 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is slightly NPOV, too. Message from XENU^{u, t} 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was G11 deleted before. Message from XENU^{u, t} 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It's notable, and style issues aren't grounds for deletion at AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. I agree with Eastmain; it meets the notability requirements. Note that Message from Xenu has also nominated the archived talk for this article for deletion. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under what criteria does it qualify as notable? It seems to have a complete lack of third party independent sourcing. --neon white talk 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't cited in the article, but it's gotten a mention in PC Mag and was briefly reviewed in Infoworld. No arguments that the citations are weak, but there are at least 3 external sources. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a very weak case. It's still lacking in the 'Significant coverage' part. --neon white talk 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's an article in linux.com (burried in the all the references in the article). [64]. Softpedia does not inspire me much confidence in their editorial policy — you can find a review for pretty much anything there. Quite often the Softpedia reviews also lack any critical thinking, and just regurgitate soundbites from the software authors. VG ☎ 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so one creditable reference? Great. Message from XENU^{u, t} 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reference you can see http://mags.acm.org/communications/200807/?pg=12 . -- 192.223.140.62 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why have a number of your edits been vandalism? See: [65]. The fact you're participating in this article without vandalizing it leads me to think your not NPOV. Message from XENU^{u, t} 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IP address, not an account. The person from ACM who originally signed his email address here isn't necessarily the same one whose edits have been reverted as vandalism. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable, its encyclopedic, & the citations are good. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kage[edit]

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

vanity page, very likely COI created (single purpose account), no independant sources ("references" at the end are all self-published by the subject, plus member pages anyone can make), and zero poker accomplishments; probably should be speedied but I started an afd so continuing it 2005 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. You're right, should have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7(bio) Work on your game Jason, perhaps someday you will have an article, but it should have accomplishments where others will write about them due to 3rd party sources like cardplayer pokernews etc, where there is no question of notability. until then good luck with your game ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 03:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 autobiographical spam. JBsupreme (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As discussed above. Bongomatic (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDrugSearch.com[edit]

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

Numerous reasons for deletion include:

the lack of notability of the subject of this article;
the lack of material neutral references for the subject of this article; and
the blatant conflict of interest of the main contributor to the article.

Notability & references

The article makes no specific clais as to the notability of the subject. Topics that aren't mentioned include: number of hits (relative to others in the space), %age of hits of its participating pharmacies that it is responsible for channeling, revenues, etc.

The references are as follow:

Healthcare 100. A web site created by the subject company.
Company Web site. The subject company's web site.
KENS-TV news coverage. A very brief interest piece in on local news station.
The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. The subject company's representative is consulted on general issues as a 30-second clip in a longer discussion on drug abuse facilitated by online pharmacies.
San Antonio Express-News story. A human interest story in a local paper.
San Antonio Business Journal story. A nice article in a local paper.
Albuquerque Tribune op-ed. An op-ed about online pharmacies that makes passing reference to the subject company.
Wall Street Journal on Healthcare 100. An article about blogs that makes one reference to the a web site created by the subject company.
eDrugSearch.com page on Organized Wisdom. Subject company's page on a topical search engine.
Google's Online Pharmacy Qualification Process. Subject company not mentioned.

Note that almost none is actually about the subject company, and of those that are, the ones that discuss the subject company in detail don't really speak to its notability, but rather appear to be the fruits of a successful PR campaign (nothing wrong with that.

COI

Despite the fact that the main contributor to this article removed the CoI tag without comment, there is specific evidence for the CoI on the following page, which is from the blog of Idea Grove, a company owned by Scott Baradell, the main contributor to this article:

I attended Matthew Holt's second Health 2.0 conference earlier this week and published some thoughts on the confab at the blog of a client, eDrugSearch.com. ("Health 2.0" equals Web 2.0 plus healthcare, as you might have guessed.)

posted by Scott Baradell at 4:36 PM Trackback 2 Comments

This states that eDrugSearch.com, the subject of this article, is a client of the author--as clear a CoI as there can be.

Bongomatic (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertising. Could have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. For what it's worth, also does not appear to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct retailers of the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Good resourceMany of these retailers are part of the history of the United States and provide a cultural atlas of how people shop and also provide a source of what you should not do if you want to be a successful retailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indiscriminate list. Half of these are unlinked or red linked. Any chain could potentially be included on this list, as with any other local chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, this is a list of notable defunct retailers, which seems like a discriminate list. The number of redlinks is not a negative; actually that's one of the good things about a list, it lets us know what we need articles on. I'd lean towards weak keep... the list does need to be more coherently focused on including notable large retailers (either through multiple locations or one large location). My corner drug store, while it's sad that it closed, should not be eligible for this list... currently the title/intro paragraph suggest it would be. --Rividian (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup rigorously. Normally I'm all for redlinks, but I think they are of far lesser use on lists than in articles (redlinks in articles at least demonstrate a contextual usefulness). I say keep the entries on the list that already have Wikipedia articles and ditch the rest as unhelpful clutter. Ford MF (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but it needs some attention --Mhking (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that, the Retail WikiProject seems dead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It provides some useful information about long-dead retailers and, as such, has reference value. I myself have referred to it for historical research into corporate mergers and antecedents from time to time. Agree with Rividian in re notability cleanup. JGHowes ^talk 13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim all the redlinks and anything only "pretty much" defunct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it is limited to "notable" retailers, whether redlinked or not. (edited to add:) They should be totally defunct: out of business, bankrupt, or bought by another company (Like Marshall Fields). Edison (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A meaningful list with descriptions and grouped by type. I would suggest including more details about all of the listed firms (dates of operation, geographic area, cause of demise, etc.) with reliable sources and eliminate those that are just blank entries. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of a small minority of lists here not to violate WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep excellent example of a quality, useful list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find this discussion very interesting. Would List of defunct retailers of Indonesia or List of defunct retailers of Brazil or List of defunct retailers of Nigeria have attracted the same support? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane_DS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jane DS

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

Subject is not notable. There are no secondary references on page. The article doesn't assert notability. Momo Hemo (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7, I'd say. Not notable. ~~SIS~~ 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable. One of the most popular members of the lifecasting genre. Thought of by Justin.tv staff as one of the premier drawing points. Interviewed by or featured on/in multiple web magazines and think tanks (i.e. The Silicon Alley Insider, a webzine with over 1,000,000 monthly global views, worth noting she's featured multiple times on this site, the Institute for the Future, and is scheduled to be involved in an upcoming event forum on the future of internet video moderated by journalists from Boing Boing). Viewership numbers are on par with fellow lifecasters iJustine, Sarah Austin and Lisa Batey.

Worth noting, as far as this discussion goes, is Momo (the author of the deletion issue) having a personal grudge with Jane. This stims from Jane explaining a recent ankle injury while Momo wanted her attention, as Jane continued to explain her injury, Momo made some derogatory comments, the next day he put forward this deletion request. Momo actually has some what of a reputation on JTV. Not to inject personal points into a reasoned voted, but his personal biases should be noted. As for the notability of my personal articles, my Wikipedia work is well thought of by members of the sports community and North Carolina community. I've had a hand in over 1000 notable articles. BobbyAFC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal grudge with the subject whatsoever nor do I have a reputation on JTV seeing as how I've been on there for approximately a week and a half. I was searching wikipedia for information on the logitech quickcam pro 9000 and Jane_DS was one of the three results listed. The main reason why I listed the article is because it does not assert notability nor does it list and reliable secondary reference, and it has been in existence long enough that the article should have those. Please don't take this as a personal attack again you or Jane, and I encourage you to put reliable references in and assert notability so that this fails.Momo Hemo (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD. Agree with strikeout_sister. Personal grudges are irrelevant here. The article has no external sources aside from self-references. It fails WP:N. Chaldor (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if and when reliable secondary sources cover this alleged phenomenon. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 or A7, no assertion of notability TravellingCari 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kartel Records[edit]

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

According to the article, this labels first release is coming out next month. A quick search reveled no reliable sources. My guess is that it just might fail the notability guideline for companies. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has WP:COI issues, having been edited by User:KartelRecords. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems to have a few mentions in reliable sources[66][67] but all are trivial mentions which is not enough to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. - Icewedge (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's advertising. Should have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of Sport in Brazil[edit]

There are claims of notability in this article but nothing to back it up with its English or Portuguese name. In fact the only thing I've found apart from wiki mirrors is the book's announcement TravellingCari 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. A google search brings up nothing that proves notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Echoing Julian on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name in portuguese is "Atlas do Esporte no Brasil". [68]. I'm gonna have to check if there are independent reliable sources. But there is an article on pt-wiki: pt:Atlas do Esporte no Brasil. Tosqueira (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's avaliable in at least 6 stores in Brazil: [69]. Tosqueira (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show)[edit]

A radio show that ran for one month, no evidence of notability. We're not a directory of every BBC radio program. See also, this AfD for other similarly short-lived programs. Also included for the same reasons of a handful of episodes:

Are You from the Bugle? (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Choice Grenfell (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Change at Oglethorpe (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Central 822 (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cashcows (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cartoons, Lampoons, and Buffoons (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Cavity Within (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There will be another bundle, but I don't want this to be monstrous. TravellingCari 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every BBC show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point. DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It's not our place to make that decision. Notability policy for TV and radio shows is very clear: length is irrelevant, so long as the show was broadcast beyond a local market (and even then there are many examples where this rule is broken). 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to BBC Radio 4 (or other meaningful target). That these all lasted for just several episodes is not a deterrent to notability, but the fact that these articles have nothing more than that, and no sources, does not leave much more than a bare stub. Merge/redirect would allow these articles to be recreated as standalones when more details and reliable sources can be added, without losing any of the minimal info and history already here. There should be articles out there announcing the new shows and describing why they lasted so briefly. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close. This is a completely improper use of batch nominations. The length a TV or radio series runs is irrelevant to its notability (see Wonderfalls as one random example), and notability policy for radio and TV shows has established that programs broadcast nationally by a national network are notable; if the BBC doesn't meet that criteria I don't know what does. But beyond that, there is no way to conduct a viable AFD for this batch as any one of these series may have an independent claim to notability. No prejudice against relisting separately, but attempting to do an AFD discussion in this context will just lead to a mess and may result in a legitimately notable series article being deleted. 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree speedy close - "I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern" ... just because a Article fits a pattern is no reason to AFD it. Isnt a Nominator expected to do some a reasonable search? "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself..."??? if Admins dont try, why should anyone else? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Happy Ever (Radio Show)[edit]

More in the series of non-notable extremely short lived radio series. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Eden (2nd nomination). Bundling for the same reasons:

The (Almost) Accidental Adventures of Bell and Todd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Parker (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Parker, Road Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Alternative DJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Airport (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Adventures of John and Tony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Animal Alphabet (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another Digance Indulgence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Anti-Renaissance Show (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TravellingCari 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every BBC show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point. Perhaps we should have seen how the A's go before dealing with the others. DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not arguing that any of these are notable, but be very wary of assuming that a BBC radio series running 4-6 episodes was "cancelled". In many cases that would have been the scheduled full set of broadcasts. (The original Hitch Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy' was a six show series, IIRC. Fawlty Towers only ran a couple of 6 show series too, I think. The BBC had a tendency to create very short series, especially of comedy items.) MadScot (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted for the future. The creator had a number of stubs that did assert some notability even with a shorter run time, so I didn't touch those. TravellingCari 00:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to BBC Radio 4 (or other meaningful target). That these all lasted for just several episodes is not a deterrent to notability, but the fact that these articles have nothing more than that, and no sources, does not leave much more than a bare stub. Merge/redirect would allow these articles to be recreated as standalones when more details and reliable sources can be added, without losing any of the minimal info and history already here. There should be articles out there announcing the new shows and describing why they lasted so briefly Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close. This is a completely improper use of batch nominations. The length a TV or radio series runs is irrelevant to its notability (see Wonderfalls as one random example), and notability policy for radio and TV shows has established that programs broadcast nationally by a national network are notable; if the BBC doesn't meet that criteria I don't know what does. But beyond that, there is no way to conduct a viable AFD for this batch as any one of these series may have an independent claim to notability. No prejudice against relisting separately, but attempting to do an AFD discussion in this context will just lead to a mess and may result in a legitimately notable series article being deleted. 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree speedy close - "I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern" ... just because a Article fits a pattern is no reason to AFD it. Isnt a Nominator expected to do some a reasonable search? "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself..."??? if Admins dont try, why should anyone else? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samiyah Amanquah[edit]

Possible hoax.

Heads up: I've removed a section on health problems. If this person is real, then it's a massive WP:BLP breach, and I'd rather be precautious in such a situation, as it's *very* contentious and had no sources.

My reason for believing this is a hoax: for starters, there is no such thing as the "Zoo modelling agency", only a lad's mag by that name. The timeline in the article is choppy: she starts modelling at 16, took time out (it said in the section I removed) from her career, then restarted her career while she was still 16? Pretty suspicious sounding. A google search brings up 9 results, none of which are third-party & reliable sources with which to establish notability, anyway. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, even if this isn't a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Unsourced BLP (hence the "strong" delete), with no Google hits except mirrors of this article. Given the recency of the article (and some of the since-removed claims about media coverage), the content seems highly dubious. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possible hoax, but if the article were true, the subject would still not be notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin R. Reyes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Verifiability still in question. The article is much different from the previous Afd to avoid a speedy delete for repost. Title of "Father of Selective Philippine Logging" returns 2 results, wiki and his own website. "Makiling Echo" is a real journal but there are no online sources that demostrate that Makiling Echo did made an article about him. Lenticel ^(talk) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not verifying notability. Having run a google-search on related terms I can't find anything that would support his inclusion here. Even if we could find the article that provides the vast bulk of this article, I'm not convinced that the subject held anything other than local notability. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Dash[edit]

Asserts notability by association, but has only one source which is bloggish and in any case does not mention the subject. 38 unique Google hits do not include any significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and all substantive edits are by a WP:SPA. Looks like self-promotion to me. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage by independent reliable sources. GoogleNews has 11 hits[70] but all are false positives. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was previously speedily deleted, and its subject is still just as non-notable. Doing a quoted Google search for "Chandler Dash" brings up 0 non-Wikipedia hits that reference this person, which is pretty much a guarantee of non-notability for a pop-culture subject. Sashaman (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to me if the article were true there should be plenty of reliable sources, and there aren't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ScribeOfAges's opinion is discounted per WP:WAX. Sandstein 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory iTrading Card Game[edit]

Non-notable card game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep, there is a significance to it if you had waited more than 1 minute for me to add more. Also you say this is a non-notable game? What about the Austin powers collectible card game that is here that saw only 1 release? I call that non-notable. ScribeOfAges (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let it stay, this game is made by Wizards of the Coast, a company that is definitely note worthy considering they're also the makers of Magic: the Gathering. You also have to consider that this is in partnership with Nexon, the owners of the MMO Maplestory. --Deretto (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should stay in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines:

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.--Deretto (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source: WP:NOTE--Deretto (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only claim to notability is that it's made by WotC, but notability isn't inherited. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This CCG is still actively sold in major retail stores such as Target. This means that the game is still growing as public information regarding future sets have already been released to the public. --Deretto (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008
Keep; This CCG is still actively sold in major retail stores such as Target. This means that the game is still growing as public information regarding future sets have already been released to the public. --Deretto (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You already voted above. Please strike this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Although 'CCg by WotC' is not an inherently notable category, it at least seems deserving of consideration, and my impression is that it's reasonably successful, and may be expected to run for quite a while. I'm not sure if we have detailed CCG notability criteria. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MapleStory seems the obvious choice, and it's already mentioned there. Delete as second choice if merge fails. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When users look up MapleStory, it's not to find info on the iTCG. Not only that but having a separate article also will result in better organization so that users can find the information they want fast.--Deretto (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Graysons[edit]

Show just announced, no info will be known about the show for a long time. Once more info is available, the page can be recreated and info added, but for now there is simply not enough info to warrant this stub. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough info out that people will be googling it and wanting to know what it is! Wikipedia has some short entries and this one will grow quickly. Keep it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.68.34 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What info? The only info there is the announcement and who the showrunners are. I'm not saying the article shouldn't exist at some point. Just not now. This is something that's not uncommon, having articles deleted that return later once more info comes out. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into a new section called Programs under development in the article The CW Television Network. As production of the show is still in such an early stage, the show may never be developed, making it questionable per WP:Crystal Ball. I would not consider the subject notable on its own until it either airs or has gone into production with some well-known actor. Until then, it is merely a show CW is considering and better placed in that article. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do NOT merge. 95% of programs under development never see the light of day. Until a pilot is aired, Wikipedia shouldn't bother with it. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been no casting, no scripting, no idea if this is going to actually be picked up, or if there will even be a CW to air this program next year. There are so many program ideas every year that are developed, and many which are never seen except in the network screening room before they're rejected. Wait until May 2009 to create this article, if it gets past development and pilot stage. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the character Robin. I agree that many shows announced as being under development never get made, however there has been reputable media coverage (I saw a mention on CNN, for one) regarding this proposed series. Therefore it's legitimate to include it in the main character article (under the discussion on media adaptations). No prejudice against recreating the article once it's been commissioned as an actual series. 23skidoo (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All You Need Is Me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Dearest Love[edit]

This is a Morrissey B-side song. Aside from the incorrect infobox, there is no reason for this song to have a separate article. Morrissey in particular has about as many B-sides as A-sides and this one does not have any special notability. This info can easily be merged into the article for the single's A-side. - eo (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Hiding T 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All You Need Is Me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children In Pieces[edit]

This is a Morrissey B-side song. Aside from the incorrect infobox, there is no reason for this song to have a separate article. Morrissey in particular has about as many B-sides as A-sides and this one does not have any special notability. Additionally, the article's title formatting is also incorrect (capital "In"). This info can easily be merged into the article for the single's A-side. - eo (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Hiding T 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of 1913 Great Lakes storm images[edit]

This appears to be little more than a cross-wiki disambiguation page... It's currently a candidate to be copied to Commons, but all these pages are on Commons already. On there they're all interlinked by category (Commons:Category:Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913), and a link to them is provided on Great Lakes Storm of 1913, meaning this page is now redundant. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

upMERGE into parent Article (if not already there). Should pose little problem as it is only 5 links to a single :commons directory. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It already has a link to the Commons cat (which is the parent category for all of the ones linked on this page) in the External links section of the main page on the topic, so no merging needed. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a gallery. Use a category if required to group related images. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a gallery. (I made similar arguments in more detail in the recent discussion about the (successful) deletion of Gallery of coins.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not an article.--Boffob (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet celebrity[edit]

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

Strong delete Article is subject to self-promotion, lacks details, lacks references and is superseded in content by List of Internet phenomena. Overall, it is a venue of spam rather than encyclopedia content.-DevinCook (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — While a topic like this can possibly warrant a halfway-decent article, its current state is certainly a spam magnet and would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It's not the same as internet phenomenom. Sources exist:[71][72][73][74] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a coherent topic and is not suitable for a separate article. Also, a magnet for spam, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE violations. Nsk92 (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research of List of Internet phenomena. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fixxers. per WP:MUSIC Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Life (album)[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album that is unlikely to see release; little ~~or no~~ media coverage ~~and no references~~. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums ~~and WP:V~~. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very quick Google search found these: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. The last one suggests it was released as a download-only album. Should be sufficient for improving and sourcing the article, and more extensive searching seems likely to find more. If an article on the album is deemed inappropriate, a merge to the group's article would seem far more constructive than deletion.--Michig (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V stricken from nom. Any verifiable content should certainly be added to The Fixxers' article (which appears to need a lot of work). Above links are pretty much all trivial mentions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nischal(actor)[edit]

Non-notable film actor with lots of completely unsupported assertions. Can't find any sources, the name is completely vague and while claims of notability are suggested, a lack of WP:V and WP:RS compliance puts them in doubt, since the few sources cited don't show most of the requirements in WP:ENTERTAINER. Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This probally should have been speedied... - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure it would be uncontested, as some form of notability is asserted even if it can't be verified. I would rather take it to AfD when I'm uncertain than spam CSD tags. Extra eyes on a topic never hurt. :) -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 21:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He did win the State Television Award in India, which I assume is a big thing. So "the person has received a notable award or honor", as required in WP:BIO. He also receives quite a write-up here[80], so WP:BIO's "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material" is met as well. There is some notability here. Sources are poor though. I've been looking for better ones but haven't found any. ~~SIS~~ 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exceedingly weak keep. The article - really an interview - to which SS (love your sig BTW) refers gives some pretty good information, but is of limited use as an independent source to establish notability. The subject's comments about currently working for JP Morgan and hoping for a balance of 50% film career and 50% conventional career really don't sound like the stuff of which notability is made. Still, he has a substantial list of film/television appearances, some of which sound as if they may have been in notable films. I tagged the article for WP India's film work group in the hope that someone there will know more. If kept it probably should be renamed to add a space after the name. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment but I do need to make it: - It's SIS, not SS. ~~SIS~~ 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at the Kerala State TV award listing from the government site here [81]. Not only do they not have a "Child Actor" category in 1992 (it wasn't a category until much later, 2005) there is no Nischal, or with anyone with the last name of Mohan either. There is a child artist category but neither of the 1992 entries match his name, both are different actors. Additionally, I can't find anything in Google India [82] for Chapalyam or Chapalyam TV series, nor can I find anything where *any* award was awarded to that "show" by the Kerala State TV awards. I also tried some searches for the series on Indian search engines [83] , [84], with no results for Nischal or the series. I'm very confused by that interview in ScreenIndia, but unfortunately I cannot consider that source relaible when I can't verify this person appearing in ANY movie. I'd be very appreciative if someone could verify this, but I certainly can't and everything I'm finding makes it look like a hoax. I'm very uncertain on how we can source any of the claims in the article. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment -- the link to Cinechance does not appear very encouraging, since that's mainly a site to get noticed by aspiring actors. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's always a problem I've encountered in trying to make sense of Bollywood films. While not encouraging, I don't think that the lack of mention of the subject or award on the government website necessarily makes it a hoax - I do see that there's this link seems to indicate both that one of the claimed movies (By the People)exists, and that someone named Nischal was in it. I also can verify the existence of the 4 the People, and that the same director made both movies. Still, this does tend to confirm the enormous difficulty in making any concrete statements at all. I'm still waiting to see if a subject-matter expert can help, but my already weak support is hanging by a thread. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

I'm not so much worried about the lack of sources as that the site where we can verify he won that award does NOT support the claim at all. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are a number of state endorsed TV awards that can be awarded to TV actors. There are 'Indian Telly Awards', 'Indian State TV Awards', and 'Padma Awards' (which come in 3 variations for seperate civilian disciplines). It doesn't make finding our friend any easier. Apart from the one mention in the ScreenIndia article I haven't found any other confirmation, and my weak support isn't feeling much better yet. I don't believe the article is a hoax, though. ~~SIS~~ 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*grimly* The award mentioned in the article is specifically the Kerala, in the little "awards" box. And I think also in the interview. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be grim. When I said "It doesn't make finding our friend any easier" I was referring to my frustrating searches for clear info. I wasn't suggesting you were wrong. ~~SIS~~ 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it only gets worse. He's mentioned as an actor in By the people here[85] and here[86], but this article in the Hindu[87] is about the same film and doesn't mention him at all. Are there aliases at play, perhaps? ~~SIS~~ 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Market Report[edit]

Non-notable online publication. Not mentioned in any third-party sources as the topic. The name comes up a lot, but none of it related to this particular entity. No notability established. Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been out of the field of housing economics since 2001, but back then HMR was a respected publication among the small community of housing economists and forecasters. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if not improved). It is the creating editor's responsibility to claim and demonstrate notability. Given the exceptionally large number of unrelated hits generated by a search for "Housing Market Report", this task is not reasonable to expect AfD commentators to undertake on the creating editor's behalf. There is no particular reason to believe that this publication is not notable, but equally no reason to believe it is. Bongomatic (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language Computer Corporation[edit]

Non-notable startup. VG ☎ 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google News search brings up only 3 articles, none of which are directly about the the computer company. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would have speedied. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ok, clearly I have not done enough to prove this is a notable company. Also, I disagree with the term "startup", the company has been around long before Wikipedia and doesn't seek VC funding like a startup. I agree that 6-month old startups that are 90% likely to fail are not notable. Before deleting the page, please give me some pointers on what must be done to prove notability. Seeing as how there is a page for question answering, it is notable that LCC has won NIST's competition for question answering almost every year for 10 years. LCC was in the latest issue of Communications of the ACM as one of 6 companies to have a web-based question answering system (others include Ask.com and BrainBoost). If Google News is your criteria, then you're going to leave out a lot of R&D companies that quite frankly don't have marketing units to seek press. I've seen Wikipedia pages for companies with 2-3 people who basically market the heck out of themselves yet accomplish very little. I recommend that instead of a Google News search, try a Google Scholar search using some of the "key" individuals mentioned on their website: Example 1, Example 2. Captkrob (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's useful to suggest where to look for sources of information, the burden is on the person(s) who believe that there is enough independent coverage to show notability to find the sources and add them to the article. If you can produce third party sources that verify the claims then the article will have a better chance of surviving. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some direct links for those claims? I could not verify them myself (and I do have full access to ACM digital library). VG ☎ 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a few bits of information that convince me: (1) the academic sources, especially the ACM notice as noted above; (2) two US military contracts, one in 2006 for $8.04 million (US Fed News, 2006-10-02) and one in 2008 for $742,820 (US Fed News 2008-03-06); (3) some sources about the company's commercial spin-off, Lymba, like a review of Lymba's PowerAnswer product (Natural Language Engineering 14 (1): 141–144. doi:10.1017/S1351324907004639). From the looks of it, this is a largely low-profile operation, but it is working on a significant scale (just shy of $9 million in defense contracts!), and the sources are eminently verifiable. I will incorporate these sources and others within the next couple of days. Avram (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I still am planning on getting this up to par! One strong source I've just come upon is a summary of federal funds received, from www.usaspending.gov. This source gives a total of $8,353,476 from 2006 to 2008, with a breakdown by year and branch of the military (Army, Navy and Air Force). Avram (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Avram. rootology (C)(T) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 17 employees do not a notable computer corporation make. Themfromspace (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no evidence that any Wikipedia policy sets a minimum number of employees in order to meet notability standards. The sources Avram has identified all support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Captkrob and Avram. Sources exist and articles should not be punished because the company doesn't have a public relations wing. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Sandbach[edit]

Contested prod, tag removed by IP with no explanation. Unelected candidate, does not meet the relevant notability guide. Cannot find sources beyond personal blog and profile on party's website. TN‑X-Man 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. She has a blog!!Delete. Non notable. Bongomatic (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is an unelected politician with very little coverage about her even as a politician -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All By Students (ABS) Notebooks[edit]

Fails WP:SPAM, WP:ORG. WP:COI issues too RayAYang (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this may actually be notable. It does pass V--the sources are OK for the purpose. And it does not read as spam. DGG (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked before setting this up for AfD. Basically nothing beyond what's on the page -- a single gnews hit, 8 google hits. I marked it as a classic "public relations" type piece, hence the spam. I agree, it's not obvious spam, or a candidate for G12. RayAYang (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — Creator has removed a {{coi}} tag from the article among others. This can be better explained at WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'"Note"' - I am the creator. I removed all the tags because I thought I had solved the issue by editing the language to make the tone neutral. I had initially just grabbed the language from blogs and articles written about them, but after it was tagged went back with a more discerning eye- sorry about all the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpie7 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 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) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Passes WP:V but misses the mark on WP:N which is more fundamental.Themfromspace (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNGIf a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." The marketing press is of the subject, but the university press is independent of the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.108.48 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate personality[edit]

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

An article mostly made by IP addresses. The site provided does not exist. Neologism to me. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a concept of "corporate personality" in theology, that was first invented by H. Wheeler Robinson. It has two pages of discussion in David Noel Freedman; Allen C. Myers; Astrid B. Beck (2000). "Corporate Personality". Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 285–287. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). It's nothing whatsoever to do with ~~this~~ that (as far as I can determine) heretofore entirely undocumented idea, though. Wikipedia should have a proper article on a real, independently and multiply documented, and (over the course of the 20th century) much discussed, idea by this name, however. If anyone reading this feels like being a bold Wikpedia editor and blanking this unverifiable and clearly agenda-pushing rubbish and starting such an article, they will find help for a good stub in the first paragraph of Sang-Won (Aaron) Son (2001). "The Old Testament Conception of "Corporate Personality"". Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology. Fort Worth, TX: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help). Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and replace~~ Keep, as ~~described~~ rewritten by Uncle G. There are also notable concepts relating to the idea of corporations as legal persons, and as brand identities; what's was in the article now is was none of these. (Revised after Uncle G was bold. Good work!) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tate[edit]

WP:NN businessperson, fails WP:BIO. Frankly looks like a puff autobiography, but notability was asserted, so I had to decline speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice True: there is a claim of notability. But my original speedy tag was WP:CSD#G11 spam. The article actually ends with (I kid you not): "Please stay tuned for update on this." It's quite obvious that the article's author is either Richard Tate himself or a close associate. The material is unsourced and frankly unimpressive anyways. He sold his business for £106,000? Sure, I wouldn't mind getting that amount of cash but in the business world, it's not even a blip on the radar. The claim about the mention in the Daily Telegraph is bogus as far as I can tell from searching the paper's archive. Ditto for the purported "Business Magazine" mention. For one thing there is no such thing as "Business Magazine" though I suppose it could be the now defunct The Business (magazine). Note however that it doesn't make any sense for a magazine of repute to tip its hat to and recognize as "one of the UK's youngest businessman" a guy who at the time is 25 and has a haulage company worth peanuts. Note also the bizarre absence of even a name for the various companies he's supposed to have started and sold. I looked on Google for every possible combo of "Richard Tate" + Haulage + distribution + "David Lloyd" + Birmingham + business and there's nothing. This is either a joke or one badly self-delusional individual. Pichpich (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: actually, the original version of the article did mention the company's name. It's "Cockerill Distribution" and well... let's just say you should take a look at their website which can't even decide whether the company's name is Cockerill or Cockerille! [88]. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe it should be deleted, but do you need to be so rude about it? the wub "?!" 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh... might not have been my finest hour but I have a hard time being nice with someone who abuses Wikipedia by writing his autobiography and peppering it with outright lies. Pichpich (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Pichpich. With a common name like that google searching tends to produce a phonebook of hits. After doing various kinds of filtered googlenews searches I could not find any hits that are related to this particular Richard Tate. No references listed in the article itself. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People coming here looking for Richard Tate probably aren't looking for this guy. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the original idenfication as spam was, in my opinion, correct. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If it's false, it's a hoax. If it's true, it's spam and not particularly notable either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Whorf. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, Jake and Uncle Joe[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It seems a pretty useless article. Speedy delete per G7, author request. Eachwiped (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself may have no references but google search has. If notability is the reason argued upon, in any extent, as long as someone would put inline citation in the article, it could be saved. But, as part of the reason for deletion is G7, I can't fathom the author's wavelength is. I can only think of using G7 in one's personal userpages and subpages but not in an article-page like this. If G7 is being used, notability should not just be the sole reason for this to be deleted. Shoowak (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Richard Whorf. (There is plenty of room to expand that article with this information.) A one-day show on broadway is notable for discussion in an appropriately related article. Unless there is significant secondary coverage about a failed show, I would not consider it notable enough for its own article. I do not think that Wikipedia should be a database for every Broadway show produced. For those who think google hits equates to notability, you should surround this search term with quotes to get an accurate count. You will find here that there are only 49 google hits. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I said earlier is not a vote but rather a comment. My point in the above statement is not notability, but rather, why should the article be nominated for a G7.. Just because I created the article, I can nominate it for deletion? Is that it?
I agree, we should not create every one-day broadway show produced.. but those broadways whose directors are notable enough can have their one-day broadway show here in wikipedia and that is Richard Whorf.. but I am not researching if he is notable enough for his shows to get here in wiki.
If there are google hits, there should be some black and white published somewhere out there, but as I said, I am not searching..
But you may be right with the merge. Shoowak (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with Google search above There is no rule in wikipedia that an article should have a 50-hit Google searches for it to be notable. But there are also no guarantees that a 49-hit in Google search would give notable-enough sites for the article. Another thing, it is not just google who will provide notability for an article, so if it has only 11 google hits, but five newspapers to support the article, it, of course, will survive the notability issue. Shoowak's point is G7, ¢Spender1983's point is notability to stand as an article. My point is let us not delete article because we dont want it, and let us not create article because we want it. Let us have articles that, we know, someone will read them and someone could get information from them. I dont have an opinion if the article could stand on its own or be merged or be deleted. We need more opinions on this issue. Axxand (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Richard Whorf. It is highly unlikely that suitable independent reliable sources exist to justify an article about a failed Broadway play that closed after one night. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aashiq Banaya Aapne. Content may be merged from article history. Non-admin closure." Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiq Banaya Apne[edit]

duplicate of Aashiq Banaya Aapne Anshuk (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Aashiq Banaya Aapne. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Major[edit]

Not notable album by not notable publisher (see other afd) PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete red link label, mostly red link artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the answer!: non-notable label+red link artists=non-notable album. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the record label listed just below this, I figured they should be listed seperately. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:58, 2 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) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why was it relisted? The consensus is to delete. Schuym1 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin feels that you are right he can still close it delete. "Relist" doesn't mean it has to run another 5 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of oldest Major League Baseball players. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game[edit]

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

Not quite as bad as players with 22 goals and 17 assists in one month but this seems a rather arbitrary and trivial selection criterion. Given that we already have lists of oldest Major League Baseball players, oldest living Major League Baseball players and Oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members, I feel this one is redundant. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of oldest Major League Baseball players... similar to the way List of MLB franchise post-season droughts is structured, lots of related sub-lists can be on one page, and it actually makes for a pretty useful page. These sorts of lists aren't trivial intersections for baseball fans... but they are not so useful when scattered all over on individual articles. --Rividian (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I started the article and I'm all for merging it into another article, if the one listed above suits others, I'm good with that. As for why I removed the box before, the page it linked to said...

"If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page."

So that's what I was attempting to do and notified you as such per a later step on that same page.

Comment - I have moved this to Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game. Keep or not, this page's name shouldn't start with "List:". --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, though... but that's not a reason. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the oldest MLB players article listed above. It is interesting and worthwhile information to have, and being an accepted "oldest" list already exists, why should this not be an addition to it? Coastalsteve984 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days Of Rae[edit]

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

Non-notable band, WP:MUSIC issues. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above; Also WP:OR.--Res 2216 firestar 02:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. This is a pretty obvious one. Great quote from the article: "As the days come by, they feel like they have a lot of rock in them than they used to." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll'd A La Chilena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rickroll'd A La Chilena

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

Nonnotable parody of Rickrolling; no indication of meeting the notability criteria at WP:WEB. The "sources" provided are 3 forums and the website itself. The two sites listed under "Further reading" don't mention this parody. —An gr 05:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —An gr 08:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTubecruft. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material was already reverted from main Rickroll article twice. Contributor is the same person who made the video. Nonsense material. Video of people dancing to song has nothing to do with Rickrolling. Rurik (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as above, sources are not reliable. --Deadly∀ssassin 09:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial commentary on internet phenomenon. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely and completely fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and almost certainly WP:COI and WP:SPAM as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails various content guidelines and policies listed above. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Matter of Feeling (song)[edit]

Unsourced, zero notability and false - "A Matter of Feeling" was not ever a single. Outrune (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a non-plausible search term, song fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rather than relist this again, I'm treating it like an uncontested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeveron[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable label. Also, the languages are wrong. This is only on the english wiki, not the others. No touring, nothing about them on google. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the album pages:

Undead Warrior (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. 75.172.24.170 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 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, X clamation point 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Bueno[edit]

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

This article was speedied per A7 and recreated. Second speedy was declined, PROD was removed with the claim that he was "top amateur bodybuilder", despite the fact that the reference given shows no such thing. Appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY and looks like a vanity page. May be an autobio. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much coverage beyond "top teen national..." by highly specialized sources. Even from the very generous WP:ATHLETE notability criteria, that's at most "iffy" (do teen competitions qualify as "top amateur" level?). It does look like a vanity page. --Boffob (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability of competitions won, and (very) brief research doesn't turn up anything that would support such a claim--happy to be shown wrong if wrong. Bongomatic (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Dr. Robinson (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Best[edit]

Article about a young actress with a role in a popular TV series and another minor appearance. Was already deleted speedily several times but I happed to move it over a protected title without really noticing it, but does not yet seem to be notable enough in any case. Tikiwont (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 1 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) 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received enough coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the very short TV week info or to something else that you found? Thanks for clarifying.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a bit of coverage about her 2008 Logie nomination. RMHED (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something, although having won would make it a clear case and some cites would be good. I am not having a strong opinion here but had doubts about me inadvertently unprotecting it. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've been unable to find any coverage that was not completely trivial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz (model)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No independant reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 1 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) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going with Delete here. I don't see anything per WP:PORNSTAR that indicates notability, other than that she has big boobs. She has some appearances in magazines.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declutter[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF and WP:HOWTO with semi-promotional web links. VG ☎ 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much is a definition and little else, doesn't even tell how - just gives a few ideas. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyt media[edit]

Just some boys who make skateboard videos. Punkmorten (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Notability is more than simply owning a camcorder, and trying to use YouTube as a source is just plain pathetic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder[edit]

Not notable book (see WP:NB), no independent sources found on Google News or Google. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable for only showing book listings on Google and nothing related to the book on Google News. Could also be redirect to Dissociative identity disorder. If not, nuke it. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I confirm the lack of results for Google and Google Books (adding "quotes" makes the search more specific). Google web search only produces web-based book sellers, no independent reviews. The book was published in September 2008, by the way, which makes notability even less likely. Han-Kwang (t) 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is notable because the book’s editors have been well known in their field for many years. Several article contributors are also well known, including Valerie Sinason, who has published 13 books and over 70 professional papers, Bettina Overkamp, who is an executive board member of the European Society for Trauma and Dissociation, Phil Mollon, who has written 5 books, Joan Coleman, a founding member of the Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support - better known as RAINS), Thorsten Becker, who received the “German Child Protection Award’ in 1994 and Wanda Karriker who was interviewed on Court TV in the United States as an expert in the field. The book is also recommended by two famous researchers, Dr. Arnon Bentovim and Sir Richard Bowlby. The book’s publisher, Karnac, has been well known as a reliable source of scientific books for several years. Aspecttable (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the authors does not imply notability of each publication. You are only giving arguments to have articles about the authors, which might then mention the book as a publication. The book itself is not (yet) notable. Han-Kwang (t) 08:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find reviews. Without the existence of those, the article could not possibly be neutral and unbiased, nor supported by reliable sources. Narayanese (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BN. Also see the related deletion discussion here for the Extreme Abuse Survey, which is (I believe) a chapter in the book. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above wikipedia discussion does not apply. This is not a survey, but a book. The topic of dissociative identity disorder is notable and the publisher is well respected. Aspecttable (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of four isn't bad, but the better two are the book itself, and the author. The topic of a book, and the publisher of a book do not make the case for notability. This fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) pretty clearly to me, so could you provide an argument for one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books) before I vote? Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). JFW | T@lk 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frances_Kruk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frances Kruk (2nd nomination)

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

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources (or any sources for that matter) Again, that the subject is now suddenly married to Sean Bonney, privileged information from someone who knows the subject directly or the subject herself -- UK Google search shows no information on this ("frances+kruk"+"sean+bonney"+married): 'That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A' as per WP:BIO. Has edited non-notable online issues and published one chapbook in non-notable press, like thousands of other people. Picture relates to work self-published by press the subject co-runs. Curvejuice (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curvejuice's 2nd nomination for deletion can be argued against - Chicago Review is notable reference source and Keith Tuma a reliable third party anthologist and critic of poetry. Frances Kruk article reference based on quote from Chicago Review 53:1 Spring 2007 http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/review/531_tuma.pdf PDF page 218. Wikiwel (talk contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One review in one journal does not assert notability. You seem to not understand what this means. I recommend reading Wikipedia guidelines, linked to above, before creating other articles (on people you know ) Curvejuice (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The review Wikiwel mentioned was about 4 pages, of which between a half-page and page were devoted to Kruk. I'm not sure this is significant coverage. Based also on the review's comments about "promising future", I don't see the notability hurdle met yet. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/lack of WP:RS. We66er (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ = keep + new source & citations = added WP:RS value = Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.195.74 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New line added on 'CIAC' still does not assert notability. I don't believe notability is going to be asserted. Curvejuice (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Curvejuice recommends Wikiwel read encyclopedia guidelines before creating more articles on people (user knows?). Point of clarification: original article was created by user Playwright1749 who expressed intention of creating more articles on, presumably, poets associated with younger generation British Poetry Revival (bpr), ref. Talk: Frances Kruk. 'The 1980s and after' content in (bpr) Wikipedia article distinguishes Kruk along with several other young poets. Some with linked stand-alone articles. Some not. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.83.246 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to this article directly, hence parentheses. Point of clarification: Wikiwel's privileged knowledge shows he knows Kruk (as i am sure you do) and the user created a page on Bad Press run by a Jow Lindsay who has been 'published' by Kruks press and who has edited information on this article under the pseudonym listed on his own article, Francis Crot (sound familiar?). Connection is there, was advising for future referance in accordance with Wikipedia rules Curvejuice (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Curvejuice's understandable concerns about neutrality & possible COI issues posted Talk:Frances Kruk Wikiwel (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article was a WP:BLP with no sources. Sandstein 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fumio Nakajima[edit]

Contested prod (by IP); No assertion or demonstration of notability, and had been tagged as a concern since Feb 2008 ratarsed (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, there was an assertion of notability, but it was in the article on Lolita Anime rather than here: he wrote the manga which was adapted as the OVA series. The consensus of WikiProject Anime and Manga is that, given the status of OVAs in Japan (which are often of higher quality than television series, comparible to theatrical releases), an OVA adaptation counts as a making a manga notable by WP:BK C3. Whether being the author of one demonstratably notable work makes that person notable depends on your personal interpretation of WP:CREATIVE. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, given it's only one marginally notable work, I'm inclined to merge to that work -- Lolita Anime. If someone can demonstrate at least one other of Nakajima's works is notable (even if we don't get around to creating the article yet) or that he passes the general notability guideline, I'll change that to a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Being the guy behind the first hentai series is a pretty strong notability claim, ^{[citation needed]} or not. Not opposed to merging though. --erachima talk 03:20, 1 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) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it was? Does that mean the 5 days resets to now? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The problem was that apparently this page wasn't relisted together with the ones of October 4. The idea is that relisting gives more time for discussion, but also that it may attract more people to carry new arguments toward or against deletion. Tizio 12:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reference sources demonstrating that this satisfies notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Gilpin[edit]

This is not a notable person. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Does not seem to be enough here for establishing notability either per WP:ACADEMIC or per WP:BIO. Little in either googlescholar[89] or googlebooks[90] regarding either his computer science work or his meditation/spirituality book. For notability as a computer scientist I would want to see some serious evidence of citability of his Ada book, which does not seem to be there. No significant reviews of his The Maharishi Effect book either in literary magazines or regular press. The only substantive indicator in favor of notability that I see here is the prize by the Council for Wisconsin Writers[91]. That is good, but in the absence of wider coverage not sufficient for establishing notability. Nsk92 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Maussan[edit]

In spite of the claim that this person is a "notable" ufologist, I can find no independent acknowledgment of this "fact". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable per this. rootology (C)(T) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's independent acknowledgment of that "fact". Plenty more found by Google Books and Google Scholar searches, as well as the Google News results linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets WP:BIO (meets WP:IVEHEARDOFHIM too but that's not a good reason to keep) JoshuaZ (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Keep - he's notable. Meh. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Hoskins[edit]

Not notable; article is mostly a list -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not article cleanup; she's notable, but you're right, the article is pretty crappy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Simply appearing in Playboy more than once makes one notable? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I know she's done some Mortal Kombat work; that's the entire reason she's on my watchlist at all. I'll have to dig a bit deeper.
    That said, I think appearing in Playboy publications repeatedly over a span of eight years should at least count for something. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that's not enough to make her notable. IMHO. Of course, that IS rather subjective. If someone can come up with more and can provide verifiable citations, fine. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the info box, I think the fact that she apparently has three breasts is pretty notable! ;-) More seriously, looking at WP:PORNBIO it looks like simple repeat appearance in Playboy publications aren't enough unless you get picked as playmate or something similar. I do note she's been a cover model once, and appears to have had considerable coverage (or lack thereof, more likely!) in Playboy's Sexy Swimsuits February 1996 per the listed appearances. But that's probably not quite enough. MadScot (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appearing in a bunch of Playboy magazines establishes that she is a working model, but does not establish her as a notable working model. There is no coverage about her in reliable sources that I could find. For example, how could we verify that she has 3 natural breasts as stated in the infobox. :) -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 2 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) 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Montelongo[edit]

Not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I declined the speedy since there was enough assertion to avoid a speedy. A look at her work on IMDb (not RS in and of itself) hints there might be enough from which to write an article. TravellingCari 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, she's no Susan Sarandon, but I think she's a notable enough actor to warrant an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 1 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) 00:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from motion-capture work for avideo game (which is more posing than acting), her one and only role is an obscure zero-budget direct-to-video horror flick. Never appeared in a feature film or TV series at all, much less any notable ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Pictures (band)[edit]

Article contains many refs, however I am uncertain whether any would be considered as a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. — X S G 06:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, close, but not quite there yet. One release so far on a notable label, but criteria calls for at least two. Can find nothing at the moment to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable indie band. The phrase "received widespread positive reviews throughout the blog world" indicates how much of a stretch this would be for inclusion. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NaoKo TakaHashi (artist)[edit]

person not notable Artlondon (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No proper indication of notability. (The article is also poorly written and lacks verbs, but that's not a criterion for deletion in itself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary claim of notability is the claim of working on a published book, but actually clicking the link reveals it's actually a chapbook limited to 1000 copies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The community has spoken. RFerreira (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. W. Griffith[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails RS V BIO ATHLETE and NOTABILITY Kittybrewster ☎ 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep finding more information and posting, including all-American as a player at Penn State and a potential basketball coaching career. Verifying...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Verified also a US COngressman for Ohio.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question I have found and verified sources that sometimes list him as "Griffith" and others as "Griffiths" -- I am certain they are the same person and can back that up with multiple sources. That said, how should he be listed? SHould the page be moved?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he served in Congress. His sports achievements, however, don't warrant keeping for. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment it would be great for someone enthusiastic about congressional members to come improve this article, wouldn't it?!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Former member U.S. Congress. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. For all above reasons. --Bobak (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is completely false on 5 of 6 claims You still have WP:ATHLETE, but not Google, for whatever reason. Speedy Keep. SashaNein (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Pandey[edit]

I have reviewed the references cited and they all (including Merinews, which encourageas readers to "Be a Citizen Journalist") appear to be blog contributions and the like with no bona fide news sources. Searching a few Indian newspaper archives for both "Bundelkhand and Pandey" and "Ekikrit" identified nothing related. The citations that are not online do not purport to be about the individual . . .and since the PTI one claims to have been carried by "Hindustan", I searched the archive at "The Hindustan Times" and "The Hindu" and drew nothing (not sure that these are what was meant). I think it's fair to say that a political party that isn't mentioned AT ALL in these major newspapers is not notable, Bongomatic (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep,Sanjay Pandey can be searched in many search engines and different news papers of India in respect of Bundelkhand state so the before deleting the article think for a moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambabudixit (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep,Sanjay Pandey is a much popular name in politics of Bundelkhand so this article should be considered fully notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyansinghparihar (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin, there appears to be several sock-puppets taking part in this AfD. See WP:Suspected sock puppets/Chitrabharadwaj Bongomatic (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable politician. His movement, Bundelkhand ekikrit party, is also being considered for deletion. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless actual reliable sources are found: the sockpupetry and dishonest claims about sources make this unlikely. If none found, he seems non-notable, forming a party that has never done anything isn't special.Yobmod (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern New Hampshire Beavers[edit]

This team does not appear to be notable: only of a semi-professional level. Fails WP:ORG due to a lack of non-trivial secondary sources to establish notability, as evidenced by only 294 results on a Google search. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate deleting teams, but this one really seems to be not notable at all. Nothing I can find tells me it's more than a competitive adult league (hence, semi-pro). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastalsteve984 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (db-club). Not tagged, I want a second opinion before wiping it off. Only says who they are, no notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Josephs College Rowing Club[edit]

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

Strong Delete - Unencyclopedic. There isn't even an article for the school itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustarhymes420 (talk • contribs) 2008/10/04 22:00:36

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete student club at a single school... in this case, a school we don't even have an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability outside context of school. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is an article for the school, the link has been added to this article. Perhaps a shortened version of this page can be included there instead. Irishrower (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep would like to see more resources, wikified, and otherwise brushed up to a better article rather than an "adsy-artcle" that we don't like... but the program has been around long enough, there's some rich history I'm sure and WP:SNOW seems to apply. Not having a school article is not a reason to delete the article about the school's rowing team--Wikipedia is far from complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Claiming WP:Snow is either dishonest or a misunderstanding. this article clearly has a chance to be deleted, per 4 editors!

response then I choose misunderstanding, if that's okay with everyone else. It's a comment made in good-faith. By the way, if you are going to accuse anyone of being dishonest, could you please sign your comments?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe such accusations wouldn't arise, if you only used guidelines you understood.

Delete No matter how old they are, the sources do not show notability nor pass WP:athlete. They certainly don't compete at the highest level of the sport. A non-notable uni is very unlikely to have a notable sports team.Yobmod (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response It is not a non-notable uni, but rather a relatively well known Irish school. As such, it can only compete to a certain level, as it has done with the Irish National Championships and Henley Royal Regatta, which many would regard as the highest level of amateur rowing in UK/Ireland. Any higher and the athletes will be competing for their country, as members of this club have done at European and World Championships, as well as the Olympics. Irishrower (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the citations to prove any of that? This article's claims are unverified, which means it fails wikipedia policy and should be deleted. Junior levels are not regarded as the highest level in other sports (hence all the junior football players who get deleted), why would they be here? Independant reliable sources are needed to prove notability, not one editor's opinion. Add enough independant sources, and i would change my vote, simple as that.Yobmod (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten most the article, reducing its' length, and I've tried to add sources where possible Irishrower (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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