Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 25 September 27 >

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. BJTalk 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The She Set[edit]

The She Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable article which does not meet the guidelines for music-related articles, already proposed for deletion but tag was removed by an IP address without any edits to the article. Article consists of a list of band member's names, some not even full names. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete, fals WP:MUSIC with no claim of notability whatsoever. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, obviously. No notability, no coverage, no records, and too much mention of too many boyfriends. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (All Above): These were the reasons i stated in a prod, but it was removed without anything actually happening to the article. I have contacted the creator of the page regarding the debate, but how much longer must we wait before closing it? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt to prevent recreation of vanity page on non-notable band.Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources. This brief announcement in a event listing on NME is the closest thing to coverage that I was able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turned On[edit]

Turned On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN upcoming music release Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disregard: SPA IP, obvious sock of page author. Toddst1 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practivism[edit]

Practivism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable neologism. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) TallNapoleon[reply]

  • Delete: agreed with nominator. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I enjoyed the illustration for the event... is it my imagination, or is that a very "graphic" design by the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada?
  • Delete. Spam for a forthcoming event. Sgroupace (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martijn Hoekstra as G7. Furthermore, the comment by the creator (99drums) below says that this was a joke, qualifying it for G3 as well. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Graves[edit]

Mike Graves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was CSDed, but appears that he may be notable (see A Global Threat). AFDing to reach consensus on whether article should be kept; as of now I have no prejudice either way. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... there was a Mike Graves in A Global Threat, but that wasn't this Mike Graves. At least the full length article[1] never mentioned that band anywhere. As far as I can tell this mr Graves isn't notable at all. And that's why I tagged it for SD. Anyways, delete.    SIS  23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine notable authority for an approved Wikipedia post would include significant accomplishments that warrant writing and publishing about so that other musicians and music fans alike would find valuable and educational knowledge that would help them to achieve their dreams. Mike Graves has truly accomplished significant goals and unique successes others find difficult or impossible to achieve starting off with practically nothing at a young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: So what are these "significant goals and unique successes"? ... discospinster talk 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you or others reading this article consider a drummer from a broken home with no money in his pocket taking on work as a dishwasher and car wash wiper as a young teen working his way up through the dark alley way clubs in Hollywood finally getting a record deal on CBS records in his mid twenties and then achieving the success of participating in (5) Major International Record Releases, 5 major label music videos, 3 major movie soundtracks, a huge publishing deal with the very top music publishing company in the world, working with the very top producers and managers in Hollywood a notable achievement? Please take a look at some of the other musicians and music artists you have agreed to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 01:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All over the internet disco, geez you guys really know how to stop a guy in his tracks..please look at these links: http://www.onestoptrax.com/wcmost/home2.jsp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly06r1nyAnU http://www.rockdetector.com/artist,1395.sm ttp://www.rockdetector.com/discography,1395.sm http://www.myspace.com/theradioactivecats http://www.myspace.com/tvinflamesband http://www.the-faces.com/mac/macdisc.htm http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=1994&CDName=Radio+Active+Cats ttp://music.aol.com/artist/tv-in-flames/1119741 http://www.musicstack.com/item/8395064/radio+active/radio+active+cats http://sleazeattack.blogspot.com/2007/10/radio-active-cats-radio-active-cats.html http://music.search.ebay.com/Radio-Active-Cats_Music_W0QQsacatZ11233

http://www.amazon.com/Drool-Tv-Flames/dp/B000008LSK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1206233797&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Active-Cats/dp/B000008JPJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1206233953&sr=1-1

Radio Active Cats on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Wing-Prayer-Broken-Homes/dp/B000008DSQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1206234092&sr=1-2

Please visit this Wikipedia link as well and find Radio Active Cats in the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Warner_Bros._Records_artists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit this Wikipedia link also to find TV in Flames on their roster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Reprise_Records_artists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea before I took the time to actually sit down and write a long article for this Wikipedia site out of my busy day that there would be such anal scrutiny, examination and humiliation waiting for me with human monitors at every corner looking for reasons not to post a page, even with a significant amount of solid facts and figures this article is still up in the air. I don’t get it! Oh, and who is this GLOBAL THREAT Band..and what makes their article so significant? Maybe Strike Out Sister has an issue with my bio? MG

  • Please see WP:AUTOBIO, WP:BAND, and WP:CIVIL. We're not out to get Mr. Graves, but Wikipedia does have an established set of guidelines for what does and does not qualify as notable. Statements of fact need to be cited. Ideal sources for this article would especially include mainstream news sites, including those that report primarily on music. YouTube, amazon, and personal blogs, however, do not generally qualify as notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TallNapoleon This timeline happened between 1973-1994. How much active news internet information do you think would be posted and accessable?

  • I don't have "an issue with your bio", MG. Not as long as it follows WP guidelines and policies. Unfortunately it doesn't. That's not "anal scrutiny", that's trying to keep WP encyclopedic. Like TallNapoleon wrote above, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:BAND (and may I add WP:COI) will give you some more information on the matter. One quick quote from the guideline on autobiographies: It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. If you find this a "humiliation", I'm sorry about that. It's not intended to be, and there's no need to take it personal. This is not an attack. Look at it from my side: in the article there are/were claims of "significant global popularity", "significant street clout and name recognition", and above you claim "Major International Record Releases". That's all very impressive and so I expect to find a lot of stuff about you (and the bands you've been in) when I search the web for reliable, 3rd party sources. But I don't. It's MySpace, YouTube, blogs, and similar. Sorry, but my delete vote stands.    SIS  12:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline happened between 1973-1994. How much internet information do you think would be posted and accessable? I can not help that the monitors viewing this information are probably much younger and are not too familiar with this time period. If you can't find the value in this posting I rest my case. The question remains why so many musicians with much less clout and credibility are posted? Also, to wait around for someone else to write about my life seems rediculious because they would not have all the facts and details in place. MG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC) The above links prove biographical credibility and prove the record and publishing deals did indeed exist. Furthermore, if you need scanned media items to further prove credibility for Strike Out Sister please send me your email address and I can attach various scanned media items.[reply]

  • Comment: You are allowed to cite print (i.e. nonweb) sources. Old newspapers would count. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You don't have to convince me, it's the WP guidelines that have to be followed. This is not about credibility. I'm sure you're not lying and I'm sure your bands existed. No need to prove that. This is about notability and reliable 3rd party sources, as explained above. Published articles about your music in books, music papers, magazines, etc, would help a lot to establish that notability. You're not expected to have been on the cover of Rolling Stone but it would make a huge difference if some major music magazines had at least heard of you. (I checked their databases: they haven't.) I wouldn't worry too much about the 1973-1994 time frame. There is a lot of information available about notable musicians of that era (and before) in said databases, newspaper archives, books, magazines, DVDs, films, etcetera.    SIS  21:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A JOKE....DELETE IT, I SHOULD JUST WRITE A BOOK AND PUBLISH IT ANYWAY. THIS WAS FREE INFO FROM ME TO YOU, TO USE AS AN ARTICLE. REDICULIOUS MEASURES. GOOD DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99drums (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. Article tagged appropriately (G7). Don't let the door hit you on the way out. MuZemike (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak, blatant advertising: no evidence for notability (CSD G11). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical Jump Bible[edit]

Vertical Jump Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very advertising-ish, no assertion of notability, but it seemed to be a bit too borderline for me to be comfortable CSDing it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) TallNapoleon (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Yahoo!. And an obligatory scolding to the nominator for using AfD to advance a merge proposal. Please NIKE next time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Yahoo! logo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merge to Yahoo. There currently is not much text, and would probably be better in the main article. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: AFD is for deletion discussions. Schuym1 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless something interesting could be said about the creation or history of the Yahoo! logo there is no need for an article on it. Merge to Yahoo! Redddogg (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Mechanics[edit]

Natural Mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is pure OR, unsourced and unsourceable. "Natural mechanics" is an invention of the creator of the article. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article published by title: phrase knowledge/ ISBN:964-06-0632-4
My calculation and the result is actual. Everyone can examine it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Vaseghi (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kiir[edit]

Philip Kiir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No relevant Google hits or sources and no evidence of notability. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf42 12:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Matas[edit]

Roger Matas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A coatrack of advertising of a so called "well-known journalist". The whole article is composed of original research and fails WP:V. Another interesting thing to note: the talk page was deleted in November 2006 as a G6: orphaned talk page. This makes me think that this guy was deleted before although I have no hard proof. Tavix (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, COI itself is not a reason to delete. COI in connection with creating an autobiographical article for self-promotion and promotion of his company (at least twice) is. If he or his company become notable, someone will write an artcle. It just shouldn't be he or his employees. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Zion Movement[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jehovah's Zion Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A local aid organization established by a student is a village in the Philippines, RS are lacking. See these Google searches: [2][3], a search for the name of the organization only brings up one page outside of Wikipedia and a search for the name of the organization and the name of the founder brings up nothing. - Icewedge (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Well... I did find a few more with a different searches... 1, 2... but this one does not show any link between The Roman Catholic Church and any charitable organization called Jehovah's Zion Movement. Maybe it's too new? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stone Beast[edit]

The Stone Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I initially proposed this article for deletion as failing WP:V and as possibly made up but the author objected on the talk page and another editor has added a hangon template, so I thought I'd list it here for review for completeness. A google search for the term The Stone Beast gives these results, none of the which seem to be supporting the article. Refining the google search with the addition of "aztec" give these web, books and scholar results. I know google is not the best place to be looking for sources for Aztec mythology but I would expect some mention somewhere on the web. It would seem that this creature is at best non-notable or possibly a hoax. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems like a joke. If it was a real Aztec myth there would be sources, otherwise how would the author of the article be able to include so much information -- like how big it is -- and say that nothing is known about it for sure? Northwestgnome (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable, and just not very likely. --Lockley (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the creator of this article has an unhappy history of disruptive edits -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jerkofthejungle. --Lockley (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistic existentialism[edit]

Capitalistic existentialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I hate to bring an article to AfD with whose subject I am not familiar, and which is amply referenced, but there are few if any Google hits for the exact phrase "capitalistic existentialism", making it difficult to find sources on the topic, which in turn puts notability in doubt. At a glance, the article, which is the sole contribution of new user Queenkameamea (talk · contribs), is a copy-pasted original work which synthesizes the work of existentialist and capitalist intellectuals. This interpretation is lent weight by the Further Reading section, which is divided into Existentialism and Capitalism, with nothing on the purported "Capitalistic Existentialism". The formatting of the text and the obvious unencyclopedic tone suggest copypasting from elsewhere, which raises the question of copyright, but Google does not find a match online. The referenced website Noahdenkt.com contains a dialogue in German called "Zur Begrűndung einer Philosophie des kapitalistischen Existenzialismus" (roughly, Towards the Foundation of a Philosophy of Capitalistic Existentialism), which contains a passage asking whether the author made it all up himself:

F: Hat Noah denkt™ diesen kapitalistischen Existenzialismus selbst entwickelt? Nd: Nein, vielmehr ist es so, dass unser kapitalistischer Existenzialismus die ökonomischen Theorien des österreichischen Wirtschaftswissenschaftlers Joseph Schumpeter aufgreift, und sie mit der Sartreschen Űberzeugung verbindet, dass man im

Leben eine bisweilen auch lebensbedrohliche Position beziehen muss, wenn man dem Wahren, Guten wirklich dienen will.

I'm not exactly arguing for deletion, so much as asking what we should do with this. If someone can relieve me of my ignorance on the topic and find reliable secondary sources on this topic, I will gladly withdraw this AfD. the skomorokh 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- after some close consideration and the thoughtful nomination. This is not nonsense, but has been copy-pasted into wikipedia without academic context or pertinent sources. I don't think it belongs here. --Lockley (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem like a notable expression. It could be restarted with better sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal essay on NN topic.MisarxistTM 10:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was as Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Hour to Zero[edit]

One Hour to Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on 2 Google searches, Movie Review Query Engine, and Rotten Tomatoes.Schuym1 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd call the BFI a notable, verifiable source; whilst the article could do with more information and sources added, there are sources out there (well, I found the BFI one in less than ten minutes, for a 30 year old film, isn't bad)... -- ratarsed (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that link also, but the link doesn't show the film's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MOVIE lists "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive" as one criteria. -- ratarsed (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What source says that it's in a national archive? That site just has info about a bunch of movies.Schuym1 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That site is just like IMDB, except that it's only for UK movies. It has info about a bunch of movies, notable or not. Schuym1 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The BFI hold the national archive, with that link being the Library index for that film. -- ratarsed (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sourcing and improvements made to the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those links show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore "Salty Sal" Di Naggio[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Salvatore "Salty Sal" Di Naggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and dubious short biography of supposed mob figure. Lockley (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been redirected by Eastmain.Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23 Marina Dubai[edit]

23 Marina Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

User has COI, article is spammy. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Redirect to 23 Marina, the existing article. Thoroughly notable building. --Eastmain (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily redirected to Liberty House (Dubai), obvious duplicate article without the COI and spam problems. - Icewedge (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty House Dubai[edit]

Liberty House Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

User has a COI, same as problems this one. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fecal Matter (band). BJTalk 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illiteracy Will Prevail[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Illiteracy Will Prevail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per this discussion, this article should be reconsidered for deletion. The album is non-existent, having never been released commercially. The track list is unknown; many songs have never even been heard by the public. Too much information surrounding the record is theoretical and unknown. Perhaps the only reason it exists is because of Cobain's future band, Nirvana. The last AfD, in July, was not well exposed and only had three responses. NSR77 TC 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources. Almost no verifiable info to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains unverifiable speculation and has no reliable sources to show that this unreleased album has been written about in any great detail. Therefore fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N and the notability criteria at WP:ALBUM. --JD554 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main Fecal Matter article. Almost all the information can be verified by reliable sources, but admittedly not all of it is necessary. ~Asarlaí 12:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Fecal Matter (band). There are books about Nirvana and Kurt Cobain that do mention the tape, but mostly under the name of the band (Fecal Matter) Here's what Google Books throws up. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fecal Matter (band). Teemu08 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Fecal Matter (band) is barely notable too (see the link in NSR's statement up top) and will probably get AfD'd when I get around to it. Giggy (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge/Shorten. I think the function of wikipedia is also to give people some basic insight into things they've just come across. at least, this article helped me. the track listing is just perfect. i think the tape is an essential thing to the insight of the artist. it doesn't occur to me how there could be articles about every officially released music, but not about the earliest works, the pure cassette tape of the artist. artists manufacture some work. and this is definately a work of kurt cobain, so i think it should have a place on wiki.91.45.241.72 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This recording does not adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It was not commericially released, few people have heard it, and little is known about its actual contents. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, and I won't be surprised when Giggy AfDs this so-called "band." Let me get this straight: the band did a single gig as a lead in to another group, put together a single demo tape, and promptly expired. This is a footnote in Cobain's career, nothing more, and should properly be in his article.  RGTraynor  15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's perfectly said. NSR77 TC 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Oasis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Black Oasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. (Historical note - first AfD nomination preceded the NFF guideline.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation with different content. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovirus[edit]

Cryptovirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is spurious. The only sources that support the existence of such a thing as a "cryptovirus", as described in this article, are press releases and patents by the "discoverer", Steven Robbins. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a neologism used to promote a single discovery by a non-notable individual. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a discovery not worthy of attention. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take another look. I've tried to contextualize it a little-- this is a patented organism that has been used in a couple of studies. It is also an obsoleted taxonomic group. I don't know what bearing either of these should have on the notability of the piece. My personal feeling is that the guy is a bit of a kook, but that this is a verifiable virus-- check out PubMed or Google Scholar. I'll hold off on voting for now-- I'm on the fence. Avram (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remake into disambiguation page for Partitiviridae and Cryptovirology, or delete. No reliable sources for Steven Robbins' term. Narayanese (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term cryptovirus has also occasionally been used in a computer-related sense, for a computer virus that uses cryptography. So there are meanings that might justify an article. The reason I filed this AfD was that the existing content was spurious, and if it were removed, the article would have been empty. If somebody wants to write valid content, I have no objection to the article remaining in place. There are no Google Scholar or Pubmed references relevant to the current content that I could find, except that Google Scholoar shows the patent application (which is not a valid source). Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite without any mention of the patent or the patentee. The GS and PubMed references are not about it.. Just the older depreciated taxonomic meaning, and the computer meaning if a reference to it can be found. It will obviously be necessary to watch the article. If the pseudo-science becomes prominent, mention it as such. Not yet, though. DGG (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism without established notability. Existence of a patent and a few mentions around the time of the patent do not establish the word within the field of science. Nor does the existance of a patend establish notability. Wikipedia should not be a place for new science words to become established, leave that to the science journals. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, unsourced, fails WP:FRINGE. The few PubMed links appear to have little or nothing to do with the putative article subject. If this term has been used for more notable entities, then the article can be recreated to address those meanings. MastCell Talk 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as it stands. The current page is just describing a patented virus that is not published to a notable extent. More articles can be found (using Google Scholar) describing the plant "cryptoviruses" than the form described here. The article is also worded poorly, the patented virus was not made, but discovered, no? ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Belvedere[edit]

The Belvedere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's not notable, and ad written. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion leans slightly towards keeping but there is no real consensus over whether this is a valid article or not. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1884 in Mexico[edit]

1884 in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

1884 in Mexico lacks notability. The information here should be included in the 1884 page or on the Mexico page. No other years seem to have pages for the 'XXXX in Mexico' format. Gr0ff (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are indeed other xxxx in Mexico articles, I didn't realize that. So I guess it's not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination, there are plenty of other articles on years in Mexico (I make it 17 blue links), and many similar articles on years in other countries. This is a pretty standard and very encyclopedically useful way of organising information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that there are other articles about single years in one particular country does not in any way imply that this article should be kept; on the contrary, it just serves to point out that there are other articles that need to be deleted. Having articles for every year and for every country is completely unnecessary; such a decentralized presentation of information lacks context and would better be placed in an article on the history of that country. In fact, that's precisely what history articles are for! --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Different strokes for different folks. Sure, sometimes you'll want an article that identifies trends and provides in-depth analysis. But when you just want to do some quick fact-checking, it's a lot easier to use a simple, straightforward timeline. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, Mai Pen Rai makes a good argument for Redirect, not delete, as "(year) in (country)" is a pretty likely search term. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bad precedent to set. There are many years, and many countries. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle, I agree that this is a horrible and non-maintainable precedent to set. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering that there is a concerted drive to remove all links to years, the year pages such as 1884 will be orphaned soon. This may be the way to go about showing some context when linking to dates in articles. Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has an infinite number of combinations that will ultimately be unmaintainable --Banime (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real encyclopedias, like Encarta, have articles like this. (Encarta only goes back to 1938 for some reason - doesn't mean that nothing happened in 1884, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good way to organize information. Essentially a list article, and justified by the standards there. I would certainly encourage these in all cases where there is enough material. That we don't have others does not mean we should delete what we do have. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the main value of list articles is to identify missing articles, which this is not what this article is about. The evetns named are NN in world terms and should not be merged with 1884. If they are notable in terms of Mexican history, they should be merged into a suitable article on that or some aspect of it. I have come across articles of this kind for other countries, but they are not very useful. There appear to be a few others for Mexico, mostly with even less content, and would recommend a mass cull of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a valid part of the years-by-country tree, pointed out above. If there is an issue with the notability of the contents, then it should be redirected to a more encompassing article about Mexico's history, but, definitely not deleted. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although there is other (year) in Mexico articles, I don't feel any of them is comprehensive enough to have their own articles. 90% of them aren't referenced and all of the dates can be included in the 1884 article. Its simply just redundant information that isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [11] has the full list. If this one is deleted, I don't see why the others can't be put up for deletion as well. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true. I picked Mexico because that is the article that we are arguing about right now. Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is simply a convenient way of organizing historical information and is done for other countries as well. Bob (QaBob) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic clearly can meet the GNG and WP:V without missing a beat. The real question in my mind is if this is a reasonable organizational structure. That is an editorial decision and not a good topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems valid enough, and the problems with organisation are not deletion-worthy. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see readers using this type of article to take an overview of the events of a particular year. The quality of the various pages does, to be fair, vary enormously and this one is somewhere near the bottom. However, if we are to have them then we should make the list of them as comprehensive as possible otherwise the gaps will simply serve to irritate. I understand the arguments of the delete !voters but blowing small holes in such a complex category structure is not the way to go. If this type of page is not considered suitable then an overarching discussion should be started. Smile a While (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States journalism scandals[edit]

List of United States journalism scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not needed since there is United States journalism scandals which contains the same information. A suggestion to merge the pages hung around for several months with nothing happening. I don't see a reason to merge since this article contains no new information. Redddogg (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What must be said about this, is that it is possible that people will support the 'more content' version, as it backs up specific scandals they feel personally about, which cannot find consensus elsewhere. Originally it has many 'scandals' detailed that had no other mention elsewhere on Wikipedia at all. Scandals like the Obama "Mulsim seminary/madrassa" issue was once forked in around 5 or 6 different places, and was very hard to keep bias-free. It is likely that some contributors to various sections in the more detailed version are naturally going to want to promote their work, and I think this should be taken into account when judging this Afd. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is nothing in the list article not mentioned in the other one, unless I overlooked something. Redddogg (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've replaced the merge tag that was deleted with this AfD - the original idea was for a merge to the list page, but too few people have so-far watched either page to properly create a consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as best option (and merge into here), or Delete Both per Steve Dufour below The list was originally created to be in line with Wkipedia policy. United States journalism scandals has been a 'POV' nightmare, as it has just forked information from other articles, often with 'POV loaded' bias, in little paragraphs that are hard to keep fair. Guidelines dictate that these things should only be lists, and more work has been done on this one clearing out non-scandals than the other. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete or Delete Both Two articles are certainly not needed. The whole thing is really a mixed bag, with "scandals' ranging from the New York Times alleged support of Stalin down to Bush inviting a blogger to White House press conferences. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit my initial reaction was that this is not really what Wikipedia is all about. Theoretically it can be massive, and a nightmare to handle. What actually is a scandal? Creating the List verion was a more guideline-based compromise by me - as at the time people were trying to cover Wikipedia with the Obama Insight smear (an article all about it justifiably died at an Afd). I'm happy for both to be deleted, and I've revisde my 'keep' to include this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case people don't realise - this was created after the other article - to follow Wikipedia guidelines on lists, and to prevent POV 'coatrack' style content forking in the 'parag per scandal' article. As if fits more with Wikipedia's clear guidelines on making lists (and the other article certainly is a list), this one makes the older list redundant. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The other article has already survived two AfD's. People seem to prefer it to the list article. Borock (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list was actually created per advice at the last Afd for the other article (which I think you voted to delete, at that point). Afd's are often headcounts, and my problem is that these lists don't appear to be widely watchlisted at all: ie it's mainly the contributors who attend - in the six months there has not really been anything new - its been mainly just minor c/e's. I'm particularly worried that this AFD got brought up after an editing flurry over the Insight/Obama thing too - that it seems to have been central to a lot of the existing interest in this. It would keep all this simple and manageable, or delete them both. If either of these lists did become well-known they would be very hard to manage anyway - the parag-based one especially.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not object to deleting both articles. Redddogg (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could make that clear at the top? It may be the result. In the long run, all of this is forked material at best, so full deletion of both articles would be the best. Of the two, the shorter list is more per policy, IMO. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did that. The reason I started this AfD is the stupidity of having two articles which say the same thing. At least that could be taken care of. Redddogg (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
er... You are not stupid Matt. However, your attempt to improve the situation by starting a second article didn't work the way you intended. Redddogg (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one or other. The longer one seems to be more suited to this, as it has space to explain why it was a scandal.Yobmod (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding some items to United States journalism scandals to try to broaden its scope. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takondwa Nkonjera[edit]

Takondwa Nkonjera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable and really exists only on an African TV show. There is hardly any mention of him anywhere, and this supposed second album might come out only if he wins the show. It's been marked for a month, and nothing has been improved (well, I made a couple of edits Drmies (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recipient[edit]

Recipient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless disambiguation page, as there appears to be no article (nor, as far as I'm aware, any possible topic for an article) that can be referred to as just "recipient" without specifying what is being received. This page could conceivably be infinitely long, listing anything that it is technically possible to bestow upon a person or life form (using the same format as the latest addition: "Recipient, an animal or person who receives an embryo transplant".) It's a completely generic concept, inherently ambiguous. Propaniac (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can never be more than a dicdef, worse as it gets expanded! Bob (QaBob) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could go on forever. Ambiguous, unnecessary. Scottydude review 19:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a word, WP is not a dictionary. Redddogg (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless dab that points to nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, who covers all the reasons. --Lockley (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as a diambiguation page that only disambiguates between shades of meaning for a dictionary defintion -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jail Weddings[edit]

Jail Weddings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was originally deleted under CSD A7.The author contacted me to contest the deletion, reminding me of the sources he had added at the bottom of the article. When I checked the references, they did not appear to meet WP:RS, being mostly blogs, interviews, or event calendars. The full discussion is here for those who wish to view it. I'm taking this here instead of WP:DRV to allow people to review this as though it had never been deleted at all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't look notable to me. The assertion of notability (that they affected the music scene) is vague and unsourced, and marginal at best. No references, let alone reliable, third-party ones. delldot ∇. 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 No assertation of notability that I can see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, 10-lb, I just declined the speedy (all the reviews on the bottom need to be vetted). Let the afd run its course. Keeper ǀ 76 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Delete then, doesn't really assert notability, not much in the way of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wish them well. I hope they get a fat record deal, and some REAL press. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Checkpoint[edit]

Reality Checkpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A lamppost. Which some students happen to refer to as the "Reality Checkpoint". Without sources to establish it's notability/encyclopedic relevance for FOUR years... It has been mentioned in many places, including some published novels, but it has afaik never been the subject of a reliable third-party source. Plrk (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there are as of now three sources in the article. They all mention the lamppost, but the lamppost is not the subject of any of them. Plrk (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:does this mean we should also delete Smoot? and other odd college traditions? Bob (QaBob) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not "some students", it's a large part of the population of Cambridge. I'm happy with the references that have now been added. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Bluap below, I've now decided that it makes more sense to merge it into Parker's Piece, especially as there is already some overlap of content. But failing that, keep rather than delete. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously notable, it's the central metaphor of a book. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument of Richard Pinch. Bob (QaBob) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I did not expect to say that. significant university feature. Adequate soourcing. DGG (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Parker's Piece. In my view, we could never get a reasonably sized article on the Reality Checkpoint itself. As a subsection of the Parker's Piece article, we have a better chance of getting a critical mass of information. (I prefer Keep to Delete, though) Bluap (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—while I agree that it may not meet the literal wording of the notability guideline, I believe that by applying instead the verifiability policy upon which the notability guideline is based, the article is acceptable. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SunTzuGuy wrote the following on the article itself. I moved it here. I hope that's OK. It might be notable that this was the user's second edit. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama songs[edit]

Obama songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seems to be a pointless list Skitzo (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Far from pointless, it is a documentation of electoral history, thought worthy of publication by Orgeon Live Newspaper and has whole sites dedicated to it including Musicians Coaltiton for Obama, Answers.com Obama music, and hundreds of examples on Youtube!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabuto 7 (talk • contribs) 18:12, Sept 26, 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion (novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Centurion (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable novel. Fails WP:BK. Newspaper "reviews" listed are nothing more than short plot summaries. Has a bestseller listing from the Sunday Times, but please note that being a bestseller is not part of WP:BK or WP:N. Other "bestseller" link doesn't actually include this novel. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This article was previously deleted following an AFD which I initiated. It was restored as the result of a DRV (of which I was not notified) and the deletion overturned as "no consensus". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa up, Delicious! That prior AfD was for a totally different book. This article was moved from Centurion (Scarrow novel) after the other one was AfDed. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel) (DRV here). Thanks for pointing that out, Orangemike. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the infobox link to the correct AFDs now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the contrary, a bestseller from a major newspaper is proof of significance. It doesn' tgetthere without sufficient comment and discussion to meet our notability standards. DGG (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think bestseller status is based on sales, not comment or discussion. Just sayin'. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that this book just barely passes WP:BK, there are multiple sources and some (Yorkshire evening post) provide critical commentary. Here is an offline reliable source where I can just see the abstract:
    • Page, Benedicte. "NEW TITLES: DECEMBER." Bookseller (07 Sep. 2007): 28-29. Abstract: The article reviews several books including "Centurion," by Simon Scarrow,...... --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Yorkshire Evening Post "review" is literally three paragraphs long. Out of this only the final two sentences could be construed as review, the rest is just plot summary. The other article you reference is likely just a listing of newly released books. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as this is not long-listed fiction. Ottre 08:57, 29 September 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.

Jason Hester[edit]

The result was Speedy delete: CSD A7 and probable G1 & G3. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax based on claim to be "last American Soldier to be killed in the Vietnam war". Author had submitted a very different article with the same name on 7 September 2008, deleted under CSD A7 and BLP attack Rumping (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional summer camps[edit]

List of fictional summer camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An incomplete, miscellaneous collection of information. This list does nothing more than a category would. Tavix (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list is absolutely arbitrary, and could theoretically be nearly infinite. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is no need for this list. abf /talk to me/ 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly pointless, grows more pointless with each added entry. Bob (QaBob) 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another waste of electrons. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Useless list. Dzhugashvili (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A category would do the job better. Redddogg (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does more than a category, as it relates the name of the camp to the name of t he fiction. (anyway, cant be a category till we write articles on the individual camps, which is not a course I would suggest.) Should of course be limited to camps havinga central significance in notable fictions with Wikipedia article,s but that's part of the improvement that can be brought about by editing. DGG (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to DGGThen if it is limited to camps having central significance, then it would be possible to create a category to the shows, not nessessarily about the camps. For example, Camp Rock is the name of the show, and it could have a category attached to it "Television shows that have a summer camp" or something like that. Seriously though, stop trying to keep every article that you lay your eyes on and start looking at the policies. You list no policies that we can use to keep the article and instead provide that it would serve more than a category. That boils down to WP:ILIKEIT which isn't a valid argument for deletion/keep. Learn the facts and stay out of places you don't belong. Tavix (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does it pass WP:V and WP:N? That isn't the policy at hand here. It's the fact that it is a pointless collection of information. A lot of movies have summer camps, but it could just as easily be used as a category. Tavix (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Five (TV channel). BJTalk 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five.tv[edit]

Five.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Site doesn't really need its own article. ViperSnake151 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Payne[edit]

Josh Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young football player who has never made a first-team appearance, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to withdraw as he nows meets WP:ATHLETE.[12] пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have people got nothing better to do this prod this? He hasn't even been with Cheltenham more than 2 days or been there when a game has been on you muppets!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.69.207 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down. You could consider that mention should not precede notability. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he starts a match. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez that makes sense - lets delete it today and put it back tomorrow - YFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.69.207 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense than to create articles for as-yet non-notables in hopes of their achieving rock-star status. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A7 by TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KXradio[edit]

KXradio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

On the face of it, a simple speedy delete due to a lack of assertion of notability - most internet radio stations aren't notable, especially ones broadcast from in an attic. But the article has been around since May 2006 and exists on the NL WP, so I'd like a second opinion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 13:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense, copyvio, WP:NOT, take your pick. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 13:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina, Whatever you like[edit]

South Carolina, Whatever you like (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline gibberish; appears to be an article about a non-notable hip-hop song made up by a bunch of high school kids with an interesting group name. Most of the article content appears to be lyrics as to which a copyright is claimed, so there's a GFDL violation as well. Russ (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete for the third time by Akradecki, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBar[edit]

JBar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; hasn't actually done anything yet, seemingly no reliable sources.  RGTraynor  13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third-sources, seems not to be notable at all because he falis WP:MUSIC. abf /talk to me/ 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Fried[edit]

Ina Fried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Bio. The subject is a journalist without journalism awards. The subject was for a couple of years a board member in the NLGJA, an activist organization, but even the president of this organization lacks an article, and the organization's notability is under challenge. The only sources for this article come from CNET which acknowledges her as part of its staff and from the NLGJA. The NLGJA sources now no longer mention Ina at all (though I verified that they once did). None of the sources used feature Ina as its subject. As a result, I see no grounds for inclusion under any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Last month I attached the "prod" tag to this article, but it was quickly removed. Rklawton (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notable also as a transgender journalist. Me Love You Short Time (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet of Wroth of Groth (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Three time winner of NewsBios/TJFR award - "30 Most Influential Business Journalists Under 30."[13][14][15]
  2. While at CNET, she won a Maggie Award from the Western Publications Association for Outstanding Editorial Content in 2006. [16]
  3. She also won two awards in 2005 from the Society of Professional Journalists (Northern California Chapter)[17] autumn59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Autumn59 (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: our guidelines state that the awards themselves must be notable. #1 "30 Most Influential Business Journalists Under 30" has exactly 6 references in Google. The award appears primarily important to CNET, Ina's employer. #3 is a regional award and clearly fails our notability standards. #2 (the Maggie award) might be a notable award and worth considering. Does anyone have any insights? The fact that Ina doesn't appear to be the subject of any articles – especially peculiar given she's an online journalist – makes me doubt that she's especially notable within the community of her peers. Rklawton (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WPA - which produces the "Maggie Award" is a regional, not national organization. It also lacks an article on Wikipedia, though that could be an oversight. While this award has three sources, one is from the WPA and the other two are PR pieces about the award. Rklawton (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable awards do not confer notability. Every organisation in the world gives out awards nowadays - neither these awards nor their winners are notable. Hence delete if that is the only claim to notability.Yobmod (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability as a transgender writer working for a major media outlet. That provides her with a notoriety among her peers. Given that transgender people have faced barriers in getting fair recognition within their given industries - I would argue that the lack of awards from places people here agree with is an invalid argument for removal. Varnent (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Varnent said it well. Notable for being an out transgender senior writer in a major media outlet and for holding a leadership position at NLGJA. She gets 300k+ hits on Google and has been interviewed as an expert on NPR's All Things Considered & Talk of the Nation. She's interviewed Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I agree the article isn't in the best shape, but Fried is notable. Please give the article a little more time to reflect that. Queerudite (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was prodded a month ago, and an SPA has been active at trying to improve it - so what you have is the best available. Rklawton (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Awards:
  1. The 2003 award from the Society of Professional Journalists is a be notable award. SPJ is the most-recognized professional journalism organization in the United States. oaklandnjb 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of reliable sources available, this is a prominent journalist who also serves on a national board. They've also received awards for their work. semi-protect if needed, WP:RBI the vandals and start fleshing out the article. What seems to also be noteworthy is that they transitioned and avoided their transition being the story while still being a frontline news reporter. That should be included in the lede but I'm unsyre the wording. -- Banjeboi 05:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News archive [18] shows 1360 hits for "Ina Fried" indicating satisfaction of WP:N and WP:BIO, via Fried being the not only the author of articles in ZNET but featured on National Public Radio and quoted in Newswireless.net, UK, Gearlog, New York, iTwire, Australia, Motley Fool, and Seattle Times. Fried was called "la experta en Windows" by Diario TI, Spain. Fried's work at Znet/CDnet has led to worldwide notability. Google book search also shows that Fried's work has been cited numerous times. [19]. Metroweekly had a feature article about Fried's gender change [20]. Edison (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgusted Keep that no one appearantly even made the most basic of efforts to try to find notability or sources. The Maggie award is notable enough. I definately don't buy the "notable in transgender" argument, since it's not even a guideline, but the amount of coverage she's recieved from other sources is enough. As time passes, notability becomes harder to find, but that doesn't suddenly mean they weren't notable. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise a good point. Perhaps the Prod template - which reads that it can be removed "for any reason" and prohibits re-posting the template even when no reason is provided - should be revised. Had the prod template remained in place, editors would have had ample opportunity to revise the article without the fuss of an AfD. Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • G-hits, minor awards, and quotes from various news agencies does not make a journalist notable. In fact, that sort of thing is normal for a journalist. What we need here is some indication that this is a notable journalist. Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully aware of that. WP:CREATIVE is rather vague on journalists -- are the only notable journalists the ones who have one an award? (Not a rhetorical question, if there is one, I should learn about it!) She is widely cited. Not 100% sure about the Maggie Award.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anarchy Online. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Eden (Anarchy Online)[edit]

Lost Eden (Anarchy Online) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure this is notable on its own, and details of Lost Eden are included in the parent article Anarchy Online Sebquantic (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Anarchy Online until more info and sources are found. Once this happens. no prejudice to recreation. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as customary. Not enough content yet for a separate article--and there may never be enough, since its just an expansion pack.DGG (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is nothing in the article's history worth preserving, and it's not a viable search term. (If the article was simply Lost Eden, then there would be a case for redirection.) MuZemike (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough for an article by itself. no point to redirect titles that no one will search for.Yobmod (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anarchy Online. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowlands (Anarchy Online)[edit]

Shadowlands (Anarchy Online) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is obviously very short, and I've added relevant information on the Shadowlands expansion to its parent article Anarchy Online Sebquantic (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Rowland[edit]

Hilary Rowland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Highly promotional bio, no real notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the notability standards. There may be a conflict of interest with the author. Many of the references are sources that are controlled by the individual mentioned. User:Earlylitespeak September, 26, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete with a probable salt. No Gnews coverage. No independant sources. Lots of press releases. And once you remove wikipedia , myspace and facebook, you've got less than a thousand hits. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional peice. Subject does not meet notability standards. User:WGhent
Keep Anything promotional had been removed and five (5) verifiable reliable sources had been used as references when i had edited this on 16:27 Sept. 28, but then today it had been edited to be spammy and promotional by 6roadmakes. What gives? I have now re-edited it to have only reliable, verifiable resources listed. Isn't the purpose of the Deletion list, to try to improve articles that need improving. So why are people deliberately trying to make it worse? User:Writer2405 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Indented. See same "keep" comment by this user, above. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for now. User:LatinoCharmer 30 September 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.

Vodafone Global Enterprise[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7 - author requests deletion after merging article successfully. TalkIslander 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vodafone Global Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion, this article does nothing to assert notability. It has been written entirely by one author, who I suspect has a conflict of interest, and has at one point read very much like an advert. It strikes me that this is a small part of Vodafone, and thus merely deserves a mention in the parent Vodafone article, and not it's own article.

I almost wonder whether this article fails CSD A7, but I'm not entirely certain, and what with it being linked to Vodafone, there's bound to be someone who would argue that it has inherant notability, so I thought it safest to start a discussion. TalkIslander 11:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the article reads like an advertisment, and I honestly want to avoid this. The article IS relevant, global enterprise are in practice very much like any of the operating countries, each of which do have their own page. At the minute the article does have only one author, which is the real problem here, more people need to contribute to this page. More information needs to be added, and the article needs to remain neutral, but it certainly should not be deleted. Jonathen Skews (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you just confirm whether or not you have a conflict of interest here? I want to stress that this isn't a mallicious accusation - if you have, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't edit this article, and most, most, most certainly doesn't mean you can't contribute elsewhere, but it might just help matters if you could clarify this one point. TalkIslander 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a conflict of interest, but I completely understand your point of view and am willing to co-operate completely. The point I am trying to make is that I do not want to be the only contributor, I am trying to make the article as informative and neutral as possible and would value further input. You certainly must agree that the subject is as relevant as the other subsidiaries, if not more so (look at the Hungary article for example)? Jonathen Skews (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...interesting point about the Hungary article... will look into that another day. I have to say, it's really a breath of fresh air to have an editor with a COI who's actually willing to cooperate and be helpful, as opposed to most others I've encountered who simply fight and are generally stubborn. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I hope you plan to stay on Wikipedia - we need more editors like you :). TalkIslander 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless some reliable 3rd party citations can be found. --Blowdart | talk 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would you like citations about? I would be happy to merge with the main Vodafone article, as long as we do not remove much information, and we can still link to the VGE homepage. Jonathen Skews (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its notability. Whilst there is no doubt that Vodafone is notable, notability is not inherited. You must prove that this division has some notability of its own; simply existing as part of the parent organisation is not enough. --Blowdart | talk 14:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would the Vodafone Global Enterprise section of a merged vodafone article include? Jonathen Skews (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in all honesty, the VGE article as it stands right now would make a fine section in the parent Vodafone article. In other words, and my own opinion, just take the VGE article (minus the infoboxes, templates etc) and merge it into the VGE section within the Vodafone article. TalkIslander 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the article into the main Vodafone article, and am happy for the VGE page to be removed now. Thankyou Jonathen Skews (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7/G10. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clements[edit]

Adam Clements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious vandalism Setanta747 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: attack page.--Grahame (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Coast League. I did not delete history of the prior article, and will leave it to editors as to what to do with its content, which was all either unsourced or sourced only to that external link. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson South Coast League team[edit]

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

The page for this planned team should be deleted, as the South Coast League no longer exists. The team never played a game, therefore has no history to speak of. The SCL doesn't have any plans to revive itself.JaMikePA (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst originally the consensus was heading towards deletion, sources were found part way through the AfD and all comments after that were leaning towards keep, hence the result. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lackthereof[edit]

Lackthereof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Rather obviously fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Please use the information in these references to improve the article, or at least list them on the article's talk page so others can do the same and so we here at AfD can peruse them and judge them for independence and reliability, and possibly change our delete votes. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on notability of record labels: Don't take a count of blue-links as an indication of notability - at least one of the links for Barsuk Records was a redirect to an unrelated article before I made it red, and others may be of marginally notable bands. Also, "notability" for the purposes of "2 notable indie labels" is subjective and in my mind at least is a higher bar than being notable enough for the label to have its won Wikipedia article. The key is that the label have several bands on its roster that are beyond mere marginal notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the notability of Barsuk Records: Without giving this a hard inspection, this seems notable enough - there's at least one group that's at least a C- or B-list celebrity, and several more which seem to have plenty of third-party references.
  • Comment on the notability of FILMguerrero: Based only on this article, this indie label does not rise to the level of Barsuk Records and in my subjective opinion, does not appear notable enough to count as a "notable indie label" for the purposes of making Lackthereof notable. It is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article though. If there is more to FILMguerro than is evident in the article, please improve that article and post a message on my talk page so I can reconsider. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why I'm still saying delete: I see comments above that support notability, but I'm only convinced the criteria is halfway-met. I would be much more impressed if the article was improved - I've been known to vote "keep" in AfDs on articles that don't quite meet notability guidelines but are well-written enough to meet or nearly meet B-class quality. Look at articles by other artists in Barsuk's stable, such as They Might Be Giants or Mates of State for examples. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've never seen an AfD that states "Article's subject is notable, but the article is of WP:POOR QUALITY." That's because the subject is either notable or it isn't, and the quality of the article oughtn't enter into it, at least in the AfD process. I don't know anything about Lackthereof, but it was obvious to me when I saw that it was proposed for deletion that the subject was of at least questionable notability on the face of it, and a few seconds of investigation confirmed that they are almost certainly notable to Wikipedia's standards, especially since as a general rule editors are supposed to err on the side of keep. Because it was so easy to verify notability, it just seems like you (and a few others) have some sort of POV against the subject. Ultimately, I'm not interested in impressing you, I'm interested in seeing that you stop wasting other editors time with frivolous proposed deletions by giving them a hard time with respect to your own made-up guidelines. —  X  S  G  21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that was a little harsher than you deserved, seeing as you weren't the one who put this up for deletion. You were the one to add a message to my talk page, challenging me to prove notability to your own "subjective" standards, however, which is ultimately where my frustration comes from. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be like. If I were a novice editor, I would have considered that as tantamount to a WP:BITE. —  X  S  G  21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to XSG just to clarify: Until I read Paul's references, I was convinced that this subject did not meet notability requirements. However, WP:GOODQUALITY is sometimes enough to make me change a delete to a neutral or keep in a borderline case. Now that I've read Paul's links it's become clear that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. It's not the case here by a longshot, but I have seen articles on barely-wiki-notable subjects deleted in AfD with a recommendation to WP:STARTOVER. This usually happens when the article is of such poor quality that it's deemed unsalvagable, AND there are items in the edit history that warrant deletion, such as copyright violations, BLP violations, or other things that typically trigger speedy deletions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability of indie labels, or more accurately, importance of them, is not crystal-clear in WP:Notability (music). There is room for subjective judgments. Criteria #5 for musicians and ensembles says the artist Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). It's up to each editor to determine what "a few years," "roster of performers," and "many of which are notable" mean. As a general statement on indie labels: Given that there are any number of non-notable artists with Wikipedia articles, an indie label with a dozen artists with blue-links on its Wikipedia page doesn't automatically qualify: The bands behind those blue links must be researched to make sure that at least a few are really notable before the label can be considered "one of the more important indie labels." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-speedy keep based on the references found by User:Paul Erik and their contents as applied to the general notability guideline plus near-compliance with the Music notability guideline. Even those editors who say the music guideline supersedes the general guideline for musicians should consider that when the music guideline is almost met but the person meets the general guidelines, the benefit of the doubt is probably in order. The content in some of Erik's references really needs to be added to the article. Part of what AfDs are for is to get articles improved. XSG, Paul Erik and Ilikepie2221: I challenge you to make some improvements to this article by the time this AfD is over and raise this article to B-class or higher by the end of October. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul Erik's sources. - Icewedge (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. How did this nom stay open so long? (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal Supermarket[edit]

New Deal Supermarket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail notability guidelines, best source I could find was this, which simply mentioned that the chain closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a nationwide supermarket chain with at least 12 locaitons in business for 70 years is pretty notable. The report of its closing is major mention in a reliable source. Almost certainly there are more reports from back in the chain's heyday if we look, but obviously there is less on the Internet from that era than today. There are quite a few - dozens - of articles from the past decade, (here is one[21]) mostly reporting one store or another closing. That's the most notable thing that happened to the chain in the 2000s, it closed. If you look back there are other articles, e.g. this one in 1990 about someone buying the chain[22] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 7 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, BJTalk 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Jeonggi[edit]

Yi Jeonggi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article basically duplicates Li Zhengji -- but rather than merge, I am proposing a delete because 1) it is completely unsourced and 2) it is written in such a manner that there's really no good reliable or well-written information to merge and 3) the claims are completely counter to actual reliable sources (see Book of Tang, vol. 124 and New Book of Tang, vol. 213. Even one were to take an extremely lenient view as far as historical interpretation is concerned, the involvement of Silla would be complete, complete fantasy. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also recommending another variant article for deletion, for the same reason.

Yi Jeong Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, please see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Je state.

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, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as vandalism. Tizio 10:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I HATE MEXICANS[edit]

I HATE MEXICANS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious blatant vandalism Setanta747 (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spaghetti code. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravioli code[edit]

Ravioli code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, the reasons were Fails WP:NEO. This is merely a humorous way of describing modularity (programming). and Back-formation from Spaghetti code; not widely used in the field. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 10:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch influence on German[edit]

Dutch influence on German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

the given "facts" have been dumped on the discussion page as they contradict established scientific knowledge, a note on the discussion page says that the original author was banned for "inventing", and the remainings of the deletion of questionable items would leave nothing but a stub article that says "neighbouring countries do influence each other in their language". Better delete it. Guidod (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 patent nonsense. The only author also blanked the page earlier today so G7 applies too. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaburst[edit]

Kaburst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it originated because a receipt was read wrong, then that means it is something made up one day. Also, if kept should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Mythdon (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers planets[edit]

List of Power Rangers planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of these planets listed in this article are random and are not notable outside of their episode airing. Mythdon (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 09:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of coverage outside the context of the series. See WP:LC items 1-3. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage of the subjects (or the broader list topic) in independent sources, at least so far as I can tell. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and due to coverage in reliable sources. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable trivial aspects of the franchise. Power rangers are notable, the panets they visited for one episode, that had no impact on the plot, are not.Yobmod (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Jørgensen (novelist)[edit]

Morten Jørgensen (novelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found to verify notability. —  X  S  G  07:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know. I found one reliable source. Punkmorten (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, Dagbladet is a reliable source. But they have a book review dated 20.11.1997 and an author profile (undated as far as I can see). Jørgensen's 5 books are listed, from poetry in 1984 to Bank (mentioned in the article) in 1998. The man has also been a rock musician and has translated texts for radio and theater, it says. There is an article about Jørgensen in the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia. In my opinion, he is notable enough for Norwegian Wikipedia but definitely not notable enough for English Wikipedia. Deletion supported. --Hordaland (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can he be notable enough for Norwegian Wikipedia but not for English Wikipedia? Both aim to cover the same subject matter - they're just written in different languages. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer (my opinion): Norway's population is well under half that of several of the world's big cities. A local topic or person can be a big enough fish in that little pond, but at the same time be too tiny to be noticed in a bigger pond. --Hordaland (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete due to lack of sourcing; open to change if evidence is presented that he has actually got reasonable sales figures. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally nominated this for speedy just when it was created, but allowed the creator (who was the novelist himself) to, upon request, establish notability. This has not happened. He is clearly notable for Norwegian Wikipedia, but apparently not for English Wikipedia. He may become notable if he publishes a book in English and it receives some attention, but that's not a reason to have an article on him now, as per WP:CRYSTAL.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COI. —  X  S  G  01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You already nominated the article, I think we know what your opinion is. Anyway, COI is not a reason to delete. Punkmorten (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. Nom was withdrawn and there are equally strong arguments on both sides. Still no evidence relisting will form a better consensus. TravellingCari 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units[edit]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In-world list of fictional equipment with no evidence of real world notability and severe original research issues. With no third party sources it is hard to see this list ever being compliant with core policies such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per this contribution citing relevent third party sources. The article now clearly passes the inclusion guidelines so this discussion is more or less done. My thanks to Mythsearcher for digging these out. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable, no proof of notability. Does not comply with policy. Jordan Contribs 06:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My God, Fancruft (and yes, I know fancruft is not a reason for deletion, but in this case I will ignore that rule). This article is entirely too long, it's written in an in-story perspective, and there's no evidence of outside notability whatsoever. This is why we have Wikia. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually didn't know about List of Star Wars spacecraft. However, many Star Wars spacecraft clearly have become notable in the real world, such as the X-Wing, the Death Stars, and Star Destroyers. They're clearly iconic. I don't think the same can be said about the mechs listed here. As for Wikia being an "information ghetto", well, it's one I browse regularly. There's lots of interesting and useful stuff there (like wowwiki) that simply don't belong on Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And somehow Gundam, a series that is older than Star Wars itself, is not notable? Just because Gundam 00 hasn't become as notable in English-speaking countries doesn't mean that it isn't notable anywhere else, and now that it's coming to the US, it'll have even more notability. the_one092001 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must correct you that Gundam is NOT older than Star Wars, Gundam is actually some what inspired by Star Wars instead, like the beam sabre is inspired by the Light sabre and Zaku is inspired by Storm Troopers. These are in fact confirmed by an early interview from Tomino himself. However, I must say that Gundam series carries more influence than Star Wars in the Asia area, and probably earns much more money than Star Wars with its approximately 0.5 billion US dollars annual income franchise, there is, for cruft's sake, an International Gundam Society for the academical parts of it. MythSearchertalk 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I often associate Star Wars more with the 1980's and Gundam with the 1970's. the_one092001 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another list of fansquee masquerading as 'information'. JuJube (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Such cruftiness! X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What's needed here is a revision, not a deletion. Mecha lists are standard, particularly for Gundam series. At the moment it is rather too informative,but that is not a reason for deletion. Gundam SEED/Destiny's mecha list was much worse before it was slimmed down and reorganized; the same can and should be done here particularly because the start of the new season means that the article will only be continuously be resurrected (as well as continue to have a reason to exist). Notability is not a suitable criteria for deletion (due to its tremendously subjective nature) and for fictional works, first party sources are generally accepted as being the most reliable (since no one knows the work better than the authors themselves). the_one092001 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide real world sources to show the notability of the content of this article out of universe? That is the standard for keeping this list and the article also needs to be compliant with the policies/guidelines I listed in the nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument that applies to the other Gundam lists applies here. Gundams themselves have become a cultural phenomenon. Just as how Star Trek made the Enterprise and a multitude of other starships popular (as did Star Wars), Gundam did the same with mecha. Gundam 00 is relevant not only in Japan but is also slated for release in the US in November. Gundams are a central (arguably THE central) element of both the plot as well as the metaseries' fame. Hence, as part of not only the Gundam phenomenon, as well as an integral part of an award-winning television program aired in multiple countries, they have suitable notability to be listed. And before anyone launches into a tirade about how it just isn't notable, wake up and realize that notability is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Just because one person doesn't think it's important doesn't mean it isn't important to anyone else. The sources here (for this article) are all first-party because relatively few third-party sources ever exist for a fictional work, usually due to copyright issues. the_one092001 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per items 2, 3, 6, and 8 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per real world notability, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please demonstrate this real-world notability, using reliable third-party sources. Oh, and get yourself a user account. This discussion will, of course, not be deleted, but will be preserved as a record, no matter what the outcome. For now, I !vote Delete.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr(s). IP can register when and if (s)he chooses. That was really inapropriate.Abyssal (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our anonymous friends will have trouble having their views heard here in AfD without accounts. I'm not sure why my comments or tone are any more inappropriate than yours. No-one's actually produced any reliable third-party sources to show the notability of this list's contents. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very thorough coverage of a well known anime. If deletionist users dislike such "cruft" they should refrain from reading it, not ruin it for those who are interested. The notability and third party coverage of the series should be obvious from the 60 references used in the series' own article. If the deletion nominators would put as much effort into building articles as was put into this one, rather than deleting them, Wikipedia woud be much better off. Abyssal (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are all in universe game guides and do not in themselves provide the evidence of real world OOU notability that is required to meet our core inclusion criteria. Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the anime wasn't notable, though, who would bother to make game guides about it in the first place? Abyssal (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepandClean up Actually, this list contain info for mecha from a running TV series, two running manga series (00P and 00F) and a serie of shortstories (00V). It's better to have them pile in single list than have dozen of them seperate. However, the style of list need to change. L-Zwei (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but for gods sake make it readable to normal people. Lists of mecha are standard spinout articles for most mecha series since they play a large role in the plot, just as much or moreso than the human characters. The sheer amount of crazy model numbers and Gundamcruft has to go though in favor of a more readable layout. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why would "normal people" (who aren't Gundam fans) be reading this? As far as I can tell the only people for whom this would be valuable would be Gundam fans. This really belongs on a Gundam wiki (yay Wikia), not here. Also, WP:NOTGUIDE. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would "normal people" (who aren't historians) be reading [any histoy article]? Why would "normal people" (who aren't mathemeticians) be reading [any math-related article]? Why would "normal people" (who aren't [xxx]) be reading [xxx]? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they wanted to learn about Gundam mechas. More people probably care about this than just about any city or school article here. And WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't seem to apply here.Abyssal (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's valuable to anyone who wants to know about the mechas in the series, similar to how someone would want to know about the episodes or characters. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I would say for any given user, 95% of this encyclopedia does not appeal to them. Why would any normal person (i.e. a non-military oriented person) ever want to know about the upcoming Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers? Why would a "normal" person (i.e. someone who doesn't care about Pixar) ever bother to check the WALL-E article? Claiming that because a "normal" person, who just happens to have absolutely no interest in whatever is being discussed won't read the article is not a valid reason for deletion. Who are these "normal" people you refer to? Did Wikipedia establish some set guideline as to what exactly defines a "normal person" and what they are likely to read while I was sleeping last night? the_one092001 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability due to a lack of independent and reliable sources. An in-universe article going into far too much detail about fictional devices mentioned only in the fictional work or other woeks from the franchise owner. Much of the article appears to be original research. That said, a list is far preferable to separate stub articles on each gizmo mentioned in a body of fictional work. Edison (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the_one092001. This is a standard breakout article to keep the main article from getting too long, much as various other list of vehilces such as for Star Wars or Star Trek. Lack of sources is only grounds for deletion if sources do not exist. Considering how major a series this is, there should be plenty of sources, it's just most of them would be in Japanese. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, if sources exist please can you cite some? Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any other arguments aside from that? Or are you just going to keep emphasizing how none of us happen to speak Japanese? Notability itself isn't a reason for deletion (on its own), and as others have mentioned, this list is considered a spinout article of the main Gundam 00 article. Since the mobile suits (especially the titular Gundams) are arguably the entire point of the series (it's what makes it a GUNDAM series, after all), and are central to the plot (almost to the point where the characters are secondary), then notability for this article has been established. The mecha in this anime play a role at least as important as that of the characters, and I have yet to see anyone going after character lists. If the mechs were only a passing plot point that appeared and disappeared, I would be inclined to agree with the lack of notability. But they're not. They're central elements that require explanation in order for the reader to understand the series. There is far too much information to be included in the main article, hence the spinout. the_one092001 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The use of this list to contain entries for multiple linked anime/manga series suggests to me that its presence as a stand-alone list (rather than being merged into the relevant character list sections, the other option) is warranted as a means of minimizing duplicated coverage. Cleanup of jargon and WP:WAF violation can be done as needed. --erachima talk 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Personally, I believe the list seems fine as a work in progress (because the second season of the TV series will be starting soon, plenty of other material will probably be added), but if it needs to be shortened, then doing something like the list of CE Mobile Units makes sense. In terms of notability, however, it's hard for me to understand why this would not be notable and qualifies for deletion. As a classical music lover, I've seen plenty of Wiki articles concerning composers or musicians that are "notable" only in the most broad sense of the term, and yet all of the Gundam series are a huge cultural phenomenon in Japan, making them presumably notable. As for third-party sources, there have been a few (not many, but a few) in Japanese, which we should reference. --Egocentrism04 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The issue is not whether Gundam is notable, it's whether these mechs have notability outside of the series. Personally, I find that really unlikely. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the issue is purely whether we want this information presented as its own list or not. The mechs used in a mecha series are a necessary part of the subject, the question is what depth of coverage is necessary, and whether it's best covered as a section in Gundam 00, or as this list, or with each suit covered along with the character who pilots it in the character list for the series. --erachima talk 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, since it is a recent, major Gundam series I'd imagine that there're a lot of Japanese sources giving commentary about the new mechs. Some conceptual stuff could possibly be found too, though I'm not sure how common stuff that is for Gundams. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue here that people keep bringing up seems to instead be "I don't think other people care, so it should be deleted." Gundam series are just as much about the mobile suits as they are about the characters or even the plot, thus creating an article without any explanation of the series' mobile suits leaves the article and its description woefully incomplete. I have yet to see objections about character list spinoffs, so I fail to see how something as major as the mobile suits in a Gundam series (look at the title of the series!) lacks sufficient notability, unless the series as a whole lacks notability (which Gundam 00 does not; just look at its sources). the_one092001 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strang Keep please delete GN-001 Gundam Exia first.--Burning Flame (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG keep This article is not doing anything wrong. The information it provides is the result of original research...about a freaking CARTOON! Everything about there not being any real-world stuff... again, CARTOON. Come on, lighten up. User: Anonymous Gundam Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.168.106 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. No specific reasons have been provided why this particular article fails notability, and as others have pointed out, this seems more and more like an "I don't like it" argument. The only possible argument is a lack of sources, not a true lack of notability. WP:N itself states that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." At worst, this article has only questionable notability, but even then WP:N states that: " For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." I have seen no attempt on the part of the AfD nominator to clean up the article, no merge suggestions, just a straight AfD, which is clearly not called for under these circumstances. the_one092001 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking over the article's references, numbers two and three appear to be licensed/official sites, and the fourth one is used as the basis for original research. The first one, based on its usage, seems to just list who designed each of these robots. While their names should be listed in the primary article as being part of the artistic team, I don't think that merits a whole article. There is similar precedent regarding TV episodes, which must have more than a listing of cast and crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintrick (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mecha are an integral part of mecha anime. While not every, single giant robot deserves an article all its own, a list shouldn't be out of the question. "Lists of mecha" are a standard practice for editors associated with WP:ANIME because we know how significant these fictional elements are; think of them as characters, not weapons (that goes double for Gundams, which are "clearly iconic").--Nohansen (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nohansen. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Lists like this, as has already been said many times, are standard practice for mecha anime. The mecha are by definition an important part of any mecha anime, but the main article would get way too bloated if they were listed there. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is what this nomination seems to be about, and that's not a good reason to delete. No, contrary to what many deletionists seem to think, is the fact that the article needs cleanup a reason to get rid of it. — Red XIV (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Cleanup: I have just cleaned out a very large amount of the in-universe information, including all of the content boxes that were taking up so much space. What do people feel about the page now? I am willing to say keep for now, if information about the notability of the mechs in the real-universe are put in and the cleanup continues. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For further discussion of the page cleanup, I would suggest putting it in the article's talk page, lest we get bogged down here with it. the_one092001 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that what remains after the cleanup really indicates how little content the article actually has. It is now just a very long list of brief (generally one-sentence) desriptions of mecha and how they appear in the universe. I don't see how that meets notability.Mintrick (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, the article looks less crufty now but the core issue remains that it is all original research as it stands and there are no secondary sources to demonstrate the subject as standalone notable outside the main article and in the real world. I appreciate the argument that the serious is notable and hiving off these bits keeps the article clearer but the fact remains that despite many arguments to keep no sources that discuss the suits have been put forward and that the core notability of the subjectr has not been established in the usual way. I'm still waiting on sources and although they have been asserted, they have not been produced. Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the entire text of WP:N before citing just the parts that support your own argument and you can see why this AfD is uncalled for, at least for the moment. No campaign for cleanup was initiated before hand, and no request for sources was ever added. This instead seems to just be an extension of a deletion-biased editor's will to clean out everything that does not conform to his/her own subjective standard of notability. I assume good faith even by saying this; my comments are based on the fact that a large number of AfD's aimed at fictional articles tend to be based solely on bias since the nominator him/herself does not care for the subject matter. the_one092001 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think I haven't read N? Have you read V & OR and RS? The article struggles in all these areas and once the original research is removed there is barely a line for each bit. There is clearly no sourced substance here otherwise someone would have provided them rather then simply asserted their significance and it only takes two decent sources to keep an article. Claiming that you are assuming good faith when you clearly are not just looks wrong. So, where are the sources that allows the content of the article to be verified so that it is not original research that we don't do? Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you ignored the parts of WP:N that would have established a clear procedure PRIOR to an AfD tells me that. I said it before, there was no request for sources or request for cleanup. Just a tag on an article that is already a clearly defined part of Wikipedia. The only part of the guideline you cited was the part that called for deletion if a lack of sources was found after an exhaustive search, and made no effort to induce even a minor search. For WP:RS, the writers and the fictional source itself are the most credible and accurate sources since they are the ones that are creating the content. Unlike real-world events where people are free to write about them, fictional events are solely the creation of their writers, hence the series itself is the most credible source. All works based on the series inherently have to be licensed by the creator, thus eliminating any truly "independent" sources. For WP:OR, in its current state, the article makes no statements that cannot be verified by watching the series or reading the sidestory manga. Episode citations should be added, but all of it is easily citable. WP:V is the same; the primary source is the work itself, and all of what survives can be verified. Whatever cannot be verified can simply be removed without the deletion of the entire article. WP:FICT also describes the procedures for creating spinout articles for lists of less-notable but still important elements, such as character lists or in this case mecha lists since the mecha are an integral part of the series. And I am assuming good faith, claiming that I don't shows a lack of such on your part, however. The point of my statement was simply to make other editors aware of and consider their motives, and how they could possibly be influenced by a personal lack of interest in the topic, instead of a truly objective analysis of the merits of the article. the_one092001 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the anime's definitely notable, I'm not so sure about the mecha featured in the series. Nevertheless, the mechas were featured on various real-life merchandises, such as Gunplas, so I guess that's considered real-world notability. Besides, thousands of lists similar to this exist on wiki, why not delete those as well? The Slimy One 10:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no doubt as to the notability of the series. But even after cleanup, the article now under discussion is substantially written as an in-universe account, lacking documentation in secondary sources or any indication of the notability of the machines that are the subject matter of the list. There seems to be a degree of bias in favour of presuming the notability of items from this series, absent any corroboration. As a further example, the article Mobile weapons relates to this series, a fact which might well surprise someone looking for real-world military hardware. My !vote stands. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should delete it just because it might impinge on a term that isn't even used to describe real-world weapons/strategies? Should we delete our entire section on Bleach as well just because there happens to be a cleaning product also called Bleach? the_one092001 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say we should disambiguate it to Mobile weapons (Gundam). On another note, would a better translation be "mobile weaponry" instead of "mobile weapons"? I don't know Japanese, but that sounds like it might make a bit more sense. Anyway, this is why we have disambig pages, so that we can have a Bleach and Bleach (anime). TallNapoleon (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "mobile weapon" isn't even used outside of Gundam, at least not officially. We call tanks and APCs "armored vehicles" and warfare involving their use "maneuver warfare." The term Mobile Weapons fits because it refers to the entire mobile suit as a single entity, and mobile weapons as a distinct class. "Mobile Weapon" is the best grammatical translation, because it can be used to refer to the weapons as a unit unto themselves, not as part of something else. the_one092001 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No substantial reasons given for deletion. All reasons put forth are either perjoratives (eg various cruft, fancruft etc votes) or reasons the article should be tagged for cleanup, not deleted. Jtrainor (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep source: Otona no Gundam 3: Mechanic and Business, Otona no Gundam: Perfect. Not in plural since the latter is a combination of 1~3 only and not dependent. This source goes into detail about the marketing and such of Gundam, in the real world, which includes a listing of all mechanical units that appeared in all Gundam anime series, where Gundam 00 is also featured. A combined page would be unreasonably long, so a separate page is necessary. The list is not readable? make it readable, and sourced, deletionists can first see WP:CRUFTCRUFT and learn that their world is only a sub set of this real world, where a lot of information and knowledge is not available to them just because it is in another language and/or they don't bother to search for it. Things said, I don't really like the whole current state of the whole Gundam project management scheme and products as well as the cruftcruft guys hatred on fictional items where I get no help in turning things to less in-universe. MythSearchertalk 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what these sources are please? Are they independant sources? Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are published by Nikkei Business Publications, Inc. as a part of series of books used to study the marketing of different companies, and Nekkei is a third party company, not a part of the Gundam franchise and branch of Bandai. This source goes into detail about the mechas in all Gundam series and talk about their marketing value, strategy and development of franchising, etc. Each series is viewed independently by itself. MythSearchertalk 06:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing these forward. I have withdrawn the nomination based on the sources you cite. Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mbenznl[edit]

Mbenznl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Merc modding company written up in an awfully spammy tone. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I am an independent source. I am writing my ideas. Furthermore there are numerous press articles and magazine entries. It takes a little time to weed out all of those entries.

Miroj (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Miroj, could you please cite a few of those press articles and magazine entries covering Mbenznl? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me roll up my sleeves and get to it. Just put down the mouse and step away from the delete key. Miroj (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lots of links, very little of WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information on how to improve the article ? It is factual, realistic and part of a special interest group. Namely a great percentage of Mercedes Benz owners. It is a base of information relating one brand to another and cyberspace to real life. These are not trivial outcomes. It also relates indivuality to peronal space and property. That is an important contemporary concept.

The outcome of this article is that it ties together ideas about cyberspace and people. For anyone not familiar with the debate on this allow me to illuminate the number of ways in which people create media and not the other way around. WE can be certain that there is much more to be gained from Cyberspace in real life than purely the authority of Wikipedia, in fact, some people have already told me that it makes no difference at all and that I should stop exerting effort in this Wiki area.

What I intended this Wiki to do is to serve as a common link between several elements of online culture represented by a real person. A person who is specialised and notable in their field. Its not bounded by conceptual controversy or disaster and therefore does not rate with any great importance on the minds of immediate events in the world. This is about what people want and why they want it. How they come to attain it and who makes it possible.

I have many more Wikipedia entries to edit as I have largely given up on creating new pages. This is my second major effort and I find the experience to be controversial. I intend to add a dozen or so media references. There are still a lot of stubs around and junk pages to repair. I do however constrain myself to people I have met.

I really dont know what is adverse about links if those objects form part of the movement and meaning.

Revised and updated. More to come. 

Miroj (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this reads like a magazine article about a non-notable person. Corvus cornixtalk 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Some people are highly notable in their area of expertise. Such as horse breeding, walking long distances, stunts and feats. Some events are singular and some are a life achievement or perhaps a super-human effort. There is adequate scope to discuss this further as a means of broadening awareness rather than reflecting mass-media culture. Miroj (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read several articles about people in Magazines I draw no basis for similarity. What I do feel is that everyone has to kowtow here even when they present the newest and most recent findings about a topic. There is insufficient technical bandwidth here. The dependence on media content does not underscore the reliance on copyrighted information for the generation of some technical outcomes. You can not publish these matters within the framework of "popular culture" as those standards are far too low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroj (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Be certain that I am listening and aware of your comments. What I require is a definition which defines the topic more accurately rather than excluding the 770,000 hits for Mercedes Retrofit as a non-event. To date I am not adequately informed of a reason why this topic should lay down. Looking back over some past topics I can see that technical matters how a very low recognition level in the normal population. That in itself proves nothing to anyone as the same applies to common sense. Miroj (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like a spammy marketing article. highly notable people will have numerous independant relaiable sources, why doesn't this? There is not even a reflist! Major life "achievments" belong in a diary or a blog, not an encylopedia. People who want to boast of there greatness should go down the pub. Yobmod (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. You will never find me or Mbenznl in a pub. Perhaps we could find Lara Bingle in a Pub and get mentioned on her page. You must really like the idea of proving 700,000 threads wrong, that must be the overall purpose of non-peer reviewed articles. In all my years at University I never once heard of a person use Wikipedia as a valid form of text - the struggle for validity is most entertaining. The level that Wikipedia wishes to be accepted is simply not possible for the same reason that it can be contested, edited and drafted by anyone with an opinion. Amusing to say the least. Miroj (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social suggestion box[edit]

Social suggestion box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism; little more than a definition. The term appears to be used a bit on blogs, but I can't find usage by reliable sources, let alone discussion of the concept. -- Mark Chovain 05:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Falcons in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Peregrine Falcons in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminite collection of information. The list here is poorly referenced and most of the items within the list are nonnotable, for example: a fictional character who uses falcoms to murder opponents. Fails general notability requirements: show me one acceptable source discussing this list's topic "Peregrine falcons in popular culture", I highly doubt any exist. Themfromspace (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the nominator said, this is just a list of random items. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not very confident here: there is an article to be written on the subject (or something like the subject); and this was moved from the peregrine article, where there's now nothing. But what's there really is mostly trivia; and what might be worth keeping is unsourced. I'd say keep and improve. But that's what people said at the last AfD and it's still a bad article. N p holmes (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although a couple of the entries here (like the first two I think) could probably be salvaged. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random and should just have been deleted in the first place. Punkmorten (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per items 1-4, 8, and 10 at WP:LC, as well as that all "in popular culture" articles are, in my opinion, inherently non-notable. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Random, arbitrary listcruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless listcruft. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a useful and discriminate collection of information and as all “in popular culture“ articles are inherently notable, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to be more discursive and less a simple list. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N unless it can be shown that "Peregrine falcons in popular culture" is a topic that has received significant coverage in secondary sources. Deor (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems thorough and informative - not really cruft Redsolidarch (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsolidarch (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep after removing the irrelevant items. Notable objects in notable works are sufficient for a list article. There is no requirement that there be works dealing with the subject of a list as a whole--that guideline is totally imaginary. DGG (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Are you saying that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" doesn't apply to some class of articles that you choose not to have it apply to? What class would that be, exactly? Deor (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So that'll be a delete then, because the entire list is irrelevant? Stifle (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's hard work searching through the sources because there are so many of them - the peregrine is clearly iconic. I found a nice source for birds in general. This material should clearly be retained for further development and consideration of merges back into the main article and/or an article about birds in popular culture. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat Willy[edit]

Top Hat Willy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to have receieved any substantial, independent coverage. Appeared on a cover disk (Amiga Format 68 [23] but doesn't appear to have been reviewed [24]), but nothing to satisfy WP:N guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I only find a fansite and an angelfire page when searching for the term, article is also unsourced and I cannot see any reliable secondary sources emerging. --Banime (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the best thing to do would be that you add it as an article Jet Set Willy and add a section on clones/rip offs--Guru Larry (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — See the entry at the Amiga Magazine Rack here, for both the first game and its sequel. MuZemike (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, yes, I already pointed out that Magazine Rack link. It shows that the game appeared on an Amiga Format coverdisk, but received no substantial coverage in the magazine itself. Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If nothing else, merge to Jet Set Willy as it may do a better job as good information over there. MuZemike (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a PD game that was published on a coverdisc, that doesn't establish notability, a web search is bringing up nothing in terms of useful reliable sources. I would also oppose any merge - it's inspired by rather than related to the JSW series, and should sink or swim on its own merits. Someoneanother 12:01, 23 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources for further info. Jordan Contribs 06:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It is part of a series, why not move what little there is in the magazine article cited above into Jet Set Willy Hobit (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no magazine article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jet Set Willy. As it has had at least a mention in Amiga Format there should be some record of it in an article. Not enough sources to support its own article though. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsho Rolpa Hospital[edit]

Tsho Rolpa Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This patient was a declined speedy delete, but it has no sources and no apparent justification of notability. What is your diagnosis? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone tried first aid? Given the location, even a 50 bed hospital might be notable. Putting on a speedy 68 minutes after the article was started, and not offering specific help, seems a little bitey to an obviously very inexperienced contributor. DGG (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A google search suggests that this one of two hospitals in the whole district of Dolakha. It also seems to be the most likely hospital that will have to triage in the case of the Tsho Rolpa glacier lake breaking through and flooding the lower valleys. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, although I hope there's more to say about this than that it exists. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Actually, delete due to lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of two hispitals in an entire district is notable. Does need cleanup and expansion, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small hospitals are not inherently notable, no matter where they are in the world. Where are the multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage needed to satisfy notability? Wikipedia is not a directory. It is crystal-ball gazing to speculate that the hospital might become important if some future geologic or hydrologic accident happened. (The grade school I attended might become notable if flying monkeys landed on the roof.) Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not asserted. A 50 bed hospital in Central London would get the same treatment unless it was the national unit for something. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. I looked for sources and found none. Wikipedia is not best served by having a one-sentence stub that basically says "A hospital exists in this place." If/when anyone actually writes something about the hospital, then I'd be happy to have a real article written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Rossi[edit]

Gerard Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who has not played fully professional football and therefore fails the WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That vote is based on a false premise. He never played for Hibs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:03, 21 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like he only played for the Hibs U19 team. Also, Neded FC is in the third division Slovakian league which I'm quiet sure is not fully professional. This recent column says hes currently training with Brechin City in an attempt to win a contract. So it would seem that he has not yet played in a fully professional league and falls short of WP:ATHLETE as has been noted above. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Free Agents[edit]

NFL Free Agents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article will be almost impossible to maintain and keep any order. There are too many questions raised about what to include? What players qualify for the articles, and how long before they go unsigned to they get deleted? Technically, we're all free agents of the NFL. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sex in space. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2suit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2suit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. — Swpbτ • c 01:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I actually came across this article by chance today. Although there are references they are just the standard "news pieces about interesting things that no one will remember in the next 24 hour news cycle". Not notable and is lacking in purpose. mboverload@ 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete found another source on MSNBC, although I think Mboverload is right in his assertion that this is just a nonnotable news piece. --Banime (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sex in space as was suggested repeatedly in the previous AfD. VG ☎ 01:28, 22 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenstone Pictures Limited[edit]

Greenstone Pictures Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Google search for "Greenstone Pictures Unlimited" turns up 20 results. There's also heavy COI as someone affiliated with the group wrote the article, although to be fair, neutral editors have tried to clean it up a bit. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - no significant coverage of the company itself, according to Google News. [25] Pegasus «C¦T» 03:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The documentaries/reality series that they have produced as well as their own technical abilities have received awards at the highest level in New Zealand as can be seen here [26][27]. This together with the shear number of popular shows they have produced in New Zealand, and other non-trivial results in the Google news search gives me the impression that they are notable. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Greenstone are notable for their production work. The qantas tv awards are not lightweight media backscratching awards. The article still needs plenty of work to knock it into shape. However, there has been good work on it so far. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable proven. We66er (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per awards. Article needs cleanup as Wiki does not need an included list of every project they worked on. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Note that searching for the full legal name of the company reduces the number of hits. Also, when they win awards, these are usually listed as name of show + individual producer or director rather than the production company. (Hence the list of shows is useful, particularly to a New Zealander who will recognize many of them). dramatic (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 11:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SomaTone Interactive Audio[edit]

SomaTone Interactive Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is pure promotional material for SomaTone Interactive Audio and clearly violates WP:COI. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability (except perhaps 'original music'). Sounds like a small group that creates sound effects for films. Next thing you know, there will be an article for everyone on a movie's credits list. Themfromspace (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visionism[edit]

Visionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable art movement. Deleted on pt-wiki pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Visionismo and fr-wiki (fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Visionisme). I couldn't find anything on Google which could indicate some notability, no independent reliable sources: [28], only result without context. About the books, it wasn't accepted as source on pt-wiki (and the books are in portugues), basically because most of them couldn't be found and portuguese encyclopedias don't have anything about the movement. Even the creator of the movement (Luis Vieira Baptista) seems to be non-notable: [29]. Tosqueira (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Tosqueira's research, this is dubious and unverifiable. --Lockley (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It also appears to be a bit vanispamish. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Strong delete due to the main author hassling people who support deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One-man movement, which should be merged to the bio of the one man, except he doesn't seem to be notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The One-man movement, has many followers; Vieira Baptista, Julio Quaresma, Noémia Gameiro, Xesko, Antônio Bandeira, Luisfernando Graça, Firmo Silva, Victor Lajes, Gustavo Fernandes, Ana Garrett, Catarina Ribeiro, Helena Pinto Magalhães, etc. The Visionism it's in fact a One-man movement, but the city of Oeiras does not know that beacouse they ordered a Visionist sculpture "Nave Visionista". In the city of Lisbon I found 4 more, and without ignoring many paintings exposed (placed) in public institutions. And, more incredible is the fact that I discovered all of this in the google. FRV (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xesko, please do not place false IDs or signatures on your comment to hide your conflict of interest. We can see by the edit history that you are pretending to be User:FRV. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not placing false IDs or signatures in my comment. FRV is my signature. FRV 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xesko (talk • contribs) I didn't signed User:FRV I have signed FRV it's a little beet different, don't you think? Please don't do false accusations (FRV 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC))FRV 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is clearly Wikipedia:VSCA. --Nice poa (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oskulo has been spamming the talk pages of delete !voters requesting they reconsider. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've refactored discussion of who is whose sock to the talk page. Please try to keep this discussion on topic. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EliteAnswers.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:
EliteAnswers.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Note this is a repost of the thrice deleted Eliteanswers.com, (AfD) but a speedy has been declined. It's not blatant spam and not exactly the same. The awards it claims are weak and most of the sources are repeats of the same press release and/or don't mention the company. A search doesn't reveal mch more to work with. I'm happy to withdraw this if someone can establish notability, but it's not clear here. An e-mail marketing company should have more web notability at the least and there's no evidence this meets WP:CORP. TravellingCari 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sorry to disagree, Cari, but if you do a Google search under the name "EliteWeb" (the company's original name, which is cited in the article), you will find a good chunk of impressive coverage, but I think the article could benefit from a rewrite -- and its sloppy structure may have resulted in its journeys to deletion. But I think this needs editing, not erasure. (I had erroneously entered something else in doing the Google search, hence my scratching out that earlier part of the message). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After looking through the plethora of sketchy and borderline sources (most of them press releases and one-liners), it does not appear that this particular website/company is notable. By any stretch. Keeper ǀ 76 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Each and every reference given in the article or found via google originiated from a press release or similar PR (including the interviews). EliteAnswers/Eliteweb fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP & WP:NOTE. --AmaltheaTalk 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the articles do look very much like press releases. What we need,of course, is some actual verifiable information about how important they are. things likes sales, and number of employees, and market share, and basics like that. The only actual fact is they've been around since 1999, which isn't bad for the field, but not enough. DGG (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spam. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Alexf42 11:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spammy and doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. If kept, then most of the external links have to go. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4 of the links presented are from prweb, which allows any company or entity to publish a press release. These are most definitley not WP:RS. The article is very ad-like, and has been deleted numerous times. The company is a run-of-the-mill email spam company. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Yet another non-consumer business services business that thinks a Wikipedia article would be good for business. Execrable prose speaks repeatedly of "business solutions", a strongly non-neutral term that suggests conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it appears the article is heading for deletion, I will try to rewrite it at a later date (if it is not salted), with proper referencing and neutral language. I would do it now, but it appears this will take some time and real life doesn't allow me the leisure to currently pursue this. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thornton[edit]

Ben Thornton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable child actor, has a few minor credits. Corvus cornixtalk 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but as no assertion of notability, since the criticism is a veiled promotion of the company's innovation. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Arms[edit]

Adams Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Attack page. There doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion category for attacks on companies or products, so I listed it for afd. There was a speedy deletion tag on this article back in April, but the original author removed the tag, and there was no followup. Corvus cornixtalk 00:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely an attack page, no refs, no notability, etc. More importantly, it was listed for speedy deletion but the main author deleted the tag. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G10 Unless I'm wrong, an attack page doesn't have to be about a person, it can be about a company too. This is clearly an attack page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netop Remote Control[edit]

Netop Remote Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable software. No WP:RS to support notability, and original author removed the speedy delete tag, I placed on it. As for the software, I can't see much difference between it and NXServer; so that in and of itself makes it non-notable. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just an ad. JJL (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The correct action when the author of a page removes the speedy tag from that page is to replace it and give them a {{drmspeedy}} warning, not to nominate it here. I'm deleting the page now. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination One[edit]

Destination One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Defunct airline that existed for less than a year. The first external link (to the official site) is dead, and the second is completely unrelated. Mr.Z-man 07:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely unsourced, non notable defunct airline. --Banime (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. I added four new references, and replaced the external links with links to the corresponding archived pages at the Internet Archive. --Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the extra sources added and they help but the article needs a lot of improvement. I tried many variations of searching for Destination One on google and found one blog and one forum post about the airline itself. Obviously keeping WP:GOOGLEHITS in mind, this is still a bad sign for the article. The newspapers that are cited contain about 500 words about the airline. I don't think it has siginificant nontrivial coverage in secondary sources to be notable. For now I stick by my delete. --Banime (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Banime, newsworthy for a week does not equal notable forever. Mr.Z-man 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see that it was ever notable. Acccording to the article it operated charter flights with a single airplane. All scheduled airlines are notable, but I think this is firmly below the bar. I remember making an argument for minute charter airlines such as this one in my early days here, and learning better from the responses. DGG (talk) 01:18, 22 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) 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are arguments to be made for AK and HI charters, as they represent the equivalent of roads in many ways. Local charter which haven't otherwise seen significant coverage aren't otherwise included (usually). Protonk (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It wasn't a charter airline. It used a charter airline rather than operating flights with its own employees. It sold tickets and published a timetable just like a scheduled carrier.--Eastmain (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does that make it stronger, or weaker? It sounds then like it was just a booking service, not engaging in any physical operation of even a single airplane. DGG (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Parker-Lang[edit]

Sage Parker-Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It isn't clear that this person's career rises to the level of notability suggested by WP:ENTERTAINER. Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 21 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) 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This one editor article seems a stretch at notability. There is THIS and THIS... but is it enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No significant roles, interviews, or awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Comics Curmudgeon[edit]

The Comics Curmudgeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A very funny blog, but I'm seeing almost nothing in the way of notability. A few comic artists have had contact with him, and a few other blogs have reviewed him, but almost everything here is a primary source, unreliable (Jeopardy! archives), dead, or not substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's an article which I can't access, but is clearly about the blog itself. Fruhlinger also win a Blogger of the Year Award of some sort: [31]. And when you add in all the brief mentions in the news, I think there's enough to make this article a Keeper. Zagalejo^^^ 01:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fruhlinger did indeed appear on Jeopardy. There's some info about that here (which also contains some general info about the blog.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there's still the other stuff I mentioned. (Now I'm having trouble with that E! link, but here's an Internet Archive link for it.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG based on the sources and mentions in the article. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough stuff there. The cite list looks impressive, but lots of it goes back to the blog or livejournal or what have you. But the Editor and Publisher one and a few others cross the GNG hurdle. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Google News Search link provided by Zagalejo show that he's definitely passed any notability hurdles, in my opinion. (There's also this NewYorker.com interview from August.) Propaniac (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Final Destination (series). Without prejudice, if significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the article's subject is given of course the article(s) on the books could be created at some point. Final Destination (series) could perhaps use some info on this, but not if it is completely unsourced and a WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination books[edit]

Final Destination books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article seems to be a bit much for a series of novelizations stemming from a movie series; I don't see any notability. Completely unsourced, as well as crystal balling near the end. Also persistent overwikifying from a series of anon IP's; attempts to engage the user have met with zero success. Nommed for D per suggestion at WP:EAR by AndrewHowse (talk · contribs). Prince of Canada t | c 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge to Final Destination (series), as it seems like something about the books should be mentioned somewhere in the Final Destination set of articles. Each film book can be merged into the film articles, with the non-film novels merged to the series article. 05:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.203.112 (talk)
With serious pruning, that would definitely make sense. Prince of Canada t | c 05:41, 22 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) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) treelo radda 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Boogie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mick Boogie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Contested prod. The artist is not notable and fails WP:MUSIC plus lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The research that went into preparing this AfD was woefully inadequate. I would not usually say it so sternly, but the relevant Google News search was even pointed out when the article was de-prodded. This is an influential DJ and mixtape producer, and it really only takes a glance at a Google News archive search to see that. I have added seven references to reliable sources, and there are plenty more. It passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But are those reliable sources? Corvus cornixtalk 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all of the edits by Jayzee69 were to AfD discussions on one single day. Corvus cornixtalk 04:58, 21 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, Stifle (talk) 00:02, 21 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, Cirt (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think is insufficient about the current sources listed? There are more that could be added but I thought this was an adequate sampling for WP:NMG criterion #1. He was mentioned in Rolling Stone for having one of the "Top 5 Mix CDs" of 2006. There are articles about him around the time he became the DJ for Cleveland Cavaliers games. There are many mentions of him for his collaborations (I've added just a small sample of those). This is not trivial coverage, in my view. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. Some of the sources are in passing, but the plain dealer one is all about him and his work, and the Miami Herald one has two paragraphs praising his work. I stopped looking there, but they seem to meet WP:N acceptably. Hobit (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KSnapshot[edit]

KSnapshot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software; no claim to notability provided, no references given to establish notability. Listed for AfD after {{prod}} removed, though article remains unimproved. Mikeblas (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be an official tool of KDE [32], or at least relevant to KDE... even not counting that, I don't believe in deleting articles about software products based on "notability", people seem to forget that there is no policy regarding that, only guidelines... SF007 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article doesn't meet the GNG, and reads as an advertisement. It's also completely unreferenced, original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Describing self-evident features of some software is not OR. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It isn't? Where do the Wikipedia policies establish that? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The software itself is a primary source. WP:OR does not disallow the use of primary sources for independently verifiable facts, only for interpretation. Since functionality and features can be independently verified by anyone downloading the software (and especially as the software is freely available), giving these in the article is therefore not OR. And frankly, even if WP:OR didn't say this explicitely, I'd say it's pretty much common sense -- do you need a citation to say that a human hand usually has five fingers? -- simxp (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want an article that tells me a "human hand usually has five fingers". How often is "usually"? Once we assign a number to it, we certainly need references. But I can't figure out how this is relevant; this article offers "facts" that aren't readily verifiable, and aren't sourced in the article. Even if OR is solved, the problem of notability remains. Both would be solved together, given meaningful and substantial references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best piece of wiki-lawyering I've seen in a long time. A statement like "99.8% of humans have 5 fingers on each hand" surely needs a citation, but a common-sense statement like "a human hand usually has five fingers" certainly doesn't need one. Compare Polydactyly with Human_hand#Variation. Case dismissed. VG ☎ 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree however that notability is hard to establish for this. Some window managers have built-in screenshot capabilities. I don't see how this function being a separate program for KDE makes it notable. A line or short paragraph in the page for KDE should suffice. Weak keep. Mentioned in half a dozed books along with the other KDE components. Gnome-screenshot is only mentioned in a couple. Alternatively, merging with the main KDE article avoids a forever-stubby article. YMMV. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that WP:N says that references to establish notability must offer "significant coverage". I don't think the offered references meet the spirit of that requirement. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 23 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, Stifle (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main KDE article, per VasileGaburici. --Banime (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't any evidence of non-trivial coverage of this software product that I can find. Including the google books search. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Even though there are only guidelines regarding notability Wikipedia:Notability the sources established in the article are in direct violation of a Wikipedia Policy. That policy is WP:NOTMANUAL, the sources are merely manuals or guides on how to use KSnapshot, directly violating WP:NOTMANUAL.Twkratte (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what WP:NOTMANUAL is about. That policy prevents Wikipedia itself from becoming a manual. It does not prevent Wikipedia from citing books that are intended as manuals. VG ☎ 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if an article is writen like a manual, if should just be deleted? So if the Ubuntu article was writen like a manual (like someone suggested some time ago), that was a valid reason for deletion? I think that is a very flawed reason for deletion... SF007 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never wrote that WP:NOTMANUAL is absolute grounds for deleting an article. If an article can be adjusted/rewritten so it's not a WP:NOTMANUAL, then it should be kept. For instance, if I write a "How to install Ubuntu" article on Wikipedia, then it should be deleted because there's no way to rewrite that narrow topic in an encyclopedic manner. OTOH, if the article on "Ubuntu" has some howto parts, those can be rewritten/deleted; there's no point in deleting the whole article, which would be throwing the baby out with the water in that case. I hope I made myself clear. VG ☎ 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to User:Twkratte... sorry about the misunderstanding... it's my fault... I made the reply in a bad place... SF007 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Merge per VasileGaburici. -- Banjeboi 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually, merge into a unified article describing all the KDE utilities that aren't quite notable enough for their own article (possibly by expanding List of KDE applications to give a short paragraph about each application?). Until then, Keep so that the merging editors have something to merge and don't have to rewrite it all themselves. -- simxp (talk) 02:19, 24 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, Cirt (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tux Magazine is a reliable source among the Linux user community for topic coverages, and it does exert editorial control over content. So, they may be blog entries, but they have been vetted by an editor. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by PS. An eventual merge, as proposed above, likely makes sense. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above SF007 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or certainly at the very least merge. Unforgiven24 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above coverage in reliable sources. As a KDE user I've used it and seen it discussed a bunch of times, but of course the sources are more important than anecdotal evidence. Merging might not be the best option, but I don't have a major objection. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative electronic and industrial music artists[edit]

List of alternative electronic and industrial music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The majority of these "artists" don't even have google hits, let alone wikipedia articles. The list is unsourced, unmaintainable, and people are just arbitrarily adding their "projects", even if all they have is a computer recording of them and a friend mashing a keyboard and uploading it to myspace.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates would suggest that the (valid) entries here are much more suited to being moved to a Category. Note point #5 on the disadvantages of lists. Freqsh0 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless category at best --Banime (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some confusion, the Article under discussion is a List, not a Category. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I don't see any difference to this list and the dozens of similar lists in the category Category:Lists of musicians by genre. If the artist doesn't have a Google hit, as the nom stated, then the artist shouldn't be on the list. There should be only a handful of redlinks on the page, awaiting page creation, rather than the majority of the list being redlinked. Therefore, lists and categories work hand-in-hand, as categories can't contain redlinks. Remember, this should contain notable alt/industrial artists. How is this "unmaintable"? And the "useless category at best" reply isn't even an arguement of why it should be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All genres have lists like these. Helps people find new artists within the genre. --Shandristhe azylean 08:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is an encyclopedia, not a system for discovering new bands. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate and far too large a categorisation. I'd support splitting it into two articles, but I was a little put off by the exclusion of Babylon Zoo. The related categories already exist, so it's very redundant. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:02, 23 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, Cirt (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "...let alone wikipedia articles"; at least 50percent seem to be blue links. Unmaintainable??? well that may be your opinion, but I don't believe so. Not a Directory, no we are not, but we all know by now that Lists and :Cats can coexist. As for the Notability template, how high is the bar for notability of lists? Not that high. (Please also note that this article has already survived a Prior AFD with a Keep in August 2006 ... what has changed since then and how is this nomination rational any different?) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per items 7 and 10 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable list of red links, overly narrow genre. Are industrial and electronic really that close in nature? What makes a band "alternative" industrial? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are industrial and electronic really that close in nature? I can't believe you've asked that! Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All industrial music is electronic, however not all electronic music is industrial. The definition of "industrial" can be blurry and disputed, but sometimes the term "alternative electronic" refers to artists associated with this general genre. This is done as a way to distinguish it from Trance, House, etc, which is what most people think of when "electronic" music is mentioned. This is kind of the "darker" side of electronic, if you will. So, it's not "alternative industrial", but rather "alternative electronic" OR "industrial". Freqsh0 (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable list. Epbr123 (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Please explain what constitutes "unmaintainable"? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it is true that virtually every genre seems to have these. However, I fail to see why any list like this exists. You can simply go to the category page for a specific genre, and get the same type of list, except in those cases it's automatically self-maintained and bands actually need to be notable enough to have articles.

As for how this is "unmaintainable", it cites zero references, and I don't see anybody adding literally thousands anytime soon to back up every entry. Again, having a category addresses this issue, because said references are in the actual article, and until the article is sufficient, it doesn't land on the category page.

Without references, how does anyone verify whether an artist qualifies? Unless someone can claim to be an authority on every artist in this genre, those with a moderate level of knowledge will just assume that these might be appropriate artists that they simply have not yet heard of.

Based on this, and the fact that a Category page provides anything this can offer and more, I see no reason why anyone would want to keep this article (aside from aspiring computer musicians that haven't released anything but like to sneak themselves on here, knowing it's impossible to challenge). -Freqsh0 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that :Cat's dont (A)promote the creation of missing Articles, (B)sort information in various possible ways, (C)allow for additional relevent information. Please read WP:CLN for futher explanation on why :Cats and Lists can co-exist. Wikipedia:Lists only holds that the info should Verifiable, it makses no mention that it should show all its references, I would think that thoes would be contained in each bluelink Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you A, but B) it's sorted alphabetically, same as a Cat, c) It has no other relevant information and is just a straight list. Regarding verifying info in the bluelink article, that's all fine and well for the bluelink ones, but what about when half of the list is red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freqsh0 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that would be an editing issue, not a Deletion issue. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBC SportsPlus[edit]

CBC SportsPlus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This channel is not yet on the air, it was only given a licence by the CRTC and there is no guarantee at all that this channel will even launch. It is too soon for an article to be written on this subject when there is no guarantee that this chanel will ever launch. musimax. (talk) 01:51, 21 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, Cirt (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cope (cartoonist)[edit]

Mike Cope (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CREATIVE. While I am sure he's a very likable person, this author/cartoonist has won no notable awards nor made contributions which have been written about in reliable sources. His latest book has only one other possible reliable source [33] that I found other than the one listed in the article. The other sources listed in the article consist of three primary sources and a blog. I think it's doubtful at this point that even the book would pass WP:NB. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Some serious issues with the sources, they are mostly his site and a blog. Non-notable. --Banime (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original author of this article, I appreciate your concerns and am willing to discuss them with you. I also apologize if I have incorrectly created this article, for I have never created one before. I did make an honest attempt to present all of the information using neutral language (i.e., only facts), and so if the wording needs to be changed, any suggestions (or revisions) would be welcomed and appreciated. Regarding the sources in question ... Editor & Publisher and The Daily Cartoonist are respected and reliable sources of news regarding professional cartoonists. If there is a mininum number of "reliable sources" required, please let me know. Additional sources can be provided, including a link to a recent audio interview. Regarding notable awards and contributions ... I've seen that other cartoonists on Wikipedia do not list any notable awards, nor cite articles reporting contributions, and so I wasn't aware that this was a requirement. These articles also do not cite any information sources. For example ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Kolarov ... Would it be more appropriate to mark my article as a "stub" like the previous example? Again, I do apologize and I'm willing to address any additional questions or concerns. TheYellowKid (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources have a specifically defined meaning in our encyclopedia, I recommend that you read the guideline behind the link. While Editor & Publisher does qualify under the guideline, "The Daily Cartoonist" is a blog and as such typically does not qualify. The other sources you have listed are all primary sources and can't be used to determine notability (though they can be used to verify information in an otherwise notable article). More importantly, the material only discusses the book- the author is only mentioned in passing. In other words no reliable sources at all have been submitted to verify the notability of Mr. Cope. I hope this addresses your question. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:55, 24 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, Cirt (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_26&oldid=1081071636"