Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. BJTalk 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Nacional "Enrique Nvó Okenve"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Colegio Nacional "Enrique Nvó Okenve" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability, with no other references to it on wikipedia Canis Lupus 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Colleges are generally notable by default, but I'm finding no proof that this even exists, just Wiki mirrors. This source uses the term "Enrique Nvo Okenve", but not in the context of a college, so it may be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It is a word for word copyvio of http://www.shortopedia.com/C/O/Colleges_and_universities and at that website redirects to our article Colegio Nacional. I could not find any other mention of this college, other than at the shortpedia page which in itself is not a reliable source. Was not aware that if a school simply had a name, it was notable and thus worthy for inclusion in WP. I struck my comment and withdraw.--«JavierMC»|Talk 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, it is not copyvio; the Shortopedia entry has clearly been copied from Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you consider it is enough for notability is one thing but it is certainly enough to verify the existence of the college (assuming the reliability of US Gov documents). We need to be careful to avoid systemic bias in considering pages on such institutions; this is a non-English speaking establishment in a small country whose institutions have a relatively poor presence on the internet. This is an instance where there will certainly be local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 02:29, 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 as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Bisenius[edit]

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

No sources to back notability. His band's article doesn't exist, and Google throws up nothing. This could probably be a speedy, though I'm bringing this here if anyone knows about the topic. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/random article/editor review) 23:19, 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; not enough sources to support notability claims. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Arkenstone[edit]

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

No sources, no evidence of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:16, 13 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, ffm 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and redirect with her husband's page David Arkenstone--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:BIO is the wrong reference for this topic; the proper guideline is WP:BAND. It appears that the subject meets several of the criteria there--numbers 5 and 6, possibly others. The article is very stubby at present--it has neither the proper infobox nor a list of albums--but that is grounds for improvement, not for deletion. Freederick (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google has got a cache of her website. There are reprints of two interviews, one with New Age Music and New Sounds, one with New Age Voice. She also seems to have put out around 23 albums. She does seem to have a career independent to her husband. Tassedethe (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, Ahh, I see they're no longer married. That might make a redirect weird then. Not encouraging of an independent article for her though is this quote from that second interview "Diane Arkenstone’s name has been associated with David Arkenstone for much of the past 10 years, although she has recorded four solo albums."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:34, 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) 23:01, 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 Redirect by myself. Volume One was redirected, and Volume Three was deleted (then redirected), so I see no reason why this shouldn't be too, especially after the 800 relistings, as this would put it in line with WP:MUSIC. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Sessions Volume Two[edit]

Bug Sessions Volume Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self released album only available on tour. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC; album has not charted per allmusic and no professional reviews found. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other article was prodded by you. That shows me nothing. I agree per below, these articles can be sourced, just are lacking sources. I can't understand why you are so eager to delete articles than can be salvaged. smooth0707 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they can be salvaged (ie notability can be demonstrated), then I strongly encourage you to add the sources which show notability. If notability is demonstrated, I will gladly remove the prods myself and change my !vote here to keep. I have made a good faith effort to find the sources myself that would show notability and I haven't discovered them -- if you can find them where I failed, you'll get my sincere thanks.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:MUSIC clearly states that "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Yes, these articles need sources, but that in itself is not a compelling reason for deletion. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 04:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to read that passage from WP:MUSIC again. It says albums may be notable, not are automatically notable. Notability for an album still needs to be established; there is a lot of AfD precedent for this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To complete the passage "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Don't cherry pick lines from guidelines out of context, this is considered to be gaming the system. --neon white talk 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***Could you please explain to me how this extra passage eliminates the requirement for notability to be established for the album itself? I read this as reinforcing the requirement for independent reliable sources, not conferring automatic notability. Obviously you are reading this differently, and I'd like to understand where you're coming from. (And please don't accuse me of gaming the system. Thanks.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • My abject apologies. I didn't pay enough attention to the indents, and I see now that Neon white wasn't replying to me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one does fail WP:MUSIC. It has not recieved any attention in reliable sources. It fails WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:09, 20 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) 10:26, 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, Cirt (talk) 23:00, 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. MBisanz talk 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ-Pythagoras's Explanatory Philosophy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christ-Pythagoras's Explanatory Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been prodded, but it was contested. The subject is said to be quite unknown and difficult to find in sources. It also seems that very few books about it exist, and most of them are in Greek or Indian. Only two links were provided: One leads to a "Cannot be found"-like page, the other is in Portuguese, my primary language. It only briefly mentions the subject. providing no information. A Google search didn't prove useful either. In a nutshell, considering WP:N, WP:OR and WP:V, the page should be deleted. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that the Russian version of the article has been deleted, and the portuguese one is unreferenced. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a rule, things that are unknown and difficult to find sources for would be what we call "not notable", in a very textbook way. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, no hope of being sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself contains no substantial motivation for why it would be notable. Also, a quick search of JSTOR revealed only one journal article which uses the names Christ and Pythagoras in succession, and it is not at all in reference to this. Huadpe (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly no evidence of notability, and would probably be eligible for speedy if they had actually become a group of sorts rather than just a doctrine. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The expansion potential beyond what is already written is almost impossible due to lack of sources, and even if what is there is true, there are no reliable or verifiable means in which to assess it.--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless expanded with reliable sources before this discussion is closed, for reasons detailed in the opinions already expressed. Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a non-notable fringe vies if not an outright hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 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 merge to List of Hawaiian Eye episodes. MBisanz talk 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kamehameha Cloak (Hawaiian Eye)[edit]

The Kamehameha Cloak (Hawaiian Eye) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unless this episode is notable in and of itself it should not get its own article. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are mistaken - this source does specifically discuss this episode and iirc I cited the page number. And merger to a list is a nonsense since such lists are less notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I was referring to the sourced link (sans page number). It does allow a search for specific names though. This search of that site does mention Hawaiian Eye by name on page 17, and this one does mention the episode "The Kamehameha Cloak". The source does prove the episode was aired on January 13, 1960. But it does not address any specific notability for that episode. I did a further search because of your passion for this article... using "The Kamehameha Cloak, Hawaiian Eye" for my google search. I found the episode listed at IMDB, TVIV, TV.com, Locatetv.com, ThrillingDetective.com, EPGuides.com, NNdb.com, Fancast.com, MovieWeb.com, TripAtlas.com, MovieStationn.org, ClassicCollector.com, etal (and many I cannot add to this discussion because of the Wiki Spam filter). The best information on the specific episode is at SquareOne.org, but still is no more than a cast/crew list and episode synopsis. I do not deny it aired or was released. But I cannot find anything that directly addresses specific notability for this one episode. Nothing has been offered that makes it any more or less important than any of the other Hawaiian Eye series episodes With no singular notability, the article might likely be deleted... so, and though you feel a merger to a list will lessen its "notability", at least a merger will keep the information available. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 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 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asheem Singh[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as being of doubtful notability since 13 April 2008 - two weeks short of six months. Since then nobody has adduced any evidence that the article is about a notable subject. A search of the internet suggests that Asheem Singh is a think-tank employee who has enjoyed some success in creative writing. That is very laudable, but it does not make him notable. I mentioned on the talk page soon after the article was created that I find it interesting that the article was created and edited by a user called User:Ashthecash, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are to Asheem Singh (nine times), POV (Point of View) (a work by Asheem Singh), American Dream (cross-referencing a subsequently deleted article about a piece of writing by Asheem Singh), University of East Anglia (for the purpose of adding Asheem Singh as an alumnus), List of University of Oxford people (for the purpose of adding Asheem Singh to the list), and two minor edits to Gordon Brown. I suspect that Ash [my italics] thecash is none other than Asheem Singh. The article would therefore be self-promotion. Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its not enough to be broadcast-- critical attention is needed. and student awards fo the sort listed do not bring notability afterwards. I see nothing obvious in G. DGG (talk) 01:39, 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 Delete - been there, done that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive Me (Leona Louise Lewis song)[edit]

Forgive Me (Leona Louise Lewis song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, and, not having been released, is not yet notable. Would not be opposed to recreation if it gains notability after the release. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Scriven[edit]

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

Minor league footballer; no real assertion of notability. Blowdart | talk 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Tadakuni (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability will come in useful here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FOOTYN is really just an essay, it has no practical application in AfDs until it is accepted by the wider Wikicommunity. WP:ATHLETE, however, is ideal in this case. GiantSnowman 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's in The Times at some length, and mentioned in the Daily Mail and Guardian and on the BBC. Notability, someone once said, is not subjective. Could you write an article about Scriven which would meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, et al? Probably. Does his fame rest on one event? Not in the usually understood sense. On the whole, I think I'd say the we should keep this, because there's a perfectly good article could be written about him by anyone who cared to put the work in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, has not played in a fully-pro league. Although he played in the FA Cup (a notable competition) against a Premier League side, he did so while playing for a semi-pro team, and so fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I wonder if anyone saying delete here bothered to look for references or read Wikipedia's general notability guidelines? I did a quick search and was able to find numerous articles solely about him that featured in national newspapaers as well as an article from Fifa that talks about him and the rest of his team. Clearly passes WP:BIO regardless of WP:ATHLETE or anything else. Additionally it would be possible to find many match reports etc that mention him briefly so WP:BLP1E is not an issue. I have added the references i found and those found by Angus McLellan to the article, which now merely needs writing up. Basement12 (T.C) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might this be the UK equivalent to the various US minor players who have had articles about them in the press, which have been about their careers although those careers fall short of WP:ATHLETE. Qualification via WP:BIO rather than WP:ATHLETE? Possibly. Kevin McE (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has three articles from major papers about him. Regardless of meeting WP:ATHLETE, he seems to clearly meet the main notability guideline. matt91486 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:BIO. Article is well-referenced. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough coverage to indicate notability. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A little bit one-eventish. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Cover the event, not the person. His involvement should be covered elsewhere. If it is going to be kept it needs serious work - and no-one will ever get onto it unless it is done while fresh in minds, because - and this may be recentism - the perceived notability factor will fade with time. --ClubOranjeTalk 06:26, 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. MBisanz talk 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight's Last Gleaming Cross Country Challenge[edit]

Twilight's Last Gleaming Cross Country Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted by prod six days ago[1] with the rationale being "Non-notable event". It has been recreated today exactly as it was, meaning that the prod has effectively been contested so I am bringing it here for discussion. Google searches[2][3][4] bring up no significant coverage in reliable sources to attest to notability. Move to delete as not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 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. MBisanz talk 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patatu[edit]

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

Non-notable neo-logism; vanity article Blowdart | talk 21:12, 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. MBisanz talk 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Apiya[edit]

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

It is an article about a micronation that is clearly not notable. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hosted on www.freehostia.com, not a single gnews hit, sounds more like a hoax to me. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax / madeup nation, which the article pretty much openly admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero sources = zero notability. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- even if some sources can be found, this sounds more like an attempted secession from Montenegro, and thus might merit mentioning in that article. It'd also be worth checking out edits by Apiya (talk · contribs) who created the flag imagery and may simply be an account for edits by heads of state. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick look at Apiya (talk · contribs) user's page shows userboxes that indicate he 'watches South Park, loves Cartman, loves Borat, prefers coke over pepsi, pitys the fool, is a fan of the TV Charmed' and appears to have a userbox fetish. That or maybe each citizen of Apiya got to choose one userbox and the account is used by the entire country. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: There are no reliable sources for this article. The article subject is fictional, and of interest only to Apiya (talk · contribs), who is the sole "citizen". --Gene_poole (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amusing but not notable. Tadakuni (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think the article would be better received here, yes? Tadakuni (talk) 01:05, 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 redirect to Gaunt's Ghosts. BJTalk 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibram Gaunt[edit]

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

original research and plot summary that fails to establish WP:GNG through citations to significant coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gaunt's Ghosts. Not much of note outside the Warhammer 40K world here. He is an important figure within that books series but the importance of that book series within the rest of the WH40K isn't that high. There may be some third party material (book reviews) that mention this character but my guess is that what will be found won't allow us to write an article longer than a sentence. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Aeon[edit]

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

The only independent references given are a directory entry and review from a single source, the online magazine Audyssey, which I'm not convinced passes WP:Reliable sources guidelines. Only 171 ghits, which seem to be all directory entries or user-submitted reviews. I suggest deletion on the grounds of WP:Notability. Marasmusine (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MUD's by there nature aren't a big deal...but have a place in modern media. Article should stay and be allowed to develop. Operating (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first sentence. This is why we have an article on MUDs. Marasmusine (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just counted 50 or so different editors of this article. I have no reason to think those editors have edited in error, and think reliable sources will appear as and when. Assume good faith. Operating (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Where are the verifiable sources? MuZemike (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Updated references as per Marasmusine's previous edits, there's a review from 2003 that is pretty strong within the blind community. (From the accountless person that attempts to maintain this page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.17.237 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep after addition of verifiable sources. I'm a bit confused on when the sources were added and myself !voting delete, but now it does seem to demonstrate some notability via reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only a single source, [5], as you can see I'm not sure if it qualifies for WP:RS. Marasmusine (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources. Why are there little marijuana buds at the bottom of the screenshot? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've ever noticed that before. I'll go find a different image. (From the accountless person that attempts to maintain this page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.17.237 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. It's pretty funny though. The caption is "A player's perspective". Interesting game. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I won't be able to upload anything until I hit autoconfirm status. I'll try for a new screenshot when I can. Flying hazard (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the original author of the Alter Aeon page. I wrote it up because I felt it was a significant MUD within the mudding community. historically and culturally. particularly because of its custom code base and longevity. dentinmud is an original code base just like merc, tiny, circle, or duki. It has been in existence for over 10 years, when 90% of MUDs die out within the first 1 to 5. After reviewing many other wiki pages for online games, I have come to believe that a likely reason that it has been particularly difficult to cite "well established" or "reliable" sources for this mud is because of its lack of commerical enterprise. Often times for-profit online games will pay in cash for third party journalists and game-reviews to review their mud and publish the findings. To my knowledge Alter Aeon does not operate in this manner, and thus in this circumstance, suffers.--Johnglenlock (talk) 05:44, 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 The X Factor (UK). BJTalk 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Drage[edit]

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

A non-noteable reality TV "star" and former member of a non-noteable boy band. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Dalejenkins | 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails everything, altho might pass speedy delete. Operating (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. Maybe someday, but not today. I noticed his "influences" seem to make up the majority of the wikilinks, and would be considered original research anyway. Nice try. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I would argue that this article should not be deleted. Drage has been in bands prior to appearing on X-Factor and he did appear in the "Boys Will Be Girls" TV show (and is just as 'noteable' as the other two participants). Plus, it seems likely he will get through to the final twelve as he has featured HEAVILY in the recent X-Factor series —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billydeeuk (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. Sometimes in trying to help a cause, you hurt it. Operating (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I do not understand why this deletion has been proposed. I think that Austin Drage is a brilliant singer who deserves to go very far. I also think that he is a very interesting part of the history of British music-based reality TV shows

  • Comment. That's possibly the worst keep argument I have ever heared in my life. Dalejenkins | 19:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Why are you so intent on deleting Austin Drage from Wikipedia and why do you feel the need to belittle people like me who like to protect what is good about this world? There is too much destructiveness on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.74.69 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted, this site is an information resource, he deserves as muc right to be on here as, well, anybody else. I am sick and tired of these so called bloody American admisistrators that have no clue about the UK and 'Notable' British people. No he is not as famous as Elton John etc, but he clearly enjoys what he is doing and as such if people want information about him they should be able to find it on the SO CALLED self confessed INFORMATION SITE known as Wikipedia!--Samantha Hix (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: He is in the limelight sufficiently at the moment so that many people will be wnating to look him up and find out more about him. Wikipedia is about promoting knowledge. Tom Green (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Firstly, I don't trust arguments with spelling mistakes. Secondly, simply because you don't watch/are not interested in certain things does not qualify them for deletion. I believe there are enough people that would view this as a valuable resource. Drak (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: He is likely a top three candidate for winning this years X-Factor and the bookmakers rank him as such, he is also one of the few contestants with musical history, and to add to that has made it into the pages of one of our nations tabloid papers. I think this gives him enough status to be included and not deleted - in fact I found his very entry useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.85.2 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • He hasn't won (or placed in) X-Factor yet, so the first part's not applicable. (See WP:CRYSTAL.) Appearing in a tabloid isn't grounds for notability either -- it's not incompatible with notability, but it doesn't demonstrate it. Surely you're not suggesting that every page three girl is ipso facto notable?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Consensus[edit]

Merging was not the concensus. Tom Green (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by EdJohnston. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paganman[edit]

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

I originally proposed this for speedy deletion G11, but the advertising isn't blatant enough for that and the author contested it, so I'm bringing it here. Mars2035 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Spam. First line is Pagan Man publication company has taken the next step in top-shelf adult magazines by marrying it with the benefits of online technologies.. If that isn't wp:peacock enough to qualify as spam/speedy, nothing is. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete advertising. Phrases like "most interesting and cutting edge" are a dead giveaway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There should be a "speedy speedy delete" option. Operating (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for a publication that will replicate material from other publications. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) — This article is like Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. MuZemike (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete via G11. This is perfectly suitable for G11. RockManQ (talk) 00:29, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC) jgbqefirfgt.[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Freeze (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software title. This has been speedy deleted three times already in the past. Dougie WII (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Salt. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite bizarrely this seems to be notable software despite those deletions. And google gives plenty of hits. I have no idea why it was deleted, perhaps the software has been updated lately. Suggest appropriate tags and leave on WP. Operating (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Delete - I don't see any reliable sources, and the article is too close to an advertisement. If any reliable sources are presented, I'll retract my vote. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the source below is sufficient to make me retract my delete vote. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment found at least one review on what I think may be a WP:RS here: MacWorld - but I'm not 100% sure that counts as an RS for these purposes. It does seem to have more than PR releases as ghits, though. MadScot (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is software that does seem to be widely deployed, and it's been around for a bit. There are a couple of software reviews out there that need to be integrated. Also, if the article's comments on the limitations of the software can be sourced, then this would read like less of an advert. I'll see if I can play with the article. Avram (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the speedy deletions seem inappropriate, give that this article had survived an AfD before this occurred. 2 of the deletions were by the same admin and the third was because the re-creator blanked the page. No rationale has been given for deletion, other than these deletions (which went against consensus). --Karnesky (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There seem to be plenty of Google News stories, but nothing major. VG ☎ 08:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a couple of article from non-blog media as references to the article. Each article describes Deep Freeze in one paragraph. YMMV. VG ☎ 09:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it scrapes by as being notable.article does need some cleanup, some wikification, and possibly a re write so it doesnt read so much like an ad. I think those problems could be fixed, and are not grounds for deletion. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And clean-up - reliable sources seem to exist the rest are issues to be addressed through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent sources available. GlassCobra 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The LA Times blog source is written by their culture-journalist-thingamabob guy, so I think that lends quite a bit of notability; the Attack of the Show one helps too. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athene (MovieLOL)[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable character in a non-notable Internet movie. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Chardish (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7 / non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Based on the sources of media coverage provided in the article. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The character's movie was certainly not very notable, but the character "Athene" is indeed quite a popular and well-known person from the gaming world. His video series in Youtube have achieved high ratings and a series of fans. In other words, you cannot judge the character by simply the failed internet movie, but rather the character is famous for his series in Youtube. In fact, I think that he has even started a political group in Belgium. In other words, I am not in favor of deleting this article.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE Fictional character in a Youtube "series". Holy cow. wp:n at best, db:web would be better. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete via WP:CSD#A7, non-notable web content. Should of just put a csd tag on it. RockManQ (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should probably be noted that WP:CSD#A7 states that an article qualifys if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". This article at least makes a claim to notability, weather it is valid or not. So speedy delete seems to not apply here. -Brougham96 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**comment A7 would apply (db-web), as the "claim" is referenced only on Youtube. There is no other claim or source, thus, speedy isn't required, but is a valid solution. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look the External links section, it does reference other third party sources, including the LA times, and a newspaper in Belgium. -Brougham96 (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The external links section does reference the LA Times and a Belgian newspaper. Therefore, it does have valid sources other than Youtube.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change Delete to Neutral I don't speak Vlamish, so the Belgian links are difficult to judge (giving partial benefit of doubt). The LA Times is on their blog, not general publication. I still think this is incredibly weak at best, but will withdraw my delete and stay neutral. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A King Of Oneself EP[edit]

A King Of Oneself EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM, non-notable EP with no sources DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 19:13, 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. MBisanz talk 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regenerative Thought Programming – RTP[edit]

Regenerative Thought Programming – RTP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:05, 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) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Harrison[edit]

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

Bio of a non-notble yoga, meditation, etc. teacher... No reliable sources as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.gordonresearch.com/articles_various/bibliography.html (Bibliography by a Dr. Gordon (an MD) on alternative and dietary healing books):

"Harrison, Lewis. Helping Yourself with Natural Healing. (1988) Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. ISBN (paperbound) 0-13-386731-5. This book written by a teacher and consultant in creative personal development, has put together a remarkable list of natural healing remedies for most common health problems, including: aroma therapy, Edgar Cayce remedies, visualization techniques, hydrotherapy; tissue salts and homeopathy."

From amazon and elsewhere:

"Healing Depression Naturally" (With an Introduction By Jack Canfield Co-Author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul Series)"

Canfield, who wrote the intro to one of these books is well known and notable, and i have certainly heard of these two books by Harrison (although i have not read them myself). They were pretty good sellers when they came out. Several people recommended the "Depression" one to me or said it had helped them. I have no brief for the guy, but he was spotted on my personal radar at least.

I agree with RHaworth, above, that it does look a bit spookish that this "Drew" fellow claims to be a student of Lewis Harrison; the whole thing does look like self-promotion to me -- BUT, i think the guy actually is notable. I suggest that someone work with "Drew" (or Harrison) to hammer out a briefer, less self-promotional entry.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE I have cut the page by 6,500 bites (to about 2/3 of its length) and tagged it for facts at the rate of one tag per paragraph. I have put a notice to that effect on the page of the person who created the page. I will also attempt to contact the subject of this BLP and see if he can help supply reliable sources. I VASTLY prefer this sort of editing to automatic deletion and the assumption of self-promotion or bad faith. Because the rules of the AfD process allow me to remove the call for deletion if i significantly improve the article, i will try to do a bit of fact checking myself, and if i can find anything, i will remove the AfD tag. In the meantime, i hope that others may undertake at least a five-minute trip around the web to see if any notability tests are met. See the srticles talk page for google snippets. Thanks! cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do NOT remove the Afd tag until the discussion is closed. If you do so it will be replaced. Operating (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is still about a non-notable, even with the recent edits and notes on the talk page. A search still reveals that this individual is not the subject of reliable sources independent of the subject. As such, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears 2009 World Tour[edit]

Britney Spears 2009 World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL violation. Verbally confirmed by the artist's mother isn't enough confirmation to even include a mention in a parent article, much less have a standalone article. Kww (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL, however the article should be recreated if and when some facts about the tour are verifiable. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly violates wp:crystal. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated when we have enough reliable info to warrant it's own article. RockManQ (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violation of WP:Crystal. Infuriated-Z (talk) (formerly Atlantics88) 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wait till it happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The source isn't reliable. And it hasn't been confirmed by Spears' label or management, neither have dates been confirmed. Its just a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonparadise98 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spears herself confirmed it on the Z100 Morning show on the morning of September 29. [7] Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm now for keeping as spears herself has confirmed it. Ogioh (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Britney Spears (one line and one footnote should do it for now) and delete. Never mind WP:CRYSTAL; how about WP:NOT#NEWS?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It can be recreated once tour details (ie songs performed, etc) become avaliable. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Railfan. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Train chasing[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability. VG ☎ 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, just over 6000 hits on Google, no references, only one author, etc. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if I do not like the google way of testing a notabillity this article is clearly not notable and it also has got no real sources. abf /talk to me/ 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Railfan. No content here that is useful though- activity of train chasing/spotting and photography covered in that article. Nerdluck34 (Nerdluck34) 10:26; 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Nerdluck34. Is is something I do quite often but there isn't any proper sources for it other than railfan forums, and the article will end up stuck as just a dictionary definition. Wongm (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On notability grounds. The article just isnt encyclopaedic Deckchair (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roeper Summer Day Camp[edit]

Roeper Summer Day Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A summer camp that does all the same things as every other summer camp. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 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. MBisanz talk 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nalgarithim[edit]

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

Neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. VG ☎ 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wikipedia is not for neologisms Bfigura (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. Since this is going to get deleted, I'll give it away-- "nalga" is a slang term [8] for a butt cheek, and someone was watching a dancer shaking her booty, and thought about how "nalga rhythm" sounds like "algorithm" and... well, it probably seemed funny last night. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This belongs on UrbanDictionary and not here. MuZemike (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - destroy this article, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO. RockManQ (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:DICDEF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 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) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syren (novel)[edit]

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

Not yet released book. The title is a mix of pure speculation and circular referencing (citing a wiki that itself cites Wikipedia); in effect it fails a book's equivalent of WP:HAMMER. No reliable secondary sources. Delete now, recreate when (if) sources become available. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 17:25, 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 speedy delete no assertion of notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 16:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intospace.org[edit]

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

The article advertises a for-profit company. Terrillja (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At best not notable, domain created just a couple months ago, probably just went online, virtually unknown to Google [9]. Equendil Talk 15:10, 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. MBisanz talk 14:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kalenko[edit]

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kalenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The whole story seems to be just a fake. No Russian sources prove that such a poet has ever existed. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no Google hits for either the Russian or westernised version of the name strongly suggests a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really thought this looked legit so I did some intense research. Not really, that was a joke. Anyway, I googled up all the references to see if I could find a free version online, and guess what? I did! Last reference, "Trotsky, Leon. The Month of The Great Slander. The History of the Russian Revolution; Volume 2,Chapter 27". Found a free version here, quick control-f and there was no Aleksandr Vladmirovich Kalenko, nor any variation of that name. In conclusion: delete! Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax --Dreamspy (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inspired by Bsimmons666's sterling efforts I checked out the first reference, and it doesn't seem to mention this guy [10], and guess what, the second one doesn't either [11]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, deceptive use of sources, appears very likely to be a hoax. Everyking (talk) 08:47, 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 14:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Assistance[edit]

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

I think "academic assistance", an inherently vague, generic term, is being used here as a euphemism coined for the purpose of hiding the purpose of this page, which I believe is to steer students to services that will do their homework for them. The term used in the article, "freelance academic assistance", returns no Google hits, making me more suspicious that the topic of this article is bogus. Also, the same author has now created an article on one of these companies, PENCAMP, making it appear more likely that this article is just part of an infrastructure for promoting it. Largo Plazo (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it seems to just be advertising to me.--Terrillja (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertising, then possibly redirect to Scholarship. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for beeing an un-notable advertise. abf /talk to me/ 16:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Academic Assistance" as used in this article is an euphemism for payed cheating services. The topic might be notable, but this article is an unsalvageable advert for such services. There's already a (poor quality) article for tutoring, which could be expanded to cover these cheating services in a NPOV manner. VG ☎ 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (G11) — Article contains egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam. MuZemike (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy under G11. Pure self-promotion. (And even if it wasn't, it's non-notable) Bfigura (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedy--it's a little more than advertising, but not a good base for an article. The term is of course a euphemism for plagiarism and ghost-writing. A suitable term for this particular aspect of it will be difficult to find & if the article is written, it wont be based on this, and it will need real sources, and not just be an apology--though it could contain whatever sourced defense of the practice can be found. DGG (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertising. However, it's so poorly written that one would have to be desperate to actually use the companies involved. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete via G11. Advertising and spam. RockManQ (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — The related article, PENCAMP, has already been speedied per G11. MuZemike (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note — A third related article, Freelance Academic Assistants, has been proposed for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another another note — user and articles in question have been reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete SPAM, toss it. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly spam. Given the quality of writing, I am almost tempted to argue it should be kept, so people will steer away from these companies :-) --Crusio (talk) 07:31, 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 14:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Lower Field River[edit]

Friends of the Lower Field River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a local action group, which has references which show that it has commented in relation to various development proposals and studies. None of these show that it is a notable body. Individuals can comment on such proposals, without thereby becoming notable. There are no reports from daily newspapers indicating that its activities have had some impact on significant events for instance. Grahame (talk) 13:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Karabell[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality (talk • contribs) 2008/09/15 06:20:03

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This page has its problems, including a slight whiff of vanity (is it just me?), but Karabell gets significant ghits and seems to check out as legit and notable. --Lockley (talk) 02:41, 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, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 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. Although lists and categories serve different purposes, teen pop is not acknowledged as a distinct genre of music, and so the contents of this list are largely OR, and not useful. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of teen pop artists and bands[edit]

List of teen pop artists and bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This would be better served as a category, since a list like this would be incredibly large. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not tagged for deletion on the article page, and why would an article becoming too big be a rationale for deletion? Lugnuts (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete better as a category, and we should tread carefully as "teen pop" tends to have slightly negative connotations. To use an example from this article, I doubt Rihanna really considers herself "teen pop". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incomplete, not-needed list. Lets make a category for it. abf /talk to me/ 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A not needed list. This would be better as a category. Schuym1 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, far from complete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists are not deleted in favour of categories, see Wikipedia:CLN so that is not a valid reason for deletion, while currently unsourced, the list can be easily be sourced so the only possibly reason for delection would be as listcruft but seen as there are many similar lists i see no real reason to delete this. --neon white talk 18:08, 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. MBisanz talk 14:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global campfire[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:32, 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) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Parade[edit]

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

NN band that gets recreated. I want an AfD so we can delete this period. mboverload@ 05:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A band with two million views on Myspace is hardly a NN band.--Baselineace (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing notable about them is MySpace you have just proved my point. --mboverload@ 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being number one on PureVolume is also a pretty big deal. Playing Bamboozle is a big deal. Being number one on radio stations is a big deal. Being courted by major (not indie) labels is a big deal. Being featured on AbsolutePunk.net is a big deal. Holiday Parade is a big deal, and they're not getting any smaller any time soon. --Baselineace (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they have been played on the radio that makes them very much notable. Please provide sources for that claim. --mboverload@ 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been played here on this station, which has broken many big artists.--Baselineace (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be an online radio site. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) and let us know if Holiday Parade fits into any of those categories of notability. It is on iTunes though, they sound awesome. --mboverload@ 06:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the largest radio stations on the Internet per Shoutcast. That would constitute a major radio network.--Baselineace (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have received airplay on radio networks and have also been charted on PureVolume, which is internationally recognizable.--Baselineace (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. So you keep saying. But just in case you missed mboverload telling you the same thing in the above conversation, where's the proof.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this?--Baselineace (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, sure did. And once again I'll direct you WP:RS where they explain what third-party sources means.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just tossing my 2c in here, but Amazon.com appears to be selling their two albums, as well as an indie music review. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, subject to change. Alright, I'll play the game, grand claims will have to be matched with grand sources, let's see them. Equendil Talk 10:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC). Delete it is. Equendil Talk 15:15, 27 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) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from independent, reliable sources are added. Without them, the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless they are shown to pass WP:BAND. Just having played at "The Bamboozle" doesn't make it past #9. Myspace is not an indicator of notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, the band currently fails WP:MUSIC. Myspace and PureVolume just simply aren't enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and WP:RS. MySpace, PureVolume and a Wikipedia do not qualify as reliable, and do not assert notability, and thus the article fails WP:MUSIC]. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. One of the main reasons that "x hits on y website" isn't an inclusion criterion is that it's extremely easy to fake, and anyone with a modicum of computer knowledge could whip up a little script and get a zillion myspace views (or whatever) within minutes. We rely on hard media coverage, industry awards, chart positions, and such for a reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' because the article basically fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. abf /talk to me/ 16:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. This band is in rotation on major radio networks and has been the subject of radio programming.--Baselineace (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Internet radio isn't the same as real radio, as you've already been told above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band has over 17,000 listeners on Last.fm. You may argue that last.fm data can be manipulated too, but there are hundreds of Wikipedia artist pages for country musicians who charted once back in the Eighties, and are currently listened to by 10 people on last.fm. They meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia but apparently no-one cares about them. Then this young band with a huge buzz around them should not be listed? This makes no sense.

Strummer25 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently the band performed on FOX News Boston (see the Wikipedia article for more details).--Baselineace (talk) 20:53, 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 redirect to Bituing Walang Ningning. If someone else wants to merge some info feel free, the history is still there - as there were a couple of acceptable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Arguelles[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:38, 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, Stifle (talk) 07:17, 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) 02:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Cabot[edit]

James L. Cabot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by article creator without explanation. A non notable local historian and author. The subject falls well short of the general notability requirements or those of WP:CREATIVE. Additionally, the level of minutiae in the article implies there is a COI here Nuttah (talk) 07:07, 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) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila poker[edit]

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

This article is entirely a guide to playing this card game and thus fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. It has previously been PRODded as such. Much of it is also a copy violation. There is nothing about where the game is played, when it originated etc - ie nothing salvagable. Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nothing worth keeping. It is simply how to play - and amateurly written. --Cmputer 22:58, 28 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.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arman_Tarzi[edit]

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

There are a few key problems with the article which make it eligible for deletion. First, there is no real context or content in truly identify the subject. As with section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the article is about a real person but does not indicate why the subject is truly important. The sources are not truly reliable or independent which deems the article not noteworthy. Aclassact78 (talk) 04:37, 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. MBisanz talk 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bevis[edit]

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

Vanity biography. Searched google for "Thomas Bevis" and Worldcat for the books mentioned; no hits on either, or on the bands. phoebe / (talk to me) 04:34, 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. MBisanz talk 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi (InuYasha)[edit]

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

Completely unnotable minor fictional character from the manga/anime series InuYasha. To minor for inclusion in the list - one-two episode character. Her "love interest" was already agreed by consensus to be too minor to be in the list as well and was merged to Kagome Higurashi. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hitomi (瞳眸, Hitomi?) is one of the very minor characters in the anime series InuYasha. lol delete. Did this even need to be brought to AfD? The article's about a minor one-shot character in a TV series with roughly 4,000 episodes. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm assuming you were being sarcastic or whatever here (it's rather hard to tell), but InuYasha actually has only 167 episodes... and no, I didn't need to look that up (I know, pitiful, huh?). —Dinoguy1000 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of InuYasha characters. Not notable enough for a separate article. Edward321 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this character appears to have an exceptionally small role in an almost 200 episode series and I do not think any reliable sources apart from the show itself will be found that cover the topic. "Hitomi (InuYasha)" is a pretty unlikely search term and even if a consensus emerges that the character should be included in the list the content is likely to be reduced to - at most - one or two descriptive sentences and will not have to derived from the current article. Guest9999 (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article itself: "Hitomi is one of the very minor characters". --erachima talk 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no need to have an article for such a minor character. Tadakuni (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Norse Am Legend put this best. JuJube (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor character like this does not warren an article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per everyone; does not warrant an outright deletion.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above - such a character doesn't warrent his own article, or even his own section on a character list. At most, the character would be mentioned only in the summary of the relevant anime episode(s)/manga volume(s), and then only if he were important enough to the episode's or volume's plot. —Dinoguy1000 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hitomi is a girl's name lol did you even click on the article - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, not really. I Kind of knew she was female, but didn't really think about it, and I'm one of those who uses vernacular as opposed to what is "politically correct" - hence why I used "him" instead of "them" or similar. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere. As for Sota--similar treatment, with a redirect. This could indeed have been merged without bringing it here. I encourage those interested in the series to do the necessary merging and redirect on these characters themselves, rather than have it forced upon them, since they are not defensible as individual articles. DGG (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.As none of it is sourced at all, which article should be victimised by forcing this "information" to be merged into it? Verifiability applies to article content, so an unverifiable section is just as bad as an unverifiable article.
  • Delete - although I am somewhat a fan of InuYasha, she was a completely minor character that does not warrant her own article. RockManQ (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none notable, completely unsourced, unlikely search term, so no need for redirect to anywhere.Yobmod (talk) 13:14, 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 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone 500[edit]

Cyclone 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Do we really need an entire article on a go cart track? Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:41, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. macy 16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Canem Workshop[edit]

Cave Canem Workshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, Doesnt seem to meet notability. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the page author. Upon further consideration it may fail to meet WP:CSD, but still does not meet WP:N. Brougham96 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I have deleted all the revisions of this article that were clearly a copyvio. Black Kite 10:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided that the tense issues and the wording of "Our program" is changed to establish NPOV. Scottydude review 03:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Scottydude. Topic seems both verifiable and sufficiently notable. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article was a copyright violation of http://cavecanempoets.org/pages/about.php (and hence a speedy delete G12 candidate). I have now stubbified the article and added two sources and will ask an admin to delete the previous copyvio versions. Guest9999 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Withdraw The article has been improved signifigantly. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peek email device[edit]

Peek email device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently launched product. No notability at present and, I suspect, unlikely to become notable. Sgroupace (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've seen this on Engadget, and I think it's notable enough, however it should have a stub template added. Psychcf (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nontrivial coverage in the New York Times, among others. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand significantly, the article is unsourced as of now. However I see nontrivial coverage when doing a simple google search. --Banime (talk) 20:03, 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) 02:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nate's comments. Notability seems to be established Bfigura (talk) 19:37, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Detrich[edit]

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

Person who is only notable for one thing. Redddogg (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not sure what exactly this "one thing" he is supposed to be notable for according to the nom, but this is not a BLP1E case. I assume the nom means is that the notability comes only from the photo-altering scandal. First, I don't think that is correct. There is substantial coverage of the subject prior to the scandal. He was a Pulitzer finalist, according to the ref in the article, and had won various photographic awards well before the scandal, see, for example, this article from 1998[13]. GoogleNews has 73 hits[14], may pre-dating the scandal. Even if one accepts the logic that most of his notability comes from the 2007 photo altering scandal, the scandal was primarily about him personally, so an article about the scandal (which is notable) would primarily cover Allan Detrich anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article only talks about him being fired for using Photoshop on his newsphotos. Every day many people get fired from their jobs, but that is not material for an encyclopedia article because it has no lasting importance -- the information that someone got fired that is -- the event of being fired is important to the person and his or her family of course. Redddogg (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92 - there is substantial coverage of him before - apparently he is well known as a "storm chaser"[15] and other articles[16]. Not one event.John Z (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that if the article is kept that some of this other information is included. Right now it reads like an attack article. (Not related to the AfD issue is that only other news photographers would care about the Photoshop issue. Making too much of it comes off as kind of geeky, IMO. Kind of like if someone got kicked out of the Star Trek Fan Club for using elf ears for Vulcan ears.) Redddogg (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, looking at the history it has fluctuated between being quite positive (perhaps edited by subject or associate) and being close to an attack article. John Z (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to undermine my own AfD. But if the article survives I will work on improving it. The story of a person's life shouldn't be dominated by one incident of being fired from a job. (If so I am in real trouble. :-) ) Redddogg (talk) 14:15, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zele Ismail[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't made his professional debut. Having two major clubs wanting to sign you isn't enough to cement notability. (On a side note, I don't *think* this is a hoax - whilst he doesn't appear on the Wolves Academy profiles page, the rumours have been in several newspapers, according to the not-particularly-reliable-looking footballtransferleague.co.uk.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. It is best to wait until/when he does turn professional to start an article. Peacock (talk) 14:46, 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) 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has yet to play at the highest level, i.e. in a fully professional league, so fails the criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 19:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I can find a lot of Google hits on this person but none of them seem to be coverage in reliable secondary sources. Not having made his professional debut means notability isn't established through WP:ATHLETE either. Reyk YO! 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. recreate if and when...--ClubOranjeTalk 06:27, 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) 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Lions Football Club[edit]

Eastern Lions Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is about an amateur Australian football club whose senior team plays in the 4th division Colts. It does not present any evidence of notability or any independent and verifiable sources. Grahame (talk) 13:02, 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) 02:13, 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 redirect to List of Ultima series characters. History kept if someone wants to merge some stuff as it appears there were a few acceptable sources there. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ventryn[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It says here that primary sources can be used as long as no analyses of them is made. For a fictional work, I think it is clear that the original source of the material is all that is needed if it is only described here (since there is no possibility of conflict when it comes to the accuracy of what is released by the original source, since it's clearly fictional). That said, without a reliable third-party source, it may not be notable enough for Wikipedia, and all analysis should be removed, leaving only the descriptive parts if it is kept. --Sydius (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a quick search and found a lot of sources from Ultima Online-affiliated web sites (sites at least partially dedicated to the subject), and, of course, primary sources for the information. I could find nothing from news.google.com or scholar.google.com, and I doubt there would be anything outside of the Ultima Online community regarding this subject. So it may very well fail notability requirements if primary sources and sites partially dedicated to Ultima Online aren't enough. --Sydius (talk) 20:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i see no evidence that this character is or every was of any significance. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it on the fringe of notability, but I side on inclusion. I'd say merge, but I wouldn't know to what. --Sydius (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Merge or) Delete Purely in-universe, written as if he actually existed (WP:NOT#PLOT), WP:WAF). I've had a look at the listed sources, and they are terribly in-universe and are, frankly, unusable for a proper wikipedia article. None of the articles listed under Category:Ultima characters lend themselves as obvious merge targets, so deletion and starting new seems the best solution. – sgeureka t•c 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- none of the references listed are reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:N. Reyk YO! 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned above, WP:WAF and WP:Notability guidelines are the major issue here. Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Ultima series characters per WP:NOT#PLOT, in-universe style, and lack of any secondary sources establishing notability. However, it is a viable search term. MuZemike (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Ultima series characters per MuZemike --Sydius (talk) 00:33, 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 keep. You can add the infobox now :) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ink & Dagger[edit]

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

NN band whos only claim to is that they sued Microsoft for using some of their songs in a video game. 1 event does not make a band notable. mboverload@ 05:13, 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, treelo radda 02:05, 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 merge to Keele University#Halls of residence. It seems everyone agrees that the content is not notable enough for a separate article; however, as there is no consensus to delete, I'm recommending that this article be merged and redirected to the University article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keele University Halls of Residence[edit]

Keele University Halls of Residence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Please see discussion at the article's talk page. Bongomatic (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per talk page discussion.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. None of these buildings are notable residences, or of significant architectural merit. I would probably support the merger or deletion of many other members of Category:Halls of residence in the United Kingdom for the same reason. An example of student halls which are notable would be Clifton Hill House (listed building, notable architect, notable former residents, TV filming location etc.). — mholland (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that none of the buildings is individually notable is totally irrelevant. This is an articles about the collective residence halls. We need an argument about whether they are as a group significant. As for that, I think there is no encyclopedic information here, and a simple list of them should go somewhere else in the articles about the university. If anyone wants to know the details, the university has a website, with a map. And I agree with Mholland about the unsuitability of many of the other articles in the category. DGG (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Keele University#Halls of residence. All university articles cover their student accommodation. The question is whether the material merits a standalone page or whether it can be incorporated into the main page without overbalancing it. Here, the content can be easily merged. TerriersFan (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Keele University. Halls of residence are not notable without a very good reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep into Keele University. As per discussion on talk page. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I remeber hearing that Keele uni had the highest suicide rate in the UK, as it's residences were so isolated and boring. But even that isn't enough to make them notable :-).Yobmod (talk) 15:27, 25 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, treelo radda 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, either as individual buildings or as a collective residence halls that I can see here. DGG is correct that this sort of info belongs on a university website, not in an encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these buildings are worthwhile in their own right. Operating (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I got deja vu seeing this, and not because it's a relist of a recent AFD. Wasn't this nominated about a year ago? If so, there should be a link to the previous AFD. No opinion either way, I'm just sayin'. 23skidoo (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think so as this page was created in August 2008. Bongomatic (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember something too. Maybe it was another university? Stephen Turner (Talk) 05:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't mean anything as the article could have been deleted and recreated. 23skidoo (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Keele University - this is usually the best solution for buildings etc of minor notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Keele University#Halls of residence. There is no reason why we shouldn't point readers to the correct place to find information on the res halls. What's currently here appears unref'd so redirect, if there's sources, then a merge would be fine as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cycle chic. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle chic[edit]

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

Contested prod. No references. Seems to be a protologism. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. No amount of promotion will ever make kneepads or Devo helmets "chic". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the points. Chic cyclists favour other styles. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 30 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, treelo radda 01:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It actually seems to be a real expression/trend. Two secondary references. Redddogg (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources consist of A) An article in Vogue which is one paragraph long and about fashionable people who happened to use a pedicab once, so it's unrelated to this article and B) An article that mentions "Bicycle chic" only as the name of a blog. Based on evidence thus far, this just seems to be the name of a blog. --Rividian (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Rividan. Equendil Talk 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. I always get a laugh from doing Afd's. This is such a cool term i hope it catches on. Till then delete. Operating (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of fashionable clothing for cycling is a good one with a long history and we do not seem to have a good article upon the subject yet. A quick search indicates that there are sources documenting this topic over the years. The current title for the article is perhaps not the best but will do for now and can be readily changed as the topic is fleshed out. Per our editing policy, we should nuture this seedling rather than stamping upon it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every word of this article would need to be rewritten... so there's really nothing worth keeping. If someone wants to write a good article on bicycle clothing, fine... but there's nothing useful towards that here. Anyone who started would delete the current content anyway. --Rividian (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I consider this a useful start. I further note that the article was tagged for deletion within one minute of its creation and that this unhelpful action may have had a chilling effect upon the stone soup.Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both paragraphs in the article do nothing but describe a phrase apparently used just to promote some blog. Those would not be present in a proper article. If the article can be improved, improve it... but vague claims of possible improvement aren't useful, improvement or evidence of sources is useful. --Rividian (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really... only one of the sources even uses the term "bicycle chic" at all, and it's not in the context of bicycle clothing. As constituted this AFD is a defense of an article on the term "bicycle chic" as a notable term for fashionable bicycle clothing... and there's still not a single reliable source on that. To keep the article now, based on the sources so far, is basically to permit original research, using a few sources about bicycle clothing, that don't use the term "bicycle chic", to have the Wikipedia article claim "bicycle chic" is some popular term. --Rividian (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple sources using the term and we have other synonyms such as cycle chic. In any case, the exact phrase is unimportant per WP:DICDEF. The popularity of the topic is also unimportant per WP:N: Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity,". WP:OR is also inapplicable as everything has been drawn from sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where you're getting that the exact phrase is unimportant... this article is claiming to be about a specific, established term, so the exact phrase is very important. If the article is just about the concept of Bicycle fashion, that's another story, but the article should be moved there. "Bicycle chic" seems to be a proprietary term promoted by blogs, but "Bicycle fashion" is probably a legitimate, encyclopedic topic. --Rividian (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found that we already have another article upon the same topic: Cycle chic. Since the text of that article was more developed, I have been bold and spared us further effort by merging in the content from the article under consideration here. This discussion may now be closed as moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't object to closing this and redirecting to Cycle chic, they are undeniably duplicate articles and Cycle chic looks better. But as the whole "chic" thing, as far as I can tell, always traces back to self-promoting blogs... I still think the article should be Bicycle fashion. --Rividian (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleam the sword[edit]

Fleam the sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Rol Cortishane which is itself questionable. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or even delete as it is extremely obscure. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'd try to get the information merged somewhere in the description of the game play or the character. To delete outright would require some reason why this would not be suitable. That it does not justify a separate article is clear enough. It shuld not be the onus of the defender of content to show why it could be merged, not deleted, but the other way round. DGG (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say merge into Rol Cortishane, but as that character's article should be merged or deleted as well, I don't want to unnecessarily put off the final decision. – sgeureka t•c 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary for the fictional sword of a fictional character, obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge what exactly of a fictional sword? If there is any important information it should already be in the fictional owner of the sword. If not just add it. "Fleam the sword" reruns 0 GHits. It's an unlikely item as well. No reason to keep it as a redirect. Article right now is orphan as well. It's not even mentioned in the List of fictional swords! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously notable. No reason to delete. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it obviously notable? Can you provide any source that supports that opinion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 26 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, treelo radda 01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obviously non-notable. Every reason to delete. (Seriously, an object used by a character in a series that has yet to be released?) JuJube (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It takes two clicks to get to the marginally notable work of fiction that includes it. There is no sourced material. No independent sources cover it. It can and should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable element of a book series which is itself of borderline notability at best. I'd say to redirect to the series' article, but as far as I can tell we don't have one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Zapato[edit]

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

As this article is written, the subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 18 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, MBisanz talk 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete some minor interviews and mentions, but nothing to established notablity to wiki standards. We66er (talk) 05:34, 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, TravellingCari 01:45, 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) 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin I. Mitchell[edit]

Benjamin I. Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(recreation of prod deletion) (Auto?)biography of a college tv presenter and radio presenter that does not indicate any real notability. Lacking signicant coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 17 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, Chick Bowen 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. It's a high bar for college journalists/actors... this doesn't make it.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:10, 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, TravellingCari 01:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No significant sources have been added to this entry since it's nomination for deletion. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability, needs more verifiable 3rd party references to demonstrate notability--Rtphokie (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a promotional site for someone associated with a small late night show on a college TV station that may have been sent by VHS tape to other small college TV stations, none of them viewable by most of the general public. Even the college he's working at now is pretty small. 66.61.35.131 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 08:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Sanity[edit]

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

The band does not qualify as being notable and much of the information in the history section is biased and non-factual Xabsolutefuturex (talk · contribs) Copied from edit summary when Xabsolutefuturex added the AfD tag. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 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, TravellingCari 01:41, 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) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Ibrahim Zedan[edit]

Samir Ibrahim Zedan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only has a handful of credits to his name, not notable enough. Punkmorten (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 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, TravellingCari 01:41, 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) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanwork[edit]

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

Defines a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to fandom? Or maybe fan fiction (fan art is not in good shape)? TheMolecularMan (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "fanwork" is a really unspecific neologism that could refer to any number of things and is not a term used with real legitimacy. I doubt someone would look up "fanwork", find nothing and give up when the likelier terms "fan fiction" and "fandom" are around. JuJube (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 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, TravellingCari 01:38, 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) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant In The Sand[edit]

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

Mixtape with no claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No professional reviews found at metacritic or allmusic; allmusic doesn't show this has charted. My gut feeling is the source in the article isn't a reliable, independent source, but I'm not 100% certain so I'm taking to AfD for more input. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 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, TravellingCari 01:36, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QwikiWiki[edit]

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

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability nor any independent sources. Gsearch (and gnews) not turning up notability in the first half-dozen pages of hits, but the large number of hits leads me to bring this to AfD rather than prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 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, TravellingCari 01:35, 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. MBisanz talk 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Nelson (Nikki Nelson album)[edit]

Nikki Nelson (Nikki Nelson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no source, non-notable unreleased album Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:28, 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 Nominator Withdrew. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Boston Weatherford[edit]

Carole Boston Weatherford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. I had gone through the history of the article an noticed there were other editors that questioned her notability. Rockfang (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator Withdraw. Someone can close this.--Rockfang (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject may qualify for inclusion for two reasons: her books have won awards, and she took a controversial position on Pokemon. OTOH, that latter controversy has made the biography the target of Pokemon fans. It's been quiet recently, but it has been the target of BLP issues in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep author of books, several (passing) news hits, some notoriety from the Pokemon thing. JJL (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "author of books" is a valid reason to keep an article on an author.--Rockfang (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources for her, and reviews for her books, among 303 gnews hits.AUTHOR'S SUCCESS A LONG TIME COMING (from 1995). New York Times review of book which won a Caldecott Honor, this about another book that won another national award,another NYT review (capsule), p.392, unfortunately restricted, almost certainly is a bio of her in Black Authors and Illustrators of Books for Children and Young Adults By Barbara Thrash (from alphabetical order, her presence in the index, and the 'see also' at the bottom of the the page linked). John Z (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep as winner of several major awards, with hundreds of relevant gnews items. from dozens of major reliable sources. Can;'t imagine why the nominator didn't bother to do even the most trivial of basic searches. Please see the WTR:AFD for my suggestion of how to prevent this in the future. we need to switch the Wikipedian reflex on seeing an inadequate article from "how can this be deleted" to "how can this be fixed" -- we already have just that as WP:Deletion policy, not we need to change our practices. But then, the editors writingthe article didn't seem to have considered the possibility of general notability either. DGG (talk) 05:11, 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 and redirect. Punkmorten (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Right (Big Kuntry King song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
That's Right (Big Kuntry King song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable single by nonnotable rapper. `'Míkka>t 22:51, 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) 00:27, 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 speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11). Blueboy96 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhinged (2008 film)[edit]

Unhinged (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, no relevant hits. Problematic user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:17, 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 Withdrawn Article has improved significantly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Bay Film Festival[edit]

Swansea Bay Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. A claim that the festival is "better than Cannes" is an assertion of notability, whether or not it is true. --Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I followed up on Eastmain's work, expanding the article a bit and both wikifying and adding cites. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not exactly a great advert for Swansea ("the glitzy awards ceremony … will be hosted by pop duo The Cheeky Girls"), but press coverage and a BBC article ought to be decisive (I mean the one in external links, not the one in the footnote, that's more a program description by the festival organiser). N p holmes (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the sources found. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the new referencing, nice work Eastmain & Michael. Wiw8 (talk) 19:26, 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 speedy delete as blatant advertising. Blueboy96 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIVE[edit]

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

Non notable film, prod A1 removed w/o comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:07, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_27&oldid=1081071629"