Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete - article deleted per (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) by User:J.delanoy - procedural non-admin close --T-rex 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bud's Broiler[edit]

Don't think it quite meets A7, but still not very notable. Also smells like an ad, but still not enough for G11. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also felt it smelled like an ad, and speedy-tagged it as such, but have removed my own tag since I think AfD will resolve this situation somewhat more permanently (thanks, User:Jonathan, for your trouble). Regardless of one's opinion of the advertising-like nature of the prose, there are no reliable sources that demonstrate notability in a reliable way. And if being in the background of a movie was any measure of notability, well, nearly every building in downtown Vancouver would qualify (I live in Vancouver). Accounting4Taste:talk 23:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I note the result of the Deletion Review in respect of the previous AfD listing, but this decision is not binding on this discussion, which would in that case be without purpose. In the discussion contained here, I have considered the arguments on both sides, and the consensus is clear for delete. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal[edit]

Seems to fail WP:CORP. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My impression is that the "committee" never actually existed but was a kind of a pointy joke/hoax propagated by Robert Anton Wilson. Some hoaxes are notable but this one does not appear to be. No independent in-depth coverage of the "committee" by reliable sources (the only substantive coverage seems to have come from Wilson himself) and in fact very little independent coverage even of minor nature. GoogleBooks gives just 4 hits[1] (the first of which is an article by Wilson). Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Article is inworld fiction with a dash of... well quasi-hoxage. Timothy F.X. Finnegan is a fictional character (see old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy F.X. Finnegan FWIW), this organization is fictional and fails WP:FICT as I see it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't exist and, frankly, really well and truely not notable. If it worth keeping, it should be transferred over to Robert Anton Wilson. Shot info (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fictional group. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cited a couple of books which describe it in some detail and a citation to a major newpaper which mentions it. Deletion is obviously inappropriate per WP:BEFORE. The nomination also seems political in nature and so WP:POINT and WP:CENSOR seem relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the updated version and I still think that it is a delete. The only coverage the "committee" received was either in the writings of Wilson or in a couple of cases in sources quoting him where the subject was actually Wilson rather than the committee. Not enough here to demonstrate notability. Moreover, there is also, in a sense, a WP:V problem. If the "committee" is a real thing and actually exist/existed, then more substantial verification of its existence is necessary. If the committee was a public joke/hoax propagated by Wilson then one needs to have sources more directly and definitively identifying it as a hoax. To quote the deletion policy WP:DEL, one of the reasons for deletion is: "Articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)". In this case, unless the committee is actually definitively identified as a hoax by reliable sources (and by a sufficient number of them to make it a notable hoax), it qualifies as a hoax article since the committee does not seem to have existed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOAX explains, Also note that completely implausible text may be legitimate descriptions of fictional works that use an inappropriate in-universe style. Use "whatlinkshere" to check if this is the case, and if so rewrite the article in the out-of-universe perspective, or tag the article with {{in-universe}} or {{fiction}}. The article is obviously not a hoax but a good-faith description of something that is well-attested by multiple sources. And from WP:DEL, you quite fail to address alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in this case the status of the committee is not made clear by the sources available. If the committee was an in-universe element of fiction and the sources described it as such, there would not be a problem, at least not in WP:V terms. However, Wilson did not present the committee to the world as an element of fiction, rather he presented it as a real thing. The sources that quote him do not make it clear that the committee did not actually exist in the real world. As far as I can tell, there do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources to definitively identify the committee as either a fictional creation or a real world organization. This presents a WP:V problem both ways. Nsk92 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider speculative scientific theories such as Dark energy. In that article we say, The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. We do not delete our articles upon such topics because our knowledge is less than perfect. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation there is different since the status of the subject is clearly identified by various sources as an element of a scientific theory. In this case the status of the committee is not clearly identified as either a fictional creation or a real organization. With abstract concepts such as dark matter identifying them as a theory is sufficient. With real world physical objects, such as people, buildings, companies, committees, etc, one actually needs to be able to identify whether they are real or imagined/fictional/speculative etc. That is what WP:HOAX requires. Nsk92 (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point of WP:HOAX is to stop people from making things up on Wikipedia directly. It is perfectly fine for us to report matters whose truth is uncertain - matters such as the Resurrection of Christ, say. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the purpose of WP:HOAX is so narrow as to deal only with hoaxes perpetrated by WP editors. I think that WP:HOAX is in a way an extension of WP:V and is designed to prevent hoax information from making it into WP articles, even if the perpetrator of the hoax is someone else and a WP editor has mistakenly bought into the hoax. That is why WP:V requires verification by reliable sources. For example, in the case of urban legends, they only become inclusion-worthy after they are actually identified as urban legends by reliable sources and receive sufficient coverage in that capacity. Before that they are just unverified rumours excludable on WP:V grounds. In this case both the deletion policy and WP:HOAX say that one can have an article about a notable hoax, which, as I understand it, means that the hoax needs to be identified as a hoax by reliable sources and receive sufficient coverage in that capacity. For the case at hand, the only way I see for the article to deserve a keep if it is shown that it is either a notable fictional element or that it is a notable hoax. The former seems unlikely since Wilson never described the committee as a fictional element but always described it as a real organization. For the latter, I do not see any coverage by independent (from Wilson) reliable sources that actually identify the committee as Wilson's invention. Such coverage as there is available seems to simply quote Wilson. Nsk92 (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be straining common-sense. Isn't it obvious that CSICON was a humorous parody of CSICOP? Parodies are often presented in a straight-faced manner - it is part of their art. We don't need to exert ourselves to understand that the Cheese Shop sketch was not about a real cheese shop, say. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I can easily imagine people wanting to make a point organizing such a committee in real life. For examples, Razzies were created essentially with such a purpose (incidentally by another Wilson). Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respect for broadminded-ness and even humor are real values near the heart and foundation of wikipedia. A lack of either, even by otherwise respectable editors and admins, is no reason to invoke an AFD or to vote for an delete. Now if only the editors and admins who disagree with those who do possess such values could just be please, please be WP:GIANTDICK's. Oh just kidding! :-) --Firefly322 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that since the subject of the article is clearly a joke that is ought not have to pass WP:N? If this is an article about a fictional organization, then the article ought to state that clearly (maybe even state exactly which work of fiction it is from) but the author of the original article (who has made only one edit since October 2006) presented it as an actual organization. No WP:RS sources have been provided to clarify this point, nor to establish the extensive coverage in secondary sources independent of the topic, and so you invite people to behave dickishly so they can be banned? Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The previous closing of this AfD was considered at Deletion Review and it was determined to be out-of-process. The discussion is being relisted as a result. The closing summary has been converted to a struck through comment below. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was delete.~~ PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Anton Wilson, since this appears to be the catchphrase of one man. I laughed when George Carlin joked about the Taskforce for Better Pancakes, but that wouldn't rate an article either. Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to Robert Anton Wilson) or delete. Topic appears to have no notability beyond its author and little (if any) mention that isn't in connection with him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the concept discussed is great and deserves a place on WP, the "committee" is not notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mention in The Telegraph is trivial, the book mentions are in a jocular style, and lack perspective. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Confluence[edit]

Tagged as unsourced for nearly two years. I can't find any decent sources, and apparently neither can anyone else. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, (citing WP:REF, WP:RS, and WP:N)--S_RX 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroball[edit]

WP:PROD contested by creator of article. Reason in Prod was: "Another unnotable sport invented by college students. Fails WP:N. Please note that Ghits for Aeroball refer to a different sport using a trampoline." There is also no verifiable information. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A1 and WP:N.--S_RX 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When we were bored, we played a game where you threw a frisbee down a narrow hallway. Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Started in 2004 by bored college students. The. End. JuJube (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only fails, but it defines WP:NFT ("It has no jet packs and is not related to basketball in anyway". Okaythen, i'll take your word on it). Also fails WP:NOT#HOWTO. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD nominator. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually I was expecting this article to be about Gordon's Aeroball. Axl (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Strong consensus to keep. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Forget[edit]

Article about the upcoming album of a minor act best known for her association with the Jonas Brothers and a Disney movie. Proof of the album's existence does not necessarily constitute notability. Where are pre-sale numbers that might actually show a true "demand" for this album, etc? Winger84 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — From WP:MUSIC "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.", Demi Lovato is a notable artist and has an article here. She's an artist signed to a large record label, Hollywood Records. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh, you actually quoted the wrong bit. That one is for "officially released albums" albums, this one hasn't been released yet. You actually want the next paragraph down from that one in WP:MUSIC#Albums regarding future albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Cycloneim said and citing the same guideline, Demi Lovato is notable and so is the album.--S_RX 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per future WP:MUSIC#Albums for confirmed track listing, album title, release date and the reuters.com reference. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. This is a silly nomination and should be removed right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.197.51.199 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the above IP has made no contributions to Wikipedia outside of this discussion and a note on my talk page. --Winger84 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This album has a track listing, title, album cover and close release date. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article just survived AFD a few days ago, and bringing it up again so quickly is a bit unseemly at the very least. That aside, it has a title and a tracklist, promotion has begun, and the first single has been released. The first single has also survived its own AFD, and the content from that article has been merged into this one, which gets it away from that tiny, useless stub appearance. Lovato herself may only be popular with a narrow demographic, but there's no doubt that she is notable.Kww (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, clearly notable, already survived AfD recently. Everyking (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics (poststructural)[edit]

This is a personal essay by an editor, Supriyya (talk · contribs), who has been trying to push original research on the Linguistics article. As others have pointed out repeatedly on Talk:Linguistics and its archives, the theories outlined in this article confuse linguistics with philosophy and show serious misunderstandings of what linguistics is. Furthermore, the theories outlined in this article deny grammaticality, one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in linguistics (unless, of course, my university lied to me). We shouldn't accept this on Wikipedia any more than we should accept a biology article that denies evolution. Yes, there is a philosophical movement known as post-structuralism, and post-structuralist philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida have written extensively about language. However, this does not mean they engaged in linguistics. Linguistics uses the scientific method to analyze language, and not every academic who talks or thinks about language is a "linguist". This article cites two sources, but one is a literary review published by a vanity web publisher, and the other doesn't appear to say what the author thinks it says. (I didn't read the entire article because it's on jstor, which requires payment to view the entire article.) I highly suspect there's some WP:SYNTH going on. szyslak (t) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Le vin blanc (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I could think of was already in the nom, (per nom).--S_RX 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do want to take issue with the nomination. There is indeed such a thing as post-structural linguistics (GB, GS). The key scholar at the intersection of post-structuralism and linguistics is probably Jacques Lacan. I detect a defensive air in statements on T:L that e.g. "Foucault etc. are not linguists, not even remotely linguists. Linguistics is a science. Post-structuralism and semiotics are not." This is a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between the two disciplines. That said, this article is an essay and does not properly describe this intersection. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the comment you refer to, but I'm more than aware of the intersection between linguistics and philosophy. In my nomination, I didn't mean to imply that linguistics and philosophy have nothing to do with one another. No academic field exists in isolation. Just think of how early 20th century linguistics was influenced by the "hard" empiricism popular in that era, and how the Chomskyan movement influenced and was influenced by the revival of Cartesian (and crypto-Cartesian) rationalism. Still, this does not mean Foucault and Derrida were linguists, any more than Chomsky is a philosopher. You can inquire about language without practicing in the field of linguistics. szyslak (t) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did make the comment being referred to here. It does not reflect a deep misunderstanding of the relationship of the two disciplines. The point is that there are two disciplines: philosophy of language (not "post-structural linguistics") and linguistics. They use two distinct methodologies and are at least in Europe and the US, housed in different academic departments. Both are valid and well reasoned ways of looking of language, and they do interact. I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues who do philosophy of language, and those who pursue literary theory. But it is a mistake to confuse these disciplines and say that they are the same thing. The fact that linguistics uses (exclusively) the scientific method is reflected in early work on the topic. Such as Sapir's article in Language in 1929 (The status of Linguistics as a Science), the near-universal characterization of the discipline as a science in introductory textbooks, the empirical methodologies used by nearly every professional linguist, and the definition of the Linguistic Society of America. Supriya likes to point to my mentioning of the latter as evidence of my colonial bias, but it's worth pointing out that the Linguistics Society of India has the following mission: The objective of the Linguistic Society of India (LSI) is “The Advancement of Indian Linguistics and Scientific Study of Indian Languages” (taken from their web pages). Turning to the issue of deletion, it appears to me that the material discussed here, when not original research of the page creator, properly belongs on the pages on Post-structuralism, Philosophy of Language, or Literary Theory with appropriate links and discussion discussing the interaction of these fields with linguistics (similarly some sections discussion the interaction of these disciplines is appropriate on the Linguistics page.AndrewCarnie (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (Assoc. Prof. Linguistics, University of Arizona)[reply]

Andrew, I did not attribute any colonial bias to the fact that you view Philosophy of language and linguistics as two different disciplines. Whether or not they are or they aren't, the issue of colonial bias was related to the question of animal language. The statement that "animals and non-humans do not use language", which is made by many people, even outside linguistics, is what I attribute as the cause and root of all bias that ever has been, and will remain. Supriya —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pfold (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ——An gr 07:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to post-structural linguistics. Dhartung has established above that there is such a thing, and to me it seems a suitable topic for an entry in an encyclopedia. This article needs a lot of work yet but it's only 3 days old, give it a chance. Seems to me a separate article here reflects a genuine debate in the academic world, not just a POV fork within wikipedia. Qwfp (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "post structural linguistics" gets 200 ghits. If it were such an important topic in linguistics or philosophy, I'm sure it would get much more coverage in academia and elsewhere. Most of the hits, aside from Wikipedia mirrors, either come from personal webpages or refer to developments in linguistics after the "structuralism" of de Saussure and Bloomfield. The latter has nothing to do with what this article is describing. If we can find reliable sources that point to any influence of Foucault and Derrida's post-structuralist philosophical program on the field of linguistics, or on philosophical inquiries on language, it would be appropriate as part of the philosophy of language article. But I don't think this is such an important academic movement that it merits its own page. szyslak (t) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that "postmodern physics" gets rather more hits, not only on an ordinary google search, but also on google books and google scholar (see my comment below). Are we to conclude that postmodernism plays an important role in modern physics? garik (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly writers who refer to "post-structural linguistics", as Dhartung has shown, and on that basis there certainly is an argument for keeping the article here in some form, though not necessarily with the same title (and I agree that, as it stands, it is an essay). However, it is not clear to me that there really is much of a debate about this in the academic world; any more of a debate, in fact, than there is between biologists and proponents of "postmodern biology" (GB, GS), or between physicists and proponents of "postmodern physics" (GB GS). The "debate", in other words, seems to me to be only on one side; I might even go so far as to suggest that it is rather like the kind of "debate" claimed to exist between evolutionary genetics and intelligent design — except that most evolutionary geneticists have at least heard of intelligent design. That all said, I think there is certainly an argument to be made for including an article in Wikipedia on post-structural approaches to the study of language, provided it contributes something not already covered by Philosophy of language. But it is misleading to imply that there is a serious debate in the field of linguistics on this issue any more than there is a serious debate about postmodernism in physics or biology. garik (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC) modified by garik (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominate this article. I will not go into explaining why, because I think I have already said enough - on T:L and many other places. My response to Angr, garik, szyslak and the other proponents for the deletion of this article remains the same: they wish to indulge in censorship of what is going against their personal interests, hence practicing a double standard on the name of "NPOV". I agree with Dhartung and Qwfp. Glad that there is still some sensible folk surviving on wikipedia. Cheers. PS: I will add the book references immediately. I'm also going to call for a fresh nomination on Talk:Linguistics, because changes, obviously need to happen there as well. Supriya 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cut it out with the "censorship" accusations? The current content of the Linguistics article reflects the current state of knowledge on the subject, not my "personal interests". I'm sorry, but that's how things work around here. If you think the academy is going in the wrong direction, that's fine. We can just agree to disagree. However, Wikipedia is not the place for your highly personal opinions about linguistics or any other subject. szyslak (t) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question posted at WP:LING - [2]; I don't know if it's notable, I do know that the sourcing is problematic. Knowledgeable contributors would probably be helpful. Also, I don't know if this move was the best option - poststructural linguistics seems a better title than Linguistics (poststructural); the latter gives the impression that it's a whole separate branch of linguistics when, judging by the sources, it looks more like a fringe topic of minority interest. WLU (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move it back if you must - to "poststructural linguistics"; I don't mind that. Please stop removing constructive references / reading lists - there is no rule anywhere about how many lines a book should have in order for it to be "further reading". The linguistics article itself lists titles of various books, and naturally, doesn't display the entire book. And there are loads of legitimate articles on wikipedia, sourced, that are not fully viewable. You are welcome to go offline and verify the sources, if you have to, there is no rule that it should be verified online alone. I don't think the reading section is meant to be a "let's upload e-books" section, is it? The books listed have to be relevant to the subject, and if you are unable to understand the subject and its relevance to judge whether a book is relevant or not, please leave it to someone else. About knowledgeable contributions, sure, are always welcomed with open arms. Get in more people. More the merrier. Supriya 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't demand that sources be fully viewable. Remember that I said the source didn't seem to verify your overall theories about "post-structural linguistics". The only reason I mentioned that I couldn't read the entire article was to allow the possibility that the article does verify your theories. But we don't evaluate sources based on what they might possibly say. szyslak (t) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by nominator: I think there are a few points that would benefit from clarification:

The term "post-structural linguistics" is ambiguous. Do we mean the many schools of thought that emerged after the structuralist movement of the early 20th century, whose proponents include de Saussure, Bloomfield, and others? One of those contemporaries rejected earlier theories of syntax in favor of deep structure and transformation, i.e. generative grammar. That man was Noam Chomsky, whose theory of innate language altered by binary sets of rules laid the foundation for linguistics in the next few decades, leading to today's split between Chomskyan and non-Chomskyan linguistics. A second usage of "post-structuralist linguistics" refers to any school of thought that might apply post-structuralist philosophical concepts in theoretical linguistics. I'm well aware that within linguistics, "post-structural linguistics" is at best a fringe theory, embraced by a minority of graduate students and many amateurs. That said, it's possible that the latter type of post-structural linguistics could emerge as the next great school of thought in linguistics or in one or more sub-disciplnes, such as syntax or semantics. But that doesn't make it appropriate for extensive coverage in Wikipedia. We already give wide coverage to the first type of "post-structural linguistics" in articles such as deep structure and generative grammar, among articles and sections about today's non-Chomskyan schools of thought, such as the (disputed) Criticism of Noam Chomsky#Criticisms of linguistic writings. The second type can get more space on Wikipedia once it becomes an accepted school in linguistics, with published works in reputable journals. Excuse the length, but linguistics gets complicated and contentious sometimes. :)
I'd like to state what I think is the single most salient point of this AFD: This page is not an encyclopedia article. That's the salient point when I say this article is a personal essay. And while there are many Internet sites for original points of view, Wikipedia is not one of them.

szyslak (t) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

szyslak, let's get a few things clear.

I am not interested in knowing, whether you think poststructuralism is a theory practiced by amateurs or professionals and what you think about them. Frankly, I just don't care. I don't think your opinion is relevant here, for reasons known to all of us. So don't waste my time with that.
My earlier comment was in response to some of the changes that WLU made, I wasn't referring to your statements on the talk pages at all.
Just putting up a notice like that isn't enough: if you have a valid reason, then give it for why this article is not encyclopedia material. If it makes sense (which most of what you says doesn't so far), I'll hear you out.
You've probably not read much about post-structuralism and therefore confuse the entire theoretical tradition to structuralist positions itself. None of the writers / thinkers / philosophers you refer to, were poststructuralists. They are all structuralists. Please read some of the reference links provided - in the article - and even on this page, before making ill-informed statements and wasting people's time.
You've been harping on fringe theory. There are many, many topics on wikipedia that deal with fringe theories, fringe ideas, minority issues and other things that are not "mainstream" positions. Is BDSM a "mainstream" sexual practice? Is homosexuality "mainstream"? Is postcolonialism and postcolonial literature mainstream? As long as there is published work on any topic, whether you consider that idea small, or large, it can be on wikipedia. Poststructuralism has published work on it, by published writers.
Repeating your arguments again and again, through different words, will not work - sooner or later I will just have to ignore it. If you have anything constructive to add to these points, go ahead.

Supriya 08:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have a problem with this article sounding like an essay, you are welcome to suggest ways in which that can change. If you have any sources or links that are relevant to the article, then please provide them. If you feel the style can be or should be tweaked, then point out where and how it could be done. If you feel it is missing some things, then tell us what that is. I don't think that the solution for an article sounding like an essay, is deletion. Far from it, in fact. Supriya 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.AndrewCarnie (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on google scholar there might be enough for a fringe topic. Right now the page is a bit better after I removed several chunks of content forks, but there's still very little evidence of interest beyond the 70s. This AFD is being approached like a battle when it's a matter of the sources not indicating notability. There's space on wikipedia for even minority positions, but they must be sourced. This is not. If there are sources to demonstrate interest in the page, it should be obvious to demonstrate contemporary interest. Discussion should also focus on the deletion of the page; discussion of the page's contents should be on that talk page. WLU (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources are there. There are a lot of pages on wikipedia that have as many sources as this page does. I think they've been linked to adequately. Supriya 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can say for any subject in the humanities or social sciences, "poststructural whatever". The cited references appear non-specific. The occasional use of t he term does not make it a distinct subject. Agreed, we have quite a number of even worse articles. DGG (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the arguments used here by proponents and nominators talk about things that are actually defined by wikipedia itself as not suitable arguments. Google hits for example. You are not supposed to count google hits to know whether an article is "mainstream" or "fringe". Supriya 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions you refer to doesn't say "you're not supposed to" count Google hits. (Of course, you're free to propose a policy change if you think that's how it should be.) The point of our guidelines on search engine tests is that the raw search number doesn't prove anything in and of itself, and should be interpreted in context. But the Google test on "post-structural linguistics" reveals much more than raw numbers. You'll notice, for example, that most sources refer to "post-structural linguistics" in a rather oblique way, and do not deal centrally with the topic as you understand it. In addition, you mischaracterize Dhartung and Qwfp as taking your side in this debate. Yet if you read what they've actually said, neither of them advocate keeping this article in its current form. More importantly, even if you ignore any "arguments to avoid" used in this debate, there are more than enough valid arguments. szyslak (t) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

szyslak, whether you think that their references to poststructuralism are 'oblique' or not, is again a matter of your personal opinion - hence irrelevant. They have spoken about it, and that's that. If you feel they are not speaking about it in the way you wish they should, sorry, too bad. That's really not of any concern to this article. About not keeping the article in its current form, I myself am open to it being changed. Not keeping it in its current form is not equal to deletion. There are sufficient number of people on this page / debate, who feel that the article should remain, so I don't really think its worth you wasting your time proving that they are not. Supriya 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Supriya. There is plenty of published work in reliable sources. As for the nominator, whether you think that post-structuralist approaches to linguistics are actually linguistics is completely irrelevant - what matters is that there are specific post-structuralist approaches to language and linguistics, and that the existence of these is verified in reliable sources. If 'proper' linguists have decried it as not linguistics, find some sources and add that to the article. As it stands, the deletion rationale is an essay.Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the last point is a good idea according to me. I feel that the debate between writers, academicians and thinkers needs to brought out - on any page, be it PSL, linguistics, BDSM, sexuality, or philosophy. I am not a propagandist, unlike what the nominators seem to be doing. I wouldn't like this article to be a propagandist one - and let's not even get into the existentialist problems of what the word "propaganda" means. Supriya 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hopefully editors will figure out how to rename/clean up the article. Renata (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax letter writers[edit]

Unsourced article whose premise is original research; I'm not seeing any sources for the idea that hoax letter writing is considered a genre, or that these are considered hoax letters per se rather than pranks or satire, and there is a lot of speculation in here as well. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OR, WP:REF, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, and somewhat WP:NPOV.--S_RX 23:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OR and WP:SYN --T-rex 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a somewhat notable concept, and I suspect that the author wasn't sure how to put this in words. It could use a different title (such as prank letters, which gets enough coverage[3] [4] to be notable). Rather than a hoax, this is best described as "prank authors who submit joke letters to real organizations and then publish their responses", a narrow branch of comedy. Don Novello (who was more famous as "Father Guido Sarducci" on Saturday Night Live) was the author of a bestselling book called The Laszlo Letters. Part of the humor was the serious responses to intentionally ridiculous inquiries. Mandsford (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Mandsford that this may be better titled prank letters. Right now it's a bit list-y, but could be expanded from sources that have discussed the phenomenon under that and other names. It's impossible to define based on intent, but certainly it's notable and deserving of treatment outside of individual authors' articles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's unsourced and speculative nature places it neatly in the realm of original research. The subject may well warrant an article, but this is nothing more than a list padded out with unsourced speculation. Poltair (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects are not very difficult to source; I could do the Henry Root section myself, give a day or so (the Root letters were a UK publishing phenomenon in the early 80s and I own collections of them). I agree that the article is fairly inept right now, but let it be expanded first - Flann O'Brien, for one, was a notable writer of hoax letters. The practice itself is time-honoured enough to deserve an article of its own, and this is not a great start, but at least it's a start. Lexo (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept rename as it is ambiguously named. "Writer of hoax letters" or "Letter writers who are hoaxes" or "Hoax writers of hoax letters"... 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split if referenceable, this should not be a single article. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the best way to split it on the talk page. DGG (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sceptre ^(talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like An Angel Passing Through My Room[edit]

This song is not notable in any way - it is an album track only. It's only claim to fame is it is by ABBA and was once covered by Madonna - not notable enough to have its own article Paul75 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - citing WP:MUSIC#Songs, A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; and there is enough verifiable info IMO to warrant the article as it meets the WP:MUSIC and WP:N guidelines.--S_RX 23:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:MUSIC#Songs; "...that have been performed independently by several notable artists..". There were 5 mentioned in the article before the AfD tag was put on. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to above - Sissel Kyrkjebø, Anne Sofie von Otter and Hazell Dean are hardly "notable artists'. A unreleased version by Madonna is hardly justification for its own article Paul75 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your humble opinion of course. They have wikipedia articles, so at this point in time their notability isn't being called to question. Therefore WP:MUSIC#Songs has been met. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Visitors (album) - there is no notability to this song. It was never released as a single, never charted. All cover versions are either ABBA tribute albums, or were never published. --T-rex 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Visitors (album) - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and redirect to The Visitors (album) ----User:Inx272-User talk:Inx272

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Greenberg[edit]

Very short article about a non-notable gangster... He was born, was friends with these guys, and then he was killed... fails WP:NOTINHERITED... Adolphus79 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely - It should be deleted - It is not at all notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the person is verifiable per sources, but I see no notability established whatsoever, fails also WP:BIO.--S_RX 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Siegel was unsuccessfully prosecuted over the murder, and consequently Greenberg, who played a relatively minor role in triggering this investigation by getting killed, became a part of the lore of the 20th century American mob. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient good sources. Probably more in the immense literature on the subject. But I would strongly advise the authors of articles like t his to do a more thorough job of research, and make the coverage here more useful. DGG (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:SRX - eg. WP:V and WP:RS. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:V, WP:RS, the fact that he's been depicted by an Academy Award-nominated actor in a notable role makes me find him notable enough. --MPerel 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is unsourced. The "keep" arguments are weak and amount to hand-waving. Per WP:V, the onus to provide sources rests on those arguing for retention. Sandstein 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 star rank[edit]

This page is conjecture. Nobody has ever been awarded a 6 star rank in any country. The United States has had a Admiral of the Navy (United_States) which covers the issues much more accurately. The information in this article cannot be verified as it is Original Research. Why not an article on 7 star rank? Woody (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be arguable as to whether anyone has been awarded this rank, as the article says, but so what? Are you similarly going to propose deletion of Unbiseptium on the grounds that it has not yet been synthesised, and may never be? As to 7 star rank, if you have similar information on such a rank, then I for one would be fascinated to read it. What you appear to be expressing is a (widely held) POV that ranks above five star are somehow invalid. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Woody (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Essentially a conjectural essay. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Admiral of the Navy (United States) per nom and per Dhartung. Given that this seems to have been the only time this rank was granted, it's the logical search result we want to return. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and add addition info. Apparently North Korea has a rank they consider 6-star - Wonsu. Dpmuk (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no useful content here --T-rex 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THIS is what happens when you just toss out facts without telling where you got them from. No excuse for not sourcing this. I recall reading something about this in the World Almanac once, but what I recall is, like this, original research. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Isn't World Almanac a reliable secondary source? Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information (or perhaps it's speculation, I confess I don't know) in the article is entirely from existing Wikipedia articles (similarly unsourced), just collected into one place to make navigation a bit easier. And I do notice that nobody has moved yet to correct any of these other articles. Assuming the info is accurate, it's an encyclopedic topic, so either let the stub grow (and it certainly needs a lot of work) or delete the rest of the claims too, starting with the alleged six-star insignia. My feeling is that this is fascinating information, although I'm sure some military purists would prefer to bury it. Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. If Pershing or MacArthur were considered, there should be references. IIRC the Soviets had generals with ten stars 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, rebuild as dab to the two American and one North Korean articles. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Admiral of the Navy (United States) and General of the Armies detail how George Dewey and John J. Pershing held 6-star rank (in Pershing's case, how he was held above 5-star generals), making the conjecture argument invalid and satisfying the restrictions set in Wikipedia:No original research. Redirecting would be inappropriate because bot the Army and Navy held this 6-star rank, and picking one over the other would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Deleting it based on notability makes as much sense as deleting 5 star rank. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Leonard^(Bloom) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnifex (band)[edit]

PROD was contested. This is a band which once reached 19 on one of the lesser Billboard charts focused on up-and-coming acts, there are no independent sources cited and while there are numerous fan sites and similar I don't see much in the way of reliable independent sourcing here. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.--S_RX 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C2 for their album getting on the billboard Top Independent Albums Chart, and the billboard Top Heatseekers Chart. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC C2 and [5]. Cannibaloki 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as prod contester. The article is still a substub but it deals with a subject that meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by Nancy. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method / Natural Vision Improvement[edit]

Newly created content fork of Bates method. The whole article was just copied an is now being worked on. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was speedied faster than I could nominate. Please close the discussion. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPN News Channel[edit]

Hoax article, no evidence of any truth to it. Other articles by this user have been speedily deleted as blatant vandalism. Prod contested by author, speedy delete as vandalism declined (in good faith) by admin. UsaSatsui (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't think it's a hoax, but it is surely non-notable and fails WP:MOSTV.--S_RX 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - This is obviously a hoax article. The television network he is referring to (Radio Philippines Network) has no cable news channel. -Danngarcia (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources have been provided, the "Official link" is only the main page of the father company. Not only the creator has a history of hoaxes, but I just had to warn him for completely disregarding sources on a different article [6] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DWMS[edit]

Hoax article, no evidence of any truth to it. Other articles by this user have been speedily deleted as blatant vandalism. Prod contested by author, speedy delete as vandalism declined (in good faith) by admin. UsaSatsui (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - per my vote on the AfD above.--S_RX 00:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - the frequency that the station supposes to be occupying belongs to 96.3WRocK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danngarcia (talk • contribs) 16 August 2008
Delete per the same reasons stated at above AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RPN_News_Channel --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technalign[edit]

This fails WP:CORP, lacks enough reputable & verified sources. JBsupreme (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has an article by the Reuters as a source. A quick Google will show plenty more third party information and sources on the company. 98.211.9.142 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, you must be kidding. That is not a Reuters article. It is a press release. [7] JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the Reuters link is a press release, other coverage can be found at

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Technalign including http://www.silicon.fr/fr/silicon/special-report/2003/07/22/attaque-routeurs-cisco-premier-bilan --Eastmain (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not assert subject's notability. Press releases and minor news items about a merger do not demonstrate sufficiently notability to warrant an article. Xihr 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xihr, the press releases and trivial coverage do not substantiate the level of sourcing required as per WP:CORP guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JBsupreme, Xihr and RFerreira - the English language 'references' are press releases - if you can't immediately tell from the style of language, I suggest you copy a chunk of the text into a search engine and see for yourself. Also, the coverage in the French language reference is trivial. Finally, indicating there are lots of results for a web search isn't a convincing argument. PhilKnight (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 entertain[edit]

There is a very similarly titled page (note capitalisation) which has further information about the company. Also this article has been in place for nearly 2 years and nobody has contributed any useful information in the meantime. Garej (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. It's a subsidiary of a major company BBC Worldwide, and is involved in major international DVD releases, such as Doctor Who. The alternate spelling 2 Entertain redirects to BBC Worldwide, however I feel this imprint (for lack of a better term) is notable enough to stand on its own; if the article is kept, the redirect issue will need to be addressed. 23skidoo (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BBC Worldwide, covers the same ground. treelo _radda 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is notable but is adequately covered by the current redirect to BBC Worldwide. In any case, the nominated article is gibberish. Jack Garfield (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MediaMob (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to BBC Worldwide - as per 2 Entertain --T-rex 00:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela[edit]

NN group. Speedy A7 was declined as Freemasons are apparently inherently notable (which they aren't, and this is also not the case here). The definitely notable Grand Lodge (because it is the largest) would be the mainstream Grand Lodge in Venezuela recognized by United Grand Lodge of England - it has 125 lodges and was founded in 1824. Its website is given as the source link in this article, which claims it as a liberal Grand Lodge. However, as it appears in the list of UGLE-recognized lodges here, it absolutely cannot be a liberal lodge. What this article is talking about is a smaller Grand Lodge recognized by the Grand Orient de France in a different tradition. The problem is that I can't figure out which group it is. It might be this group founded in 2005, or it could be this group founded in 1824 that has 40 lodges, despite the Tripod hosting. In any event, the Grand Lodge named here is from a different tradition than was assumed by the decliner, and since the article isn't even sure what it's talking about, notability cannot be asserted. MSJapan (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A grand lodge has intrinsic notability. Is this even serious. Just because a group is out of amity with the UGLE it should not be suppressed. JASpencer (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment For the pattern of behaviour behind series of deletions look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLIPSAS. JASpencer (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the one who declined the speedy nomination, I want to clarify that I explicitly did not say that masonic lodges are "apparently inherently notable", as the nominator claims. What I did say was "At the very least this warrants an AfD since WikiProject Freemasonry is active enough that there's a reasonable chance someone will be able to clean it up; by their nature, any national masonic lodge (even the splinter groups) will likely be significant enough that {{db-club}} (which is intended for articles on "two kids in their shed playing GTA who think it would be cool to have a Wikipedia page to list their high scores" type clubs) is unlikely to be appropriate", and I certainly stand by that comment. – iride scent 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misquote you - your decline comment said "The _Freemasons_ are an "unremarkable club"?" MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A grand lodge is notable, even in Caracas -- and sorry to be contradictory, but this doesn't even warrant AfD. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something is still very wrong here - according to the Gran Logia de la Republica de Venezuela website link given by the article, this is the UGLE-recognized GL (there's an obit notice for Francisco Liz, who is listed in the official 2008 UGLE-recognized jurisdiction book as Grand Master in 2006). That means that while it's now potentially sourced, it is absolutely not the GL the article claimed it was (associated with CLIPSAS and the liberal tradition; the website lists the groups it is affiliated with, and CLIPSAS isn't there). This is correctable, and clears up most of the AfD, but there are still no sources outside of the site itself, so there's still an RS problem. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there are (at least) two Grand Lodges http://www.glrbv.org.ve/ and http://www.granlogia.org.ve/ JASpencer (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm going to point the article towards the GL the EL was for, and that was the UGLE-recognized, granlogia site body. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly disagree with the notion that all Grand Lodges have "intrinsic notability". I have no opinion on this article because I can't read Spanish. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the article does not come close to passing WP:ORG, which repeatedly calls for reliable sources that are independant of the subject to establish notability. The only source seems to be the organization's own website. The article should have been speedy deleted under A7... as it does not indicate why the organization is notable or significant in any way (the article simply states that the body exists and is based in Caracas, which is not an indication of notability or significance). I think people are assuming that anything named "Grand Lodge" must be notable. Some are, but a lot are not. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seems to be some confusion about WP:CSD A7 here. Calling yourself "Grand Lodge" doesn't mean it must be notable, but that's not what CSD is about; calling yourself "Grand Lodge" is an assertion of notability because it means the organisation is claiming to be a representative national body. AfD is the appropriate place for this; if the AfD sets a clear precedent, you can consider WP:PROD (not CSDA7) on similar articles. – iride scent 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Iridescent... I think you are making a faulty assumption about Grand Lodges. Not every Grand Lodge claims to be a national/state wide body. Many do... perhaps even most do... but not all. Some claim to simply have jurisdiction over the few lodges that they have chartered. Others don't even claim that, but became Grand Lodges to assert a claim that some other Grand Lodge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. In other words... it is complicated. Just wanted to clear that up. I do see how your comment relates in this case. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see Iridescent's point about declining an A7, although I think this one's right on the line given the sparsity of information provided. It certainly appears to fail WP:ORG, due to no visible coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the improvements by JASpencer it seems that this organisation is probably notable. Given Jclemens's worthy point that WP:RS mentions of this may mostly be restricted to non-internet-accessible local sources, I'm prepared to retract my delete argument. Still not entirely sure this is worth keeping, but consider me neutral at this point. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "grand" suggests notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ecoleetage.Dwain (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no doubt that secondary written sources exist to meet WP:N--whether they're accessible to us on the Internet, is, of course, a different matter. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a Google book search does not seem to support that assumption. I see lots of stuff on other Grand Lodges in Venezuela, and a lot of stuff about Masonry in Venezuela in general, but I don't see anything that discusses this organization. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My Spanish isn't what it used to be, but I think JAS's edits are inaccurate, which illustrates a language problem with sources as well that should be considered, unless someone wants to do a fair amount of translation.MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view.

Keep We should decline to enter into controversies about the precedence or authenticity of various fraternal groups as a justification for keeping articles or not. . This particular one seems to have enough sourcing to warrant an article. DGG (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources currently on the page are direct links to the organisation's own website... is that really 'enough sourcing'? Other arguments can certainly be made for keeping this article but I wouldn't have thought the sources were one of them. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because WP:ORG requires sources that are independant of the subject to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zef (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a "grand" lodge over 121 lodges, it seems significant. We should give benefit of doubt considering the inherent systemic bias of English Wikipedia in locating an abundance of sources for article subjects based in non-English-speaking countries. --MPerel 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of past Jamboree in the Hills performers[edit]

Largely unverifiable list. Has a clear focus, but it would be very hard to source, and it doesn't really add context. it's just a monstrous laundry list of acts that have performed. (They also spelled Thrasher Shiver wrong.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somewhat confused about the deletion rationale here. The event's site verifies the list's content; the source is already in the article. Yeah, it's a primary source, but since it is used for nothing more than the factual recap of past performers, it's acceptable under RS. The article is chronologically grouped, provides WP-links to the acts themselves, and other details of each year's event (such as who the headliner was) could be added from other, third-party RSs. Townlake (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC, items 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation While I respect your opinion, I'd note that WP:LC = WP:LISTCRUFT, which is neither policy nor guideline. Besides, there's plenty of rationale for a performers-specific topic to be developed separately from the main Jamboree article. Townlake (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This list has no meaningful content --T-rex 00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly broad list based on fairly trivial categorization. Neither necessary nor useful. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest moon ds recipes[edit]

This is simply a game guide with no encyclopedic value. Also note: this had speedy delete, as well as a prod at one point: but the creator of the article removed both for no reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably SNOW. Article is very obviously a game guide/Howto which explicitly violates WP:NOT. Removing the howto information creates a listing of game elements with no established notability. -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Wikipedia the place for a WP:CONCISEPLOT, and not an almanac of every item/weapon/enemy/move/etc. of a game. Also fails the General Notability Guideline since it lacks reliable third-party sources with enough coverage to write even a short WP:VERIFIABLE article on the subject. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, the article even refers to itself as a guide, GameFAQs we ain't. Someone another 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is Not GameFAQs. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here and transwiki — Wikipedia is not a game guide. This information is suitable in a strategy guide wiki like StrategyWiki, WikiCheats, etc. It's also obviously WP:SNOWing here. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has now been transwikied to Strategy Wiki. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLB 09: The Show[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL violation, with zero sourcing and no information beyond title and system. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, although it will obviously come out, but does not warrant an article now. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Game has not been announced yet.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A1) — no context. This has even less information than the example given there. MuZemike (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. Though stubs for upcoming releases are generated pretty much the moment a game is announced nowadays, we aren't in competition with the gaming press and I can't find any concrete announcement for this title, just message board posts. Someone another 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until an announcement about MLB 09 is made this page has no reason for existence.--TSSaloic (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cabana[edit]

Only claim to notability is that he was a witness in a case about Maher Arar. Actually 4 out of 6 paragraphs are about the case, not about Cabanas. Looks like he was briefly mention in the news, still there is no reference to Cabanas in the, rather large, article about Maher Arar. So no point in redirecting - Nabla (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says almost nothing about him, but serves as a coatrack for talking about the treatment of Arar -- by other people, not Cabana. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Maher Arar - per WP:BLP1E --T-rex 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect is probably not necessary at this stage. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huvudsta[edit]

Unreferenced and not notable name. Jim Carmel (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the essay at Wikipedia:Notability (geography). It's a recognised district of Solna Municipality and has its own named metro station and formal legal boundaries, although it has no formal separate local government apparatus, so it satisfies at least point 3 and possibly point 1 of the criteria. If we delete it we have to get rid of the articles Bergshamra, Haga, Hagalund, Järva, Råsunda, Skytteholm and Ulriksdal too. Needs refs though. Ka renjc 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Solna authorities clearly recognize Huvudsta as a district, and they have a well-developed article on the place on their website. I'm having a bit of difficulty in sorting through the Google hits at google.se because "huvudstad" is Swedish for "capital city" and that means a search will turn up many irrelevant hits. But the district does seem to have quite a lot of historic interest, with several historic buildings. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it the green area on this map? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it. Ka renjc 16:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to containing municipality. If this is all that can be said about the article at the present time, it should be included in the municipality article where a list of communes should be added and a short blurb on each. Split off into a separate article only when there is sufficient, distinct cultural information that does not overlap the municipality. --Polaron | Talk 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with municipality until the section is big enough to split off into a separate article. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is a separate jurisdiction--there's not enough information in the article for me to tell. DGG (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Huvudsta has a long history and was a municipality of its own until being merged with Solna in 1943. It was also the place where the main planning of the assassination of Gustavus III took place. /FredrikT (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no real consensus between keep and merge, but that can be discussed elsewhere). Wizardman 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamsberg[edit]

Unreferenced item without notability. Jim Carmel (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Real population center that even has its own metro station. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is underdeveloped, but it appears to be a well-defined neighborhood, and I would not be surprised if a Swedish encyclopedia decided to include an article on it. This might be a basis for further expansion of the current article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with municipality until the section is big enough to split off into a separate article. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'merge unless there is better sourcing for just what is meant by "area" DGG (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urreligion[edit]

Not notable or not popular in English German term. Jim Carmel (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. article is well referenced. Also source article for a couple of redirects. If problem with name then rename, don't AfD. Check backlinks.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFT - even if it is an obvious made up word, it is still a made up word --T-rex 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "not for things made up one day"? {{huh}}? Even if the day in question is a sunny afternoon in 1832, and the guy making it up a towering figure like Goethe? I am sorry, but I think this vote should be discounted as ostensibly not pertaining to this AfD (did you click on the wrong 'edit' link or something?) --dab (𒁳) 07:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-referenced article. Note, for further input, I'm notifying the original author (User:Dbachmann) who created this as a redirect to Primeval religion which was redirected to Origin of religion, which he then expanded under the current name. --MPerel 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep (speedy). It has occurred to me to merge Urmonotheismus into Urreligion though, since the two topics are closely related. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hessel Hermana[edit]

Not notable. No references. Not meeting inclusion criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a real historical figure. It might be better to merge his article with one on the general history of his place and time, since so little is known about him. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article was mistakenly tagged as fiction. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy never existed. He was invented in the fifteenhundreds. That is fiction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the statement that he is not notable is directly contradicted by the article content which identifies him as essentially the governor of a province which would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. As for lack of reliable sources, the article actually does provide a source although the source is not in English. So neither of the nominating criteria are actually valid. A search on Books returns results, which appear to be in Dutch. So it would appear that additional sourcing is available to somebody that can read them. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant figure even if the article is in poor condition. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added various historical texts which place the final battle of Rudolph in 873. Another battle is mentioned taking place in 876. No early chronicle seems to mention Hessel but the battle itself was a historic event. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This name is not mentioned before 1500, as far as I know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Whpq. Notability is asserted and sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the contributor of the English version. This ruler appears in several sources. Even if he is slightly legendary, he is part of a set, and should be kept for completeness. If Pieter Kuiper has sources that indicate his non existence before 1500, he should add that in to the article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice scholarly paper about Viking rulers in Karolingian lands: Simon Coupland (1998). "From poachers to gamekeepers: Scandinavian warlords and Carolingian kings". Early Medieval Europe. 7: 101–103. Unfortunately, not avalable online (unlike the dusty 19th-century stuff), but I have read that paper. One of those rulers is Rudolf Haraldsson. Coupland does not mention Hessel Hermana. Conclusion: this Hermana never existed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to be mentioned is no proof that he did not exist. He was not a Viking, so may not have been considered fro the scholarly article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a statement from formal logic. Coupland devotes two whole pages to Rodulf Haraldsson and half a page to how he met his end in Friesland, referencing several sources. Coupland mentions the anonymous Northman who advised the Frisians, but nothing about Hermana. According to consensus among professional historians, this guy never existed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an legendary figure--I invite PK to edit it properly to make the status clearDGG (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what legendary is. This guy was just invented by some pseudohistorian in the 16th century. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - wikipedia is supposed to cover everything found in an almanac. Hessel Hermana's appearance in many editions of the Frisian Almanac suggests that he should make an appearance, even if he is a more modern creation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friesche Volks-almanak is an "almanac" in the sense that it is an annual publication. Most of it is filled with litterary and historical essays of local interest, mainly by amateurs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lill-Jansskogen[edit]

Not notable. No references. Not meeting inclusion criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Must admit that I never really cared much about the parks when I visited Stockholm last year, but this seems to be a major park, with a size similar to that of St. James's Park in London. References here and here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm prepared to accept the evaluation in the svWP that it deserves a full article there. DGG (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of evidence it exists, and reliable sources (Aftonbladet etc.) for those who look. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Targets of Westboro Baptist Church[edit]

This page merely repeats the offensive statements of the Westboro Baptist Church, a very small group of people who have found a way to get extremely outsized media and public attention. It is not about their "targets." An article about that would be an article about almost all of modern human civilization. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's at best pointless to try to list all those the WBC hates, and potentionally harmful, since, as a "branch" article, this will get less attention, and there could be WP:BLP problems. Also, it's hard to give fair and balanced coverage for a person, in a little snippit. For each "target" we're really only giving one side, the WBC side. --Rob (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is going to take the WBC side. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much news as they get because of their wild accusations, this is a very small group. A list of the "who Westboro hates this week" doesn't seem to be a worthwhile venture for Wikipedia to me. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bit forky. I'd say merge, but most of the content is already covered properly in Westboro Baptist Church. We don't need a second, supersize version to understand that they hate the lot of us and we're all going to the bad place, so we are. Ka renjc 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "God Hates Articles Like These", maybe? Add anything new to Westboro Baptist Church. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Canada is on the list, but Wikkidpedia isn't? Somebody is slacking off here! Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This 'church' seems to pretty much hate everyone, living or dead. We don't have that much space to list all their hates. The universe doesn't have that much space to list all their hates. HalfShadow 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pointless article. Any notable and useful information can be merged into the main article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna Spin It 4 U![edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC#Songs standards. Article also has no sources, so, as far as anyone knows, this could be a hoax. LAA Fan 19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. User has a long history of introducing inappropriate articles; he even erroneously copied the number-one succession box from their prior single. - eo (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of computer security hacker history[edit]

This article is almost entirely unreferenced, and seems to be primarily summaries of hacking-related events that are unreferenced, unsubstantiated and in many cases too non-specific to even research. Much of this article has been removed at different times, and what remains is still mostly unusable. If anyone has ideas about how to make this more encyclopedic, I'm open to them and would be happy to see it done, but at this point it appears unlikely that "Timeline of computer security hacker history" is an appropriate framework for the information it contains.

(Applicable policies WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:BLP). Avruch^T 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I just looked at the first couple decades, but the information presented appears accurate, signifigant, and sourceable. Many of these points can be found collected in actual books/papers documenting the history of computer security/cracking, thus avoiding WP:SYNTH. That said, the organization is akward, and I would rather see this information in a prose article than a timeline (and I suspect it already does) Providing some sort of inclusion criteria, as per WP:SAL and then enforcing it would go a decent ways towards repairing the article. -Verdatum (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad topic, delete as per nom. Looks like an indiscriminate collection of hacker related events. RayAYang (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough subject, and it's a step in the right direction, with sourcing given for the events. To overcome original synthesis objections, I recommend that the author find and cite some sources that have "timelines". You don't have to (and shouldn't) copy a text from a book, magazine, or newspaper, but capsule histories usually accompany articles in USA Today, Time, Newsweek, and probably one of the books mentioned. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful to have an "index" like this, as long as the entries are good, have references, and good wikilinks.
Keep. Useful, well-referenced and encyclopedic. Axl (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a handy overview of the major hacking evens during the last few decades. Lack of referencing is countered by linking to Wikipedia articles that are properly referenced.Riemerb (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except, in many of the cases that I noticed, the wilinked articles were just as poorly referenced as this one. Note that I've removed a bunch of stuff from the article since I came across it the other day, so its in better shape than it was. Maybe "History of computer hacking events" would make more sense? I'm guessing there is already a history of hacking page, haven't looked yet though. Avruch^T 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's a useful looking collection of information. MediaMob (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sketch Process[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable band ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self released says it all. Fails WP:MUSIC.Kww (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable album from a non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlogShares[edit]

Whilst I am a BlogShares player, I doubt it passes WP:WEB Computerjoe 's talk 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not seem to be notable yet. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like useful, but not notable info. MediaMob (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childcare Worldwide[edit]

Not enough coverage that I can see. COI issues as well--author is CCWW2008 (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete possible speedy for advertisment --Numyht (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdraw. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Flores[edit]

Non notable unsourced unverified Kittybrewster ☎ 18:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as vandalized page. An editor had replaced the page's content with an A7 bio. Original content has been restored. Always check for vandalism before nominating for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO-Norge[edit]

Although google search shows several ghits, none of them is RS, lack significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. No hint google news [8]. Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does have independent press coverage, for example from Nettavisen [9] and Avisa Nordland [10]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources have been provided by Sjakkalle; the article just needs a little tender loving care :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources obviously exist, and the fact that they aren't added to the article yet is no reason to delete the article. 96T (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator with drew nomination, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMichaelQSchmidt&diff=232345717&oldid=232253224 (Non-admin closure). Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choices of the Heart[edit]

It's only claim to notability is it's connection to the people killed in El Salvador. (The four nuns who died, and received quite a bit of publicity.) It fails WP:MOVIE and google returns nothing but IMDb. Leonard^(Bloom) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC

~~Delete~~Keep ~~The movie fails WP:MOVIE. No refs,sources,etc that would suggest notability.~~Based on sources found by Schmidt.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong KEEP. I just did a search and found several excellent secondary sources and some nice tertiary ones that should allow me to tweak the article into respectable shape. TI placed them on the article's page as external links. What really impressed me was this full page article in the New York Times of December 51983. It is most definitely notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Performed a cleanup per WP:Film/Style guidelines. Needs to be catagorized. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorized it, I think. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Schmidt. Nom's google search brings up over 700,000 hits, hardly "nothing but IMDb". PC78 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable movie --T-rex 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Important Comment: Nom graciously wishes to withdraw the nomination. How is this done? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close it now if no one has any objections.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Starr[edit]

I doubt that this singer is notable per WP:MUSIC. He was member of a notable band: that doesn't make him notable. He's the brother of a notable person: doesn't extend notability to him. He released one or two solo songs (but no albums): doesn't suffice either. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find this[11] but there were no other sources that were not more than trivial mentions. - Icewedge (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sword of the Spirit[edit]

The result was 'Move to User Sandbox' Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After trying to improve this article, I have to say it's about a WP:NN organization. While the organization's website claims over 10,000 members, neither the author nor I could find any WP:RS on the subject at all. (See Talk:Sword of the Spirit.) Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: pending author's request to userify the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zendehrood[edit]

Likely non-notable social networking site. Could not find reliable sources (the first hundred g-hits I found were either completely unrelated, blog entries, or in Iranian; no news hits) and the only source given does not mention the site at all. Samuel Tan 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unmistakable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No info exists for this album yet. No track listing, cover art, producer, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous two AfDs were on a Jo Dee Messina album of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if it weren't a future album Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums suggests that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article".
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, and add the expected release date to the artist's article. --Amalthea^Talk 12:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bride campaign[edit]

There are no reliable sources to provide verifiability or establish notability. A proposed deletion was contested with an outline of the objection posted on Talk: Bride campaign, so bringing this to AFD. Whpq (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Of the three links in the reference section, one goes to a blog with one post that's five days old, and the other two takes you to the front page of PEEL magazine, and to flickr. Hunting on the internet turns up nothing more than a couple of Myspace pages and a flickr account. All in all, it's a vanity article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable since it hasn't been reported on by secondary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. A merge may be pursued editorially if desired. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugnaughts[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Bench Press World Records[edit]

Article with very little real useful information. Only four records are listed, with the rest of the article comprising of external links, which themselves comprise only of Google searches and Youtube links. Strong delete. Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Article should be merged with Bench Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.163.223 (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move the stats to main article if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamorrean[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Star Wars articles plot sections. It is therefore trivial and duplicative, and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Update: Article has been referenced since above discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete falsehood, and you know exactly why. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell Frabrictramp has indeed included it there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK. --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't be one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's very clever. See, how you kind of spun that back around, kind of gave me advice, too? Wow. That's just... wow, my head is reeling. I'm going to sit down. --EEMIV (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been sitting all day...--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"AFD; come for the policy discussions, stay for the witty repartee". I should copyright that phrase, but hey, it's Wikipedia, I'll give it away for free. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason we shouldn't have fun, too, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as some sources have been added. Perhaps this belongs in a list of Star Wars creatures rather than in its own article. 96T (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would be appropriate in a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia or possibly as a merge to a list of characters. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Napoleon would be suitable for a specialist wiki on military history, but he would also be suitable here. There's no reason we can't overlap with Wookiepedia or the many published Star Wars encyclopedias. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: This is a poor discussion all around, featuring mostly bare assertions ("this is notable!" "this is not notable!") or the usual boilerplate, seasoned with some silly drama. Editors should instead discuss whether the references present in the article, such as those now added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, confer sufficient notability. Sandstein 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on races in Star Wars and Delete this page. Or perhaps a redirect to the merged article would be worthwhile. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not serve to recapitulate the plot. I'm not familiar with the sections involved, and I couldn't figure out plots from here. But i could figure out some rough idea of t he group's overall role in the fiction a as a whole, and that;s the point of am article like this. Its better separated from the main article on groundsofreading convenience, but thats not a question for afd one way or another. What is relevant to AfD is three clear third party references. DGG (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep See what DGG said in the previous entry? I echo that. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several independently-written and independently-published sources, including documentary sources such as such as Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters by Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons, Star Wars: A Visual Dictionary, and many independently-written and independently-published fictional sources which involve the Gamorreans. Just because a source is "authorized" does not mean it is not "independent". These are not self-published sources created by the movie producers or obsessive fans in order to promote their own work, they are popular books from publishing companies independent of the movie studios and sold in independent bookstores, and some are written by independent authors. For example, Andy Mangels is a best-selling author and entertainment journalist, probably better known for his Star Trek novels than for his Star Wars books, and has apparently never even met George Lucas. To suggest that he is not an independent source for information about Star Wars is simply to deny reality. DHowell (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 nancy ^talk 12:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben S. Smith[edit]

Not notable, the two mentioned bands aren't really notable, and he doesn't have a high position within the BBC. StaticGull Talk 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is actually a case for speedy as the person is nn. Shovon (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, tagged. treelo _radda 12:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18XX games. kur ykh 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Hecht[edit]

Non-notable game designer with no awards and not much in the way of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 18XX games. As designer of several games of this series, this seems to be an appropriate redirect target. Regretfully, I can't seem to locate any online sources (which, of course, need not cover everything). --Craw-daddy | T | 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 18XX games - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mayalld (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and incarceration of the junta at Korydallos[edit]

Delete as unnecessary content fork from Greek military junta of 1967–1974 Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've already explained this at Mayalld's talk page so I will quote our correspondence here:

Hello, can you please explain the reason for the proposed deletion. I'm sure they do not include notability or lack of references. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. The subject is already covered in the main article on the Junta, and a separate article is not needed. Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The coverage of the trial that the new article will provide when fully developed will be much more extensive than what curently exists at the main article. This was a complex and notorious case. It cannot be fully covered within the junta article. Dr.K. (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless and until the volume of information in the main article increases greatly, I would dispute this. Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Dr.K. (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr.K. (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is how the article looked when user Mayalld proposed to delete it: diff and this how it looks now: Trial and incarceration of the junta at Korydallos. It was expanded from 1567 bytes to 23,691 and counting. I think that I was not given a proper chance to expand it before the afd was initiated. I request an admin to speedy keep it. Dr.K. (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (back?) into Greek military junta of 1967-1974. If it does grow to its full potential, as it may, as noted above, then we can have a separate article for it. An extra paragraph or two in the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 article won't hurt for the time being. Calor (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is large and complex enough that its inclusion in the junta article will adversely affect the flow of that article. Dr.K. (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like an important enough event to have its own article. Doesn't the impeachment of President Clinton? Northwestgnome (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I completely agree. This was an important event in Greek jurisprudence which examined complex legal questions and was compared to the Nuremberg Trials as a citation by Time Magazine states. I also think I have addressed the size issue because I have already expanded the article to a reasonable size. Dr.K. (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The trial was an important milestone in modern Greek political history and had far reaching repercussions. It set the stage for the post junta political scenery in Greece and is one of those rare instances in which ex dictators were actually put on trial. It invites useful comparison with the cases of Chile, Spain, Portugal etc. The topic deserves to be treated seperately and in greater detail. It also offers important insight to events largely unknown out of Greece. The notability of the topic is more than granted--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Correct WP:SS spinout, not fork, concerning a well-sourced and significant historical event. Sandstein 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per emerging consensus. The article, however, needs a better name. What are these trials called in Greek? Perhaps Korydallos trials-- if properly linked to Metapolitefsi, Greek military junta of 1967–1974, etc.-- would be a better name. Aramgar (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. I will rename the article along the lines of your suggestion. I think they should be called "Junta trials (Korydallos) because if I'm not mistaken there have been other trials there as well. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant political event, content covers decades of the prisoners' lives quite seperate of the regime itself. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant event in its own right.--Damac (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per WP:SS. Important enough to be a separate article.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title change[edit]

As a courtesy to the closing admin please note that the article title is now changed to: Greek junta trials. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Styler[edit]

Geogre's law. Only toured with the band in question, wasn't part of it. StaticGull Talk 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Page is a copyright violation of [12]; this is obviously an autobiography, and in the case that the author has permission to use the text, we have a COI and bias. On top of this, all it does is promote. If speedy isn't an option, delete due to WP:MUSIC (above). Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The "guestbook" page on the artist's website states: "Unfortunately, we've had to disable the auto-posting of new messages due to an onslaught of spam.". I found that amusing and thought I'd share... Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I doubt it qualifies for speedy, and odds on the author has permission to use the text, so copyvio is also out of the question, most likely. As User:Booglamay noted, he doesn't appear to meet WP:N for music. Traditional delete. Calor (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz (Cricketer)[edit]

Subject hasn't done anything notable. The only remotely notable thing about the subject is his death. StaticGull Talk 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His death, whilst tragic, is part of cricketing legend, and needs to be recorded in an encyclopedia. Please don't delete it unless you have a firm understanding of the game and still think it unoteworthy. Otherwise, this would be unfair. Uncoolcroaker (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE covers this. Johnlp (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has played in a major competition that satisfies WP:Athlete, and satisfies the notability requirements (and precedence) set by WikiProject Cricket. It is a valid, referenced article, which could well be expanded. Uncoolcroaker (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject is notable per WP:Athlete and WP:CRIN, but article needs to be expanded to better establish his notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs serious cleanup, but he played in a well-known championship/event, which satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Calor (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above Bevo74 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a G10 attack page Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Michael Buechle[edit]

Wikipedia isn't the place to organise a lynching. StaticGull Talk 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, User:PedoFinder isn't encouraging for NPOV YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD#G10 poorly sourced negative BLP. So tagged. This is a BLP1E with very little RS coverage anyway. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris "Tilly" Hackett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chris "Tilly" Hackett

I'd have prodded since it seems a clear fail of WP:ATHLETE but these have a tendency of being controversial so here we are. It's a sentence, it's been tagged for notability since Sept 2007 and it says, "is an amateur basketball player currently playing for the City of Sheffield Saints". Does not appear to have played at the highest level, team is a red link so don't know if they're even notable. TravellingCari 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article claims (and this verifies) that he used to play for the Doncaster Panthers, who in turn played in the fully professional British Basketball League. Assuming that he hasn't been playing since 1985 (when the Panthers were in a lower league), this would qualify him for notability under WP:ATHLETE. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but the article says, "The Panthers played out of the Doncaster Dome and competed professionally from 1993 to 1996 when the team withdrew from the league." Since I doubt he was playing professional ball from 13 -16 years of age, he didn't play for them when they were a professional team. TravellingCari 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, of course: thanks for correcting me. In that case delete since he doesn't appear to have played in a fully professional league. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, it confused me at first too. TravellingCari 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Does not meet WP:BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sicne his club is NN, I think he must aslo be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimla[edit]

Not really notable, can't find anything about it. StaticGull Talk 15:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimla is an Arabic language publication. There are not many articles in English because of this. One of note was published online in a SAfrican news website. The link to this notable page was included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souris El Makina (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the lack of information and relevant English sources, I still don't think this magazine is notable. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the editor don’t know too much about wiki, delete till he learn--Puttyschool (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-admin close as speedy keep, article was nominated for deletion in error. I will complete the neccessary merger. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina of Orange-Nassau[edit]

Duplicate of Paulina of Orange-Nassau. StaticGull Talk 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm confused. The links that you've provided are the same. What are you suggesting to do here? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually tagged this page for deletion, but the author moved it, it seems. Huggle might have lagged a tad, though. Having now seen this, merge with Princess Pauline of the Netherlands per Gene93k. StaticGull Talk 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Pauline of the Netherlands, merging at editor's discretion. It's a plausible enough search term. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - Plausible search term. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Also, merge if the articles have different information (yes, I know, flogging the dead horse, but more opinions don't hurt). Calor (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Bunn-e[edit]

Doesn't indicate notabilty (can't speedy). StaticGull Talk 14:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, article has been created several times with differing captialisations, actually trawled Webcomics Nation for the strip but it doesn't exist. Zero notability here. heck it's even borderline WP:NFT treelo _radda 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - notability just isn't there, and neither are good sources. If some information about the site is relevant at Wotif or elsewhere, it can be added, but a fullscale merge/overhaul of this content seems superfluous and inapplicable. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch London[edit]

nn website Narmy5421 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 05:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wotif. All the sources point to a "Sketch London 2008 Winner Announced" press release type thing. The organizer website Wotif seems notable, but the Sketch London site doesn't fulfill Wikipedia:Notability_(web) at least with the supplied references. A significant part of the article is about Wotif anyway, and that article needs some meat to it. Drunken Pirate (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole thing looks a little strange to me. Each of the sketches says it was uploaded by its artist, but they are all the same user. Redddogg (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - nn competition hosted at a nn website that is an "annual art competition that was founded in 2008", also the given sources are extremely lacking. Additionally I think there are some serious copyright issues with the images --T-rex 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T-rex. Nominated pics for deletion on commons. Renata (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poohdgy[edit]

Made up WP:Neologism. Why isn't there an IAR speedy delete? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were. But I think you could have called this one G1, "patent nonsense," and got away with it.:) Sticky Parkin 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT, WP:NOT a slang guide, WP:NOT a dictionary, ... oh well. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Patent nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY et all, but please not speedy per CSD G1 because it is not obvious patent nonsense, ie "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". Misusing G1 because it's convenient is an abuse of CSD. And if we delete it via AfD debate, rather than cheating and speedying it, we then have the rationale to squish it again without debate if it reappears. Ka renjc 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute and total dogshit. JuJube (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it isn't made-up (and I suspect it is), it's more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Brain Rodeo (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Departmental Public Bodies (Health)[edit]

a) The list is incomplete - there are several tens of organisations that should be on this list; b) The list is out-of-date - it was not complete even when it was created. It is currently around 18 months out of date and pre-dates the UK Department of Health's 'Arms Length Bodies Review'; c) The list is redundant, there's a perfectly good well-categorised list on the DH's own website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/OrganisationsthatworkwithDH/Armslengthbodies. If my proposal to delete is not approved then I would suggest that the page should contain a single link to the DH's own list. Better still, the page should be deleted and a link provided from the DH page on Wikipedia. Millstream3 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Millstream3 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - preferable to create a sub category of Category:Non-Departmental Public Bodies of the United Kingdom government for health related organisations. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 - See old AFD. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Tom and Travis story[edit]

A promised book about a band that does manage to have a WP article. Maybe just a hoax, maybe a crystal balls-up; even if it turns out to be real, of no obvious significance. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~No band article? Blink 182 is was an established band that has an own article.~~ Sorry, I read "that does not manage to have..." Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book itself is not notable. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh: I didn't notice that "The Mark Tom and Travis Story" (note uppercase "S" for "Story") had already been zapped by AfD. Or that our author has been warned that if he recreates articles such as "The mark tom and travis story" (note modest lack of capitals), he'll be in trouble. But let this (second) AfD run a little time: the very persistent author will then have an opportunity to make his case (if any). We could also have a look at Tales from beneath your mom, sourced to an Amazon sales page that incidentally says Amazon.com Sales Rank: #224,904 in Books. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author of this article has had every chance to add reliable third-party sources to make his case for notability (something I have been unable to do). Instead of helping other editors out, he continued to delete the tags and templates without explanation, thinking the problem will just go away. I hasn't. I suspect that the sources within the article are the only ones available. If so, this subject is clearly not notable. J Readings (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated the page for speedy already before coming here. Crap like this should be deleted on sight. It is no more than an advert for an unpublished book. The author has been warned numerous times about creating such articles, but just ignores it. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this subject's title be salted to avoid further recreations of the same article over and over again. It seems that the article's creator just doesn't understand the point. J Readings (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How do you do that though? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Miller (musician)[edit]

NN musicican... no references since December 2007, and no real context to article...
The band he used to be in may pass WP:MUSIC, but this single person alone does not seem notable...
Per WP:MUSIC, "... members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Adolphus79 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to prove individual notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmore School of Performing Arts[edit]

I believe this article is a hoax. I can find no evidence that this school, supposedly a boarding school that opened in 1924 and is still operating today, actually exists. A Google search reveals no relevant hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear notable per WP:NOTE or WP:SCH as there are no sources or recognition. I agree with the nominator it might be a hoax. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above--Puttyschool (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certain hoax. I can't find the Principal or any of the Notable Alumni either. The heading "Current Valencia Staff" is mysterious, until we compare with the article Valencia High School (Placentia, California) which includes it - that article was probably copied and modified to create this one. Author Fairyjude (talk · contribs) has no other contributions, too, which is not conclusive, but is usually the case with hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aron siegel[edit]

Contested PROD. No reliable sources are provided that establish notability or provide verifiability. The record of work from IMDB does not support notability either. Whpq (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week delete~~~~. Lots of sources.~~ Nothing really notable. Might there be more? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you actually click through them you will find some of them are dead links, and none of them would be called reliable as they include sites that are related to him, or in the case of the Polish DJ site, it appears to be a reprint/rehash of material from his own site based on the credit in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed from weak. Bad links. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am new to the wikipedia environment. I am continually trying to add information, but I seem to be unable to create the proper notations for article Aron Siegel. I would like more time to enter in these links and footnotes on the article.Vinylm (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time is what you may not have. However, and in the hope the article can be improved, go to the article, click "edit this page", and then copy the entire thing to User:Vinylm/sandbox (the link will turn blue as soon as there's something there. This way you can work on improving it at your leisure and need not fret if it gets deleted here. Study other similar articles. See how they source themselves and how they prove their notability. And in fact, you may always ask for advice. Many here will be glad to listen. There is no rush. Take your time. Make it great. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, it appears as though a few of the links that were valid, are down at the moment. specifically discomuseum.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylm (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least can keep working on it. I'm glad you moved it to your sandbox. Make it as strong as possible. Good luck. Have fun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ricci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article about a photographer was proposed for deletion in 2005, and it was decided to keep and clean it up. It still looks like an advertisement and no independent sources have been added in the meantime to demonstrate his notability. Google only brings up commercial sites. Grahame (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Jenafalt (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a general biography of a photographer. Wikipedia is not the place for general biographies. The article fails to identify anything particularly noteworthy about Dylan. Does not meet WP:BIO. Totally unsourced material - no references or in-line citations. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what do you mean by "general biographies"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the man's website has a page of "publications". At least two look as if they might be books. I clicked on both and there was no information on them, just photos. The page of links doesn't seem to include any link about Ricci's work; rather, they're links to other people's homoerotic sites. I can't see any claim of notability even on Ricci's own site. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO-related locations[edit]

This is a fringe soapbox. In this way numerous pointless articles can be created like List of US military related locations, List of UK military related locations, List of X related locations etc. etc. Pointless article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~there is already a category for this (Category:UFO-related locations)~~ per nom. John Sloan (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a needless duplicate of a category. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:CLN. Lists are meant to complement categories. With all due respect, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP are being misapplied, or at least applied without any sort of explanation as to how they might be relevant, in many of this user's several UFO-related noms. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless and uninformative, and as another user mentions, a needless duplicate of an existing category. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CLN. This is the list counterpart of an existing category, and should be kept as such. There's no reason to delete this if we aren't going to be deleting the category; there are many, many things we can do with lists that we can't do with categories. It'd be a pity to cripple our navigational system simply because some people can't make the necessary distinctions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gatoclass. Unneeded, and there are no reliable sources to back anything up. Tavix (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete even by my flexible standards for lists, "alleged" and "related" makes this altogether too vague. Possibly it will be able to find some better way of dealing with this. DGG (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Litzau[edit]

Allen Litzau is not a notable boxer. He has not won a championship, he has a mediocre record, and he has no notable amateur achievements. MKil (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a difference between notable and famous. Per WP:ATHLETE, as a professional boxer, Allen Litzau has "competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing." And a record of 13-3 isn't exceptional, but it isn't mediocre [13], either. Brain Rodeo (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that standard really means much for boxers. It could be argued (and it seems that you are arguing here) that any professional boxer meets that standard by virtue of getting paid to box. Doesn't the athlete actually need to accomplish something notable, like win a world title or perform at the highest level of the sport? Is just receiving a paycheck in return for stepping into the ring an accomplishment that earns one an entry here?

Let me ask this, then, if a boxer like Litzau who has done absolutely nothing of note in the boxing world is worthy of an entry, which boxer is not worthy of an entry?MKil (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

No, a boxer doesn't need to win a world championship to be notable. He needs to be a fully professional fighter, and Litzau is. For comparison, look at a professional baseball player like Steve Lake. He was an unexceptional player and he never won a championship, but he was a fully professional athlete who passes the notability test. And who isn't worthy of an entry in Wikipedia? Given the relatively generous terms set out in WP:ATHLETE, my rule of thumb (admittedly subjective) is that notable pros must be champions or former champions, contenders or former title challengers, undefeated prospects, participants in notorious events, or anyone else who won at least 75% of their bouts. Others I consider on a case-by-case basis. Brain Rodeo (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brain Rodeo spells it out nicely. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Allen Litzau only qualifies for an entry based on the criteria that he has won 75% of his bouts. He has never won a title, he has never challenged for a title, he has never participated in a "notorious event" (whatever that means), and he certainly isn't an undefeated prospect. The guy is a medicore boxer who may be famous in the Minnesota area but isn't notable outside of it. If Wikipedia is to have entries on every boxer who has a winning record it would have entries on a number of boxers who are not notable at all. Looking at Brain Rodeos's entries, it seems that he/she has an interest in boxers who are Minnesotans. Fine. But just because a few guys are famous in the in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area does not mean they are worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

Anyone famiiliar with boxing knows that it's easy for a boxer to build a winning record against stiffs. It's hardly notable to have a winning record as a prospect. Allen Litzau's brother, Jason Litzau, probably qualifies for an entry here based on his performance on HBO and his mention in Ring magazine. As a boxing fan, I have a hard time seeing how Allen Litzaua qualifies. He has accomplished absolutely nothing as a professional boxer. The only qualification for him being on Wiki is that he has received compensation for fighting professionallly. There are literally over a million people who have that qualification (check Boxrec.com). Being a professional boxer does not mean you should have a Wiki entry. Allen Litzau has accomplished nothing as a professional (or amateur) boxer). I have seen no evidence as to why he should be listed here.MKil (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I took your advice and looked at Boxrec.com. I see that Boxrec currently has Litzau ranked as the ninth best professional super featherweight boxer in the US out of 85.[14] Litzau has won 81% of his fights, 8 of his 16 opponents had a winning percentage of .500 or greater (I'm generously excluding three who were making their professional debuts), and one of his victories was against an undefeated prospect (Darby Smart, 8-0 at the time) for the Minnesota state featherweight championship. Brain Rodeo (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention that he's ranked as the 137th best super featherweight in the world. And two of his losses came to guys with records of 9-5-1 and 9-5-2. The last guy he beat had a 4-3 record. He is not a contender. He is a mediocre fighter who mainly fights out of Minnesota and has made absolutely no impact in the boxing world.MKil (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You're getting no argument from me about whether he is a contender. And we evidently disagree about what the word mediocre means. I think I already made it pretty clear, I don't consider contender status a prerequisite for inclusion in Wikipedia, and neither does (I'm repeating myself) WP:ATHLETE. Brain Rodeo (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per WP:ATHLETE, WP:N and WP:V. The article needs references, but they are available - for example, he's received coverage in various general news media reports, such as The Corpus Christi Caller-Times; and in specialty boxing online news venues, such as minnesotaboxing.com and fightnews.com. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Cross'd Destiny[edit]

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. Robin S (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, but can you tell the rest of us what steps you've taken to confirm that the situation is not improveable? That'd be quite kind, as it'd save the rest of us some work. Of course, determining the worth of articles entirely on the basis of their current and not potential state would have some practical problems, such as forcing us to nuke much of the encyclopedia with each substantial change in standards. --Kiz o r 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search for the title together with 'webcomic' and 'award' gives this, which says the comic won an award in the 2005 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Therefore it satisfies WP:WEB. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing in this article or that I can find researching at my library that suggests this article can meet our content policies. It's just a collection of unsourced original research. The one award Olaf Davis points to is not the type of well known, prestigious award that we are looking for. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the award found by Olaf. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undertow (webomic)[edit]

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. Robin S (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the obvious misspelling, I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Axl (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, I think an immediate move would be in order - I'm hesitant to move the article during the AFD, though. I concur on notability, though I'll do some searching later and see what comes up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamland Chronicles[edit]

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. Specifically, the one award mentioned does not seem to be notable, and it is unclear whether the publisher qualifies the webcomic as being "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators".Robin S (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the WCCAs are a major factor in webcomicry, there was a predictably large amount of wrangling over its status and significance on Wikipedia during what ended up being called the Great Webcomics Purge in 2007. The end result of that mess was that the WCCAs do qualify here. --Kiz o r 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But no matter how this turns out, happy belated birthday! --Kiz o r 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'll move anything worthwhile to the comixpedia wiki. I like this webcomic but unfortunately this article doesn't meet our core content policies. No sign of the reliable sources that would raise this above its current state as collection of unpublished analysis, original research, and plot summary. The award nominations are not for anything well-known. --Dragonfiend (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, strike that for now. My library computer system seems to be having issues so I can't be sure that my search for sources is working properly. --Dragonfiend (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as after several hours at the library I've found three pretty good sources (two reviews and a profile of the artist for an earlier project). This ought to just barely get this article to meet our content policies. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus. This has been open for 10 months with very little input. Kingturtle (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goblins (webcomic)[edit]

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. It has been deleted at least once in the past, but since recreated. Robin S (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to have won DragonCon's "Most Outstanding New Webcartoonist" award. If verified, that would meet WP:WEB. Hiding T 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of this unsourced original research. I can't find anything buried in all that unsourced plot summary or in my library that would suggest we have anything close to the type of sources that would allow us to write a neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia article on this topic. If we manage to find a reputable source that describes how this comic won the prestigious DragonCon's "Most Outstanding New Webcartoonist" award, that will get us at best a sentence, not an encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And from such tiny acorns do mighty oaks grow. Let us not forget we are here to be a work in progress, not expect the finished article. Whilst I don;t disagree that the article needs work, I feel I have to challenge such statements for the contentious rhetoric they are. If such a source can be found, it would then perhaps be wise to include material from the primary source, per our policies, in order to write as best we can about a subject and avoid systemic bias. We could, as an alternative, redirect to a list entry, but we appear to have a restriction with web-comic listing where no entry can appear on a list without an article. Somewhat circular and restricting approach, I suggest, and counter to policy. Hiding T 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a biographical article that contained no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bernal[edit]

No evidence of notability whatsoever Katharineamy (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Fox (album)[edit]

Disputed prod. Album released by nn band on own label. Dweller (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below the following article belongs here as well:

NB If someone clever can add Let's Save The Day EP to this AfD, I'd be grateful. When I last looked, that article even asserted that the album is not notable. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the EP. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence of notability for this band or its records, a google search turned up practically nothing. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable records from a non-notable band. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No article for non-notable band = no article for non-notable bands non-notable albums........per WP:MUSIC#Albums and all that. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: no indication of notability. -MrFizyx (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Nene River Clubs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable club that failed first Afd. Perhaps merge to River_Nene. DollyD (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article failed previous AfD because it was unreferenced, and had excessive External Links. The new version has done away with the link farm, and is extensively referenced, showing Notability. Mayalld (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTrivial references in dubious sources. About 227 GHits and No G-News hits. DollyD (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to do more than merely assert that the references are trivial here, or are from "dubious sources" without any attempt to justify these labels, and Google is no measure of notability. DDStretch (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference to Peterborough Yacht Club newsletter leads to an article on the ANRC, in which the ANRC appears as a section heading, and (lower) a reference to an ANRC Rally, which is being organised and publicised by the MNCC; no reference to the ANRC as a body independent of the MNCC. Ning-ning (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra information: Reference 2 is a major magazine for information concerning canals in the UK; reference 4 is a major organisation that links various organisations concerning the use of canals for leisure in the UK; and reference 10 is an official website of the UK government organisation. I don't think these could in any way be classified as being "dubious sources", and so the comments by DollyD should be discounted on this matter. The comment by Ning-ning seems irrelevant in the context of these other references I have mentioned. DDStretch (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is a page containing a link to the ANRC's own website with text derived entirely from that website. Ning-ning (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you care to check again, because reference 2 is a link to Jim Shead's website. Jim maintains one of The UK's leading waterways websites, and has written for Waterways World, arguably the UK's leading inland waterway magazine. The page linked is an article by Jim that appeared in Waterways World Mayalld (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 2 is a link to Jim Shead's website, "Clicking on Canals" which contains a link to the ANRC website, and information which derives entirely from that website. If you go back through the Wikipedia article's history, you'll find a version which is very similar to Jim Shead's. Sorry for not providing a diff- haven't done that yet. Ning-ning (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and? It was an article for a major national magazine about waterway societies, and their websites! Mayalld (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and this Wikipedia article appears to be about that website, not about an actual association.Ning-ning (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although References 2, 4 and 10 are from possible reliable sources, each has only a brief mention of the Association of Nene River Clubs. The Association of Nene River Clubs is not the subject of any of these sources. These are trivial mentions at best. DollyD (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for admitting your previous Hyperbole. I now hope we be assured you will not attempt to misrepresent what you see as inadequate references again. DDStretch (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are misrepresenting my words. I admit no hyperbole. While a number of sources may not be of dubious origin, any references to the Association of Nene River Clubs are simply links to their website [15],[16] or a mention that it is part of a "Boat Watch scheme" [17] DollyD (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just found the webpage that actually provides details of the membership and activities. It has 197 individual members. Ning-ning (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please provide a link? DollyD (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link is available from article page. If the consensus is that the references are adequate, then this reference shows that the ANRC has an active membership. Why was this link not provided by User:Renata, User:Andy Dingley, User:ddstretch and User:Mayalld in the two AfD nominations? Ning-ning (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, it was not provided by myself because I have had only a minor involvement in this article and its re-creation very recently )after the first AfD) within a period when other matters had a higher priority; furthermore, it is not a subject in which I have any great knowledge. I for one are grateful that you have found the link, as all that matters is that there are improvements, and there is no reason to pursue the question of motivation (i.e., asking why) about the previous omission of the link, unless you feel it has a particular relevance to the issue. DDStretch (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just on the right side of notabillity. G-Man ^? 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Why was this recreated in article space instead of going through a DRV or being worked on in in a user sandbox? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was restored to my user space (most recent revision only) in the first instance. After improving the referencing, and getting rid of the link farm, it was moved back to article space. Shortly after this, the article was put up for speedy A7. It was then deleted again, and immediately restored by the admin who clearly appreciated that it wasn't A7 material. When restored a second time, all revisions were restored. As a result the page history is rather confused. Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per DRV instructions: " of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum." — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit history of the article and the discussion on [[18]] in section 38 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs) (the slasshes etc foul up a direct link here). I did restore it to user space (a sub-page of Mayalld's talk page), but it quickly got moved back to article space by this editor. As far as I am concerned, what I did was not incorrect, and the later action of moving it was not of my doing. DDStretch (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the crucial message which shows the extent of my actions here. DDStretch (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is when, after I restored the deleted article to user space, the user concerned moved it back to mainspace or article space. DDStretch (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Putting aside the concerns about the process, the article makes no claim of notability for this club. The sources are not independent of the club, except for mentions of a neighbourhood watch participation. (Amusingly, Narrowboatworld reports on a guy getting fined for letting his dog poop alongside a canal.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN not being a valid reason for deletion and we don't need an AfD to discuss mergeable content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, nobody has said the club is "just not notable". I disagree with the idea of merging a club made of humans to a river made by nature. A stream to a river, okay. No merge for a club which has no reliable sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination rationale just says "non-notable" without saying why it's non-notable and then says to perhaps merge. Neither are convincing reasons to delete. As far as the earlier discussion goes, consensus can change and is there a way to compare this article with the previous one? If not, then the previous one may have looked significantly different. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - The previous article is available in the history. The previous AfD result should stand. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see why. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a number of clubs of people who are users of the Nene. The only Nene-based club that has an article at present is this ANRC. The River Thames has a separate article for Sailing on the River Thames which acts as a pseudo-portal for Thames clubs. Perhaps there should be an article Cruising on the River Nene to act in a similar way. Did not User:Renata offer to write up the other clubs? Ning-ning (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This Cruising on the River Nene article sounds like a good possible solution to me. WikiProject UK Waterways could contribute to writing it, and it would allow other clubs to be represented on Wikipedia as well. DollyD (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other clubs are already beginning to be represented via the List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom. It was an area almost unrepresented on Wiki, as opposed to the waterways themselves which are well represented. Renata (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No strong coverage in any independent sources. 203.10.46.22 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compared to my earlier feeble efforts, the article is very good now. Renata (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there an inverse form of WP:OWN? This obsession with deleting the article is no more than WP:JNN and looks awfully like simple intransigence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ... not to mention WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. WP:AADD also mentions that "frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point .... when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". Renata (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That rule applies when the result was not to delete! Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article as it is now is substantialy better referenced than the original, and as such an immediate re-listing was somewhat surprising. Mayalld (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I didn't nominate it the second time. (And a different person nominated it the first time. I Prodded it way back when.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can't see a procedural issue here, either. Notifying relevant wikiprojects only amounts to inappropriate canvassing if the projects' participants must be reasonably expected to overwhelmingly express one opinion or the other (which I think has not been shown here), if at all. Sandstein 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Satan[edit]

Article with an original research intro about a phrase with no evidence of notability. All the refs are totally trivial mentions in the media or from dubious sources. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article has been referenced to hell. Also well known from popular movies like The Omen. DollyD (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the question here is not how many references there are, but whether the references cover the subject substantially. -Samuel Tan 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some churches are vandalized with attacks that include scrawling "Hail Satan!" on the wall does not mean the phrase is notable. Wikipedia isn't here to promote garbage scribbled by vandals. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unless it can be shown that there is significant coverage in sources: the subject of the sources cited is not the phrase "Hail Satan", but rather other things like hip hop, a paranormal event, and "corrupting" music. Per WP:N, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -Samuel Tan 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per the nominator's comments, I encourage editors to carefully review the article and actually open and read the links before opining whether to keep or delete. This doesn't seem like one of those AfD discussions where one can judge up the validity of the objections with a quick glance. - House of Scandal (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blow me, have you seen how much work I've put into this article, and the over twenty inline citations, and the fact that I nommed it for WP:DYK and they said they were happy to go ahead with it if I formatted the refs using the cite templates they asked for- which I now have? [19] google news, google books [20] and google scholar [21] show plenty of WP:RS, of which the article has many. Sticky Parkin 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING - The comment "blow me" is not civil and is not appropriate for this conversation nor for any conversation on Wikipedia. If that comment was directed at me it's particularly misguided as I haven’t opined to delete your article and am more likely to opine that it should be kept. In any case, a comment such as yours is far more likely to move “undecided voters” against you than it is likely to draw them to your side. When you insult all of us with a comment like that, the chances that anyone will care "how much work (you've) put into this article" are diminished significantly. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it- you will not be able to as you are picking at something that isn't there and reading meanings that are not meant. It is simply an expression indicating surprise in the UK where I am, not any other connotation. I'm female lol if you're thinking it has some other meaning. Google is your friend for finding it's use to express surprise. [22] He uses it in the sixth paragraph down.Sticky Parkin 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase was imprudent, because of the possible misinterpretation, but not actually uncivil. For starters, it wasn't directed at anyone, it was, on it's face, a general comment meaning exactly what Sticky claimed, not, apparently, a response to HouseOfScandal, "Well, blow me down," an expression of surprise. I've got a kids video of an Australian group singing that with the lead singer being blown down by the whole group, who puff at him, several times a minute. I can understand the misinterpretation, it kinda shocked me too when I first saw it, because I'm American, where, indeed, those words have quite a different meaning, not for us to mention here, except to say, yes, a woman wouldn't say that. However, it took only a moment to recover the intended meaning. Now, if someone has voted to keep or delete because of that remark, that would be spectacularly wrong. We do not keep or delete articles because of the identity, race, civility, or birth sign of an involved editor. We keep them or delete them based on the content and its notability. Point to remember. --Abd (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As another British Wikipedian here, I have to concur with the above. "Blow me" is not offensive in the slightest. It's short-hand for "blow me down", as in being so surprised it nearly knocked you over. Here, have a look: [23]. Anyway, we're here to debate the AfD nomination, not discuss the relative interpretations of various idioms... Coldmachine^Talk 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Coldmachine, for speaking on this point. I'll accept this explanation in good faith as that is what a good Wikipedian does. I agree that we're not here to discuss idioms, but civility is key to many Wikipedia processes, AfD debates included. Accordingly, I don't appreciate Sticky Parkin's uncivil response beginning "prove it" as Sticky Parkin is obviously familiar with the better-known, international use of this phrase and might have understood my interpretation to be predictable. Rather, Sticky Parkin, you've taken a new opportunity to build a sympathetic relationship with a fellow editor and have instead worked towards the opposite result. C’mon. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, "prove it" is a British idiom that is short hand for "You have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt I might have." Wait. No it isn't. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chip in here as well - I'd never have even considered any 'imprudent" definition of the "blow me" in Sticky Parkin's comment. It was quite clear to me that she intended it to be used in the far more common sense of astonishment, and I was frankly amazed that anyone would think it otherwise. Having said that, it seems that the usual sense of the term may be little-known in the US - something of which I was unaware - and I assume that is where HouseofScandal may be from. (BTW, such things work both ways, I was more than slightly shocked to see we have an article called "Float Your Fanny Down the Ganny", which I would have regarded as a highly inappropriate title). I will note that HoS is correct that SP's response to the original complaint was less than wise, however - an explanation would have been frar more appropriate than a challenge. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, while I appreciate HoS's intent, his interpretation did not even occur to me, and I wasn't the least bit offended as I interpreted it as an abbreviation of the UK expression "blow me down" (ie knock me down with a feather etc). I didn't comment previously however as I thought it best to leave SP to provide her own explanation. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the sources- the fact that there are hundreds of mentions of the phrase in WP:RS is enough for an article about a phrase and it's use, multiple small sources can count when of course no-one will have discussed the phrase in depth. Every fact I say in the article I think has a cite- I really don't think there's WP:OR and if there is that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. We have a whole category or more of articles about phrases- Category:Phrases. Sticky Parkin 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC) 'All' the references are WP:RS, in books with isbns, or well known newspapers. So the nom is not actually correct about any of the sources being dubious. Sticky Parkin 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Samuel Tan said, lots of passing references in reliable sources do not add up to notability. You can do a google search on practically any short phrase and come up with lots of references. Coverage has to be substantial and non-trivial, that's what the issue is here. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict- was clarifying- Multiple mentions has counted in many AfDs. We have a whole category or more of articles about phrases- [24]. Do you think most of these phrases have many whole articles written solely about them? Don't you think this article fits in here- I think it looks and reads like an encyclopedia article about a phrase, of which we have many. Sticky Parkin 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This phrase has permeated popular culture, film, tv, music. That alone would make it deserving of a page. The article is well written and well refed. It may appear trivial to some (Hail Satan), but it's prominence in popular culture as mentioned gets my vote for a keep. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Praise Jesus" gets four times as many google hits as "Hail Satan". Does that mean we need an article on that too? I hardly think so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far out! Above, Gatoclass refers to WP:Other stuff exists as a rejected argument. But here he relies on the quite analogous WP:Other stuff does not exist, which obviously needs to be created and redirected to WP:Other stuff exists, because it's the same argument, explicitly covered in that same essay. Perhaps we should create the article on Praise Jesus. Or not. It's basically irrelevant, even if, say, Praise Jesus was deleted, we don't follow precedent like that, for very good reason. --Abd (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect. I'll leave Praise Jesus to someone who's got the time and inclination. I'd recommend waiting for this AfD to close, though! Even though precedent isn't binding, it can be a clue. --Abd (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also note that wp:Other stuff exists states in the intro that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So whether the "other stuff exists/does not exist" argument is valid is dependent on the validity of the comparison, and just because there may be some valid phrase articles does not mean that every article about a phrase must therefore be valid. Gatoclass (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase "Hail Satan" has been used for more than 190 years and was cited by the Supreme Court of California in justifying court room shackling of American serial killer Richard Ramirez. I think it difficult to accept that no additional substantial and non-trivial exists for this term, particularly in view of the numerous Wikpiedia articles that link to Hail Satan. There is a five day window for new articles to appear on the Main Page through Did You Know and this request to delete the article was listed on day five of that five day window. Suntag (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how this AFD turns out, I will be recommending against the promotion of this article at DYK. As for "the numerous articles that link to Hail Satan", you might have mentioned that you yourself added these links five minutes ago. And people get shackled and gagged in court for all sorts of obscenities and bad behaviour. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to Suntag) Creating an article for DYK submission only to have it nominated for deletion is a frustrating situation I have experienced personally. However, an article may be so nominated at any time, day five or not. For several days, no one objected to the article. Then, someone scrutinized it, and felt deletion was appropriate. Whether the article is deleted or kept, the decision to nominate it for deletion seems to have been done in good faith. The DYK rules are actually guidelines. If this article does not get deleted, I would have advocated its late arrival on the front page in consideration of the situation. However, after the editor's completely uncivil comment above, I'll choose not to. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseOfScandal. I didn't create the article, I just spent a lot of time fixing the cites. Then I saw it was nominated for deletion, thought that I may have wasted a lot of my time fixing the cites, and then added some more info to the article in hopes of having the article kept and not having wasted my time. I agree that the nomination was done in good faith. Since there was a comma after the term rather than a period or exclamation point, I assumed that she was using the term "blow me" as in blow me down or shiver my timbers, which Popeye used to say. I would really be bummed if I spent such effort on an article that resulted in bad behaviour. Suntag (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass. I did not add the links five minutes ago. I linked the existing "Hail Satan" text in the other articles around 19:00, 14 August 2008, which was before this deletion nomination and about twenty one hour before my 16:31, 15 August 2008 post above. I still think that there is a strong likelyhood that additional substantial and non-trivial material exists for this term. Given the length the term has been in use and where and how it has been use, I do not think that there is a deletion basis to say that this term has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Suntag (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recapitulate - unless I've missed something, there is virtually no discussion of the term itself in any of the sources listed in the article. The only exceptions are one article where an actress makes the extraordinary claim that some of her actor friends blame their divorce on saying "Hail Satan" in a movie script (!), and another passing mention in what is clearly a piece of comedy writing in which the author does a tongue-in-cheek analysis of alleged musician's signals. This is not in my opinion remotely enough to justify the existence of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoglass is claiming articles are self-published when they're published by the University of Missouri! [25] And despite his claim above every source I've included says something about hail satan, and this article I would say discusses it, [26] as he uses it and the sign which he considers aligned to the phrase as the main example for his argument about what's happening to culture. Sticky Parkin 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sticky. You might not be aware of this, but phrases like "Gatoglass is claiming", and "despite his claim" focus the attention away from your arguments and onto Gatoglass. One way to avoid this is to not use the person's name as part of the arguments in your reply. Something like

"The articles are not self-published when they're published by the University of Missouri! [27]. Every source included in the article says something about hail satan. The sfweekly.com article[28] does discuss the term itself and the sign which the sfweekly author considers aligned to the phrase as the main example for his argument about what's happening to culture."

isn't so personal. Suntag (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I removed one ambiguously worded claim from a self-published source, which claimed or implied that "Hail Satan" is a commonly retrieved memory from victims of ritual abuse. The sentence that followed it, which stated that there is no clear evidence for ritual abuse - and which was reliably sourced - thereby became redundant, so it was appropriate to delete that too. Gatoclass (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is not for cleanup. WP:DELETE states that "disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page...deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." If the lead-in needs fixing, then fix it. And, per WP:N, "if it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Coldmachine^Talk 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See the last encyclopedia dramatica AfD for one where numerous sources was decided to counterweigh any lack of depth. (though the article is controversial, I think the argument can and probably has held for other articles. I would say a phrase mentioned since at least 1811 is inherently notable. Sticky Parkin 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After carefully scrutinizing the currently cited references I have to conclude that sufficient notability and verifiability to the article's content can not be established. If better sources are found I will change my vote to keep. This is not an issue of cleanup but an issue of notability and verification. I will again echo the comment made above that a decision in this case can not be made by simply eyeballing the article. One needs to actually go the cited references and read those.Nrswanson (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has some problems, but it seems to have enough sourcing to properly survive, even if possibly unsourced stuff is taken out. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a few problems, but it has more than enough sourcing to make something useful for it. In the case of an incredibly large number of sources like this, the depth of the sources shouldn't be as important as it would be elsewhere; instead, we should be concentrating on the fact that it is so widely used and how we can elaborate on that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep (don't think I actually "voted yet".) I ask everyone who wasn't happy with the lead or anything to take another look. Some parts of the article may not be perfect (this is a wiki, anyone who thinks something can improve it.) But I just did a lot of work on the lead, which I hope you will like a little more. At the moment, though some may no doubt come and go, there are 39 cites in the article.:) Sticky Parkin 14:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and unfortunately, the article is looking more and more like an example of WP:SYNTH. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:FIXIT, which I'm sure used to be a link:) Sticky Parkin 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't see how this is WP:SYNTH, there's now a reference for practically every sentence. Of course when writing, one sentence is placed next to another, and in wikipedia articles sentences on a similar theme are placed in a similar section or order. I challenge you to make a piece of writing or article which doesn't put sentences next to each other, unless it is cut-up, and even then it's usually arranged. As to the depth of sources, we have many articles about phrases, [29] pay to play, Beam me up, Scotty, Plastic Paddy, art for art's sake, - and these aren't even including the more obscure ones. My argument is not that "other stuff exists", but that this is an acceptable type or subject for an article, of which we have dozens. This reminds me of the AfD for Macaroni soup where people were saying the only sources to be found were recipes. But it turned into an article about a food which is very similar to hundreds of others, in fact more thoroughly sourced. Sticky Parkin 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very well-known phrase and I hear it all the time. It is certainly worthy of an article. ðarkun coll 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:RS. A google search would show that. Also, we might be able to say keep via WP:SNOW. Undeath (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sort-of-weak keep as per discussion above. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of this debate has been included in the Religion/Left Hand Path work group talk page. --Suntag (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this debate has been included in the Black Metal talk page.--Suntag (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking is charged[edit]

Votestacking - I have discovered that Sticky Parkin has been engaged in votestacking, here and here, which is completely inappropriate. Had I for example canvassed some Christian or evangelical groups, this vote might be looking very different. It's very disappointing that someone would resort to this sort of tactic, and I feel obliged to add this information to the record. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unacceptable. This is completely blatant vote stacking and canvassing and shows utter contempt. --mboverload @ 07:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually polite and perfectly acceptable to notify other users of an ongoing AfD nomination and discussion should the article fall within the editing interests of those individuals: if a university article was nominated for deletion I would hope that WikiProject Universities would be duly notified as well. The notification was not loaded with inciting people to come and vote a specific way so it does not constitute canvassing. Likewise, you cannot simply claim, without providing proof of such a serious accusation, that all editors who work within WikiProject Left Hand Path are, in fact, Satanists or pro-Satan. Besides, all of this is moot since there's no such thing as voting. Admins are perfectly within their rights to close AfD nominations without consideration for the number of keep and delete !votes based on whether the article fails to meet, or in fact does meet, the content policies cited as the reason for the nomination. I suggest you concentrate on presenting a solid and valid case for deletion, if that is your view, rather than mudslinging against fellow editors which simply makes it look as if you are resorting to such tactics in response to an opposing consensus with which you are unhappy. Coldmachine^Talk 09:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to believe anything you choose, but I think few people will concur with your claim that notifying "Left Hand Path" and "Black Metal" does not represent a transparent attempt to stack the vote here. And I'll thank you not to characterize my right to alert users about this issue as "mudslinging". That is quite clearly a personal attack on your part. Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling you might cry 'personal attack' however you'll note that I was commenting on your behaviour, not you and there is a difference. As I say, there's no such thing as voting so it's irrelevant as to whether 'votestacking' happens: an impartial admin will arrive at the AfD and make a judgement based on the article, and application of the content policies. If your case for deletion has merit then the article will be deleted but as I say, I think you will find that AfD is not for cleanup. Coldmachine^Talk 12:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cried personal attack because that is precisely what it was. "Mudslinging" is defined in the dictionary as "the practice of making unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent". When you accuse someone of unscrupulousness or malice, you are attacking their character not their behaviour. Please try to refrain from such attacks in future. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks were not a personal attack, they were reflecting on your tactics/behaviour on this page, not you, which is entirely fine as WP:NPA states: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks". You are clouding the purpose of this discussion by raising these sorts of allegations and trying to distract editors from the real issues is only disruptive. So, as WP:BAIT recommends, this is my last remark on this AfD; the last word is all yours. Coldmachine^Talk 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when made without involving their personal character - precisely. And I just explained to you why mudslinging is by definition an accusation that impugns character. But apparently you weren't paying attention. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. But thank you for making that your final statement, as I agree a continuation of the discussion from this point would be nothing but a distraction. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!I notified, in a neutral way, two wikiprojects that would be interested in the AfD due to them having particular interest in some of the subject areas it covers. As you know, people involved in a wikiproject are not always fans of that subject for it to stack an AfD, but they are concerned with related articles.Sticky Parkin 13:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS explicitly states that it is unacceptable to selectively canvas to a partisan audience, which is precisely what you did. The only two groups you canvassed were those most likely to include users with a favourable attitude to articles about Satanism or "Black Metal" subculture. In no way can this be described as an acceptable form of canvassing.

As I said, I am very disappointed you did this, because up until that point I had assumed I was dealing with another good faith user with whom I was simply having an honest difference of opinion, and now I find myself questioning that judgement. At the very least, this was poor judgement on your part, and something you would be advised not to repeat in future. As things stand, the vote here has now been corrupted, and there appears to be no way to mend that state of affairs. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not what I did, WP:CANVAS says it's fine to notify in a neutral way. Unlike what you suggest the feelings of people in the wikiprojects are not a foregone conclusion, nor am I involved in the wikiprojects to particularly be sure of who is there or which way they would go with this AfD, except that they might know about the subject matter or be interested, and people in AfDs routinely notify related wikiprojects. Are people in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch all paedophiles? I am disappointed that you would choose to interpret my good faith behaviour, as seen on thousands of other AfDs, in this way, and fail to WP:AGF or treat it like every other AfD where wikiprojects are notified. Sticky Parkin 14:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the feelings of people in the wikiprojects are not a foregone conclusion.

No, but one may make an intelligent guess as to how a particular group is likely to vote. Obviously though I can't read your mind, perhaps you really did think these notifications were appropriate, but if so then I think you have misconstrued the policy. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass. The instructions for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page," which it appears Sticky Parkin did. Step II of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instructions says "Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination." I added a note above about the notifications. Wikipedia:Canvassing says "Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject." -- Suntag (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC) OK, I thought more about your point. Perhaps the deletion notifications should be limited to only those WikiProjects that can be reasonably listed on the article talk page. Right now, only WikiProject Languages is listed on Talk:Hail Satan. Groups likely to hail Satan isn't the topic. It is the phrase "Hail Satan", which seem to be a notability language issue. Suntag (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, to notify wikiprojects and editors who are regular contributors of an article when it is at AfD. This isn't canvassing; this is posted in a neutral way to a related venue that has a high prob ability of containing users who are going to be interested in the subject. You might think most users are going to disagree with this practice, but the fact is otherwise--most people consider it polite and acceptable to do what he did, and simply because you don't like the idea of having more eyes on it who are familiar with the subject doesn't mean they aren't entitled to a notification of an ongoing debate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, see my comment below- I have removed my request to related wikiprojects, for no other reason than some people's (IMHO inncorrect) interpretation of it, as such notification being routine. But I don't need the hellish torment of another AfD and another 5 days all over again:) Sticky Parkin 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is over the top, if somebody is simply informing two Wikiprojects that something is up for deletion that is fine iMHO as they have not sad this article must be kept at all costs or vote to keep this article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This AfD looks like a Christian vs. Satanist battle at first glance, but when you really look at it, there's nothing really encyclopedia-notable about this phrase. I feel bad about dumping all the work that's been put into the article, but I don't want to see an article in Wikipedia for every phrase in pop culture either. How could we justify deleting Hail <insert deity or anti-deity of choice> if we keep this? --JaGa^talk 07:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hail (insert deity here)" will usually have been mentioned less in WP:RS, (for instance "Hail Diana" is only mentioned eight times in news stories [30] in contrast to Hail Satan [31] -and some of the Diana ones are just using it about Lady Diana Spencer.) There are several uses of the phrase Hail Satan, not just a straightforward one, such as in metal, film, occult, humourous usage, and its unfortunate connection with crime, the phrase is used enough times with enough different meanings to warrant an article. Sticky Parkin 13:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was no votestacking. He basically spread the word about this afd. He brought it to the black metal wikiproject where I saw it. It did not look like a way to stack any type of votes. Anyway, just think of what happens with an article if flagged for rescue. That's a basic vote stack in itself. Undeath (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Well sourced, notable and evidence provided for it's notability. Sticky Parkin did in no way "stack votes", her mention of the AfD was done in a neutral way, and no policies were at all broken in what she did. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - but only if the article is cleaned up and its obvious POV is negated. Also, this AfD should be closed out and a new one started. Failing that, WikiProjects from the opposite point of view should be notified to counter the obvious votestacking. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not votestacking to notify related wikiprojects. If you think there is a POV then WP:FIXIT, as User:Coldmachine says, AfD is not for cleanup.I'd be interested what you consider to be POV, as half the article is concerned with how the phrase is considered evil, naff, mockworthy or related to crime.:) But that's not part of the AfD, I shall be chatting to you about it on your talk page. If people turn up voting for reasons of religious POV, I would hope the closing admin would consider the arguments rather than numbers as is the policy, as the subject is clearly WP:V and in hundreds of sources, as others have said.Sticky Parkin 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ed Fitzgerald's proposal above: Wikiprojects related to whatever the opposite of view is in this case should also be alerted to this discussion. I'm making popcorn if anyone wants some... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why as I have removed my comment, that is unnecessary. To be fair, if it was done it should only be up for one day, as mine was. Probably the fairest is for editors without a particular religious bias to be the ones to judge, as is happening at the moment. Anyway my "canvassing" lol has not led to any different outcome.Sticky Parkin 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of your comment now is a fay late and a dollar short, since clearly several commenters here came because of your canvassing comments. We need to start over, here, you've poisoned the well for this AfD to be considered to be definitive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading this page is very depressing. It seems some editors, who should know better, are involved in nothing more than a personal 'mud slinging' campaign, that is verging on the ridiculous. Nothing to do with the 'vote' going against them of course. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is flagged for rescue, the people in the article rescue squad act accordingly. That could be considered vote stacking by the way you guys are terming it. Sticky Parkin just notified relevant wikiprojects, which is done on many AfDs. For example, you see at the bottom of a lot of AfDs, a message that says "This article has been included in (insert type of deletion list here)" That is the same thing that Parkin did. It was not vote stacking. Undeath (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He notified only relevant Wikiprojects that were likely to vote the way he supports while totally ignoring other projects which would be likely to vote the other way. That's canvassing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way canvassing. For example, if a band is going to be deleted, the wikiproject is notified. If an airport is going to be deleted, the wikiproject is notified. That is not canvassing. He didn't say "Come and VOTE here to KEEP this article." He just notified us of it which is in no way canvassing. Undeath (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm not explaining my point well. If a film is to be deleted, notifying WikiProject Film is perfectly reasonable because the project covers all films, so if SP had notified WikiProject Religion, or WikiProject Colloquialisms, or WikiProject Expressions Beginning with Hail, assuming such projects existed, there would be no problem. But because he notified WikiProject Religion/Left Hand Path work group (a specific sub-group of the Religion project, not the entire project) and WikiProject Black Metal, groups which were significantly more likely to have members who would support his position, his action is clearly canvassing. Moreover, his post to the Black Metal group pandered to them by using language designed to be attractive to them, rather than neutral language.

SP and his supporters may honestly believe that he did nothing wrong, but that's not the case, and the AfD is thereby tainted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stacking is directly asking an editor, or a project, to do a specific thing. This was not done. The messages left only basically said, hey, there is something you might want to take a look at if you have the time. I've nominated airports for deletion before and saw editors, even admins, notify WP:AIRPORTS about it. It's not stacking unless it is stated that a vote is wanted for a specific outcome. Undeath (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the case, votestacking does not require the editor to try to persuade anyone. According to WP:CANVAS:i

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

That is precisely what happened here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That also never says that an editor must notify opposing groups. Anyway, who would be opposed to Hail Satan besides the christians? And who really is prone to like the saying anyway. The left hand path is not all satanic. Some are, some are thelemic, some are atheist etc... Same with the black metal wikiproject. The edits and notifications were in good faith. And, if it makes you feel better, I'd happily tell the christian groups about this one.Undeath (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Undeath (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. You posted a notice on WikiProject Religion, but the idea was to post notices on projects that were likely to have the opposite view from the ones that SP posted to. In light of that, I've put notices on WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Christian Music and WikiProject Christian Metal. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in turn you have engaged in vote stacking. Sticky posted on two areas. You have now made it unbalanced. Anyway, it's not going to make a difference. Even if a bunch of christians tally up delete comments, they will all have to provide valid reasons why. Undeath (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, you have convinced me completely. If what SP did was OK, what I did was OK. Cheers. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think you did anything wrong, either. However, I do think that a lot of people here need to get off this idea of "opposing" factions; we're here to write an encyclopedia of everything (notable). That includes things that some people might enjoy a great deal, and that others find highly offensive. However, the goal isn't to exclude one or the other. The goal is to take it all and write the best possible encyclopedia including them. WikiProjects don't exist for the purposes that you seem to think they do; WikiProject Christianity isn't here to exterminate non-Christian religions. They're here to write articles related to Christianity; this is related to Christianity, just not in a positive way. If anything, you've probably just garnered more keep votes. Being someone who writes on Christian topics doesn't automatically mean that they're going to to have a negative POV against it whatsoever. It means that they'll approach the article differently, sure, but not quite in the way you're thinking. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People don't need to be "at war" to hold opposing opinions, and nobody expects every person in a particular group to respond the same way - but, playing the odds, you're more likely to get more people to agree with you that Blind Lemon Jefferson is a genius if you approach WikiProject Blues than you are if you approach WikiProject Britney Rules. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You realise that by arguing against such notifications per WP:CANVAS and then going on to do exactly the same at those projects which you have notified, is deliberately pointy behaviour? I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:CANVAS but I would have been happy for the AfD to have been closed and restarted; now, though, your actions are contributing to the problem. Coldmachine^Talk 09:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but my understanding of WP:POINT is that it's about actions which are done for the sake of an argument, not actions which are done for their own sake. If you look back up at my !vote above, you'll see that I expressed the opinion there that if this AfD wasn't going to be closed and a new one opened, then at the least, SP's canvassing should be countered. Since this AfD is obviously going ahead, I was simply acting on my initial idea, so my action was taken to make a point -- oh you canvassed, so can I -- but to fulfill those conditions and even out the situation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my notifications to the wikiprojects (not because it was wrong, as it happens in hundreds of AfDs, but because I don't need this "aggro" (by which I mean bother etc.) ) so can we not go on about this now and consider it solved? It has not effected the way the AfD is going in any way and was only up for one day. P.S. If any Christians turn up, I credit them with the decency to view the article for whether it conforms to WP:RS and so on only, to view it objectively by Wikipedia's rules rather than religious objections. Sticky Parkin 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An overwhelming number of citations from plenty of reliable sources (36) add up to notability, even if they only are cursory mentions. Found at WikiProject Christian music. Obviously I don't like the term, but that's not relevant. Royal broil 12:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references and I have seen references to this myself. Captain panda 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thirty-six sources and there's arguments for notability? I'm no Satanist and I'm familiar with the phrase outside of Rosemary's Baby. Also, I think a South Park episode (Woodland Critter Christmas) employed the phrase, and that's not even cited in the article. The article definitly has some POV problems, but the subject itself is notable. Themfromspace (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued about these POV problems people have mentioned, which no-one has demonstrated so far, but if there's any excessive POV I'm quite happy for it to be fixed or I'll change it. I'll be messaging you on your talk. I know more about this phrase now than anyone needs to lol:) Sticky Parkin 11:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hate the phrase, but the article has been impeccably sourced and I'm not really sure why its up for AFD. Hell, it's okay saying that it's hardly notable, but you try finding someone that hasn't heard of the phrase or knows what it means...Porterjoh (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article is in considerably better shape now than when I nominated it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I do think it's been improved in as much as being 'tightened up', but it had dozens of cites already when you nominated it. Plus, it was only a few days old when you nominated it, of course it was going to improve. This is the article before you nominated it. [32] It's much the same except for more cites for the content (due to a standard of one a sentence being asked) and some showy pics:) Anyway, as others have said, AfD is not for clean-up. Sticky Parkin 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was lacking in scholarly sources and had a number of very poor or misrepresented sources, the worst of which I have since removed, while the rest of them were mostly passing mentions which in my opinion failed WP:NOTE. An article on a subject which is not notable is an article appropriate for AFD. You may think this subject is obviously notable but you should not assume that because it is a familiar phrase to you that it must necessarily be familiar to everyone. For the record I'm still not persuaded this article serves a genuine encyclopaedic purpose - do we really need to document every phrase employed by some subculture or another? - but in its current state I probably would not have felt strongly enough about it to nominate it for AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The phrase itself is used or mentioned in the citations, but the phrase is not the SUBJECT of the citations. That a word or phrase, "gee wizz" for example, has been used frequently in culture or literature, does not mean the phrase itself is notable enough for encyclopedic content. Had the phrase been the subject of studies/reports/publications from third party, reliable, verifiable sources, one might have an argument for its inclusion. Also, I believe that canvassing/votestacking should be taken into consideration when counting consensus. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A phrase will rarely be the subject of an entire newspaper article but we have a whole category and several subcategories about phrases, because there are hundreds of WP:RS about a phrase such as this to make a verifiable article. "Gee wizz" doesn't have the variation of meanings to make an article which is more than a dictionary definition listing the date it was first used or something, perhaps. Unlike this one, it probably would just be a dictionary definition, and it's on wiktionary.[33] But then I haven't looked, it probably has sufficient sources for the numerous other stubs about phrases that we have that make articles and varied contexts, so maybe you could have a try at making an article about it if you really want lol:) But the phrase Hail Satan is used in numerous cultural contexts and types of media which can be discussed, the phrase has been criticised and been in the media prominently, and has a wealth of meanings. Plus the AfD was "votestacked" (to use the other 'side' of the debate's lack-of-WP:AGF and misinterpretation of the membership of wikiprojects phrase) more than three times as much in the opposite direction as I removed my notifications after one day (although nothing was wrong with them, just out of not wanting to escalate any dispute or give anyone any justification for their accusations) but someone notified six Christianity wikiprojects. However, unlike the other team's attitude to the wikiprojects, I credited the people who came from the Christian wikiprojects with having the ability for objectivity and decency to assess the AfD without any bias, according to WP:RS - and they proved that my assessment of them was correct. -P.S. Hey it's here hun lol Gee Whiz but it's a television episode or something:) Sticky Parkin 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I credited the people who came from the Christian wikiprojects with having the ability for objectivity and decency to assess the AfD without any bias - Yeah, sure you did. That's why you didn't bother notifying any of them yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an admin, you sure are not acting like one. Stay civil. Stop with the sarcasm. We are not here to insult other users. Come on now. Undeath (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to up the ante with gratuitous charges of incivility is potentially a much more serious breach of WP:CIV in my book. I suggest you try to avoid such tactics. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And refactoring comments after someone has responded to them is also best avoided... Coldmachine^Talk 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's my own post. And it didn't change the meaning one iota. But since your comment implies otherwise, I have now restored the original version for the sake of transparency. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought (rightly or wrongly) Christianity not quite related to the subject in the same way as Wikiproject Left Hand Path and Wikiproject Black Metal is all. Christians don't tend to study or use the phrase "Hail Satan" a lot, do they, or listen to media in which it is used particularly frequently? Not the ones I know, anyway.:) I did consider notifying them when people made this fuss over it but instead decided to remove my notifications to the wikiprojects who would have the most knowledge of how the phrase is used. The same as a Muslim would know more about the phrase As-Salamu Alaykum than me. Plus I only have so many hours in the day lol. But I've appreciated the input from the Christian wikiprojects. Sticky Parkin 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological Treatment of Sexual Arousal Disorders[edit]

Delete as original research. The topic as per the (bad) title belongs on Sexual arousal disorder, but the content is a case concerning Ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete OR, poorly written up OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Reads like an essay, fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:RS. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone cares enough to write it properly it can be recreated. MediaMob (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR; also, possible COI - the initial page author has a user name that appears to match the therapist who's work is the subject of the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bag It Up (Noel Gallagher)[edit]

There is no relevant information and it is set out in a non-encyclopedic fashion. Not notable song. Andre666 (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells like Original Research. Otherwise, WP:RS and WP:N apply here --Numyht (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all notable, per above. NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no notability (yet). It can be recreated if the song is ever released as a single. naerii 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Shelley[edit]

There is no evidence for this guy's notability outside his own blog. He claims to have released an "audio" called "Sapphire" in 1989, but I can't see any evidence of it.Grahame (talk)

Delete - Looks to me like a blatant vanity page. Not notable IMO, and a search for his album yields his myspace and a mirror of his article. I see no possible reason to keep this. 3fingeredPete (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable as specified at WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Unreferenced information throughout. It looks like it could only have been written by the subject himself, or someone very close to the subject. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, and I wasn't able to find anything about him other than his own myspace and website. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thor - The Edda Chronicles[edit]

no assertions of notability; future date is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF - Also, just a comment: no assertion of notability is not a reason for deletion for films, and future date in itself is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - the key is notability and certainty of taking place. This movie likely fails WP:N because it has not been covered substantially (at least amongst the English online sources I found), and it fails WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.-Samuel Tan 18:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Lacking notability is most certainly is a reason for deletion (An assertion keeps it from speedy, but not for films.). Your link for "reason for deletion" says, in part, this: "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". I do agree that simply a future date is not a criterion for violating WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks for that link to WP:NFF; it will be useful in the future. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Actually what I wrote was "lack of assertion of notability", which is a reason for deletion only for biographies of living persons and articles for existing organizations, if I understand the rule correctly. :) -Samuel Tan 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cobaltbluetony I understand your concerns about this article and i have made some changes to it. As i understand it you had three main concerns which i think i have corrected now.

The first one was about the article only referencing one source. I made some changes and now it references three sources (The Internet Movie Database and Morgunblaðið). The Morgunblaðið article is in Icelandic but if you look at the screenshots you can see that the article is about the film.

The second one was about the future date violating WP:CRYSTAL. The future date is confirmed in the Morgunblaðið article but again it is in Icelandic so i guess you will just have to asume good faith.

The third was about about notability which Samuel Tan also adressed. It haven't seen any articles about it in English but it has gotten pretty good coverage in the Icelandic media.

Here are more links:

Ólafur Darri líklegur í hlutverk Þórs

400 milljóna króna alþjóðlegur samningur um teiknimyndina Þór

Wikipedia is a global project and i don't think it should be limited to notability in the English-speaking world--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Reply. Since this is the English-language version of Wiikipedia, we still will need translations of the sources to confirm notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I could translate one or all of the articles for you. Should i post the translations here?--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I suggest you post very short summaries of two or three articles here. Thanks. :) -Samuel Tan 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: :-) Ok, that shouldn‘t be a problem.

http://www.mbl.is/mm/vidskipti/frettir/2008/06/06/caoz_gerir_400_milljon_krona_samning/

http://www.vb.is/frett/1/43835/400-milljona-krona-althjodlegur-samningur-um-teiknimyndina-thor

These articles are written about the same subject. A 400 million ISK deal that CAOZ made with German company Ulysses Films and Irish company Magma Productions [34] at the Cannes film festival to co-produce Thor – The Edda Chronicles.

There is also a summary of the storyline, the production process and the companies involved. The movie has been in pre-production for 4 years, costs are estimated somewhere around 1.1 billion ISK and it is expected to hit theaters at the end of 2010. Movies made by Caoz include Anna and the moods and The Caterpillar while Ulysses and Magma have just finished co-producing Niko and the way to the stars [35] along with people from Finland and Denmark.

http://www.visir.is/article/20080607/LIFID01/959503909

This article is about the possibility that Icelandic actor Ólafur Darri Ólafsson [36] could possibly voice the role of Thor in both the Icelandic language version of the movie and the English language version.

Other subjects that are discussed are potential voice actors for the English speaking version and a possible Hollywood movie about Thor being released at a similar time.

--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --jonny-m t 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Accepting that its existance as a project has been confirmed, and that the animation creation has begun, it'd be helpful for you to give a few more sources (with translation summary) as you have indicated that it is getting "pretty good coverage in Icelandic media". This would further address film notabilty guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Maddox[edit]

Contested prod. WP:BIO tates that association with a notable person is not, in itself, sufficient to establish notability, yet association with Jimmy Page is about the only thing going to justify an article for the subject. The extremely non-WP:RS nature of the sources makes the article content especially questionable--we need better grounds before a living person is labeled a "groupie." The article has been tagged for notability since July with no improvements. This article should be deleted for lack of notability--even if being a groupie did somehow make a subject notable, it seems clear that the reliable sources to justify the claim are not available in this case. Movingboxes (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. This person's claim to notability rests on an alleged short romantic relationship with a notable person many years ago, not on anything inherently notable she herself has done. Sources are sparse and dubious, and I also don't like the WP:BLP implications for the subject or other living people mentioned in the article. Ka renjc 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete as a particularly clear example of BLP. If any other admin agrees with me, please just do it. DGG (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Taj[edit]

Contested PROD, stating that Barnet are a fully pro club, although Taj has yet to play for them, failing WP:ATHLETE notability criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 07:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet is a fully professional club, but since he hasn't appeared for them yet, he fails WP:ATHLETE.
Redirect to Barnet F.C.. --Amalthea^Talk 12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 03:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kohring[edit]

Article on a common surname, created and deprodded by User:Richkohring. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced surname that is part of a greater scheme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this surname notable? There are millions of surnames; I thought there was consensus against surname articles. Also, the sources provided are not reliable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 12:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excellent beginning to an perfectly fine Disambiguation page. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weather forecast for NYC says tornado but this appears to be SNOW. TravellingCari 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broom cannon[edit]

New, made up game, falls under neologism.

I was unsure whether I could tag this under speedy deletion, criteria IAR, so I'm submitting it to you guys. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete idiotic kids doing idiotic things is not a reason for us to care about it. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not assert notability and does not qualify for inclusion. – Jerry^teps 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Games made up by bored teenagers aren't notable. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy for the sake of Sports; H2H (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A word from the writers

However, idiotic this may sound, everything has its beginnings. Rugby, was first started with just a bunch of guys trying to occupy themselves at college. Actually, every sport was invented as a means to entertain oneself.

Of course, throwing a broom across a field isn't very attractive. It seems rubbish. But everything just starts that way. In the future, I'm sure that the equipment will change as smarter and safer people decide to take an interest in this small unofficial sport.

And is Wikipedia not a place where ideas can form, and spread to others? We hope to bring this new sport/entertainment to others at college. And possibly, many other Wikipedia members can partake in this sport in the future.

And we promise this is not a hoax, and this is not a joke. We are quite serious about this matter.

We hope you will consider keeping this article on Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for letting us speak. Brotos (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And is Wikipedia not a place where ideas can form, and spread to others? No it's not. It's an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby did not have a Wikipedia entry when it was just created... Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would it have done so even if Wikipedia had existed at that time. Wikipedia is not a place for new concepts to make their debuts. Rather, Wikipedia is supposed to discuss things which have already received coverage in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources that comment on this "sport". – Pee Jay 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I actually just deleted this as a hoax a minute ago, and support it being deleted as such again. Oh, and per WP:NFT. Tiptoety ^talk 07:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Brotos (sic). Punkmorten (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Live! Warm Up tour[edit]

Non-notable tour, nothing more than just a list of tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the tour received significant attention. Everyking (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From where? There are exactly no sources on the page. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too short, no sources, only a myspace link and not enough information. BlueRed 09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riot of the Blood[edit]

An article on an aspect of the King of Fighters series of games which has no real world relevance. More importantly, the article is a coatrack on which is hung a completely unrelated paragraph about "SNK Boss Syndrome", an article which has been repeatedly deleted before. As such, while I put it up for AfD myself because it is ostensibly an article about "Riot of the Blood", I think it should be speedy deleted as its true purpose is a hiding place for this piece of unsourced original research that has been repeatedly deleted. JuJube (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) — I agree with the nom regarding WP:COAT. Furthermore, I would not be opposed to WP:SALTing SNK Boss Syndrome. MuZemike (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David kenny[edit]

The subject is not notable and the article -which lacks any sources whatsoever and is orphaned- requires a massive amount of cleaning up and wikifying. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real notability asserted. article as currently written is a mess. JIP | Talk 12:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does assert notability. I can see how it could be taken as a hoax, but he writes a column for The Sunday Tribune. Here is a review of one of his books in The Irish Times. I'll take the jokey stuff out of the article and add some references. Bláthnaid ^talk 16:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version of the page is as a stub, and is need of expanding. However, from what I could tell doing a cursory Google search, he is a relatively well known author in Ireland. I added a source for the second version of his book Erindipidity. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to fnd anything which supports notability.

Cheers mates!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notable person, bad article. And the page should be moved to David Kenny. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I just noticed that....and it was moved :) Lazulilasher (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Tavix (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...there you are, thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Orlins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page was actually deleted a couple of years ago, but I figured a fresh nom wouldn't hurt. She is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, she has been on two seasons, but precedent shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notability-wise has changed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any notability independent of the show. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe borderline, but the article is not promotional and she seems notable enough. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. the wub "?!" 13:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hater Remix[edit]

This is simply a remix of the song "Hi Hater". If even this was to be an official remix (the only source is a broken "404" link) it would need to chart before deserving its own article, according to WP:MUSIC#Songs. The content can't even be merged to "Hi Hater" since there is no proof that these are official remixes. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No merge or redirect due to lack of WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has been redirected to Hi Hater after only significant contributer blanked the page.
Keep the redirect since it's a plausible search term — it's the official name of the single. --Amalthea^Talk 21:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Summarily closed as moot. Author has requested deletion. I have, instead, turned this into a redirect to the new and properly titled article, polysubstance dependence; if the original author was confused and made a mistake in terminology, others may also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polysubstance abuse[edit]

Polysubstance abuse is not a recognized clinical term according to the DSM IV. Relevant information on this page could be used to describe Polysubstance Dependence which is a proper DSM IV diagmosis ThanatosComplex (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - isn't this just a re-naming rather than deletion matter then? -Hunting dog (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename - agree with hd. We do need an article on polysubstance dependence. Steve Carlson^Talk 05:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree this could be solved by renaming the article, though I thought given the length it might be just as easy for the original creator to create a topic on Polysubstance Dependence and delete this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanatosComplex (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original creator of this article (how embarrassing, I wasn't paying attention to the distinction between abuse and dependence), and have created Polysubstance dependence with some slight rewording to reflect the very distinction I overlooked the first time. Please Speedy Polysubstance abuse now. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2009, delete 2010 and 2011. Wizardman 02:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Kansas State Wildcats football team[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same category:

Nominating the article for deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. IMO, a season three years in the future is not appropriate to Wikipedia. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included at Wikipedia:CFB#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Parts of this season have already been determined (namely the schedule)...and that's really all that's there. Other things will be added to it as the season approaches. It's simply a stub right now that will be expanded in upcoming year(s). I see no reason to delete it and there is nothing in this that is speculative.

Furthermore, WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred...In forward-looking articles about...games take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims...Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place....A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although we know their schedule, is there really anything to be known about it more at this point? I don't see how having simply a verified schedule makes this article sufficient for keeping at this point: let's wait a couple of years, when we know a bit about the people who will compete in the 2011 K-State season, just (as noted by WP:CRYSTAL) as we wait to create an article on Tropical Storm Alberto (2012). Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or~~ Delete ~~or Merge or Neutral~~ yeah, that's no help is it? I quickly see points for all three. Some of the players for the early seasons are already with Kansas State (or your team of choice, as this will have implications through college football). That and the schedule, and the sources for the schedule do seem to indicate at least some notability for the future season, so it is a candidate for keep. But there really is only one reference, and if all there is now is a schedule that is incomplete, that's a candidate for merge. And finally, because the schedules are incomplete (not all games have been announced) and it is in the future which is subject to changes, (as well as not being an "immediate" next season as outlined at CFB:SEASONS) it is a candidate for delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #1 Personally, I'd rather see editors focus their efforts on past seasons that have information, like 1971 Kansas State Wildcats football team. I think it would be better to work on information that does exist rather than to work on information that is going to exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #2 This discussion can (and I believe should) have implications to other "future season" articles. I say we use this discussion to help firm up consensus on the entire issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #3 Something about future seasons out just doesn't feel right. Not sure what it is yet...--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #4 Perhaps if all we have is a verified partial schedule on a notable team then we should reference that as "future schedule" from the main team page to the source where it came from and reserve the "future content" for other websites.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Final Answer after thought and review of all the comments here (and again, several valid points on both sides) I landed on delete at this time. I know that there are valid reasons to keep, but this looks to me to be a case where deleting the articles for now seems more appropriate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep on 2009; the way the recruiting game (either commits or transfers) is being played these days, there's plenty of usable information already on some teams. Frankly, once the season begins we're pretty much automatically set on the 2009 articles because we have games that influence the tone of the following season (particularly conference games that repeat year-to-year). I'm neutral on the other seasons, I don't see the harm in their presence, but I personally wouldn't create them. --Bobak (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles. The schedule, which may exist at this time, is not the team. Nothing whatsoever is known about the team. Any statement about the team itself is crystal ball gazing. The schedule could be included in a main article on the program Kansas State Wildcats football. Edison (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on 2009 and Delete on 2010 and 2011. It makes no sense to delete the 2009 season when it will more than likely recreated in January after the 2008 season. As a general rule I personally think editors should wait until after the current season to start the next season. 2010 and 2011 is just to far in the future. Schedules can change, coaches can change, etc. 09er (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 2009, delete for the rest. As the rule states, even if we "know" something's going to happen, we don't need to create it yet. 2009 is close enough, but we haven't even begun the 2008 season yet -- there's no reason to begin an article for the rest. Schedules can change, and schedules are the only things with enough cites to be worthy of inclusion in future articles at this time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2009, Delete the rest. We don't know enough about 2010 and 2011, but 2009 should be an acceptable article. Anyway, we'll recreate it in January if it is deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another option Merge/redirect this information into Kansas State Wildcats football under a new subheading: Future schedules or something like that. This information is certainly valid within its context and deleting something which will inherently become a full article seems like a colossal waste of time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further information, the 2012 Kansas State Wildcats football team was deleted on April 28, 2008. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Kansas State Wildcats football team — X96lee15 (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 02:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NERF wars[edit]

Non notable game. The three references that are in the article are all from Hasboro. Two are advertisments for products and the other is a listing of games. Google returns youtube, personal websites, videos, advertisments etc. but no reliable sources to establish notability. Jons63 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem to be enough reliable sources which give the concept at least a passing mention in Proquest and EBSCOhost:

Sock It to Me: Competitive Knitters Get Deadly Serious; Based on 'Assassin' Game, This Contest Has Players On Pins and Needles. Kevin J. Delaney. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Dec 17, 2007. pg. A.1
The war of the zombies vs. humans rages in Athens. Nick Claussen. The Athens News. Athens, Ohio: Oct 30, 2006. 1 pgs
ALL WORK AND SOME PLAY BRINGING JOY TO THE OFFICE; [FINAL Edition] RODD AUBREY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Jul 7, 1998. pg. C.2
Title:Nerf Guns Strike a Nerve on Campuses. (cover story) Authors:Young, Jeffrey R. Source:Chronicle of Higher Education; 4/25/2008, Vol. 54 Issue 33, pA1-A8, 2p Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It seems notable enough, but needs a serious re-write, it reads like a game guide --Numyht (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Nerf wars is just as notable as Paintball or Airsoft... this article just needs some good sources, and a copyedit... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Article needs some work, certainly, but considering the above sources, I think there's more than enough to get something workable. Considering the popularity of campus-based games such as "Humans vs. Zombies", I think there has to be a lot more out there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. I created this artcle, but I'm not very experienced. I just want to say that compared to many of the other articles nominated for deletion (I've looked at a lot of them), this article is relatively well developed. Sure, it definitely could use work and more references, but I don't think it should be deleted.Fodo96 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already speedily deleted by Jimfbleak — caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Herrada[edit]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Google search for "William Herrada" brings up 25 pages, none of which substantiate the claim made in the article that he is "one of the most accomplished and influential horror and science fiction directors in Texas". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Troy Rodriguez hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 666 (2009 Film) Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as vandalism in the form of blatant misinformation and indefinite block editor for nothing but hoax articles to contribute. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. Lady Galaxy 04:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Obvious insertion of misinformation. Keegan^talk 05:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route 666 (2009 Film)[edit]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources to verify the existence of this film (at least in the version described in the article). It's not in IMDB, and the official site is on Freewebs. ... discospinster _talk 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ok the website is on freewebs but thats because we just announced this movie today but we have a webmaster doing to the movie site right now and this movie is all over myspace forms and we have made it a myspace it has over million profile views already would you like the link for proof. --Madden09 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello is anybody there??? ummm I dont know what else you want for proof we just submited this movie in the imdb datebase it takes 2 weeks for them to recieve it. So no imdb number until they give it to us. Anymore questions? --Madden09 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was deleted as a G3 a few hours ago Route 666 (2009 film). This article isn't blatant and obvious misinformation, it may well be true. Though until reliable sources are availiable to show verifiability it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a hoax by someone who thinks making pages about Troy Rodriguez is funny. ( which it was, the first time ) Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really oh := ummm all right I think that that is a real person like a actor he is new in the buisness I think idk but anyway why is the page being deleted? --Madden09 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   * 22:37, August 3, 2008 ESkog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Troy M Rodriguez" ‎ (G5: Creation by a banned user)
   * 09:39, July 26, 2008 ESkog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Troy M Rodriguez" ‎ (G5: Creation by a banned user)
   * 20:44, June 26, 2008 ESkog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Troy M Rodriguez" ‎ (A7 nn-bio; in addition, this is an obvious hoax/person who cannot tell fiction from reality)
   * 14:17, June 26, 2008 Kevin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Troy M Rodriguez" ‎ (R2: Redirect from the article namespace to Talk, User, or User talk)

Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant misinformation; such a film with that director's name would definitely have Google hits, no matter what. It may be worth exploring an indefinite block for creating hoax articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. As Erik says, if John Carpenter were involved in this project, there would be evidence of it all over the place. Obvious "blatant and obvious misinformation". Deor (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sid[edit]

Article is about a non-notable subject and is written like a press release, with no third-party sources. Also conflict of interest, since the account that posted the article was created only to advertise the artist and the eponymous record label. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C2 for a charting album, at #27. Ref's have now been added to article. While I agree with the massive WP:COI concern, that isn't a reason for deletion, it's just a referencing issue. If this article survives AfD, I'll go over the grammar issues with some mustard too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sunday Star-Times calls him 'New Zealand's biggest hip-hop success story since Scribe', and there are other articles here and here. Needs a major rewrite, but that's a reason to fix it, not delete it. --Helenalex (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've overhauled the article by replacing old content with new material and integrated references. The page is now shorter in length and open to expansion. Previously-tagged version of the article was copied virtually word-for-word from outside sources. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per charting album, sources, notable guest appearances, and generally passing WP:MUSIC. tomasz. 16:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - makes the grade following reworking. dramatic (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move The Crowd Records[edit]

Like Young Sid, non-notable and self-promotional article with no third-party sources, along with conflict of interest issues, as this article was posted by an account created solely to advertise the label and artists. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - As with the Young Sid article, being self-promotional and having COI issues is not a reason for deletion, they're a reason to fix the article. I'm not sure that this one meets notability standards, but that's what we should be judging this on, not the way that it's currently written. --Helenalex (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPAM. dramatic (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - complies with guidelines) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Mag[edit]

Delete non-notable magazine Mayalld (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to go keep on this one. The article needs clean-up, to be sure (and I tagged it accordingly), but it seems to have been notable. It's mentioned here with five others among a list of "several major magazines", and it merited a mention here. According to this iafrica story, it seems to have been the official publication of the "biggest regional radio station in South Africa." It sponsored some kind of fashion show here that seems to have been a big event. Looking at various cover images, it looks like a glossy, professionally produced magazine. ([37], [38], [39], [40]) Unfortunately, many of the google news hits I get for "YMag" "Y-Mag" and "Y-Magazine" are subscription only, though, so I can't confirm how many of these are relevant and address notability. If the article is not cleaned up, it might be better merged down into YFM, but I don't think it should be deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify. The radio station is notable, sure, but notability is not contagious. G-news hits show a problem, the other links here don't add much. But this mag could, conceivably, be a valid citation for other entries, especially entertainer bios. Though I haven't found the policy to back this up (and none may exist), I think that should count as a notability get-out-of-jail-free card. Even if a stub is all we'd be able to put together. 9Nak (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually substantially more Google news hits than that. Y-Mag is just one possible title; with international publications, you have to look at variants. :) YMag hits a few more, including the article above that described it as a "major magazine" (here). A search of "Y Magazine" Africa brings up even more, including a subscription only reference from the LA Times in 2000 that "Mazibuko has also appeared on the cover of the trend-setting Y magazine". Given the systemic bias of these search engines, it can be hard to assess the notability of a South African magazine, but if it's being name-checked in the LA times, it's probably notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --jonny-m t 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable South African magazine. When I went to that country, it was widely sold. DollyD (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Herrera[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone who plays on his team would be notable; it's in the top league in his country. However, I can't find any evidence that this guy exists. A google search for "Armando Herrera" Andorra doesn't provide anything that says he plays for that team. Paragon¹²³²¹ 02:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We went over this ad nausaum at the recent AfD on a player who played in the Faroe Islands. Playing in the top league in a country does not automatically confer notability if the league is non-professional and matches are played out in front of crowds equivalent to those seen in the Northern Premier League. Or, in other words, delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only the first part of your argument is actually true - even if the Andorran league had an average attendance of 500, if it is fully professional, it confers notability according to WP:ATHLETE. For instance, FC Vaduz has an average attendance of somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 (they play in the Swiss Super League) - I'm sure there are Conference teams that average triple that number. ugen64 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paragon. Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Branum[edit]

Unnotable musician who fails WP:BIO. Declined speedy. Page is nothing but a discography with a glut of links to "discogs.com". Google news search returns all of one hit for this Mike Branum and that's from a local paper[41]. Regular google search brings about 110, mostly his own websites, MySpace, etc.[42] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide some very convincing evidence that he was actually a member of any of the bands Momcrashedbmw has spent today inserting his name into. (If said sources aren't forthcoming, strong advice needs to be given to the creator and a mass-rollback in order). – iride scent 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - He is linked to by other bands, but he reminds me of that Scrabble example. Also not much coverage from outside sources. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Talking Snowman[edit]

Unnotable book that fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability under WP:BK given in the article and none that I could find after quite a bit of googling. Could not find any libraries holding this book in WorldCat[43] (although there is another book there with the same name but by a different writer, Lois Gladys Leppard, that might actually be notable). Nsk92 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPI am the original author of this article. It should be KEPT, and not deleted. It is a specific, published book, in a series which has garnered substantial interest since the series was started in 1933. It also holds extra interest, as it was co-written by the original author, and a fellow author, 30 years after the original series went out of print. It is listen on Amazon.com: [44] There are numerous other mentions of it, if you simply Google it (i.e.: "The Talking Snowman" "Margaret Sutton". It is not unlikely that Libraries would not have any copies, as it was not published by a large publisher. It was co-written by the original author of the series though, and definitely deserves its own page.TrentJerome (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that you want the article kept but you should really take a careful look at the notability guideline for books, WP:BK. This guideline has a specific list of criteria for notability and this book does not seem to satisfy any of them. Being listed for sale at amazon.com is certainly not enough. To demonstrate notability of a book one usually needs to find published reviews in newspapers, literary magazines, etc, discussing the book. Or the book needs to win some significant award. Or it needs to be widely used as a textbook or as the subject of instruction in schools. None of that appears to be applicable here. You should also remember that the sources discussing the book need to pass the requirement of being reliable sources in the sense defined by WP:V and WP:RS and that they need to be independent from the book (that is, they should not be by the book's authors or by the book's commercial sellers). If you find such coverage of the book and add the references to the article, it might be kept. Otherwise, it will have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, fails to assert notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of some published critical discussion of her books, and given the information in the articles that they were not necessarily best sellers, I think it unwise to attempt individual articles on the titles. It would be better o give a one paragraph long description of the pubishing information and a sentence about the plot in the article on the series. If more information becomes available, that can be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The strange likeness[edit]

Unnotable, unpublished book that fails WP:BK. Failed PROD with prod removed by article creator stating "Although book was unpublished, due to popularity & interest in Judy Bolton series, article explains book that would have been printed, & gives plot as explained by late author w/ link to interview." - a single interview where the unpublished book is mentioned briefly does not give it notability nor is notability inherited from the series, presuming there is any as the main series article is basically a stub with no references at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is, properly, an article on the Judy Bolton series, but this is only one of two articles on individual books in the series (and I think the other one needs to be looked at). Even though sources can be adduced to confirm that the author stated a few plot points she intended to include in this unpublished volume, there's absolutely no information here that satisfies WP:BK. Deor (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already AfDed the other as well. Both were made by the same creator, who seems to be a bit of a fan :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed that and was edit-conflicted by you in my "oops" comment. Deor (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the original author of this page, and stand by it as being substantiated. There was a book by the same name published in 1929. There was also a proposed book of the same name that was * intended to be completed in 1968 by Margaret Sutton, in a very popular series of books started in 1933. Rather than put all this information in the main Judy Bolton article, I feel it is better suited for an individual page regarding the specific title, as it is a special case and may clutter up the main page. There is a source, which is more than substantial for the information contained in the article. And to assume that the series has no notability as above person claims, shows arrogance and ignorance. The series was popular from 1933 till it ended in 1967. Series' don't live that long if they aren't "notable". TrentJerome (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, are you affiliated with http://www.series-books.com/? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, with the same advice. I think I am about as sympathetic to this sort of article as anyone around here, and there just isn't enough. If there is in fact a revival, and material is published, that will be another matter entirely. DGG (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a hoax and non-notable. Ral315 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Goldstein[edit]

Notability asserted but Google comes up zilch. I suspect a hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this one as a blatant hoax. But now, seeing the creator's rationale for keeping the page (which is admittedly not truthful), I would delete it on the grounds of notability instead. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IV[edit]

Unnotable fictional bar from a soap opera. Fails WP:FICTION. Tavix (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searching Google for "The I.V. Shortland Street", you get results for various Wikipedia pages, the Shortland Street wiki, and a few Youtube videos. Any article on the subject would violate WP:OR, also. Calor (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy "redirect" this discussion into the AFD for WASHIS. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of WASHIS[edit]

Speedy was declined, but I still think this ought to be deleted. Same argument as here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASHIS NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a term that seems made up, it doesn't appear to be used by any mountaineers or geographers, and it's unlikely any metric term would be in common usage in Wales. – iride scent 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons I gave on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASHIS. Really we should just have one AfD for both pages. — ras52 (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 Copyright infringement by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorched tv[edit]

Contested prod. Rather hard to identify what this article is about, though it seems to be about an Australian TV show. Little else can establish the show's notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is non-notable and screams self-promotion. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable copyvio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is in large parts a copyright violation of [45] and borderline blatant advertising.
Delete, could be done speedily since there's no non-copyright infringing material worth keeping.
Will most probably become notable down the line [46], no prejudice against recreation.
Amalthea^Talk 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Städtholdengrad[edit]

It's not clear whether Städtholdengrad is real or fictional Mblumber (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding zero non-WP g-hits for this term. [47] There should at least be something. Oakshade (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Amended Vote) Multiple Delete - Scores zero google hits, zero de.Yahoo hits, nothing shows anywhere else. May very well be a WP:HOAX or fall under CSD - G1 (Nonsense) even. Nothing on any of these outside WP at all. Bin the lot!--Thor Malmjursson (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, not to mention WP:N. Possible hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, add the following articles, all created by the same person and which seem related:
- Hub world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Senator Artermerun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- "Samara-EAL" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Etheric Global Communication Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - per above, seems like a hoax. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, delete all 5. Green caterpillar (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonsense / hoax. (Or is it some in-universe game cruft?) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all five, whether hoax or cruft. JohnCD (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Seems like parts of a story that is just being WP:MADEUP, no real world significance asserted or to be found.
It has legible conent and is no blatant hoax, so it's not a candidate for speedy deletion, FWIW.
Amalthea^Talk 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MurderWorld series[edit]

Contested prod. Other cleanup tags were removed as well. One guy is playing The Sims, and this is the storyline he is making. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELTE!!! Best AfD ever. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, tagged as such. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McKinney[edit]

His red-linked show here [48] seems non-notable. He has no IMDB profile. Also created by SPA, and is a dead end article. Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources (despite attempt by nominating editor) to locate sources makes it unlikely that subject meets WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable host of a non-notable internet-only "TV" show. Looked for non-trivial coverage in 3rd party sources, found none. Yilloslime (t) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tryad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an article about a music group that fails every notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. PROD nomination was removed[49] by anonymous IP with no other edits. This article was previously AfDed with the result being redirect to Triad, but that was when the article was about a different band also named Tryad. Yilloslime (t) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 00:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle in Triumph[edit]

Procedural nomination: PROD=>Deletion, Re-Created, PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD. Original PROD reason leading to deletion: "Per WP:MUSIC, not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources." PROD on new article: "It is not notable according to WP:MUSIC. It has been deleted once before already, and the only link to it is the one the author himself added." See Talk:Apostle in Triumph for history synopsis. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - In an engine search there are many sources that can verify the article, just not in the article.--S_RX 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add, the hits that are turning up on this title at Google, is a song on the Orchid album, and does not refer to this demo. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even after multiple search string formats,[50][51] I'm coming to the conclusion that the demo release was two fragments [1:41] and [2:00} mins respectively, of the song "The Apostle in Triumph",[52] which later appeared in full 13 minute glory on Orchid. Suggest merge to the Orchid album, with a note in the article that the two fragments of the song were released in 1993 as a demo EP. Failing that, redirect to the album as a plausible search term for the full song. -- saberwyn 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia doesn't need articles on minor or slightly unnotable demos. Artene50 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. Non-notable per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, nothing sourced to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, at best, redirect to the album. Non notable on its own... --Stormbay (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AD Vid-Notes[edit]

Procedural Nomination: PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD. Initial PROD reason: "This article is about a DVD feature that may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia." For full prod notes, see Talk:AD Vid-Notes. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD "Completely unnnotable, minor advertising term" (and sorry, hadn't seen it had been prodded before). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory of obscure marketing terms, and even if it were, this certainly isn't notable. Gelmax (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep imprtant technical development, and there should be references. DGG (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, no information on reception or the like, no evidence of notability whatsoever, and the "Example" section looks like a possible WP:COPYVIO. I might allow for a merge, but I honestly don't see anything worth keeping. At best, this deserves little more than a passing mention on one of the A.D. Vision-related articles. —Dino guy 1000 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M4P Converter[edit]

Delete The sole purpose of this article seems to have been to spam Wikipedia with links for a particular product. Those links have been removed, so please check the article history to see what I'm talking about. On a related note please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/tune4mac.com AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've used both kinds. WP:NOT advertising, WP:NOT an instruction manual. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like advertising, possible speedy --Numyht (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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