Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

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 redirect to Breakout (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly on the Wall (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

There is no refernces for the page and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC#Songs standards. Dontyoudare (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album (Breakout (album)). It did chart (barely), but the limited info can easily be merged into the album page. If it does become a single, then the redirect can be undone. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album (Breakout (album)). There's any reference about that this song will be released as a single. Voices4ever (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSoldi (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - until it charts well there's no need for article CloversMallRat (talk) 20:44, 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. Article is now referenced and no longer spam. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension Training[edit]

Despite a New York Times-linked article as a reference, this article is little more than a commercial for TRX. Unless someone wants to rewrite the article to focus solely on the exericse without hyping the corporate sponsor, I would have to say this WP:SPAM candidate needs to go. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Either delete it per WP:SPAM more of an ad then an informative article.--S_RX 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I added more content for suspension training, I have to leave TRX and fitness anywhere in it since they invented suspension training. Without it, it's like talking about greatest Olympian without mentioning Michael Phelps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantgrant (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now the article veers into WP:OR territory. I am sorry, but in its current form this does not meet Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject appears to be Wiki-standard; it is the presentation that lets this down. Is there an objective review of this, from a sports physiology source, perhaps, that could be used to ground it in analysis rather than advertising language ? -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the criteria for speedy deletion of spam state: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. " Yes, a fundamental re-write is needed, and therefore this falls under speedy deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have developed this draft re-write of the article. Maybe this isn't the right forum, but does this look encylopedic? TrulyBlue (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version is strongly inappropriate in tone. TrulyBlue's version is far superior; but the more neutrality you apply to the text, the more this looks like a generic trademark name for an exercise regimen that makes no particular claim of notability or strong differentiation from its competitors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup - Sources can be found in the New York Times, The Times, Daily Mail and Military.com. I'll see what I can do to improve the quality of the article (I haven't seen the inside of a gym in years) but I'd argue that this passes both WP:V and WP:N. Gazi moff 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that The Guardian as well. Many thanks, Gazi moff 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment towards keep. I declined the speedy on this one, and added the NYT reference. I was going to continue to see if this was viable, but decided to go offline instead. Not to a gym, just to a different sitting position like most Wikipedians I presume. Gazimoff's references are very good, seem independent. Yes, this was added from a new editor, presumable a WP:COI editor, but I think it just might be notable. I very much like Trulyblue's draft more than this one, they can easily be merged. In fact, Trulyblue, be bold and do it! You are allowed to update the article while the debate runs. In fact, I just gutted the good faith WP:OR out of it, as it wasn't helping this debate at all. Keeper ǀ 76 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has some major issues with style, format, etc. However, there are no problems with notability or verifiability at all. The only "problem" (and it's definitely not an actual problem) is with an enthusiastic editor creating an article about a subject about which they seem to be truly passionate. This passion has led their writing to have a bit of an advertorial feel, but this can be easily fixed. Based upon these facts, I suggest keeping the article, and assisting in cleaning it up a bit. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: I moved the article to a more appropriate name, per the naming conventions at WP:MOS. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated with (I hope) a more NPOV version (with proponents and critics represented). Therefore the above comments may not still be relevant. I think it meets notability, given the number of google hits (OK, that's not exactly scientific, but it's been covered in various newspapers also). TrulyBlue (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any major problems with the article as it stands now; it certainly isn't an advertisement. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one reference that linked to the TRX promotional page. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camelot Lost[edit]

Non-notable book that satisfies no criteria of WP:NB. Also, duplicate article -- a nearly identical article already exists at "Camelot Lost", which I also nominated for deletion earlier. (I would have nominated them both at the same time, except that I just noticed this article... not sure if there's a way to combine the two AfD entries, but if there is and a more experienced editor wants to do so, then of course by all means be my guest.) --Smeazel (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've boldly changed the incorrectly titled article to a redirect and closed that AfD. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Camelot Lost" and consider those arguments also, as the articles were identical.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NB--S_RX 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article asserts no notability and fails WP:BOOKS and WP:RS. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published books are seldom notable, and there's no idication this one is. Article appears to exist solely to advertise the book. Also, considering the duplicate article, Salt. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline[edit]

This article shoots itself in the foot in its lede paragraph, by saying that all but one meeting has been disproven/etc by the US government, and that people who have reviewed it have found that no links exist. Thus, it is a 200 kilobyte long conspiracy theory vehicle (which the article itself says). I'm not sure what part of WP:NOT this violates, but this sort of article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- How on earth did this survive previous AFD's? Whatever. Its a hoax, coatrack, whatever you care to name. What it isn't, is worth keeping around. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hundreds of sources the article has seems to have people - even prolific deletionists - wanting it kept. People will want anything with a source, no matter how unreliable (as in this case), kept. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, These are allegations, not facts, and if you read carefully, each allegation is also connected to the evidence that challenges it. It is better to have all of this information here in one place than to delete it and have conspiracy theorists begin putting this information piecemeal into other articles where it doesn't belong and where someone else will have to go research these points again. We can change the title to make it more consistent with the article it forked off of (Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda link allegations) and add an intro indicating that no links were actually found between the two, but I would strongly protest deleting this material as it took many editors on both sides of the political fence years to compile all of this in one place where it can easily be verified and/or refuted. But if the page comes across as an attempt to verify the "hoax" then it should include some kind of intro so that readers don't think that. But it should really not be deleted. csloat (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the Israelis tell us anything about allegations articles? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But Israeli intelligence helped confirm there was no Saddam/al-Qaeda link, something people might learn from this article. csloat (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about the link allegations that were reported a lot in those last years, and were part of the official reason for the second gulf war. Saying that all but one of those allegations have been disproven doesn't diminish the notability of the allegations, and I think a timeline of those events makes sense. I have only read through parts of it now, but it also doesn't seem like a collection of non-notable conspiracy theories.
It might make sense to merge & redirect it to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations, since that article already provides a concise timeline, but OTOH I really don't want to clutter it with all the minor allegations from the article under discussion (and it is debatable if we want to have all those minor allegations).
At the very least I'd recommend renaming it to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline to focus on the nature of the article.
Amalthea^Talk 12:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand the nomination, the criticism is that the lead paragraph says "that all but one meeting has been disproven" and someone else says that this looks like "a hoax". No shit, Sherlock. I think that's the point of the article, which is copiously (264 footnotes) soureced. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a hoax, it is an article about a notable and highly consequential set of hoaxes and errors. "may require cleanup" Ningauble (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is highly encyclopaedic. Factuality may be disputed, but that doesn't stop the topic being encyclopaedic and highly notable (example: Bigfoot). I also think this is the kind of content some people come to Wikipedia to find, so I feel deleting such material is counterproductive.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't present Bigfoot as fact. For most of this article, we do present the alleged Saddam/Al-Qaeda link as fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Have you actually read the article? Most of the so-called "links" are refuted in the very next sentence under each point on the timeline. We should change the title of the article to reflect that, though, since people who don't read it will probably come to the same conclusion you did. csloat (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominator appears to have misunderstood the article it is an organized chronological list which uses sources to verify the truth or falsity of a notable series of events. It is not claiming false events are true and goes out of its way to make that clear. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 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.

Flatlander (band)[edit]

The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as blatant advertising/being non-notable. (non-admin closure) Cunard (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously speedied twice, under G11 (spam) and A7 (nn group). Vague assertions of notability ("according to critics") but no specific citations despite several requests. The best we've had is assurances that they've featured in the Seven Days newspaper (I can't find anything substantial on the website, just contact and gig listings) and The Radiator radio station, but no specific details for either. As it stands, the article seems to fail WP:MUSIC. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 22:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - there's some discussion on my talk, the author's talk and User talk:Justinfr — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks reliable sources to back up their claims. I've looked but could find any. Possible Speedy G4 "Recreation of deleted material". Maybe a little Salt too. Article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 doesn't apply to articles which have only been speedied in the past; I considered tagging it as G11 again (the restored version was identical to the deleted version), but since it's being contested so much I thought AFD was a good idea either to get a consensus for deletion or to encourage the author to add some proper references, if they exist. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 02:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite repeated encouragements toward the author, no references have been added to establish notability. And Comment, I removed the non-encyclopedic language, so if notability can be established then at least we've got a start. justinfr (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 04:56, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Greens[edit]

non-notable organization Tim Shuba (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the sole (or main) contributor to this page; Recent developments have made the content of this page not useful; That's why I did not update it further. I have already removed references other pages had to it. Please go ahead and delete this article... Thanks Kalyanamithra (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as author requested -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not WP:COMPANY criteria for notability.--S_RX 23:44, 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 (non-admin closure). However, the merge to Paris Hilton is strongly recommended. Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the above close may be a little confusing and has caused a deletion review, it is important to note that this is a keep closure in the sense of not delete. There is no consensus to merge on this AfD, and any merge/redirection in the future is subject to editor discretion and should only be performed with proper discussion and clear consensus. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton energy plan[edit]

Page should never have been forked out of Paris Hilton. Information is unencyclopedic and presumes a real stance from Paris Hilton on energy policy in the United States presidential election. This gives undue weight to the position advanced in that video and is, essentially, a hoax (or, at best, false satire). Almost all of the sources trace back to funnyordie.com, where it was originally posted. I removed a section titled "commentary" which contained little more than a bulleted list of news articles that mentioned this video, but did not explain or elaborate with any meaningful encyclopedic content. It should be merged back to Paris Hilton. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These linked opinion pieces go into informed detail about the "Paris Hilton energy plan" (the title of the article), pro and con, by knowledgeable commentators. No articles merely giving the video mention were included.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 04:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just get that right? Paris Hilton delivers one sentence on politics and this is to be mentioned here at all? I don't think it should go into the main article neither but should be deleted completely. In any case this article has to go, of course, so merge if you can't help it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see it deleted, but I predict there's going to be somebody who will go to the wall to try to save the material in this article, even if it's unencyclopedic and doesn't actually inform about the election, energy policy or Paris Hilton herself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton has an energy plan? That's hot! Wikipedia has an article on the Paris Hilton energy plan? That's not hot! Delete Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This content is notable and well referenced, but there will never be enough material for anything other than a stub. It should be returned to the Paris Hilton article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Paris Hilton. It's more amusing than most of the other anecdotes of her life, but certainly no more notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergedo not delete. I think she represents everything terrible about America's celebrity-worshiping, but unfortunately, she is notable, as is that video/policy. As an aside, it's a fairly well-thought-out outline of a policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Compare to the bio of Amber Lee Ettinger. Wikipedia's standard is to have separate articles for artistic creations (say a song) rather than to decide whether to include its details in the article for the song's lyricist, musical composer, original recording artist, singer of its most famous cover version, and so forth. In the present case, should the coverage of Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad be a part of the bio of its creator, director Adam McKay? As a section giving encylopedic coverage to this artifact in the United States presidential election, 2008 article? In Hilton's bio? What's the compelling reason to stuff this viral video's coverage into Hilton's bio?

Also, I restored its list of notable commentary, this time adding it to its external links section. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To any admin out there, I throw myself at your mercy: I'd somenow got it in my head to pop out a wikilink or two to folks who'd previously commented in one particular campaign subarticle AfD's and one political satire viral video's AfD; but then, alas, after I got started, I started to notice that there was a hell of alot of commenters on those two things, but became concerned if I didn't contact em ALL I'd somehow be showing favortism of some kind, completely forgetting about the spamming thing -- or rather, I'd skimmed right by that first section at WP:CANVASSING without its registering! Oops! Although I'll never be guilty of doing it again, it's true that I'm obviously guilty of spamming -- I dids the crime and so I gots to do whatever is the time! $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Neutral. New title and focus seems more supportable, but just barely. An aggregate Acting works of Paris Hilton would still be better, and merge back to main bio isn't unreasonable. (Perhaps satirical video is notable in Hilton's bio, but one joke isn't notable enough for an article of its own. Possibly notable in some kind of aggregate article on Hilton's acting works or something along those line.) LotLE×talk 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The McCain Camp used here for politics and made her notable in the election. Now they (and we) have to deal with it. "Factum" and not "at acta" (in fake Latin)! --Floridianed (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content is well-referenced and a mention of it probably is best in her biography article. Cumulous Clouds is correct that the information was probably a false satire, but I do think the information should be retained. Happyme22 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, what do editors mean by the novel phrase "false satire" in this discussion? Is there "true satire" in contrast to it? Obviously, the energy plan (such as it is) is satirical, but I don't think the issue of "true" or "false" means anything here. LotLE×talk 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Access Hollywood, The Independent, Times Online, The BBC (the previous three non-US organizations), the LA Times and Newsweek have all covered the video. This article even provides actual commentary about the video. Last time I checked, coverage by sources such as these made something notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the AfD closer: [1] seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Expand and rename If this article is kept, it ought to be renamed. The title of the video was "Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad" so that would be the sensible title for this article. The video contained a lot more than just an "energy plan". I don't see anything wrong in principle with having a Wikipedia article about a very notable video, and presumably that's why the categories Viral videos and YouTube videos exist. ~~Whether this particular video is notable enough for a separate article is not something that I'm sure about. But~~ she definitely is hot.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on new title and focus. Notable as a viral video, per Josiah Rowe.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Expand and rename to cover the video as a whole, and the media reaction to it (including the sources that took the "energy plan" seriously, but not limited to that). The video as a whole was notable, and part of that notability comes from the "energy plan", but the one-sentence "energy plan" is too narrow a topic for a full encyclopedia article. Not sure what the best title for the expanded article would be: the official name of the video appears to be "Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad", so perhaps that should be the new title. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on new title and focus. Notable as a viral video. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Paris Hilton. This fork certainly seems notable at first glance, due to the amount of media coverage, but definitely fails WP:Recentism. However, this is something that someone would check out and expect to find at the Paris Hilton article. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weak keep, this is definitely borderline and I just sided on keep because I think our notability standards have other articles of less note than this. But, I won't feel bad at all if it's merged... I just want the guidelines applied evenly. gren グレン 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested, but I'm more okay with "delete" than merge. Her article is already quite long considering she's done little of real value. This is quite possibly the most significant thing she's ever done or maybe ever will do. Granted it's not at the level of Happy Birthday, Mr. President, but it's sort-of in that genre of blonde model-types doing something talked-about with politicians.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Paris Hilton. This five sentence "article" should replace the three sentence section that already exists in Paris Hilton - that main article is certainly not so long at this time that it needs this part forked off, nor is it likely that anyone looking for something about the video would fail to look at the bio. Besides all of that, the title is absurd. Tvoz/talk 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As much as it pains me to say it, it IS notable only because it was acknowledged not only by every news organization in the States, but by several people that said HER energy plan made more sense than either candidates. Does it deserve its own article? not yet, but lets wait until after the election. --Hourick (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename - it's definitely notable per the sources someone gave above, but as an energy plan it is, IMO, a very borderline hoax. Perhaps retitling the article to something like "Paris Hilton's response to..." and then expanding it, will make it more suitable as an article. On the whole I would prefer to see it merged with Paris Hilton, than kept and renamed. -Samuel Tan 09:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and rename per Ferrylodge and Josiah Rowe. The idea of an article on "Paris Hilton's energy plan" is silly. But the video itself meets notability (as well as being a brilliant little gem, imo), so there's clearly a place for it in Category:Viral videos. Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and rename and/or possible merge with Amber Lee Ettinger (and similar). Plenty of notability and media coverage. (Comment: Disturbingly cogent and coherent energy plan.) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The energy plant this article is about is not noteworthy enough to have it's own article and was more of a reaction against McCain then a real energy plan. Brothejr (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. It meets all the notability criteria except perhaps the Wikipedia:Recentism essay. Plenty of reliable sources. It's an extremely successful spoof commercial / political satire / Internet Meme involving well-known producers, a famous personality, and a somewhat infamous political gaffe. I won't bother looking for more sources but there are clearly innumerable ones to establish notability. Like it or not, Paris Hilton is an actress. This wasn't just an aspect of her public life, it was a professionally-produced work by her. We don't normally merge an actor's appearances with the BIO article. Among other things this turns the article into an unencyclopedic list, and it ignores the other aspects of a video production beyond the actress who stars in it - the producers, the current event, the cultural context, and so on. As for the name, it looks like "Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad" is the official title of the video. That might help avoid any confusion over what the article is about. Wikidemo (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and refocus. I can see what the fuss is about. We don't need an article on a joke political platform that's written in-world as if it were real. It's very well and good that some people are taking this seriously as a shocking sign that Paris Hilton has some intelligence, perhaps more than the other two candidates. But she's not going to win the election, and it would be very surprising if anyone took this supposed plan (just a simple mash-up and rehash, something a comedy writer thought up in an afternoon) seriously for more than the next few days. So true, Wikipedia does not need an article about this imaginary energy plan. It seems a little pop-crufty. But a more sober article about the viral video makes sense. Accordingly, I rewrote the lead to suggest where this article might go.[2] Wikidemo (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retitled it "Paris Hilton responds to McCain Ad" per the many comments above and now WD's bringing into focus of its lede.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 13:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's episodes like this that give some fun to American politics, and it's having articles like this that keep Wikipedia fun. And the title's okay with me too, since that's what it's commonly known as. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Unless she gets asked to assume a cabinet position (that sounds dirty when you're talking about her, doesn't it?), this is one of those nine-day wonders that will be forgotten soon. Worth a mention in her article, but like Farenheit 9/11, no matter how many people watched it before the election, you won't be able to give away the video afterward. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. This is an ongoing political event and the main article on Hilton is already very long so it isn't at all reasonable to spin this off as a separate article. I don't like the attention this got and found it to be idiotic and another example of how low Amercian political discourse has sunk. That isn't a reason to get rid of it. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Paris Hilton. For the moment it is bsically still a WP:NOT#NEWS case. If anyone still remembers this 6-8 months from now, could be worth a a separate article then. Nsk92 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could be referenced in the Paris Hilton article, but no need to have separate articles for every campaign add zinger.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge only if the merger results in no loss of information. Frankly, injecting herself into US presidential politics on a viral video is quite possibly Paris Hilton's most significant achievement to date. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't a satire of anything. It isn't a hoax because it isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a joke, like a comedy routine. Wikipedia covers comedy routines with articles when they're notable enough (including quite a collection from Monty Python which have been kept at AfD), This is notable enough as it stands today. In addition to the notability which already justifies keeping this it's worth thinking about the following: Will we think this is worth an article five years from now or a year from now? I think it's possible we will. Let's decide later. The mash-up between online video/campaign commercial/celebrity publicity seems pretty innovative (with the Internet we're finding a lot of new ways for advertisers, publicists, politicians and the public to communicate and this is part of that movement -- it could easily be used as a precedent for others to build on in the future). I keep on hearing that Paris Hilton is a pretty savvy businesswoman, and this article could help explore that. Don't let the airhead image fool you into thinking this subject is just fluff. See the "Marketing uses" section of Viral video article: Humor, wit, and creativity, combined with the randomness of "word of mouth" distribution, causes huge numbers of people to distribute a video among friends, co-workers, colleagues [...] A famous example is the "Hiring the Right Person" video created by California recruiting firm Accolo, which parodied the Paris Hilton Carl's Jr. ad. In this case, the ad garnered so much attention that it even ended up on traditional media news reports and other non-internet venues. Marketing firms have flourished from this form of distribution and now dedicate specifically to the creation of viral video. This is an encyclopedic subject that Wikipedia is still at a primitive stage in building its coverage on. Now is not the time to be deleting an article that contributes to it. Eventually it might be merged into something, but it's too soon to tell what. -- Noroton (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Justmeherenow has been hard at work canvassing for votes in this nomination: Special:Contributions/Justmeherenow. I'm unfamiliar with the course to take now, as that user has (and may have already) been trying to torpedo this discussion through votestacking. I'll ask somebody more familiar with process to give me guidance here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My canvassing methodology was stringently neutral: a few minutes goin' down the line, not skipping a single soul: 1st here and then here. ...That is, 'til stopped by a genteel admin I'd spammed who informed me I was: for which I apologize and shall abide by whatever punishment the community deems fit, save hanging, or actual torture (even mild).

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you save all the country slang for someplace else, it's distracting and makes discussion very difficult. Now that you have canvassed all those votes, it's unlikely we'll have a fair discussion here, so I'm asking for somebody to help figure out how we repair the damage you've done. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices says, "For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion...." check "Remember to always keep the message neutral...." check But then WP:Canvassing#Excessive cross-posting said, "Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing...." oops Which my mind didn't catch. (Maybe a synapse misfired when I scanned that particular graf....)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by country slang, so my first impression is to take it as some kind of personal attack? (Ie, that you're a regional chauvanist or something? What in the world did I say? "Ya'll?????") However, C. Clouds, I'll try to assume good faith and assume you must be referring to something concrete, although I've absolutely no idea whatsoever what!! (However if you don't come to explain yourself, I'll simply delete your comment as well as this one. Thx!) :^(

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justmeherenow, please do not go ahead and delete anyone else's comments here without explaining a very compelling reason to do so. Additionally, I think excessive cross-posting about this matter on talk pages was a form of unintentional spam that was disruptive to those talk pages, and not disruptive to this deletion discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My patrilineal line goes through Kentucky and back to the English northern borderlands (...also to Wales) so maybe I'm sensitive about being called on my corn pone.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds probably just had some difficulty understanding what you were saying. The corn-top's ripe and the meadow's in the bloom. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ferrylodge. From the WP article corn pone: "term is sometimes intended as a pejorative, often directed at persons from rural areas of the southern and midwestern U.S." So note that while I can say "corn pone" about myself, it's not kosher fer somebody else to! And p/s -- I think if somebody says something translatable as perjorative to another Wikipedian and then would decline to explain what context s/he meant it in when asked, for the offended Wikipedian then to offer, such as I did, to go ahead and delete the conceivably offensive remark along with the offended person's question about it should only be thought an attempt to enjoin all parties to keep to good talk-page etiquette: keeping the discussion on editing and editorial issues and not on editors and their personalities!

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut C. Clouds some slack. And stop saying "Kosher", I'm Jewish! :) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! my bad. <blushes>

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't worry: it's not a vote, it's a discussion. Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paris Hilton - Not notable enough to have its own article, but worth mentioning in a paragraph or so in her article. (Eventually, it may get deleted from the article. It all depends on how notable this remains.) --Hnsampat (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable but too short to justify a fork unless and until such time as she builds a more substantial body of satirical or political work. Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
while I want to say keep, I think I have to say Merge - Unitl ms. Hilton does a few other notable political things, her positions and opinions are likely not independently encyclopedic enough for articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ick. Delete on principle. What's there to merge? What's worth keeping? How exactly is this encyclopedic? Because someone else wrote about it? Ick. I don't care how many sources are there, ick. Go ahead and add an WP:IDONTLIKEIT below, I don't care. Ick. Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete The case can be made to merge back to Paris Hilton, but I'm not really that convinced that this deserves an article. How is this even newsworthy? Enigma ^message 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've expanded the article, adding in more details about commentators discussing the pros and cons of her proposal. Many notable individuals have commented on what she said including Clarence Page who is by no means someone who simply write celebrity gossip. Whether we like it or not this event has become notable enough for its own article and is too large to fit within the general article on Hilton. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if Paris Hilton shits in a public restroom, comments on her blog, or wherever, that she didn't enjoy shitting in a public restroom, and wants to make shitting in a public restroom better with her "Shitting in a public restroom plan", and reliable sources say "paris hilton wants to improve shitting in public restrooms", would we have an article on it? Ick, is all I say. I realize this will probably be kept or merged. My life won't end, and wikipedia won't collapse in on itself. Again, though, this is why I said "delete" on principle. This is so entirely momentary, non-encyclopedic, and fan-boyish that I can't even see straight. Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Paris Hilton's comments about shitting in a public restroom were discussed by Clarence Page and by multiple members of the US Congress then yes, it would be notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, no it wouldn't. It would simply indicate a slow news day, nothing more. Again, I'll say what I said before, this will likely be kept, I just can't in good conscience be part of it. Trying to get rid of forks about celebs is in general impossible, under the pretense of "not paper" or "comprehensive". Whatever. Having an encyclopedia about the mos trivial of non-stories/non encyclopedic material is so hot right now. Who am I to fight it? Heaven forbid PH decides to comment on the Sept.11 attacks...Keeper ǀ 76 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keeper, I invite you to see if a normal "slow news day" invites opinion pieces by Clarence Page. At the end of the day this just comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Attempting to preempt such issues by bringing it above doesn't alter the lack of validity of your point at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said I don't like it. I linked IDONTLIKEIT. I never said my point was valid, but it is still my point. I never said anything other than "ick" and that I thought this shouldn't be here. I'm allowed to think that. Based on this discussion, and the prevailing winds on wikipedia, I realize this will likely stay an article. Wikipedia won't explode if it stays, and I won't leave if it stays. Still though, I'm allowed to say ick, and I'm allowed to debate someone that doesn't agree with my "ick". You are allowed to say keep, and I'm allowed to disagree with your "keep" (not just you J-Z, you just happened to be the one I responded to - nothing personal, I don't know you). I won't change your mind, you will most certainly not change mine. I will heed to consensus, as I always do. But still, ick. Keeper ǀ 76 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)-[reply]
      - If you are so concerned about tracking everything that a journalist happens to mention about the news, I recommend you compile them at an article like Things that Clarence Page said or Conversations from newspaper staff about celebrities. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Almost everything Clarence Page talks about is about a topic that we would consider notable anyways. And again it isn't just Page. This includes multiple members of the US Congress, Newsweek, Time, a few international sources, Disover Magazine and others. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You could, you know read what I wrote. I'll try spelling this out very carefully: There are two points in reply to your remark: 1) Almost every Page talks about that gets printed is about topics that all of us would agree are notable and noteworthy. 2) This topic hasn't just had Clarence Page talk about it. As I said, you've had also multiple members of Congress, commentators from major news magazines (granted Time and Newsweek do often have a lot of celebrity crap), Discover Magazine, and a variety of other sources including sources from outside the United States. If that isn't good evidence of notability, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So let me get this straight, if Clarence Page mentions something we suddenly have proof of notability? Can we call that the Clarence Page test as a standard of notability in these discussions? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        heh. Heaven forbid that Page ever complains into a microphone about how his breakfast of toast, cereal, and a glass of milk, hasn't settled well in his stomach. We might have an article called Clarence Page has indigestion during Capitol Hill meeting after a breakfast with too many carbohydrates. Keeper ǀ 76 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Take it outside, people. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with the campaign This will I think remain as perhaps one of the most permanently memorable highlights of this campaign, but sheds more light on the candidate involved than the speaker. It's noteworthy what the candidates will resort to, it's not noteworthy what the personalities they make use of will do. DGG (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — The video in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is existence a valid criterion for keeping an article on Wikipedia? Heck, I exist, but no articles exist about me (yet). --Hnsampat (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It's Kurt. He always says that. Closing admins generally just disregard his remarks. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is no Paris Hilton Energy Plan. She was hired to star in a video. Merge the relevant parts into Paris Hilton, Funny or Die, and Wikinews:Paris Hilton mocks John McCain presidential ad. If it becomes as popular as the Obama Girl video, for example if Funny or Die makes a series of these starring Hilton, we can re-think this. Flatterworld (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The video is a legitimate work that gained over 7 million page views in two days and a large amount of press coverage. Because the video, even if it was intended as parody, received written and verbal responses from both candidates and a wide array of experts and politicians, it deserves its own page at least as much as Samwell's What What in the Butt. The video's page and the page on the "Paris Hilton Energy Plan" should direct to the same page, as they do now.Hvalross (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep I'm not even going to bother listing out the various sources, since... well, c'mon.... This is absurdly notable. Is it a long news cycle? Maybe, maybe not. WP:N says "multiple non-trivial". Here's several sources, of which you can take any several dozen from any of these searches: here, here, and here. Take your pick of any several dozen. rootology (T) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Paris Hilton. Seriously, is anyone going to lookup either "Paris Hilton energy plan" or "Paris Hilton responds to McCain Ad" especially a few years down the road? Not encyclopedic at all. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance we could go back in time and delete Paris Hilton from this timeline? No? Oh well, had to ask.--Father Goose (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merging it into Paris Hilton would give undue weight to this incident as part of her life, and redacting it for merger would lose notable information. Although I would support merging the plethora of articles on controversies and events of the 2008 election into one article on such things (or one for each candidate/campaign).--The Bruce (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it's better that we should give undue weight to this incident in Wikipedia? Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's being given undue weight in Wikipedia. I think those who have said that in the long run it won't be notable are probably right. But Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and at the moment, while the campaign is running, it is notable enough. Each time this incident is brought up during the campaign, by commentators or in the midst of the Presidential debates, people who aren't aware of the incident will look for the details, and this sourced article can provide helpful and concise background information. All of the articles relating to the 2008 election will be re-examined after the election. Many will be merged into others or deleted altogether, and I suspect this will be one of those. But at the moment there's every justification for this to exist as a seperate article.--The Bruce (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I know that you are entirely right, and that my "vote" should and will be discounted as invalid, I just cannot bring myself to changing my earlier comment from "ick" to "keep". Keeper ǀ 76 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false compromise. If it gives undue weight to even mention it within her article, it would seriously overreach that guideline to have this as a separate article. Believe or not, there are certain things in the world that Wikipedia doesn't have to document and this trivial piece of popular culture is one of them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize I'm on your side, right? It's all about "picking your battles" though, at this point. There is no way that this article will be closed as anything short of keep, probably as "no consensus". I don't want this article to be here any more than you do, CC. Until our inclusion guidelines change, it will be here, and I'm disgusted by that. Let me know if/when you attempt to update our guidelines, I'll happily contribute then. Keeper ǀ 76 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Redacting this for merger would NOT lose notable information. Fact is, such information is notable solely because of its association with a celebrity, and that's ultimately not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes.Bdell555 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment to those with latent distaste for Hilton's particular brand of burlesque humor: I'd presume any commenting here would have already viewed this free video or at least perused news stories about it, especially those the proposed article references. Thanks. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without loss of data back into Paris Hilton. This incident, as an example of the absurdity of modern politics, deserves to be documented, but right now it's basically just a single news cycle's wonder. RayAYang (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Clearly notable (meets WP:N with no effort). The only question in my mind is WP:NOT#NEWS. But I think it isn't news per se. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - There's clearly no consensus for deleting. To merge or not to merge, that is the question now, and AfD is not for merge discussions. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no way, after this much discussion, that this will be "speedy closed". Let it run. Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. If a consensus emerges here that will save us time and process down the road and it prevents the deletion of the redirect so we don't have to have this discussion all over again. And since there is currently an identical section for all this information at Paris_Hilton#Political_satire, it largely defeats the purpose in having this as a separate article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video has become part of the campaign. Also, interestingly enough, the proposal isn't that far-fetched. The references establish its notability. Ngchen (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What campaign Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And where are the reliable sources which discuss this video and don't just mention it in passing Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this video has definitely caught hold. I just saw Gwen Ifill, speaking to Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press, refer to the "Paris Hilton Compromise" when discussing energy policy. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That scares me. Hobit (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge t'wards Weak Keep - Put w/ Paris Hilton. It's sort of some pop-culture/humorous "nine-day wonders", as Mandsford said. I stil don't think it has a place within notability, but it does deserve a mention...in the Paris Hilton article. I c eUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put in a sentence on the Paris Hilton page. Since the video has been discussed in the media, you can make a case for notability. But since Hilton is not any kind of authority on the subject, media mention of the video is its only claim for notability. Let me ask a question of everyone: Is every youtube video which has been mentioned in the media notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page? I don't think so. In particular, it seems like the original "Celeb" ad by John McCain does not have its own page. So what are the criteria? Vegasprof (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what my answer to your question would be is that, according to WP:WAX, whether or not there's currently a Celeb (political ad) article is immaterial here. (McCain's Celeb ad is pretty iconic...we'll see if it eventually rises to the level of Willie Horton or not.)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Not notable enough. Remember, the subject of the article is the video itself, not what was said in the video or about the video (which of course if fair game, once notability of the video has been established). In this case, there might be a lot of chatter in the media about it--but references in the media are only evidence of notability--but notability supposed to be lasting. I doubt very much that this video has any lasting notability. Maybe this is worth a 1-sentence reference (assuming the original McCain ad "Celebrity" in United States presidential election, 2008 --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:NTEMP, notability doesn't have to be lasting. Notaility has to be established just once so, "there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". Deamon138 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, verifiable enough event, but there's no need for a spinout from the mother article, Paris Hilton, when it's only 42kB. Deamon138 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably merge back to Paris Hilton. The topic is clearly notable and well-referenced, but I'm simply not sure there's enough to say about it to justify its own article; I think the information here would be better presented as a subsection of the Paris Hilton article. Failing a merge, I'd rather see it kept than deleted. Terraxos (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This video does have some interesting details, and might raise some controversies in the upcoming future, so I think it should be kept for now.Mertozoro (talk) 00:20, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Fonteno[edit]

A "serial entrepreneur". Suspected autobio. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like WP:AUTOBIO, but if that isn't it, doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BLP.--S_RX 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the autobio concerns (which as I understand isn't reason for deletion), the article's subject fails the notability and verfiability criteria. None of the businesses he supposedly founded seem to meet the notability or verifiability criteria either, so we can't even say he is notable for starting X number of notable businesses. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 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 and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Sherer[edit]

American physician and author. Feels like an autobio and veiled spam for the guy's books. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep although I agree that it is reading mostly like an excuse to advertise the book and that it desperately needs better references from 3rd party sources there are the hits here, although I'm not sure both Dr Sherers are the same person hence the weak. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite It reads like an advert, but he does seem to have notable publications RogueNinja_talk 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with RogueNinja that the article needs work but there are sources:
- "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe and Comfortable (Book)." Quest: Muscular Dystrophy Association 11, no. 2 (March 2004): 65-65. Abstract: Reviews the book "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe and Comfortable," by David Sherer and Maryann Karinch.
- "Outliers." Modern Healthcare 33, no. 38 (September 22, 2003): 48. Abstract:Reviews & Products:DR. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe & Comfortable (Book)
- Brayfield, Amy. "the POWER of a GOOD BOOK.." Arthritis Today 18, no. 4 (July 2004): 78-78. Abstract: Provides information on books for summer beach reading. "Play As If Your Life Depends on It," by Frank Forencich; "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide";
- Ostrowski, Marya. "Empower them!." RN 66, no. 11 (November 2003): 9-9. Abstract: Discusses contents of the book "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide". Tips for nurses in caring for hospital patients; Reasons for recommending the book.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:34, 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 Speedily deleted as a blatant copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart process manufacturing[edit]

Neologism / original research. Minute number of Google hits. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting topic but not yet good/notable enough for Wikipedia. Have copied article to user talk page in case they decide to fix it. samj (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Copyvio [3] THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 08:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Taylor (celebrity blogger)[edit]

Apparent autobiography of an apparently non-notable blogger and staffer for Hot or Not. While it does indeed have references, one is a tangential mention of him in the context of his website; one is a now-deleted post on www.365gay.com; one is a reference to an uncited claim on another Wikipedia page which was itself inserted by the creator of this article, and one makes no mention of the point it's supposed to be referencing – 'He is now the third ranked celebrity blogger in the world, and nicknamed "The Canadian Perez Hilton"' – the actual quote is 'In the short time since IsThisHappening’s late-summer debut, it has established an audience of 200,000 unique visitors per month, most with Canadian IP addresses'. – iride scent 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiographical spam is pretty damning in my book. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is actually a CBC article which focuses on this blogger here. This does confer some notability on him. The CBC, like the BBC, a WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I agree with Quartermaster, it seems like spam. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Artene50 - DigitalC (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can understand why this self-promotional material was listed, and I dislike the idea that this equates with notability, but (heaven help me) I've actually heard this person interviewed on CBC radio and treated as an expert on both celebrity news and high-profile blogging, oxymoronic though those concepts may seem. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:04, 19 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, Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. I think "autobiographical vanity spam" is a fair assessment, also. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrics shop[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:V Artene50 (talk) 04:03, 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, Keeper ǀ 76 21:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established via significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:V and WP:N no references given. Jeepday (talk) 01:57, 23 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. Article has references, but consensus is that this level of coverage is insufficient for the subject to meet WP:MUSIC. First keep comment agrees that evidence of substantial coverage is unclear, second and third keep comment do not address this issue. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts of Antiquity[edit]

Non-notable band, independent releases only, no contract with an established label, only claim of notability is the participation of the member of Digable Planets. Corvus cornix_talk 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page and the band has also received notable coverage in Time Out and numerous other international sources. We have a deal with Koch Entertainment in place for an album release in November and the deletion of this page would only serve in complicating our pre-release new media marketing plan. We also have major revered music producers involved in this release that I am legally not allowed to name at the moment. Needless to say, this group will need this page set up in the next month or so. Please do not remove this page and further complicate our jobs. -Andrew Arriaga, Revcon Records/AOAmusic new media marketing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoavision (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) — Aoavision (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is not here to facilitate your pre-release new media marketing plan. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page contains a lot of marketing language and repeated links to commercial sites (WP:SPAM). The author clearly has a conflict of interest in posting it (WP:COI). Wronkiew (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I've stripped out most of the offending links and marketing speak, properly tagged and formatted the article, and included a couple of references to reliable third-party sources. I also found listing entries in places like The New York Times that apparently verify that Cee-Knowledge has collaborated with AOA for several years but whose coverage was insufficient to include them as references. (I will confess that I am more that a little put off by somebody trying to use Wikipedia as part of a "pre-release new media marketing plan" but what I've found so far puts them hairy outer edge of notability.) If the band really did receive substantial reviews or coverage, as the creator claims, I could be persuaded to reconsider. - Dravecky (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN not being a compelling reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN only applies if someone asserted that the article is not notable without backing it up with evidence. Corvus did provide an explanation of why he thought the subject was not notable. Wronkiew (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the explanation persuasive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment to the king's vote: That's a great argument - Because you claim someone (I guess you mean Corvus) argued the band is just not notable (he didn't, he gave reasons) you are voting "Keep"? I guess the right formalistic answer to that would be to vote "Delete" because you were just pointing to a policy without giving reasons for it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the reasons are not convincing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with WP:JNN. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded that they are not notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are right on on this one too!!!! Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just arguing that the subject is notable without providing any evidence is exactly what WP:JNN is talking about. Wronkiew (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the phrase is used in other contexts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? You've been warned about that. Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not worry about bad faith and conflict of interest "warnings". There is no reason not to consider how best to use article space for Astronauts of Antiquity and if there are similarly titled topics that should be in an "Astronauts of Antiquity (?)" different titled article. We keep an open mind to how best to cover content and what can/should be moved as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roi, the link is to information about a concept, which is distinctly different from the band. This AFD is to consider the notability of the band. Please stick to that.--chaser (away) - talk 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm wondering if this article's current subject should be moved to Astronauts of Antiquity (band). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article at Ancient astronaut theories. Corvus cornix_talk 18:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I think that if anyone's opposed to one on this band, we should at least redirect Astronauts of Antiquity to Ancient astronaut theories. And if editors believe we should keep the content on the band then move that to Astronauts of Antiquity (band). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the editing and referencing Dravecky has done. Just scrapes through WP:MUSIC Delete for failing to meet WP:MUSIC with reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how they scrape through, they aren't signed and don't have a release. Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 12 criteria, they only need to meet one of them. I feel they pass C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it meets that. Criteria one requires the subject get non-trivial coverage in multiple (meaning more than one) reliable sources. I've seen three things that might qualify, but according to my analysis, two of them don't. This article from The Daily Tar Heel probably qualifies, as we usually consider school papers trivial, but evaluate by the case. The Tar Heel is a major paper in its county, with an appreciable circulation of 40,000 and numerous awards for being the best college paper or among the best in various categories. The other thing cited in the article is this from a blog. Blogs are generally not reliable sources. Although this article I found is from a reliable source (the NY Daily News), it's trivial. I don't see any other way it meets MUSIC, so I say delete.--chaser (away) - talk 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww f**k, it is to a blog, I missed that. I think I need another coffee. Or less coffee, one of the two. Well that changes things a bit doesn't it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & chaser - the band's not there yet and the sources fail rs criteria. Right now the article's nothing but a flyer stapled to a lamp-post at a busy intersection. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article was only created on the 19th, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those that have assisted in editing the page to the necessary criteria. It was not my sole intention in the previous post to assert that this page was created solely for marketing purposes. Bad choice of phrase and thank you for removing those elements that made it so. Ultimately, I do feel that the band has received a decent amount of coverage in a few notable places and I just wanted to provide a means of referral for those that may be interested in learning more about the band biographically. I consistently use Wikipedia to discover the same information about other bands I'm into so that was my goal. However, do as you see fit with the page. I do hope we will be given a chance to keep the page up though, at least after a bit of time. Thank you. -Andrew, Revcon Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoavision (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The band clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC so the question becomes, does it meet the WP:GNG. Right now the answer appears to be no, but only barely. Also, I would recommend that contributors treat this AfD as a discussion of the notability of the subject of the article rather than the article. This cuts two ways. It means that we can't just consider the article's current state (possible reliable sources that exist now but aren't referenced in the article must be considered) but we also shouldn't attempt to turn this into a referendum on a different subject. Any other subject should be treated separately. This is a matter of fairness to the article creators, the participants in the AfD and the subject of the article itself. Any other use of the term "Astronauts of Antiquity" should be considered as distinct from this term. If someone feels that it is appropriate to create an article on something else, then it is surely better to start a page Astronauts of antiquity (something else) and move the page to Astronauts of antiquity after this AfD is over than to create an article about an unrelated subject over this article while a community discussion about the article is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic thread continuing prior dispute removed. Le Grand and CC, please knock it off. This is not helping.--chaser - t 00:08, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvanix[edit]

References and links are directly connected with a product that is not a Nirvanix product or service (please see awards reference). Focus should be on Nirvanix and their cloud storage platform rather then information that is slanderous and manipulated.

Legal threat (albeit implied rather than explicit) reported. Puppetmaster warned; users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding. MediaMob (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvanix company profile should read:

Nirvanix is the premier “Cloud Storage” platform provider. Nirvanix has built a global cluster of storage nodes collectively referred to as the Storage Delivery Network (SDN), powered by the Nirvanix Internet Media File System (IMFS). The SDN intelligently stores, delivers and processes storage requests in the best network location, providing the best user experience in the marketplace. With the ability to store multiple file copies in multiple geographic nodes, the SDN enables unparalleled data availability for developers, businesses and enterprises. The Nirvanix SDN is optimized to handle very large files and enables any consumer or enterprise Web application to scale instantly, meeting the demands for storing and delivering millions of files from video and audio to documents and backup files worldwide. By using the Nirvanix SDN, versus alternatives such as adding network storage systems or using first generation online storage platforms, businesses are guaranteed a shorter time-to-market, reduced costs, and also benefit from better flexibility and control for their operations. In addition to its superior network and storage technologies, Nirvanix works to maintain its outstanding reputation with its customers with unparalleled developer and 7x24 enterprise support. Founded in 2007, Nirvanix is a privately held company headquartered in San Diego, California and backed by world-class investors including Intel Capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdude89 (talk • contribs) — Yellowdude89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator (Yellowdude89) is a ~~suspected~~proven sock puppet (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mharvey23), who appears to be Nirvanix's PR contact, Matthew Harvey (Head of JPR Research and Web 2.0 Expansion, JPR Communications). MediaMob (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Charlie Jackson, a company investor, apparently stated The C investor allowed a spin-out to be done, and the new company was allowed to take the name MediaMax and the consumer customers, but no software, no servers, no data. The front-end software was licensed to the spin-out, but for a limited time. Steve Iverson took over this company, while the existing company, with all the servers and data, was re-named Nirvanix. Virtually all the employees stayed with Nirvanix.. MediaMob (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as content is well referenced and appears to accurately reflect the contents of those referneces. ~~Suspected~~Proven sock has vandalised the article (blanked) after ~~suspected~~proven puppetmaster blanked it twice. MediaMob (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was tagged under construction at the time of the nomination, having been created in good faith by someone independent of Nirvanix, their competitors, users, etc. The slanderous and manipulated information is well referenced. MediaMob (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever that thing at the top of the AfD is, it isn't a well-formed AfD nom. I don't know what this is, but it smells like some unfathomable mix of spam, meat and old socks. Certainly not an appropriate candidate for AfD, nor an article that's in a state where AfD is an appropriate response. If you have provable libels, then speedy it. If you don't, then stay quiet. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Well-sourced article on a notable subject, plus the nom smells of bad faith. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator (Yellowdude89) is a proven sock puppet of Mharvey23 and has been blocked indefinitely. MediaMob (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close article was still in the creation process when it was nominated. No doubt that the nom is in bad faith and that the nom is attempting to do a PR job. I would however, like to suggest that the article be looked at closer and perhaps add some good stuff about the company in (if it exists) to help ensure the neutrality of the piece. No offence at all intended but, to me at least it does look a little bit like an axe to grind sort of thing (with the article only being created after they lost this data and such). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article was created in good faith - I have no connection with any of these companies, nor their competitors, and I have never used any of their services. Nonetheless I've added some good stuff about the company per your suggestion. MediaMob (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV isn't achieved by adding equal quantities of "good stuff" to balance the bad stuff! Neutrality and objectivity isn't at all the same thing as being equally wrong on both sides. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying the article isn't neutral or that some/all of the good/bad stuff is wrong? A list of pro's without con's (and vice versa) is not neutral so provided content is verifiably accurate then I'd tend to agree with Jasynnash2 - the article is now certainly more neutral than it was. MediaMob (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Jasynnash means that Yellowdude's creating this AfD is in bad faith, as part of PR work to keep negative info about the company from being published at all. I would, however, presume that the sock doesn't grasp how things work here and is attempting to treat this site as a PR outlet and not an online encyclopedia. The term "bad faith" might be a little excessive, strictly speaking. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes the bad faith thing is all about the nomination of the article in the first place. I never meant to imply in anyway that MediaMob had anything but, the best intentions when creating the article and was only trying to point out that it may look otherwise to some people. Neither, did I say it had to have "equal" amounts of anything just that it could use some balancing of somesor to avoid being (or appearing to be) an "attack" page. Sorry, if my wording isn't always clear. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 11:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ...per User:Jasynnash2 and User:EdJohnston Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm sure you know this already but, you need to~~ Could you please expand on your "keep" statement providing somesort of policy/guideline reasoning? Thank you. ~~in the same way any potential "delete" voter should expand on their comments. Thanks.~~ Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) on his talk page. MediaMob (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The statement by nominator Yellowdog89 does not offer any Wikipedia policy grounds under which the article should be deleted. If he believes that the article is slanted or contains wrong information, he should address this on the article's Talk page, not at AfD. I don't see the nominator's statement above as sufficient grounds to block anyone for a legal threat, but I do notice that Yellowdog89 has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet. Since User:Mharvey23 was only blocked 12 hours, I hope he will rejoin the discussion here after his block expires. Nobody from the company has yet engaged in any discussion at Talk:Nirvanix, which is the right place to discuss fixing the article if that is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per EdJohnston and MediaMob. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EdJohnston. We are not going to turn a perfectly good Wikipedia article into an advertisement. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced. Any negative statement has an inline reference. If only more articles were this clean. Proposed text screams advertisement. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I am an official with Nirvanix, Inc. To elaborate we have proposed this "article" for deletion based on two main points. 1. Wikipedia's own rules of Verifiability found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Specifically, various pieces of information in this article have been found to be false as can be verified as such by source deemed appropriate by Wikipedia rules. Of note in Wikipedia rules include: "Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." 2. This entire article references such sources deemed questionable and is written by individuals violating another Wikipedia rule under "What Wikipedia Is Not". "Wikipedia is not a soapbox ...Scandal mongering or gossip columns..." This article is being used in conjunction with outside sites to inflict harm on the company based on these questionable sources. An example of this is: http://nirvanix.nfshost.com/ This is not in the spirit and intent of Wikipedia to inform, educate and record. Final point is that "Nirvanix" is a trademarked name. The company has attempted numerous times to post, more interestingly, less about the company and more about its technology, The Storage Delivery Network and has been denied each time. We have modeled this exactly after our competitor, Amazon and its Simple Storage Service (S3) so as to use a model that was deem fit for Wikipedia to no avail. At this point, we would rather simply delete. User:Jwbuck (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Buckley, Chief Marketing Officer at Nirvanix is Jwbuck (according to this edit) and has been warned about WP:COI by Orangemike.
- Noting that "Nirvanix is a trademarked name" could imply that Nirvanix intends to use this to have the article deleted (were that even possible) so they have been warned about WP:LEGAL too.
- Article's 16 'questionable sources' include PC Magazine, DEMO, Tech Crunch, The Industry Standard, Ars Technica, IDG News Service, Network World and even Nirvanix's own blog.
- The article was written in good faith, completely independently of Nirvanix, Streamload, MediaMax, The Linkup, their suppliers, competitors, creditors and users, and certainly not in conjunction with outside sites (http://nirvanix.nfshost.com/) nor to inflict harm on the company.
- Nirvanix representatives were invited to contribute at Talk:Nirvanix by User:EdJohnston and are still welcome to do so (indeed they have copied this blurb there and Orangemike has explained "We do genuinely want to be fair to your firm, and yet at the same time we must hold to our own standards". MediaMob (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments; also this should be speedily closed per WP:SNOW and because the nomination - initiated by a proven sock - is a clear case of WP:COI and WP:POINT. Coldmachine^Talk 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the vote is one-sided, suggesting that Keep will be the final result. I suggest keeping this open another 24 hours in case the Nirvanix people want to respond further. Discussion is good. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as this AfD should have been deleted already (db-banned) and the only delete vote (which should itself be discounted) is from the same guys who nominated it in the first place (a blatent WP:COI too I might add). I'm surprised this debate has survived this long given WP:SNOW... but at least the article will be somewhat 'immunized' against deletion after this as they appear to have done a fairly good job of keeping it under wraps (aka getting away with murder) until now.. 193.253.141.64 (talk) 16:27, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Hated[edit]

No assertion of notability or importance, no independent coverage, fails WP:BAND Madcoverboy (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a real band and a very important one at that. This page should not even be considered for deletion! -Ashley
Don't delete this page! To Be Hated is wiki-worthy! 72.153.41.154 (talk)Mike
Can I ask in which of the 12 criteria of notability per WP:MUSIC do believe they pass? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:53, 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 deleted (CSD A7) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIMSOLUTIONS[edit]

No assertion of importance or notability, appears to fail WP:CORP notability Madcoverboy (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, company with no assertion of notability. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:13, 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 Delete. While a straight vote-count leads to a tie or no consensus, most of the keep "votes" are in the manner of WP:WAX and WP:BIGNUMBER. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Higa (YouTube comedian)[edit]

Unsourced article on a non-notable YouTube personality. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All content are now sourced and cited. Unarguably notable based on: (1) a large fan base of Subscribers: 473,730 and Channel Views: 11,584,274, (2) top ranks and hits on YouTube, (3) recognition from other Internet celebrities(Michael Buckley), (4) recognition from Hollywood celebrities(Will Ferrell and Milo Ventimiglia), (5) IMDB status, and now (6) news citation from prominent new sources. Lycheeberries (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely notable. Ryan Higa has over 11 million channel views. He is more popular, infact, than the Internet celebrity Michael Bickly. NigaHiga has twice as many subscribers than he does. No one is trying to get rid of Micheal's article. He is making his name known. And Very soon Ryan Higa is on the way to becoming a house hold name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergirl2008 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) — Supergirl2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Totally nonnotable guy, has already been speedy deleted four times as Ryan Higa. Let's salt the page. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable. He will be in a Hollywood movie, is the number one most subscribed channel this month, number two most subscribed channel and comedian of all time, and has an article on the Honolulu Advertiser's website ([4]). There are pages for other YouTubers on Wikipedia, but how many of them can say that they are in the top two of most subscribed of all time and going to be stars of a Hollywood movie? His latest video "The Ninja Glare" has had many honors worldwide, charting top rated, most viewed, most discussed in the U.S., Australia, the U.K., Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and more. His most viewed video, "How to Be Gangster" has over 16 million views. "How to Be Emo" is right behind it at 13 million views. "How to Be Gangster" is currently #10 at the most discussed comedy video of all time on YouTube, and #6 as the most favorited comedy video of all time. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, I suggest that this page be moved to NigaHiga, because not only is Ryan involved in it, but his friend Sean Fujiyoshi is also involved. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Nyttend. And "he is going to be in a movie" is crystalballing. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response How is it crystalballing if it will definitely happen? It's not a "this might happen", it will happen. But, if you choose to exclude the movie, then look at the other statistics. He seems notable to me. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 03:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's crystalballing because nobody knows how notable or successful the movie will be. All we know is that there may be a movie. Plus, with the way hollywood works, there's no guarantee that it'll see the light of day. Plus, I didn't see any actual third-party sources to prove the notability. Youtube rankings alone aren't going to prove his notability without substantial coverage from reliable third-party sources. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely unsourced. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current state, keep with notability properly asserted and sourced per WP:RS. --MattWT 08:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if "Salt" is just another word for protect against recreation until he meets our policies and guidelines than so be it. At present he doesn't meet the notability, verifiability, or WP:ENTERTAINER policies/guidelines and therefore does not require an article . The movie thing is crystal balling because there is no guarantee that the film WILL occur per our policies and guidelines on Future films and such as well as the actual policy/guidline here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by "salt" I mean salting the earth — see WP:SALT. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was what I thought you meant but, was kind of "fuzzy headed" at the time and was too lazy to look up the policy for a refresh at the time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No sources indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nigahiga is absolutely noticeable. He's number most subscribed on youtube and has millions of views! He is more than twice as popular as Michael Buckley but no one is trying to delete that page. Jason Garrick (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a reason why Michael Buckley isn't nominated for deletion; He has sources. And a lot of them, in fact. He has been the subject of multiple, substantial media coverage, whereas Ryan Higa has not. It doesn't matter HOW many Youtube subscribers they have; So long as there are no sources, there is no justification for keeping it. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If he's not kept, then why are Smosh and Tay Zonday? --Lord Sunday 14:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't know about Smosh, Tay Zonday actually has sources. We've been saying this all along; You NEED sources. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not have any reliable sources and like most hollywood movies the movie might not even be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFreakster (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 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) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nadal statistics and results[edit]

This page replicates (I assume the author has copied and pasted) information that can be found at Rafael Nadal. No new content and it is not being updated. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If its already in the article of Nadal, then why create a new article. Redundancy. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Idea to cut the length of the Nadal article didn't prosper. Delete. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Rafael Nadal had gotten a bit too unwieldy. This was a good idea for a split. I did the actual split so nothing is repeated. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Tennis expert (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should not be a separate article. It should be part of the results and statistics sections in the Rafael Nadal article, as with every other tennis player article. The creation of this page violates WP:Notable - it's just a record like everyone else's, not something to be put on a pedastool (sorry WP:AGF). Please restore back to the main article and delete this. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The split makes sense if the article is becoming too unwieldy with stats and figures. I imagine there is considerable interest in having an article like this as full details of Nadal's stats will simply not fit in the main article, or else would distract from the main body (the most important part). My main concern is that it has no citations/sources/references. I would suggest instead that it be userfied until correct citation is given and the details are verified. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC) (See WP:Preserve)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 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 no consensus to delete, at any rate in its amended form, so default to keep. Sandstein 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catsuits in popular culture[edit]

An unencyclopedic list of every person in film, TV, a music video or computer game who has ever worn a catsuit. If this article is going to get any further, it needs to establish notability and present reliable sources giving substantial coverage of the subject "catsuits in popular culture". It doesn't cite any references covering the subject and I can't find any. Hence the article is always going to consist of original research drawn from unrelated references and isn't going to make a coherent article. There isn't even any indication that catsuits played a part in any plot - merely that a character happened to wear one. There is already a summary of this page in catsuit and the subject is not worth a seperate article. Hut 8.5 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article (and some like it) represent original research insofar as they claim, without support from sources, that Movie X contains a "catsuit" and that said inclusion represents one facet of "catsuits in popular culture". without some secondary source making a similar claim we can't invent it ourselves. To do so would mean that both the inclusion of items on the list and the thesis of the list itself would be based on judgment of editors. Bedrock polices of the encyclopedia and consensus in AfD's show that this is unacceptable. A secondary source that would cover this topic must cover the topic. There are 10,000 hits for this article title without quotes on google. That fact does not make any of them secondary sources covering the subject. Editors are invited to look in scholarly sources such as The Journal of Popular Culture, pop culture encyclopedias such as From Abba to Zoom or St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture or even reliable sources online like [5], [6], [7], or [8]. However, without some source explicitly making the claim asserted by the article (and the existence of the article represents a thesis that can't be disclaimed), the article should be deleted. Individual sources covering single events such as movie reviews ("Halle Berry looked great in that catsuit...") that provide no context are about as bad as no source at all. Asserting that those sources represent "importance in pop culture" is original research. Delete this article unless unifying secondary sources can be found. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep The original reasons I felt this article needed to be deleted have largely been fixed with the name change and discovery of sources contextualizing catsuits in film and television. I want to point out that this shouldn't be taken as some ex post rejection of the rationale--at the moment of nomination (and even following the first claimed improvement) the article concept itself still was original research. Thanks to Aditya and Father Goose for bringing this up to standards. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep purr Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Testmasterflex (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite Le Grand Roi's specious arguments which he has been warned about. Totally original research, not a trace of a reference, and just a list of catsuits is not encyclopedic. An article about catsuits is different entirely. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite your specious "argument", it is totally not original research in that it does not advance some kind of thesis and the items of list can be easily verified. The article is indeed encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most notable occurrences into catsuit. I had originally split it from this article as had been requested. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not merge unsourced OR. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was about to qualify my comment by saying the "notable, referenced" occurrences. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then help source this unoriginal research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are quite a number of articles about popular culture on WP that could be considered original research in the same way the term is used here. Verifiable instances without any analysis is not really original research. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! It's indiscriminate listing of vaguely-related factoids. List of fictional works with catsuits would be no more useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a discrinate listing of clearly related references. I do not oppose a move to that suggested retitling, though. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either this is an indiscriminate listing of an object's appearance in fictional works, or it's an OR piece that advances the argument that catsuits have an important role in popular culture. Without the sort of sources Protonk refers to, this cannot be made into an encyclopedic article. Even if it is at some later date, a randomly-assembled list of times a catsuit has appeared in a fictional work is not terribly useful to that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's neither indiscriminate nor original research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nuh uh! Yuh huh! Nuh uh! Yuh huh! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is discriminate because there is a clear inclusion criteria for the list, i.e. only catsuits and only in popular culture. It is not original research as there is no argument about catsuits in popular culture presented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is indiscriminate as it is now because the inclusion criteria are pulled out of thin air; there's no reason to link "catsuits" and "fictional works". (Consider List of blue things, List of television anchors named Allen, List of work surfaces in fictional works, etc. If you'd prefer, it's an idiosyncratic non-topic, a criterion for deletion as old as deleting articles on Wikipedia.) Any reason that isn't backed to some sort of source means this article has an OR thesis. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason is navigational; obviously some editors believe the subject wikipedic or else they wouldn't have created, worked on, and argued to keep it. Thus, those interested in the topic, fashion or costume people I would reckon, can use this page as a table of contents or portal to works of fiction that included this particularly type of outfit and it is easier for those interested in it to just use a list like article rather than to have a category. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Some people felt strongly enough to spend their time working on it has never been a shield against "So where are the sources for your implicit or explicit conclusions?" If all you have is "This must be important because someone cares enough to write an article!" save your breath.
        The argument that this is important for navigation assumes that this topic is somehow important, which is the assumption under attack. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So where are the sources for your implicit or explicit conclusions? <- my argument to delete
        I've made no mention whatsoever of how I feel about catsuits (I'm fond in a retro sort of way) or articles on popular culture (good when they're articles and sourceable). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A table of contents, which is how I see this article, does not need sources beyond those used to verify it's contents. The articles linked to from that table of contents need the additional sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're free to host whatever directories you want on a project whose scope includes them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That so many editors create, work on, read, and argue to keep these articles suggest that much of our community believes they are within our scope. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That so many editors create and read typos suggests that much of our community believes we should not fix them.
        That so many editors create, edit, and tirelessly replace vandalism suggests that much of our community feels that vandalism is necessary.
        That so many editors create, work on, read, and argue to keep original research suggests that much of our community believes it is within our scope.
        No. We have standards, and they do have consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Apples and oranges. And if they really had consensus, I would not see comments like this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        EVERYKING MADE AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT, SO YOU MUST ACQUIT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Or was he telling it like it is? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite likely an indiscriminate list but there is no assertion made that it is important. It can be made less discriminate if it was narrowed down to notable occurrences. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because there's no topic here. "List of times a catsuit in a fictional work was mentioned in passing" doesn't fix the problem that this is a non-topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am seeing no reason why since we know editors and readers look up "x in popular culture", we wouldn't at worst redirect without deleting as it at least a legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you agree the article is valueless other than as a redirect, then you have no argument to keep. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe the article has value for navigational purposes, but say that at worst it should be redirect. I do not see any convincing reason to outright redlink it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then feel free to put a redirect here when this indiscriminate trivia is removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't need an AfD to redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wavering from Merge to Keep. It is of a very specialised nature and small readership. Why should we deny this sector the purrleasure of this article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list that requires original research to determine the list members. Complete lack of reliable sources showing that catsuits are part of popular culture. It is also a matter of wikipedian interpretation if a costume is a catsuit, bodystocking, gimp suit, unitard, zentai, and/or superhero/supervillian costume. --Allen3 ^talk 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is neither indiscriminate nor original researched and as far as sourcing, the items on this list should be easily sourceable. For a list used as a navigation tool to other articles, it need not have dissertations on how catsuits have influenced popular culture, but it is consistent with our purpose as a reference tool for providing readers with a handy list that researchers can use to make those studies. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What researchers? Where have they published their research? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those who note the use of catsuits in film as part of an "adolescent tomboy's dream", in the cultural changes of the 1960s, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The former is about a single work, the latter is about catsuits in the real world. Possibly good sources for The Matrix or Catsuit. Not so much this one.
        Understand the different between "Catsuits in film" and "Catsuits in a film." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Combined they deal with the topic under consideration here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's silly. You're silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, this is silly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And just as relevant as the links you presented as references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        At least it brings some levity to the discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other stuff exists of a similar nature, eg: Spandex fetishism#Spandex fetish in popular culture. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Insufficient third-party sources advancing the concept addressed in this article to establish notablity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a discriminate collection of information as it addresses a specific topic "catsuits" in a specific example "popular culture" with sufficient sources discussed above to justify the inclusion of an article for at least navigational purposes, but even as is, I believe we can use sources like "Reading the Catsuit: Serena Williams and the Production of Blackness at the 2002 U.S. Open" as evidence of catsuits in popular culture as sports stars are an example of popular culture. The article discusses how the popular media focused on the way the catsuit displayed the athelete's physique. Now, when I said somewhere above about how costume people do find this sort of thing relevant, please note page 94 of Costume and Cinema: Dress Codes in Popular Film. While the cat suit reference there is brief, it does nevertheless show that the topic of this and other sorts of costumes in films is a legitimate non-trivial topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both discuss specific instances of people who are part of popular culture wearing catsuits and are not about the general topic of "catsuits in popular culture". The Serena Williams source might warrant a mention in catsuit but hardly a seperate article. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because when I think catsuit, I think of people dressed as cats, but instead few if any entries here actually have whiskers -- vicious lies! Also, delete because Le Grand wants to keep it, and I'm hoping one day he'll use this diff in claiming that there's a cabal out to get him and his gourds. Oh, and delete because there are absolutely no sources whatsoever. Also, some of these entries don't strike me as being skin-tight enough to be considered "catsuits"; they're more like ferretsuits, and their inclusion here -- based on editors' opinion that something is or isn't a catsuit -- strikes me as being OR(k)ish. --EEMIV (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have presented some sources we can use above and of course deleting because someone else wants to keep is really, really lame. You know, I just spent the last few minutes thinking of how can I best compromise with some of these editors that I usually disagree with and posts like the one above and your other efforts to mock your fellow editors make it really hard to think that taking a new approach is even worth it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment People need to calm down. It doesn't help anything to be unfriendly to LeGrand. Just make arguments based on the merits of the sources provided and within the articles let the AfD take its course. Inciting other editors is bad form. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bah. You and Le Grand should lighten up. I mean, come on... catsuits! I'll also add that the article, too, is essentially a collection of WP:PLOT, i.e. mere appearances. Worthwhile content would cite critical reaction to catsuits -- I know there was plenty when, for example 7 of 9 was added to Voyager -- and that kind of content is wholly absent. I doubt there is critical response for allll of appearances list on the page; I'll bet that if whittled down to entries for which there is some sort of third-party reaction to these catsuits, they can instead be incorporated into the actual catsuit article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and per Protonk who details why this article is OR much better than I could. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why you can help to use the sources cited above to reference the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep I'm leaning toward keep as this is an acceptable list when sourced and focused to notable example versus every instance. No one disputes catsuits are a unique fashion item so this list could show earliest uses, notable uses and changes in catsuit fashions as well as used by men (presuming they were first used by women) etc. As is it's a list that seems to simply need regular improving. Unclear why OR concerns are being flagged here. Banjeboi 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content about like that is better off in the catsuit article as it doesn't specifically relate to popular culture. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Keep" per Father Goose's excellent work. Banjeboi 00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete catsuit as well as this article on the basis of the arguments presented here, else keep both articles. I'm not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here; how can one claim that this list -- which is entirely consistent with the content in catsuit -- is original research if catsuit is not also OR? If catsuit is a valid topic, then a list of prominent catsuit-wearers (fictional or otherwise) is also valid content. Just pare the list back to things specifically referred to as catsuits, bodysuits, and other synonyms by secondary sources. (Oh, and merge with bodysuit, unitard, and other synonymous terms.)--Father Goose (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be a list of people who have ever worn catsuits - that's not the point of the title. It's supposed to discuss the topic of "catsuits in popular culture", about which there are no sources at all. The main catsuit article is appropriate for inclusion because there are sources specifically covering the subject of catsuits. Moving the article to List of people who have worn catsuits would create another problem - namely that such a list is pure trivia and provides next to no useful information to the reader. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, though, it's a list of people who have worn catsuits. Should there be a "list of prominent wearers of catsuits" in catsuit? Sure, it would make sense to me to have it. If you used the means I suggested above to source it, the "OR" issue disappears. Should such a list be limited to an arbitrary length? No; prominent uses is prominent uses, and "delete, too long" is not a sensible argument; Wikipedia is not paper. Should the list be in catsuit or in its own article? That depends on its length, once it's sourced, per Wikipedia:Summary style.

The fact that this article has the words "popular culture" in its title does not mean its content should be deleted for being about a different subject.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEMOLISH. --Qsaw ^(talk) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is three months old - that's plenty of time for someone to address the concerns - and the content was present in catsuit even before that. The link you cite is an essay and doesn't trump the policies and guidelines that were cited above. Hut 8.5 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three months is actually not that old and we aren't in a rush here. Banjeboi 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use a WP:DEADLINE, then please explain why the rush to create an article before sources for required verifiablity were located? An appeal for unlimited delay does not trump Wikipedia's core content policies. --Allen3 ^talk 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately it meets our core content policies as discussed above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your highly repetitious argument has been duly noted and will undoubtedly be given the weight it deserves. --Allen3 ^talk 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that your inaccurate "argument" will also be given such weight. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, WP:SYNTH all the way. Wikipedia is not for original ideas — unless someone has previously written about catsuits in popular culture (not just catsuits, and not just popular culture), we should not have an article about it. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are unoriginal ideas, however. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this discussion has been linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles. It is general practice to make a note at an AFD if you link to it from somewhere else. --Hut 8.5 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Do-over. I've renamed the article and rewritten its lead to match its content, and started sourcing the entire list. I was able to source every single one of the first ten items with little effort. This is not a list that needs deleting. It is certainly not original research. It is not "indiscriminate information". C'mon, guys. Find an article that needs improving and get to work, instead of picking up a baseball bat every time you spot an article that has the words "popular culture" in its title.--Father Goose (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent effort! It is encouraging to see constructive and proactive editing and it is even nice to see some imagery in an AfD! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's admirable, but nobody has yet offered any sources that this is not a list of movies with chairs in them. There's no larger topic here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The larger topic is catsuits, and this is a list is a supplement to that article. Given its size, it's not unreasonable to have it in a separate article from the other content in catsuit, though either location would be fine by me.
Catsuits are not a normal piece of clothing; their typical use is by vampy (or campy) superheroines and entertainers, and also what makes this list something other than "chairs in movies". One can claim that a list of catsuit wearers is simply "trivial", but such content is not forbidden from Wikipedia (trivia sections, being a jumble of facts with no relation to each other, are discouraged). And I'm frequently surprised by how some of the most seemingly trivial "lists of x" on Wikipedia have an appreciative audience beyond fandom (one example: "Wikipedia, the community-edited online encyclopedia, maintains a useful history of anti-Barney Internet humor — from the “Jihad to Destroy Barney,” which has evolved into a role-playing game, to fictionalized stories and images documenting Barney’s womanizing and crack habit" from The New York Times).
Unless content like this can somehow be claimed to be harmful to Wikipedia, my instinct is to retain it, and improve it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with A Man In Black here. By "wider topic" he means that Catsuits in popular culture is not a valid encyclopedic topic as there are no sources covering it. Well done for trying to source the list, but the references you added merely consist of "so-and-so wore a catsuit" and don't cover the subject of catsuits in popular culture. In the case of other "in popular culture" articles this isn't true - as an academic has written an entire book exploring depictions of Mars and Martians in film and literature the topic of "Mars in popular culture" is encyclopedic. Another good example is Cultural depictions of spiders. If you don't insist on sources covering the topic, where do you stop? Coathangers in popular culture? Washing the dishes in popular culture? Nasal hair in popular culture? The mere fact that the information is verifiable is not a reason to include it. If a list of depictions like this one is too long for the main article then you don't have to move it to a sub-article as it can simply be removed. Wikipedia has in fact been ridiculed for its willingness to include popular culture lists like this one. Judgements as to whether the article is "harmful" or not aren't arguments against deletion. Hut 8.5 11:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between coathangers, washing dishes and nasal hair in popular culture, and catsuits is that there is an interest in catsuits in popular culture. As noted below there is discussion of catsuits in sources that can be referenced. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:GNG does it say about how many people are interested? And where are the sources that talk about catsuits in fiction, instead of a catsuit in a fictional work? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have voted to keep this article, Hut 8.5? All the accusations you're making against catsuits and bodysuits in popular media in its present form seem to apply as much (or as little, as the case may be) to that article: it's unsourced, it's indiscriminate, it's original research, it's "arbitrary subject in popular culture". Yet that article was the seed for this article, which you have above lauded.

I do insist on sourcing, and I started on that work by sourcing each item individually to establish that a) each of the mentioned instances is a catsuit, and that b) the catsuit in question is an important enough quality of the work for a secondary source to mention it when discussing the work. Additional writing and sourcing of the kind used to transform cultural depictions of spiders from a loathed pop-culture article into a lauded one will be needed (and I have no doubt that sufficient good-quality sources exist to make this possible), but this "improve this immediately or destroy it" attitude displayed by you and others here is truly distressing, and out of line with our basic working methods. There's stuff in the encyclopedia that can be improved to our encyclopedic standards, and stuff that can't. The content you are seeking to delete right now is stuff that can be improved to that standard -- but not if it gets deleted.

You must understand my deep frustration when I see raw but redeemable content that is -- I'll say it again -- not specifically harmful -- discarded instead of being given a reasonable opportunity to evolve into good content. Harmful to the encyclopedia is my sole criterion when evaluating whether any article should be deleted, and I criticize anybody who doesn't have a clear idea of why something is harmful when making an argument that that it should be deleted. Having bollocks in the encyclopedia is clearly harmful, as is lies, bullshit, lies of a different sort, libel, self-promotion, and a slew of other fundamentally bad things. But if I see content that is not plainly harmful, not diminishing the quality of another article, and that could plausibly be reworked into something that improves the encyclopedia, I give such turd blossoms time to mature -- and I improve them myself, whenever time and energy coincide.--Father Goose (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted to keep it, as there are whole books and journal articles covering the subject. If I really was on some sort of crusade to destroy unreferenced articles, would I have referenced several myself in the last week? And would I have done this? Hut 8.5 10:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're set on getting this referenced information deleted due to a simple dislike of it; that much is clear. And pointing to a consensus to keep that you closed as a consensus to keep -- what does that signify? That you know to avoid getting desysopped?--Father Goose (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's absurd. just stick to the article and to the sources, rather than tossing around "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" with abandon. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Le Grand roy de citrolines reasoning. Testmasterflex (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised by Father goose, one of our most reliable editors for these topics. . The present article speaks for itself. if half the effort of trying to delete it had gone to improving it, we'd have been much further along. distinctive costumes in movies are major parts of the setting, and are used significantly and there's an enormous amount of admittedly rather scattered literature from several aspects, so there will be yet more to be added. DGG (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewing the update, I don't see any reason to change my original vote. Protonk (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is still unreferenced crap. My original opinion still stands. Corvus cornix_talk 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC
- It's actually referenced encyclopedic content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't consider the current version of the article to be any more encyclopedic than a carefully referenced list of chairs in movies. If you want to argue that catsuits are unusual, then ok, it's no better than a list of 3 legged chairs in movies. PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples and oranges. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chairs are a straw man. To make a point of this sort, you need to show a substantial topic of this sort and then demonstrate that catsuits don't adequately match this for notability or coherence. For example, while trawling sources for this, I considered the topic of Librarians in popular culture, as exemplified by Rupert Giles, say. I was all set to create an article on this when I found that it has already been done: Librarians in popular culture! This article seems a good model and it seems that catsuits are an equally potent cultural trope which merits similar coverage here. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Just another content-less "I spy" trivia list. The usual claim in these articles is that the X in "X in popular culture" is important to popular culture. An "X in popular culture" article can be written that actually discuss the impact on pop culture instead of obsessively listing every book, movie, and TV that X appears. Using a source that only talks about a catsuit in one movie doesn't support the central claim that "Catsuits are important to popular culture". Once you remove the list, you are left with one sentence, even with the attempts to "save" the article. --Phirazo (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced? What unsourced? There are a lot of comments above telling how this article is unsourced, is original research, is not verifiable and so on. I'd like to point out that the article only mentions published works and these are sources on their own. There is nothing unsourced about it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source that says "Catsuits have (foo) role in popular culture/fiction/whatever." Just a bunch of sources that say "A catsuit appeared here." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep conditional to the list being removed. The article is better now. --Phirazo (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. A quick GSearch has shown that many of the appearances of the catsuit in the films mentioned has been discussed, analyzed and commented on in both mainstream newspapers, TV and books. It would be a great help if an attempt was made to incoprorate information on individual films, rather than a mere mention of the film. The original Avengers, Barbarella, Matrix, Irma Vep and all the Catwoman featuring films definitely leads the discussion board in mainstream media. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note to contributors, we have been down this road before. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) and the DRV which listed Cheshire Cat IPC as no consensus only because a userspace draft of the article was made that didn't violate policies. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you in turn to consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thong in the news, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture, just to mention a few. Not everybody on the same road arrives at the same destination.--Father Goose (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of which were improved to add the kind of sources that this article lacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That process is underway for this article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Underway" implies to me that a start has been made to it. That would imply that at least one reference on the current article directly discusses the subject of "catsuits and bodysuits in popular culture". However, it does not appear that any of them do discuss this subject directly. I am puzzled as to how it can be stated that sourcing is "underway" if there are currently zero instances of said sourcing on the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be honest in these discussions as there are 27 references in the article at the time of my reply. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I didn't link those two AfD's and a DRV because they were "in pop culture" articles. I linked them because they have exactly the same problem as this article still does. They made a claim that X was important or notable in popular culture by presenting a list of times X has appeared in films or books, etc. The CC article was eventually userified because LGRDC found a source that said "So powerful has the books influence been that memorable characters, such as the Hatter, March Hare, Doormouse, and the Cheshire Cat, to name a few, have become inextricable parts of our popular culture." Without a source that says something like that, claims that X is important in pop culture are original research or original research by synthesis. Protonk (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's splitting ~~hares~~ hairs that a single reference that addresses the topic in an overarching way is the difference between deleting or keeping content that would otherwise be identical. You may be convinced that such literalism and regimentation holds sway over Wikipedia, but the standing wisdom is that it does not.--Father Goose (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not splitting hairs at all. A single reference would be sufficient to indicate that the subject of "catsuits in popular culture" has been addressed by a reliable source. More than one would be nice, but you've stated that the process is ongoing. Ongoing implies that it has started. That requires at least one instance. IAR is for when process stands in the way of the project; in this case, a significant proportion of replies are in favour of following process, so IAR isn't applicable (it never overrides consensus). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This seems to be a spinoff from Catsuit and should just be merged there if it seems better to cover the material in one place. Deletion is obviously not appropriate as the main Catsuit article has few references and could use an infusion of the well-sourced material that we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that the material is "best covered in one place"; it is that this article cannot stand alone as its subject ("catsuits and bodysuits in popular culture") has not been covered by multiple independent third party sources. Merging into a "popular culture" section on the main catsuit article just leads to a lowering of that article's quality, per the "I-spy" and "wood in popular culture" arguments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this refers to Wikipedia:Notability. That policy states in verbatim - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." And, significant coverage is explained on the policy page as "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." That part is already covered in the article (unless we insist on a source saying "X is important in pop culture" in verbatim, a criteria not covered by the policies), and as things are progressing, it looks like at least three/four of the mentions (Avengers, Matrix, Barbarella, Star Trek: Voyager) can have their own articles as per Wikipedia inclusion policies. It would only take a little more effort. Finally, it would be helpful to remember that Wikipedia has a way of artice splitting along with a way of article merging. In this case, the former looks to be applicable fine. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the deciding issue here. Original research is. We actually DO have a policy that says claims made in the article must be supported by evidence and that two bits of evidence can't be stitched together to make a third claim. Here the deletes are asserting that 27 references which all claim variously that catsuits appears in movies can be stitched together to claim that "catsuits are a part of popular culture". The topic is "Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media" (or pop culture, w/e). Coverage of the topic is necessary. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I understand, the issue is about Wikipedia:No original research, a policy that says in verbatim - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." In explaining synthesis the policy page says - "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." Where is the world do you see any of that violated in this article? Theres also is enough coverage of the topic already cited. I don't like it isn't much of a reason to delete an article, neither is I don't get the point. Let's not reinvent the policies generated by consensus just get one article deleted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't like it. and no where has someone continued to show me "the point" and I've evaded the question or simply repeated an assertion. Here is my assertion, same as it was from the first delete vote: "The existence of the article is an assertion that the topic is notable or important. That is indisputable. If the article existed, but didn't assert that the subject was notable, it would be deleted per CSD-A7. Therefore this article specifically asserts that the subject "Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media" is notable. That means that per our policy on original research, some source out there must either assert that the subject is important OR some source must cover the subject (by this I mean the concept or occurrence of Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media) in significant detail. If it does not, then we are stitching together disparate mentions of catsuits and bodysuits in an editor created taxonomy." No where in there do I say "I don't like it." Nowhere in there have I reinvented policies or refused to "get the point", whatever that point is claimed to be. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If stitching together information from different sources to create an article that covered all the varied facets of a single topic were against Wikipedia's rules, it would be illegal to write encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. I don't blame you for not understanding the purpose of WP:SYN: it is disastrously phrased, making the misinterpretation you present here all too common. If you look at the kinds of things SYN talks about, however, you'll see that its overall aim is to disallow taking claims from two or more sources that distort what is actually written in those sources. Making a set of assertions that are backed up by sources, and then making a generalizing assertion that is also consistent with those sources (even if it isn't necessarily explicitly said in those sources) is basic encyclopedia writing. You're not allowed to make a false claim by selectively stitching together sources in a way that misrepresents the sources -- that is what NOR and SYN are looking to prevent. Making generalized assertions that are consistent with all available sources is not SYN, although the way SYN is written right now, such misinterpretations are fairly common. (I won't go so far as to call it wikilawering, as I generally consider wikilawywering to be a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules. However, the end result is the same: you must ponder the spirit of the rule -- the reason why we have it and why we need it -- when applying it. If you take as broad an interpretation of WP:SYN as you have here and apply it to other parts of the encyclopedia, I hope you can see that it would savage basic, good encyclopedia writing.)--Father Goose (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to say that SYN prevents us from doing anything but a recapitulation of source documents. I interpret the (albeit poorly worded) guidance there very narrowly to mean that we shouldn't assert a concept unless it hasn't basically been asserted elsewhere. Your vision of my interpretation would disallow any list beyond what had been inclusively covered in a single secondary source. That's not my point at all. I don't mean to exclude something like List of brain tumor patients because there isn't a single source which lists all of the brain tumor patients out there. I interpret WP:SYN as preventing us from taking source A (girl X wears a catsuit in movie M), source B (girl Y wears a catsuit in movie N) to mean article C (catsuits are a notable element in popular media). If some source is revealed that either covers the subject "catsuits in popular media" or says (like the Cheshire Cat article) that the subject is important, then my concerns evaporate. Please don't confuse that position with some other, more restrictive position that I do not hold. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assume good faith and also assume that you actually are missing the point. Let me, then show the point again. By Wikipedia policies and conventions it is perfectly alright to write an article with sources like "X says there's a phenomenon of wearing catsuits in media", "Y says a lot many catsuits are worn in media" and "Z says there's a reason why so many catsuits are being worn". It isn't called original research of synthesis here, we call it non-trivial coverage by multiple independent sources. "Importance" or "popularity" or adherence to a very specific line of thought are not inclusions criteria, or deletion criteria for that matter. Not an aorta of "stitching together" of "two bit facts" to make a "third claim" is evident in the article, unless you count that imaginary claim of "importance", which hasn't been claimed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the sources say those things. No source is saying "This is the role of catsuits in film," just "This is a catsuit in a film." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to read the lead again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's drop the "assume good faith that I'm missing the point" bit. It's snarky and unhelpful. I don't need to be lectured that I'm missing the boat on core policies. We have a disagreement about this article, let's leave it at that. As for the reformed lead, it is MUCH BETTER than the article at the start of the AfD and even at this revision when FG announced that the article was revamped. Now we are getting somewhere. Renaming the article helps as well--catsuits in media requires a list, catsuits in popular culture requires a syllogistic connection. This article is in better shape then it was previously and I'm inclined to move to keep (given some of the sources). But what I want to know is this: Why, if I was so DREADFULLY wrong about what did and didn't constitute OR, did you move to improve the article in the exact fashion I suggested to avoid making claims by synthesis? Why did we have two or three posts here bemoaning my lack of policy understanding when all it would have taken was "hey, Farrell 2007 is a good start to a list in the secondary literature and Geller, Inness, and Worick all discuss the importance of the catsuit in media". That's it. From my first delete vote, that all I asked for. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. And, I apologize, too (I guess, it's called the heat of action). Thanks, for bringing this article to attentions, for doggedly insisting compliance with Wikipedia qualities, and for appreciating the hard work that went into it at your insistence. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. While part of it is a list of catsuits seen in movies, which for some reason is missing the venerable Roller Boogie, there's also some decent prose with dozens of references to academic papers on the subject. Article could be reworked into an overview of fetishism and fashion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is more than just "people or characters by the clothing they wear". Catsuits and the like are notable as part of subculture, such as S&M fetishists, superhero fetishists, and Goths. (My, the things I find myself reasearching and commenting on, on Wikipedia...) The article is also an obvious split point per WP:Summary style. - jc37 05:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am back from real life. I promise to work on the suggestions in the next few days. It'd be a great help if there were additional hands available. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 24 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) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi Kitano[edit]

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. An online search for sources, including a standard web search (link) and Google News and Books searches, yields sources that are unreliable or provide only directory-level coverage of the subject, primarily in connection with her role in Dirty Sanchez: The Movie. Her other acting roles include (see IMDb) two single-episode appearances, a minor role in Shoreditch, and something related to Eve Online. Tagged with {{notability}} since June 2007. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur, at this point she fails WP:ENTERTAINER. --Amalthea^Talk 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant body of work, no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 Minutes to Heaven[edit]

Original research and crystal ball gazing to promote a non-notable film. Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have previously proposed this article for deletion, but the editors of the article (one of whom appears tied to the project) justified its existence by noting a "MySpace" fanbase (see Talk:12 Minutes to Heaven) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article for a non-notable project. JuJube (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ... the IMDb entry says that it is still in production ... also note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Mendez ... and a serious WP:COI since author Retrojew89 (talk · contribs) is also Evan Davis (actor), as admitted on their user talk page ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any notability. Google search doesn't find much, and when you take away the Wikipedia, MySpace and YouTube links, you're left with not very much at all. PC78 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do people think this would be a justified article? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Let it return when it is released and can supply sources that are not blogs, myspace, or youtube clips. Hard to believe it survived an earlier AfD as there is nothing in THIS search but video clips, youtube links, or actor's personal websites, an an editor's personal involvement smacks loudly of WP:COI and thus WP:SPS. It passes WP:Crystal and WP:V in that it exists, but fails WP:N big time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just discovered that the article author may be involved in puppetry in the editing of this article and the one about himself. If I am wrong, okay... but it looks bad. Per THIS, THIS, THIS and most importantly THIS, where Retrojew69 admites to being Evan Davis, it appears likely that User:Evan2001 and User:Retrojew89 may be the same person. This may be the mistake of a beginner (though he sure knew how to put an article together, badly sourced or no), so be kind, as it does not appear to be an abusive use of an additional account... just a perhaps misunderstanding of the rules. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Add GoldenMonkey78 (talk · contribs) to the list of sock/meatpuppets ... also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Davis (actor). — 72.75.91.179 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, a crystal ball, non-notable and only edited by one editor and a meat/sockpuppet. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious Crystalballing. Edward321 (talk)
Delete non-notable, non-verifiable (absolutely Zero reliable 3rd party sourcing covering the subject in a significant manner). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Several policies failed. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first paragraph of the article clearly states: "12 Minutes to Heaven is a Trippy-Romantic Comedy to be released Independetly " (sic) which is obviously crystalballing. No sources that pass wp:rs are provided. Notability isn't even an issue, as the topic doesn't even yet exist. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 23 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) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lindenbaum[edit]

NN gangster... He was a criminal... he was friends with these guys... he owned a laundromat... he was murdered, but his dogs survived... the one reference provided is only a very short blurb about this individual being involved with Stevie Hughes (who's article has already been deleted)... it seems his claim to notability is the fact he was friends with Hughes, and was killed in the same car... fails WP:N, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEVENT... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:23, 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, Wizardman 04:11, 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 18:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting shot while driving a mobster around just does not satisfy WP:BIO. At Google book search and Google news archive search, His getting shot in 1966 got a wire service story about a numbre of gang killings printed in a few papers[9] at the time of the shooting, but Wikipedia is not a repository of every shooting in history. One story says there had been 30 gang shootings in Greater Boston by September that year.Edison (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable source for this article is one out-of-print book from 1973 by Vincent Teresa, "My Life in the Mafia." I'm persuaded by User:Edison that we are not a repository of every shooting in history. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond the analysis above, Vinnie Teresa's book has been heavily discredited as two parts fiction and one part puffery to every portion of truth; the only major insider bit he got right was in calling the Deegan murder trial a frameup. No way I'd want to rely on that as my sole source for much of anything. RGTraynor 16:13, 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 Non-admin closure: WP:CSD#G7 -- user has blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Osborn[edit]

Not having played in a fully professional regular season game, this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Possible recreation at end of first participation in a regular season game. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:36, 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 redirect to Cairn as this stub is an obvious duplicate.(non-admin closure) - Icewedge (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karens (hiking)[edit]

Notability not asserted. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:16, 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 17:25, 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 merge/redirect to Dave Logan (defensive lineman). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Logan Scholarship[edit]

Delete non notable award. All GHITS are either associated with the channel, or are simply listings from directories of scholarships. Nothing that woul establish notability. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 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 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dave Logan (defensive lineman) --T-rex 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toyota Sports Connection and/or Dave Logan (defensive lineman). No claim of notability in article, and can surely be adequately covered in those two articles. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:00, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And If They Lay Us Down To Rest…[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. For those who don't remember the show, it was on Fox during the 1995-96 TV season. I agree that there's nothing significant about this particular episode, nor is each episode of a notable TV program "entitled to its own page". Shit, every TV program is "notable" under Wikipedia standards. The concept of an "entitlement" to display one's original research description of a TV show that they watched isn't worth talking about. While these episode descriptions are okay for someone who wants to hone their writing skills by describing a subject they're comfortable with, the tightly written prose here ("While on a recon mission the Wild Cards encounter a strange alien being that is not what it seems") brings up the adage that Wikipedia is not "TV Guide". Mandsford (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:23, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Soldiers (Space: Above and Beyond episode)[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be up to standards with Wikipedia:Television episodes. Each episode is entitled it's own page as long as the TV program is notable, and there is a page with list of the episodes. I don't see a certain policy that this page fails, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for deletion--Abusing (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:19, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never No More[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be up to standards with Wikipedia:Television episodes. Each episode is entitled it's own page as long as the TV program is notable, and there is a page with list of the episodes. I don't see a certain policy that this page fails, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for deletion--Abusing (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:22, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The River of Stars[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be up to standards with Wikipedia:Television episodes. Each episode is entitled it's own page as long as the TV program is notable, and there is a page with list of the episodes. I don't see a certain policy that this page fails, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for deletion--Abusing (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. A little bit more content than the other episode pages, but like the series, this article was forgotten about quite awhile back. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered sufficiently in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, then redirect to Milky Way, as it is sometimes referred to as such. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:35, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choice or Chance[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be up to standards with Wikipedia:Television episodes. Each episode is entitled it's own page as long as the TV program is notable, and there is a page with list of the episodes. I don't see a certain policy that this page fails, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for deletion--Abusing (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. The Wild Cards attempt to escape Silicate prison? Yawn. Where's the remote? Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:21, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Farthest Man from Home[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be up to standards with Wikipedia:Television episodes. Each episode is entitled it's own page as long as the TV program is notable, and there is a page with list of the episodes. I don't see a certain policy that this page fails, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for deletion--Abusing (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. Nathan steals a Hammerhead. Sounds exciting. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:21, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes (Space: Above and Beyond episode)[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. Like Octane says, this article ain't high octane either. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:20, 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 merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Monitors the Birds?[edit]

No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be up to standards with Wikipedia:Television episodes. Each episode is entitled it's own page as long as the TV program is notable, and there is a page with list of the episodes. I don't see a certain policy that this page fails, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for deletion--Abusing (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of episodes. Abusing, I don't think you interpret our television episodes page correctly: an episode can have its own article if and only if enough verifiable independent information is available to show that the episode itself is notable. For TV shows that are notable as a whole, but where (most) individual episodes are not notable, an episode list (or such a list per season) is acceptable, but there it ends. Fram (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than merging to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes, where I think it is anyway. The only real reason for episode guides is to let someone sharpen their skills by writing about a subject they know. The history on this one shows why these shouldn't be here at all. One guy tried to write a description of the episode, and then one of those "It's MY article" assholes reverted it the same day to the fairly useless content that it has now. The only thing worse than a TV episode article is a boring TV episode article. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources, and subject is covered at least as well in List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. - Dravecky (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes, as it makes a useful redirect. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:20, 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 redirect to cryptographic hash function. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-way security[edit]

Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 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 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cryptographic hash function, if anyone ever finds a reference they can restore the article. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google disagrees, appears to be made up term. Redirect unnecessary. MediaMob (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your google search and raise you one of its hits. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term used in that article is "one-way" security, which is a description of the method, not a term for the cryptographic technology. The paper is referring to one-way functions. Wronkiew (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of these what you have in mind? [10][11] --Explodicle (T/C) 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is at least one instance of the term being used in the field of cryptography. A redirect wouldn't hurt. Wronkiew (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is a made up term for a real technology. Cryptographic hash function is a much more complete article about the same topic. Wronkiew (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Cryptographic hash function, for which the title is a neologism. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:01, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YourBusinessChannel[edit]

Does not establish notability, reads like an advert. ff m 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

String delete. The article contains no reliable sources establishing notability of yourBusinessChannel, and in fact most of the cited sources do not discuss yourBusinessChannel at all. I was not able to locate any reliable-source coverage, multiple searches turned up nothing but the blogs, press-releases, social networking sites, and of course the company's own site. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:59, 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, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering the authorative sources to meet the editorial requirments.

There will be many including stories from major UK Media Outlets such as the Scotsman and Daily Telegraph, in both the print and online publications.

I am doing all I can to ensure that the page is up to spec. Can we please hold off deletion while I collect and post these reference materials? --Catweezel1200 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new references to the article. While I will continue to collect and add more reference material, I hope these meet the reliable-source coverage criteria you are concerned about. Catweezel1200 (talk) 14:40, 18 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 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Now there's some sources, but stil written much like an ad. Jon How's the weather? - talk about me ~~behind my back~~ 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - obvious advert --T-rex 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it could be salvaged if anyone took the time to do so, but unfortunately it's still a bit of an advertisement; most of the sources are to the section describing why online media is important, which is pretty much irrelevant to the article (and should be cut in a salvaged version). The purpose of the article isn't to sell the service to us. If there are reliable sources about the company itself I would argue to keep, but as it is I only saw the Forbes and Entrepreneur sources, both of which are basically blogs. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:53, 24 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 and redirect to 1906 San Francisco earthquake, where there is a one-line mention about the person. Surviving an earthquake and having an obituary aren't sufficient reasons for notability.--PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irma Mae Weule[edit]

Simply because you survived an earthquake doesn't make you notable. As a side note, only 89 Googles; seems that she hasn't done anything besides survive the earthquake. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Fails WP:N by a landslide, and it's complying with WP:V is questionable. I don't see anything wrong with redirecting it however, since it isn't a completely false article. Meis funny Gab 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many thousands of people survived the earthquake, and they lived out their lives, some reaching great old age. Mrs. Weule was not widely written about before her death, and the Wikipedia article is a close paraphrase of the reference, which was basically an obituary. Edison (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expanded on her mention in the earthquake article, but with only one source all we could hope to do is rehash her obituary. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no particular notability. Redirects are cheap, but I don't see her as a likely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does she warrant mention in the List of centenarians? It's debatable. She was eye-witness to an event of long-lasting historical interest, but seemed to have lived a perfectly ordinary life thereafter. Her Chronicle obit even mentions that she requested no funeral service. Probably Delete is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the SF Chronicle article, Weule was the oldest living member of a dwindling group of survivors of an earthquake which occured a 102 years ago, which is pretty significant - if not be design than by chance/fate. There are nurmerous other people with Wikipedia articles who also achieved notability later in life (or after death) by being some of the last witnesses of a historic event. The last living survivors of the Titanic, for instance, have articles (I know its not an earthquake) and they have achieved mention by the media by just being in the wrong place in the wrong time. The last living veterans of wars or certian battles also deserve, and often have, articles on Wikipedia, though some of them had little or no notable role within the war, catastrophe or other historic event. Likewise, there are now articles on some of the last surviving members of a certain community, town, language, ethnic group etc. (Please don't delete those articles, I'm just pointing them out as examples). '

The trend in recent years by historians, journalists, archivists, and yes - reference books / websites - has been toward a renewed focus on documenting "ordinary" citizens who have witnessed extraordinary (or even ordinary) historic events. Yes, the biography of Irma Mae Weule may not have much "notability" outside of San Francisco or the San Francisco Bay Area, but she is of local and historical interest to that particular area. She is of enough "notability" that it warranted her a sizable mention in the San Francisco Chronicle following her death. (For the record, I don't live in California, but I do have a background in history).

As Wikipedia and other similar online encylopedias continue to expand of the coming years, there will no doubt be a shift towards more articles that will be of notability/interest just to a particular city, region or small community. On the surface, many of these articles, such as Weule, may not seem to have much notability to users at large, when in fact they do have notability to a particular community. The challenge will be to be to preserve articles, such as Irma Mae Weule, which may not seem to have notability on first look, but are actually locally significant. Wikipedia gives users the ability to include and, more importantly, archive articles and subject matter that would never be included in a traditional print encyclopedia or book. That's one of the reasons to advocate the inclusion of more obscure subjects such as this biography. My reasoning may not be perfect, but please take advantage of this positive attribute of Wikipedia. Keep Scanlan (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There will no doubt be a shift towards more articles that will be of notability/interest just to a particular city, region or small community." The expectation of future notability violates WP:CRYSTAL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that this article contributes notable information in that it allows the reader to enjoy a case story of one person's life from a particular period in time. This is invaluable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saria (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we are concerned with real notability; reader enjoyment is not a reason to keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the List of centenarians, Weule’s name technically could be included at present because it isn’t a List of Notable Centenarians. But the centenarians article shows that even an incomplete list would be thousands of names long, and the present List is one of notables. I therefore submit that: Irma Mae Weule’s article be deleted; the name of the centenarians list be changed to List of Notable Centenarians; and that Weule's Chronicle obit (which is the source of her current Wiki article) be linked to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake article, where there is also a link to one Herbert Hamrol (Herbert Hamrol, 104, one of the last survivors of 1906 earthquake). Eye.earth (talk) 23:46, 26 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 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PranaVayu Yoga[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 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, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no references from Google Scholar or Google Books. As is, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:05, 18 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 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is mentioned in Yoga related pages, but far less than other notable techniques. I don't doubt that there can be reliable sources found for the technique, but as it is I think it hasn't recieved widespread recognition to be notable enough for an encyclopaedic article.
Delete. Amalthea^Talk 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - commercial advertisement, not encyclopaedic by its nature as no yoga like this exists that deserves independent notability. Wikidās ॐ 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. I almost thought it was original research. Lady Galaxy 22:27, 27 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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Avengers[edit]

Non-notable rap group. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 20:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your page it states that you are an inclusionist, yet you have marked this page for deletion. Please explain. Also, I apologize if this is the improper channel to do this through. Please bear with me as I learn.Boychik (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. Per nom. They seem to be garnering a little media attention right now with their "Kill Bill O'Reilly" song (e.g. [12]), but notability is not temporary and there is no evidence of lasting notoriety, or meeting any other WP:MUSIC requirements. Article can be recreated if this story goes anywhere. Yilloslime (t) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC). Struck "weak". Only five news.google only finds 5 stories, and most are blogs. Clearly non-notable. Yilloslime (t) 16:10, 22 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 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep assuming this [13] is considered a reliable source. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They were cited on Countdown with Keith Olbermann in the "World's Worst" segment as a result of the above source. Not sure if that makes them worthy of an article in and of itself, I'm leaning towards keep, but not enough to "vote" that way, per se. Wizardman 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently in quite a lot of controversy [14], receiving attention and a response from Michelle Malkin as well as major media outlets such as Fox and Myspace. Personaly i think the removal of this article from wikipedia is jsut further censorship of there current issue after myspace has already shut down there songs and some links. Don't try and censor this issue, this isnt china! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.246.2 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user had made no edits outside of this AfD. Yilloslime (t) 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete The song may be notable for its controversy at the present, but the group itself fails to meet WP:MUSIC. The content related to the controversial song could be merged into another article such as Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator), but only if the controversy of the song persists, which is doubtful. Subwayatrain (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 22:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- only claim to notability is one controversial song and some crystal ball stuff about the October release date. That's not enough to convince me notability requirements are met, but I have no prejudice against recreation if these guys make a name for themselves after their album comes out. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 28 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Dots Tattoo[edit]

Whole thing nothing but unsourced speculation. Only source provided doesn't sound particularly authoritative and gives next to no information on it. Even if it's real it's not notable as far as I can tell. I had prodded it, but an anon user removed the prod with the edit comment "life experience is a source", which is, of course, a major violation of WP:RS, WP:OR and a zillion other policies. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As an addiction psychologist, I can vouch for there being some significance with the three-dot tattoo in various criminal populations (gang, prison, etc.), though I have never done or seen any research to verify whether the specific claims made in the article are valid. If those claims can be substantiated, my keep vote would be stronger, but I do not have the time nor the desire to do the research myself at this time. Eauhomme (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In Belgium many people who have been incarcerated (or want to pretend they have been because it fits well with their peers e.g. bikers) wear three dot tattoos. I therefor strongly suggest keeping the article. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.214.17 (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable in the absence of reliable sources. Above 'keep' comments don't provide any sources and (like the article) are relying on POV and/or OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:56, 19 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, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that this is a real thing, but it is severly lacking sources since February, and I could only find more unreliable sources for it. There's got to be some Tattoo book out there that mentions it?
Delete though at the moment, failing WP:V. --Amalthea^Talk 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 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 delete. Sandstein 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Year Honours 2009[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR - article creator has set out an intent to use the article to speculate about the recipients of future honours. Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - though this should obviously not be seen as bar to recreating the article once the list has actually been published. David Underdown (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Coldmachine^Talk 19:47, 22 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 on the balance of the arguments. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldershot Town 1992-93[edit]

Contested prod. Season article about a football club that was playing below a fully professional level at the time and therefore fails the notability guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Should only have season articles on players at a professional level. Peanut4 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - you don't need an article for two games, but if there's more, it should be kept. Since the team is in Football League Two now, they're notable per policy, and I don't see why the history of the club or its seasons wouldn't be the same. Similarly, for most sports figures, we mention their non-pro career, and I don't see much of a difference between a team that can move between levels and a player who can do the same. MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The team was notable before they reached League Two, as is any other team that has played above Step/Level 10 (I can never remember whether it's Step 10 or Level 10, but I'm sure it's one of the two) of the English football league system. – Pee Jay 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep - Provided that extra information can be found and that the article reaches a certain level of quality fairly soon, this article should stay. As noted above, the club now plays in a fully professional national league, so I see no reason why they shouldn't have a comprehensive set of seasons articles. However, if a certain standard is not reached soon, I might support deletion. By the way, the article should be moved to Aldershot Town F.C. season 1992-93 per the established naming convention. – Pee Jay 23:17, 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 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman 16:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this club is now playing in the Football League. It seems illogical to me to just keep those seasons where they played league football - why blow holes in a club's historical record? If this goes, then logically Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08 should also be deleted. We also have pages such as Thames Ironworks F.C. season 1895-96 and Black Arabs F.C. season 1883-84 etc. Smile a While (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. Those season articles assert no notability other than that the teams would become notable in later seasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, It is two matches from playing in a non-professional league. Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08 should be kept in rational as the Conference is a fully paid professional league. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that Aldershot Town F.C. season 2007-08 should be kept but the Conference is not a fully professional league. Smile a While (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you consider that all the players in the Conference have to have a wage, they are getting paid for their profession. This fact is true for all the Conference clubs. Making it a professional league. Govvy (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Players in the Unibond League get paid by their clubs, that doesn't make them professional sportsmen........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but move per PeeJay. Comprehensive season articles for clubs are acceptable; the argument here that seasons played below acceptable levels of competition will create odd gaps in club histories and hideous looking templates. Moreover, just because we don't allow articles on players at these levels doesn't mean we don't allow season and team information for these levels, and this combines those two permitted topics into a more specific one. matt91486 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am questioning all those that say keep, because the two matches clearly specify Isthmian Third Division which is very much low level non-league. We just don't keep season data for that low. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - past articles on individual seasons for clubs like Chasetown and Maidstone have been deleted (unanimously as I recall) at AfD, and Aldershot were playing at a much lower level in 92/93 than those teams were doing in the seasons in question. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 24 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 Deleted 1/ negative or dispagaring page, poor sources, for a possibly living person, 2/ Article about a person with no evidence of importance/significance, 3/ Probable IAR deletion as well, on the basis that it is so poorly written that "delete and rewrite if notable" would be a viable decision. Summary deletion per above and possibly per WP:BLP, noting the WP:SNOW-tending views to date below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Todd (occultist)[edit]

Serious WP:RS and (since we have no reliable source for his death) probable WP:BLP problems as well.

Earlier versions contained a variety of sensational and/or fantastical assertions involving sex offences, the Illuminati, mental illness, etc, all entirely without reliable source backup, in direct contravention of WP:BLP. See the talk page for mention of this, and its removal.

Given the apparent lack of conventional reliable sources for what remains of this article (Cornerstone probably does not qualify as one), it should probably be removed entirely per WP:V. The Anome (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definite RS problems. I won't say that RS aren't possible, but most of the cites on the page currently do not exist or are by sources that completely fail WP:RS rules. Earlier libel claims against him in history should probably be wiped out. Easiest way to do that is delete the article completely. If somewhere down the line someone wanted to make a decent article with real sources, all the more power to them. Until then there's nothing salvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A controversial biography with no reliable sources. If the videos posted on Youtube that *claim* to contain his audio recordings are actually him, he was a kind of conspiracy theorist and had very unusual views. We shouldn't be stepping into this realm without good sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing establishing notability.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferably speedily) - hatchet job at best, downright attack at worst.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:25, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four-Pack Music Sky Broadcasting[edit]

Suspected hoax article. Although BSkyB are planning a download service, there has no name been given for the service, only Universal Music has signed up to anything and there is little detail about the service in any of the sources I have seen on Google News. It might be fine for a paragraph in the British Sky Broadcasting article for now, but most of the information is false, the title of the article is made up and some unsourced information in the article is false and untrue speculation, particularly information about Diva TV's involvement where I could find no information about their involvement on Google. --tgheretford (talk) 20:26, 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 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS and a cursory Googling returned no results for the exact phrase. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source, no confirmation, likely hoax. On another article posted by this author Avago UK (talk · contribs) an anon IP has posted "Hi, the person that created this article is Paul Akinbola, a popular internet person who vandalises wiki articles for fun and also posts crap on www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums", and on digitalspy we find:

Paul Akinbola is a famous troll around here. He copies and pastes other people's posts and uses them as his own and comes with up with bizarre ideas for TV channels and companies, he gets banned and re-surfaces a month later. I've noticed him recently trolling the Challenge TV forums requesting to get ITV chart show on Challenge TV!!

Have you seen Wikipedia recently? He's invented a new Digital TV platform called "Box New Channels" (Wikipedia have since deleted that article, rather unfortunatly), and a new music download/tv channel called "Four-pack Music Sky Broadcasting". And don't forget his claims that 4Music is going to be opened by Eminem covering "Black or White".

There's no proof, but the author's talk page doesn't inspire confidence. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - author indef blocked as persistent hoaxer. JohnCD (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. The link in the article does not substantiate it's central claim. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:02, 23 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 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Police Square Club[edit]

AfD as NN (no assertion of notability), with no RS available. Prod was removed without explanation. Group website shows five chapters (two in NJ, one in RI, one in FL, one in Italy) since 1942. Google shows Wikipedia as second hit, group itself as first, different group as third, local chapter as fourth and every hit after is irrelevant. MSJapan (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. No independant reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization is of interest and I believe is of some minor note. Dwain (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A notability tag would be better here. Revisit it in three months time if nothing done here. JASpencer (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N or WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 23 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), Bold NAC. This is a completely different article than what we started with. While I strongly and strenuously disagree with the practice of remaking the subject of an article during an AfD, the process of deletion isn't punitive and isn't hidebound. The new article is wholly different and any deletion discussions of it are not germane to this (and vice versa). Protonk (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhuman[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of plot and setting information culled from various other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is thus duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete for failing WP:RS. I wish we could just cull all the fluff and have some 40K articles that are relevant to the GAME and not the STORY! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Duplicative content is redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. Also, the concept of an "abhuman" extends beyond Warhammer and is a major element of a variety of works of fiction and is indeed discussed in an out of universe context in reliable secondary sources as seen in these books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of a word is not the same as a discussion of the concept. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is when discussed in multiple secondary sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where are the multiple secondary sources talking about the subject of this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the results linked to above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I couldn't see that any of those results referred to "Abhuman" as described in the article - they were all generic uses of the word, rather than the Games Workshop race. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Per agreement with the nominator, who has withdrawn the nomination, and EEMIV below, the consensus seems to be to write a new article instead on the use in Gothic fiction rather than Warhammer. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A peripheral edge of a sprawling setting full of random one-off ideas. Nobody has seen fit to comment on this subject (as opposed to using this title to refer to unrelated things) in reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As linked to above, the topic appears in dozens of reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you link me (or cite for me) one single reliable source that speaks to mutated humans in the Warhammer 40K setting? All I saw there was just a bunch of times this word appears in other contexts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am arguing for revising the article to cover the topic as a whole, i.e. not limiting it to just Warhammer. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then write that article. This is an unrelated subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why not help? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because I don't think they constitute a coherent topic. If you do, by all means, find some sources and write an article. In the meantime, we'll clear this bit of unreferenceably excessive fancruft out of the way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. I have provided a link to sources above that we should be working together to use to source this article. We're here to catalog human knowledge and build an encyclopedia, not indiscriminately diminish the encyclopedia by decataloging human knowledge. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If your ability to read and comprehend is so limited that you cannot read the adjectives before a noun, we are incapable of further discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see this as comprehensive, not excessive. It's hard to say that paperless encyclopedia can have excessive coverage in spinout and subarticles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That you disagree with my argument is not license to misrepresent it. Do not be dishonest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wish others would be more honest in these discussions (part of why I am willing to go back and forth with people). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. The argument that the appearance of the term "abhuman" in different contexts is a reason to keep this article is entirely bogus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself notes that the term is used elsewhere and we should expand the article to cover its larger significance. Arguing that it is not sufficiently notable given the overabundance of third-party sources for the larger use of the term is dishonest. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article cites no (and like the other articles based on GW's intellectual property) is likely to cite no independent, reliable sources to assert notablity per the WP:GNG. I disagree that it is plot summary, as it makes noises toward being an element of a fictional bestiary, but I can see where legitimate disagreement would occur there. Delete. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of citations to third-party sources to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

While I am not going to argue one way or the other here about its notability in Warhammer, it is most definitely a serious and legitimate topic covered in scholarly sources about an aspect of modernist British gothic literature. Anyway, I believe that this is the approach to take here. So, if there is a consensus against the Warhammer stuff, I doubt anyone could reasonably argue against the subject as it relates to Gothic literature, so let us not be stopped by the AfD from beginning work on the article on Gothic literature in the Abhuman space and if there is consensus for the Warhammer content, that can always be moved to a new article called Abhuman (Warhammer), but clearly the use in Gothic literature is the one that gets the most reliable secondary source coverage and should be what is the focus of Abhuman. I have started working on that content, but would appreciate help and hopefully we can succeed as we did with Arathi and Commander Dante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned, repeatedly, about derailing AFDs about unrelated subjects.

Write an unrelated article if you care to, and do not mention it in this AFD again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand, between the recent conversation at AN/I (I don't have a link, but you probably know the one I'm talking about) and the DRVs for Sonic Shower and Commander Dante, it seems clear to me, and I hope to you, that the best course of action would be to let this AfD on this Warhammer content run its course, while you in parallel create in your user space an Abhuman article with whatever substantiation for notability and references you can dig up, and/or develop something new atop what I'm sure will be the redlink that this AfD yields. --EEMIV (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EEMIV, if I am not going to convince anyone on the Warhammer stuff, then please let's just go ahead and write the new article over that one to save both time and energy. I am saying that I am willing to refrain from arguing further vigorously about this and maybe even other Warhammer articles if when it does turn out as was the case with Arathi and Commander Dante as well that an unquestionably notable topic does exist that we save ourselves the usual back and forth discussions and just go ahead and write the clearly encyclopedic articles. Here is a big opportunity for us all to compromise and maybe even rebuild any spirit of collegiality. I am making this offer in good faith in the hopes of preventing further inclusionist versus deletionist disputes in some of these fiction article discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Great. So. Let the AfD finish up and in your own time fire up something more appropriate to take its place. You did a good job with Commander Dante; I'm sure you (or someone else with an interest) can similarly do something with this gothic lit. topic. Making substantial changes to the content of an article during AfD is fine; you've saved several articles that way. But wholly shifting the topic -- particularly when WP:GNG is a major issue -- just muddles the process. So, again, I think the wiser course of action that leads to the least angst is to let this AfD on this topic run its course. When that's done, either fire up a same-name/different-topic article on the redlink or, if this thing survives AfD, incorporate this other facet or move the current content or whatever. All that said, I might be more receptive to a total re-write/change of topic if there were actually something sitting somewhere -- i.e. something developed in user space -- to look at, rather than a what-if. And even then, if someone's going to fire up a draft/proposal of what this new article might look like, again it might just be better to let the AfD run its course and move the material from user space to article space if the AfD ends with deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for what I was in the process of doing. I would not be opposed if you wanted to take what I started doing and keep that while totally removing the Warhammer stuff so that we can instead further build the Gothic novel material a la what I ultimately did with Commander Dante. I started adding the new content and there are a host of other scholarly articles and published books that discuss the topic at greater length. I think we can take the article on the Gothic novel material and divide it into sections on the concept's origins and use in specific works of fiction as discussed in the published books and journal articles. All I am saying is that instead of waiting a few days for a consensus above that is not really likely to change from what we have, we should just forge ahead and do what we did with Arathi. We should take that as a successful example of what we can accomplish in these scenarios. Otherwise, I am going to feel compelled to keep arguing for the Warhammer notability so that the article isn't redlinked and probably just continue to not feel as positively about some when here we have a chance to stop all back and forth going nowehere discussions and just go ahead with writing something that I think we can all agree is notable. This way, we can all more quickly move on to other articles and discussions and I will gain a great deal more respect for those who see this compromise idea as reasonable editors and therefore be far less encouraged to argue rather than discuss with them in the future. I am greatly desirous of ending the partisanship over the Warhammer articles by workingg out a compromise where if it looks like the subject currently covered by some Warhammer subject that is unlikely to pass an AfD we see if there is another subject that should be written in its place then instead of some argumentative AfD I will personally write that article which actually frees everyone else up to argue in other discussions and they in effect get the same result, but without having to contend with the usual argumentative AfD and gain greater colleagiality among all of us. If editors are willing to grant me this, because again, the ultimate result is what we had with the current Arathi and Commander Dante, i.e. non-fiction encyclopedic articles referenced in multiple reliable secondary sources, then I too will be willing to greatly adjust how I approach AfDs and DRVs. I see here one of the best chances we have had to find a common ground and decrease any lingering animosity among us all. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the Warhammer nonsense and I'd be okay with that stub and Judgesurreal's withdrawal. --EEMIV (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - While I agree with EEMIV that it is very strange, this recent trend that new articles about totally different topics are being created while the AFD for the old topic is going on, I have talked with the Pumpkin King, and he has suggested that he will be able to build up an article about the new real world topic with reliable sources. As a sign of good faith, I am going to withdraw this AFD so that he can do just this, thus effectively deleting the Warhammer stuff that is totally not notable, with an article that will actually be quality. I will state though, that I will be watching closely to verify that this is done, so that I will know I was assuming good faith and was rewarded for it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this AFD, I hope in a few days a new, much better article will be here because of your vigorous support of notability and wikipedias policies. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per agreement with EEMIV and Judgesurreal777, I have completely rewritten the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 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. Regarding whether a redirect should be created that points to hyperspace (science fiction), there doesn't appear to be a consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterium[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such it is simply plot repetition done in an in-universe way culled from the other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete - no real-world context, no reliable sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Over 3,000 page views a month and work since 2004 show that regardless of two delete votes in a snapshot in time five day AfD, the actual community consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Duplicative material is redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources, and the content has never been anything other than purely in-universe reiteration of game plot. Worst-case scenario, it should be redirected to hyperspace (science fiction), given the similarity between the 40K version and Dune's concept of hyperspace (which is where GW ripped it from). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to hyperspace (science fiction) - I agree with the worst case scenarios presented by both Grand Roi and Chris Cunningham. The sources here are all from Games Workshop (the publishers of Warhammer 40K), so they don't establish notability. Redirecting will save what we've got so far until someone can find a few good references. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I meant "worst case scenario" as in the situation where somehow a consensus is not found to delete. I'd be happiest with a full delete and a posthumous redirect. Experience has shown that redirecting fancruft without the delete only encourages the original article to be reverted back in. There's nothing salvageable in the current article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who notices (or watches the redirect) can just revert it back, and leave a short explanation on the user's talk page. I don't think we should delete hours worth of work just because we're worried someone will make a mistake that can be fixed in under a minute. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is unsalvageably in-universe then it has no place here (and has already been transwikied / rewritten in more appropriate places), and keeping its history accessible is pointless no matter how many hours' work went into it. This is not material which is waiting for someone to find references - significant third-party references simply don't exist in substantial numbers to warrant an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know those sources don't exist anywhere? How do you know this is "unsalvageable fancruft"? A quick googling can find a few third party sources that briefly mention the real-world relevance of the subject, and while that's not enough to keep the article, I think it's a stretch to say we need an administrator to destroy the page history. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "quick Googling" finds mainly mirrors of the Wikipedia article, other wikis (the -wiki parameter you used in your search didn't seem to do much!) or references to a band named Immaterium. The first five or six pages of that search contained no reliable sources, and no items that even touched on real-world relevance. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I provided a real source too. A Google search on its own proves nothing, regardless of how well (or poorly) I do it. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's an excellent source on some warhammer fiction topics in general, can you post that on the project talk page (would be helpful for some marginal articles and to provide real world context), but I can't agree that the article you linked could be considered a significant mention of the topic in question (I'm not suggesting that you were misrepresenting it). Protonk (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to hyperspace and list as a fictional example or naming of it. It straddles the line for plot repetition since it isn't a recapitulation of the story but it is wholly related to 40K backstory (and not related to the notable miniature or computer games in any meaningful sense). So there may be some real give and take as to whether or not it meets WP:NOT, but it clearly (just like the other 40K stuff) doesn't meet the WP:GNG. These articles give us a good reason to get back to writing a real, working fiction daughter guideline for notability, otherwise these AfD's will continue to be proxy battles over the communities view about inherited notability. However, in the absence of community consensus regarding that daughter guideline, I think that WP:N can be applied here to delete or redirect this article Protonk (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe detail and plot summary without real-world content. Notability has not been established via substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been established by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So long as it is verifiable in published sources and we know from doing a Google search that it is part of a mainstream franchise (i.e. not something I just made up and list on one website) then I believe it appropriate for Wikipedia or in the case of below at least a soft-redirect to the transwikied article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've seen this case for external soft redirects before, and I'd be hesitant to support enacting this practice here and now without a more centralized discussion. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:07, 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satgas Atbara[edit]

Unnotable unit from Indonesian Air Force. One of only two references is from a non-RS site (per article's own talk page). If all that can be said about this unit is the same two sentences repeated on specialoperations.com, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Declined CSD and prod removed immediately for incorrect reason: "Prod declined. Not elegible for Prod b/c already sent to CSD and CSD was declined. If you feel it is not notable, send to AfD. However, don't practice Americanisms: if this were a U.S. unit it stay?" (and to answer the question asked by removing PRODed, I don't care where the unit is from, it is still unnotable) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator seems to have a particular penchant about getting rid of this article. I declined the Speedy and Prod because there are currently two refs and an EL (which is actually a book, easily considered a non-trivial source), so it already meets notability requirements, and a quick check of google shows that there are plenty of other sources (I'll be adding a few myself) that can be drawn upon, showing that this is a candidate for growth and expansion, not deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One ref I address in the nom, and was noted on the talk page by a neutral editor of such articles to be non-WP:RS. The book had a two sentence mention, the same as this article has just worded differently. The second book listed in the EL also just has the same two statements. That isn't significant coverage, its little more than a directory listing. Also, as you work heavily in military articles, isn't it a little inappropriate, as an admin, for you to remove the CSD and PROD tags anyway? Seems less than neutral. e-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're at 3 refs and 6 ELs, and counting. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those ELs aren't very good, and please remember that EL != ref storage nor is it a place to store links because they don't meet WP:RS. One link is someone's personal photo gallery (not appropriate), another is a personal website (ditto). Also, the number of ELs has nothing to do with notability. I could easily flood an article with ELs about myself, it wouldn't make me a notable topic for an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK, this unit is an Indonesian Special Forces, Counter-terrorist force. By its very nature, it of note. It is in the top tier Indonesian Military ORBAT. If it was from the USA or Europe, no one would be flagging it up. This highlights the problem of editors who do not maintain a NPOV and do not look at subjects on an international basis. It must be Kept (Archangel1 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Note - Archangel1 is the article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest putting some effort into demonstrating notability, the designation does not automagically confer it.ALR (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst there isn't much content there I have a feeling this is a little hasty, giving the article less than 12 hours is taking the p!ss. One might see the enthusiasm for removal quite uncharitably if one was so inclined. the article has potential, but it really is up to the originator to put some effort into demonstrating notability. This process gives him some days to achieve that however I thought I'd make a statement now to caution against a sudden surge and closing under WP:SNOW. That said, if there is no discernible improvement during the course of the discussion I might be tempted to change my opinion. ALR (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is mentioned in a book titled "The Rescuers: The World's Top Anti-Terrorist Units". As one of the "Top Anti-Terrorist Units" the article should stay. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own the book? Can you show that it is, again, not another two sentence mention when the book lists than "the hostage rescue units of more than fifty nations." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - 98 ghits... most being wiki review type sites re: this is up for deletion. My main issue with this article is that yes, it does exist, but nothing notable has happened, specifically, with regard to this subject. The reason there are oodles of American units and bases is because things have happened to make them notable. Sorry. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw I'd disagree that the majority of US units have done much notable, on the other hand there tends to be a lot of documentary material about them which in the wacky world of Wikipedia seems to give them inherent notability. That's more a criticism of Wikipedia than anything else. Unfortunately given the nature of this topic authoritative and informed sources are quite difficult to get hold of, and some of them aren't even online *shock horror* ;) . I would hope that if Archangel1 takes the time to respond to your point by demonstrating notability then you'll reconsider.

ALR (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by all means... I'll be the first to say that the 5 man outpost in Bumfuck, USA does not deserve an article. Unfortunately, the sheer number of posts vs. notable things either a) a person from there has done or b) something the base has done is comparatively large. There is just... nothing I can find that is notable about this particular base. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I have significant discomfort with the indescent haste and fervency with which this is being pursued.ALR (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially on the "haste" part. Nominator referred to WP:N, but that policy says "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or..." and lists 3 things that should be done, none of which is to doggedly pursue deletion through three different methods all on the same morning. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I started this page (and others) in the hope that it would contributed to by others. An article of this nature is a victim of language and is need of help from an Indonesian speaker. There is limited English text material on this subject and so I can only source so much but that does not detract from the usefulness of this article (Archangel1 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment - it has come to my attention that the article Bravo-90 Detachment refers to the same unit, so if the decision is "keep", the two should be merged. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the same unit, I'd support merging this article into that one. Although it is also unsourced, it has more information that would support the likely hood of additional sources (and perhaps under that name, one might find more sources for it). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it's a bunch of Indonesians, why should we Americans care about it, right? I don't think there's such a thing as an "unnotable unit" of any nation's armed forces. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on it having two articles? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sometimes happens that two authors cover the same topic independently. With Akradecki's additions, the two articles should be merged; I'd then make Satgas Atbara a redirect to Bravo-90 Detachment since the latter seems to be the official name. But the persons most familiar with the subject know best on that. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sounds like an issue of hard-to-find refs. I say keep it around, see if it's the same unit as mentioned above (if so, merge) and see if we can't get a local to contrib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not appear to be an issue; passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references to establish notability and this isn't a sub-unit of a larger unit so WP:ORG is met. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP Indonesia project has a large number of articles all having an issue with WP:RS due to a very low level of apparent competency by editors with non web sourced information - on that basis alone any article up for Xfd from outsiders perceptions are going to always appear problematic on this matter alone. Satu Suro 04:44, 22 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 - arguments both ways are strong; while it appears to be on the edge of deletion due to notability, the sources presented do seem to indicate there are references available. Hopefully, those sources will improve the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2081 (film)[edit]

Article about a forthcoming film. No release date, nothing on IMDb. PROD removed by author when he added a link to a trailer on the film's web-site, but I don't think a two-and-a-half minute trailer is evidence that the film has commenced principal photography as required by WP:NFF. I can find no independent reliable source - Google search finds discussion on blogs and film sites, all seeming to use the same words: "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images... " - sounds like a press release. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harrison Bergeron. It appears that it's been filmed, but not yet scheduled for distribution. Hopefully, it will be shown sometime during the next 73 years. Great story by Kurt Vonnegut. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search reveals very little; best I can find is a mention in this interview, but it's not nearly enough to establish notability. PC78 (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PC78. Very little coverage, not enough to satisfy WP:MOVIE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Moving Picture Institute has been added as a credible source. This should address the deletion issue. http://www.thempi.org/cgi-local/film.cgi?f=21 JayLv99 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied from a message on my talk page - JohnCD) - I was an extra in this film. It wrapped months ago. There are numerous references to it on the web. IMDB is, very often, NOT used by filmmakers who are not inside the studio system (I should know as I have appeared in sveral films and found them all to have taken FOREVER to appear on IMDB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.28.64 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as source found by JayLv99 shows cystal and NFF no longer apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: It does seem to be demonstrated that the film exists, but (I'm sorry if I seem to be moving the goalposts) there is still the question of notability as defined in WP:MOVIE, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The Moving Picture Institute are not independent - they funded the film and in fact the article says they "produced" it. Everything else I can find on the web is blog-type discussion and speculation, so many of them using the same words starting "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs... " which I quoted above, that one suspects a common origin. Read the sections of WP:MOVIE headed General principles and Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films: I just don't think this unreleased short film qualifies as notable. However since more information has been added since the nomination, I have notified everyone who has !voted so far, so that they can revisit it if they wish. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the goalposts since Crystal and NFF were dismissed? Nahhhhh... you are just showing a well respected concern for the article's notibility or lack. I can't ignore the MPI cites, for they cannot be lumped together with sites at Sony about a Sony film or sites at TriStar about a TriStar film. MPI is a non-profit organization, while the others are companies for profit. A better comparison about MPI as a source might be the articles about the American Cancer Society or American Heart Association that repeatedly source the organizations themselves. I have great deal of respect for such altruism. Based upon the quoted Evidence of Notability guidelines, and because the guidelines rely on the policy at WP:V where a Reliable Source must be considered in relationship to the claim being made, as in "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context", and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources", and in the context offered, and in that no exception claim is being made, the MPI source passes WP:V and subsequently WP:RS since "policies take precedent over guidelines". Further, and with complete understanding that "notability is not inherited, "Other evidence of notability" does allow an editor to consider the involved parties in a film in considering its notability. I am thus "considering" the genre-changing notability of Kurt Vonnegut, the notable "Harrison Bergeron" short story, and the notable "Harrison Bergeron" film of 1995, in conjunction with the article's cites and sources when making my determination. So with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with notability (even if minor). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-profits may not promote their own work to make money, but they'll still want to promote that which they funded and support. If independent sources existed, then it would be okay to reference the MPI stuff, but I'm very wary of building an article around them. Movingboxes (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhhh... but the independent sources do exist, they are simply "tertiary". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping the next few days of the AFd will see a continued set of improvements by the author, as it has already been improved in the 36 hours since it was created and the 36 hours minus 8 minutes since it was tagged and the 36 hours minus 1 hour since it was sent to AfD. Why the big hurry to get this out of here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely needs some work, but it has notable actors and has been shot already. Sourcing is problematic, but not delete-worthy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ still (not sure if I needed to revote or not). I'm adding more information as I get it, and put a link to the movie's entry on Flixter today. I feel that the movie obviously is "notable" enough in that the blogosphere has exploded with questions about 2081. Isn't this the point of Wikipedia - to be flexible enough to answer questions as soon as they arise? JayLv99 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get to !vote twice (although the ! in front of !vote is a reminder that it's not a count). I've put a "strike-through" on your second "keep", which is the usual procedure. No offence intended. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry to keep being the devil's advocate, but MichaelQSchmidt is doing a good job on behalf of the angels... The Flixter website adds nothing because it copies exactly, word for word, what's on the film's own web-site. In fact on all the different sites I have found, there are only two sets of words: the ones that go "Based on a short story... " down to " ...an act of defiance that changes everything.", and the ones that go "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images... " Nobody has anything else to say, because nobody knows anything else. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject has got to be something more than just repeating the makers' web-site and (probably) press release. From WP:MOVIE#Notes: "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the film."

Read WP:MOVIE#General principles. "Widely distributed... two full-length reviews... historically notable... major award for excellence.. " They're thinking of something on quite a different level from this. You couldn't achieve that sort of notability before release; and indeed lower down "films that... have not yet been publicly released... should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." That might apply to a forthcoming Harry Potter or James Bond, but not here.

You see "the blogosphere exploding with questions... " I'm afraid I see promoters who haven't got a release arranged planting their press release in as many blogs as possible, hoping to stir up interest. It's not Wikipedia's job to help them. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry John... and thank you for the compliment... but I will adhere to my points as made above. I respect you quoting guideline, and respect the guidelines... but again, "policies take precedent over guidelines"... guidelines are just that... guidelines'. In deciding WP:N, per policy, I am allowed to consider all factors. I have done so. With the greatest respect, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, there is always the most basic policy of all: WP:IAR, which recognizes that time and events and needs change and so encourages boldness in improving Wikippedia. That aside, Giro voted above and I KNOW he is more knowledgable than am I. He is quite right in that the article needs attention, but also in that it has passed your initial concerns of WP:Crystal and WP:NFF, and furthe has passed WP:NF and WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other URL's for external links: New York Times artticle on Thor Halvorssen, Reason.com, TheFreeLibrary.com, URLFan, Atlasnetwork.tv, Finallyequal.com, brain-terminal.com, and I don't read or speak Russian (?). One or more of these might be helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked out the links Michael provided and did a little more research on my own as well... I found some neat new stuff on America's Future Foundation and threw the material onto the Wiki, which now has budget, anticipated release schedule and more casting information. The article also should verify that the movie is happening (in a reasonable timeframe), and also gives more information on the director, Chandler Tuttle. Assuming things end well with this, I intend to (hopefully) create / work on Mr. Tuttle's Wiki page in the near future as well. JayLv99 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to admire your industry and determination, but I am still not convinced. All these new sources are either pointers back to the old ones or interviews with the director or producer or MPI staff.

Yes, Michael, policies trump guidelines, but WP:MOVIE is just there to help interpret the policy WP:N, and when we fall back to that we read "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and " 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." None of the numerous sources you have found are independent because they are all just repeating what the film's director and producer say. Yes, (for instance) reason.com and thefreelibrary.com are independent organisations, but we're not hearing them: they are reporting, in identical words, what Rob Pfaltzgraff of MPI told them. All these sources come back to the producers; nobody has anything independent to say because nobody has seen the film. Yes, that makes it almost impossible for an unreleased film to achieve notability, and that's why unreleased films almost never have articles.

However, it's not up to me. I have said my piece, and will shut up and leave it to the unfortunate closing admin who has got to read through all this and decide whose arguments s/he prefers. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Yes, and even tougher for an unreleased short. If it were a multi-million dolllar blockbuster, it would have more coverage. However, I will still stand by my comments above... even more I suppose because it is a short. For what it is, it has notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. I do not think it deserves to be deleted. Fangusu (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite a valid reason? Thanks. Lady Galaxy 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lady Galaxy 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked Fangusu to give a reason and then yourself voted Delete per nom. The Nom's concerns of WP:Crystal and WP:NFF were quickly addressed, and then a new concern of WP:NF was addressed, and specially since this article most definitely passes WP:GNG, what were your own valid reasons? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final (I hope - this must be going to the wire soon) comment from nominator - I do not believe it "most definitely passes WP:GNG", which requires sources independent of the makers and their backers. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 28 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Klonsky[edit]

This article was reduced to a stub in April, apparently due to an OTRS complaint (see the article talk page). Nobody seems to have been interested in rewriting the article since then. In the state it is currently in, it does not assert or establish notability, and also lacks reliable sources. Sandstein 15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, since the article has now been sourced to the point where notability is clearly established. Thanks, David! Sandstein 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I expect the claims amount to notability. I'm not sure what you mean about "lacks reliable sources" two New York Times articles seem obviously over the WP:RS bar. As for the stubbiness, that doesn't seem to me to be grounds for deletion, an article could be written, and conceivably even brought up to FA status. The concerns the subject raised on the ORTS seem well founded, but I gather from Guy's response that he requested the falsities be deleted, rather than requesting complete deletion of the article. I'm strongly inclined towards keep on the basis of what I've seen so far. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The NYT and LAT sources weren't in the article when it was nominated for deletion — at that time, it really did look like a speedy A7 candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response Thanks, I should have checked to compare the article version at nom... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Always check the article history before A7 speedy nominations. Edison (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I object to the invalid basis for the deletion nomination. Perceived "lack of interest in rewriting" a stubbed article is in no way a valid basis for proposing deletion. Klonsky objected to what he said were inaccuracies and slander in the article, so it was stubbed. But stubbing an article does not remove the notability of the subject, who was national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society and thus a very important figure in the movement against the Vietnam War in the late 1960's. He appeared on CBS "Face the Nation" in 1972 as a spokesman for the New Left. Google News archive has 137 items about Michael Klonsky [15] , many with substantial coverage. Google Book Search has 196 references, many with substantial coverage. [16]. His more recent academic work in education also has multiple citations in reliable sources with substantial coverage. The article must certainly comply with the policies for biographies of living persons and be carefully referenced. He clearly satisfies WP:BIO and WP:N. He also satisfies WP:PROF. Edison (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is a valid reason for AfD if the stub is so minimal as to qualify for WP:CSD#A7. I could just as well have deleted it wholesale. Sandstein 22:06, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport utility sedan[edit]

Article is original research and has no references. I am also listing Sport utility wagon as a related article. See also related AfDs: Sport utility coupe, Sport utility coupe (2nd nomination), and Sport utility convertible. swa q 15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swa q 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Pages are pure speculation and utter nonsense with no references. Since when is a Chrysler 300C a "Sport Utility Sedan" and a WWII Army Jeep an "SUV"?--Flash176 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as theres lots of vehicles that are classified as SUVs that aren't shaped like a station wagon, or hatchback coupe, I figured that making articles about different subsets of the SUV would increase awareness of the vague criteria for bodystyling of SUVs. But since sport utility coupe has been deleted, and sport utility convertible is currently being nominated for deletion, I say lets merge the content from all those different articles to sport utility convertible. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Rather bad OR too, since it defines itself as a "sedan that meets SUV criteria", while a SUV is defined as "a station wagon built on a light-truck chassis, with a few exceptions"; I would have to conclude : "a sedan that is a station wagon built on a light-truck chassis, just that it isn't a station wagon or built on a light-truck chassis, but it, um, could have been." In two words: rubbish and nonsense. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. To my knowledge only one vehicle has been marketed as a Sport Utility Sedan, the Subaru Legacy Outback SUS (not the Subaru Legacy parent model). It's basically a marketing term. Anything else is a hybrid. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect Sport Utility Wagon, if redirect, then to Crossover (automobile). Google Books - 36 hits on sport utility wagon, few of them about the Subaru. Google Scholar - 6 hits, all about the Subaru. Google News - 600 hits, some of them about the Subaru, but alot about Chrysler too. 9500 ghits, some of them about Subaru, but certainly not all. SUW is used, the article just needs a rewrite. The Isuzu MU-7, this Business Week article about the Alfa Romeo Kamel, (New Car Buying Guide articles) Honda Pilot & Buick Rainier, this Business Week article on the Volvo XC70, all show that SUW is in use. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 70.51.10.69, two things. First of all, you may want to consider registering so that your opinion is given full weight (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, 6th bullet down]]).

As for your examples, the Rainier and Pilot are incorrectly referred to as wagons by New Car Buying Guide. There are 209,000 Google hits linking the Pilot with sport utility vehicle, but only 135 linking it with -wagon. The Rainier is a full-frame vehicle and is basically a Trailblazer with a different front end, so you can't really call that a wagon without calling the Trailblazer, Envoy, 9-7x, Ascender, and Bravada wagons, but they're well defined as SUV's. There's also the thing of only 62 hits on SUW for the Rainier vs. 13,700 for SUV.--Flash176 (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. It's a valid search term, and should point somewhere (crossover), or explain where to find information (disambig page). As the article is total crap, it needs to either be rewritten, or redirected. Deletion is not helpful for people wanting to use Wikipedia. Since Business Week uses the term, it is a term seen by a wide audience. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for navigational aids, but remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ningauble (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirects are cheap (an oft used Wikipedia adage) 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These terms are not established automobile design types. Article is either original research or marketers' attempts to differentiate identical models, thus making the terms part of their BS (Boastful Superlatives). — CZmarlin (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Motor vehicle classification blends is the author's completely WP:OR typology. Ningauble (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somehow I missed this one... Per all the above, delete without doubt. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:35, 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 --JForget 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Otter[edit]

Biographical Article with NO sources. Has not been improved upon in almost a month. Washburnmav (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No sources? I see, at minimum, a list of his publications, and a link to his department. I am sceptical about whether marketing is properly an academic study, and there seems to be a bit of meaningless, spammy prose in the article:

The chair of Service Marketing supports marketing decisions. Motivated by practical problems we first develop candidate solutions using manager´s insight and marketing theory. The best solution is then identified through model based analysis of data supplied by companies and other sources. The best solution maximizes the expected improvement relative to the status quo.

I'd also question whether this particular academic is notable. But the stated grounds for deleting this article seem not to be sustained by the text I saw on the page. In any case, there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above passage actually seems to be the only part not copied from his department's page. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's good to know. I'd hate to think the good professor wrote like that himself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Haven't checked notability, but the article is definitely a copyvio of the prof's own bio. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article lists no references (persay) and I can't find anything external through G, GNews, Google Books, or Google Scholar that cover him as a subject. The name does however turn up n Google Scholar but, whether that in and of itself makes him notable enough for inclusion is debatable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned the article a little bit. It should be noted that the word "Chair" here is obviously used as a translation of the German "Lehrstuhl", which basically means "professorship". Otter does not chair a department in the US sense (as attested by his web site, he heads a group consisting of a secretary, a postdoc, and a graduate student). Given that his last US position was assistant position, it is likely that this Austrian professorship is more or less the equivalent of an associate professorship. I am not very familiar with this field, perhaps that somebody who knows more of it can comment on number of publications, citation levels, etc. For the moment this looks to me like a promising young researcher, but not yet notable. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Crusio's assessment. A good relatively junior academic who does not appear to pass WP:PROF for the moment. PhD is 2001, according to his CV[17], was an Assistant Professor until 2007. No significant post-dissertation awards or honors mentioned in the CV. A good publication record but nothing out of the ordinary. GoogleScholar gives top citation hit of 11 followed by several single digits.[18]. No other indicators to show satisfying WP:PROF that I could find. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created by DanielaSch (talk • contribs) and is the only contribution by this new User. In this situation, undisclosed COI is a possibility. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think COI is most probable here. The photo of Otter was also uploaded by DanielaSch and marked as "own work". COI is not a reason to delete, however. Still, because nobody seems to be finding any other sources indicating notability, I come down on the side of Delete. --Crusio (talk) 09:10, 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 by consent of author. Friday (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor bomb[edit]

Disputed prod. I don't see much evidence that this is an established term. One paper has been cited, but if that's all there is, I don't think we should have an article on this. Consider merging some content where appropriate to rumor or some other appropriate place. But, right now, the existence of this article looks to me like an attempt to help establish this term and concept. Wikipedia is only for concepts which are already established. I'm willing to be convinced by more sources, but so far it appears to be just the one that talks of "rumor bomb" as a new concept. Friday (talk) 14:52, 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 - Probable hoax as there is no evidence from reliable sources exist. Most of the keeps centre around the reasoning of the nominator, however there are many valid reasons to delete this article. -Djsasso (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Of Melanie C[edit]

Poorly written, completely unsourced article. Has not been improved upon in almost a month. Washburnmav (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any useful, salveageable information in the article can just be added to Melanie C discography. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since AFD is not cleanup. The nom presents only cleanup issues, not notability/verifiability concerns, the latter being what is needed for deletion. --Rividian (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable. I've found no reliable sources from a google search or google news search, for either "The Best of Malanie C" or "The Best of Mel C". Silverfish (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason for AfD given by The Nominator. Ref WP:BEFORE; "...adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I agree that the nomination was flawed as I suspect that this is a hoax. The closest to any news about this allegedly "announced" release I can find is a blog entry[19] about an April 2005 scheduled release with a very different track listing and all on one disc. I have done quite a bit of cleanup on this article but if it's not real, it's not supposed to be in this encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for any reasons the nom gave, which are all editing issues, not deletion. Album not listed at Melanie C's entry on allmusic.com; gsearch for '"The Best Of Melanie C" -wikipedia' gives just 7 hits, none of which show existence let alone notablity; zero gnews hits. If this ever becomes a real album that meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC, go ahead and recreate, but for now it fails WP:V and WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should be cleaned up or listed as stub, not deleted. - McCart42 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you found evidence this album even exists?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:43, 22 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 Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams. PhilKnight (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChampagneChroniKnightCap[edit]

No sources, dubious material. Washburnmav (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC#Songs as the song has not "been ranked on national or significant music charts", "won significant awards or honours" and has not "been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already established above. (It fails WP:MUSIC) JBsupreme (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Per allmusic.com, has not charted; gsearch not coming up with notability. Valid search term, so do the reader a favor and send them to the album article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect, this can be improved if given enough time. 4.129.69.132 (talk) 22:06, 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 no consensus. Wizardman 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by American artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100[edit]

Not a notable article. List of relatively unimportant information

Washburnmav (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep European charting by American artists certainly strikes me as notable, particularly given how much the WP:MUSIC notability criteria value chart activity. Eurochart Hot 100 is a Billboard-affiliated chart. "Unimportant" is in the eye of the beholder. Townlake (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Townlake. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like classic Overcategorization to me. -Verdatum (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As this list isn't a category, I don't consider this an issue. Townlake (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Point taken, the guideline I referenced is indeed related to categories. I was looking for an expansion of point 5 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. -Verdatum (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The flying pasty (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued Perhaps with hindsight it would be better as a 'List of songs by non-European artists..., absorbing the Canadian and Australian lists (both of which only have a few entries)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The flying pasty (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - McCart42 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning: Eurochart Hot 100 is notable, this demarcation is also a reasonably encyclopedic list, no assertion of non-notability given aside from proclamation of self-evidence. - McCart42 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable intersection of categories. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 26 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) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schola Progenium[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Wholly unsourced -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources other than GW publications have yet been unearthed to cover even the broad, important topics, let alone a fictional institution conceived in order to give in-setting justification for one single pewter figure. That Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia does not mean its mandate includes covering fictional settings in greater detail than even enthusiasts of the game would need for understanding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no real reason why a paperless encyclopedia shouldn't cover such material so long as editors and readers do find it relevant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are real reasons. There are projects who do not adhere to these standards to entertain those who want content that does not meet them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The subject seems verifiable in sources that I have no reason to doubt. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have a policy against recapping plot summary for its own sake, if you're referring to GW's own fictional works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I recall seeing threads about that part of "not" being disputed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You should recall them, you started them. And they went down in flames. In the meantime, Wikipedia carries on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm referring to ones started by others. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage by sources independent of the topic. Nothing more than plot summary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Ever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is nevertheless sufficiently notable for at worst a redirect without deletion as it is clearly a legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the contents of the article are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia then keeping the history is a waste of resources and a potential source of edit warring. Given your success rate in AfDs of this type, your assertions of what is and is not "clear" do not match those of the rest of the project. WP:NOT#GOOGLE, and if a search term doesn't return a result it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My success rate is just fine when we remove all the Frederick day sockpuppetry, biased closes, etc. The contents are worthy enough to be included in some capacity. A handful of deletes in some snapshot in time AfD does not reflect the much broader consensus of thousdands of editors and readers who worked on and are interested in these articles. We could always have protected redirects. There is no need to also delete the edit history unless it is libelous or something, because it isn't really deleted as admins can are somehow able to restore deleted contribs and so it doesn't make a difference on performance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your "biased closes" conspiracy theory was overwhelmingly swept aside the other day, and I'd have nominated every Fredrick Day 40K AfD myself had it not already happened (and gotten the same result). You can play by your own rules all you want; all that we ask is that closing admins weight your comments according to the community's standards and not your own, and this has been overwhelmingly successful in the 40K domain thus far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Swept aside" by the expected bias, dishonesty, and hypocrisy, which served the effective purpose of exposing which editors aren't actually approaching AfDs with an open-mind or good faith, i.e. it let me know who is and is not actually a serious and reasonable editor in these discussions. I play by the rules of what the community actually wants. When I see articles that scores of editors work on and thousands visit monthly, there is no way I am going to be convinced that a handful of the same editors in these AfDs somehow actually reflects what the community wants, because the idea that a handful of the same copy and paste deletes that have no desire to work on the articles in question somehow actually reflects consensus for articles that may have been worked on since even 2004 and that may get over 6,000 hits a month is anti-logical. Some have a needlessly narrow-minded view of what we should cover that is totally at odds with the majority of our community. All those AfDs, which yes, tended to be closed by admins of the deletionist leaning and were indeed marred by sock nominations, reflects what those same handful of editors want in total opposition to the far more overwhelming reality of what others actually come here to read and write. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, unlikely (As with the overwhelming majority of the warhammer 40k sub topics) to have sources which are reliable and independent. Not plot recapitulation per se but not notable per the WP:GNG. Even if we were to enact a guideline similar to WP:FICT where some daughter elements of fiction were considered notable this would still not be. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. Thanks and --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that not every comment/vote needs a rebuttal from you. I found the nomination language to be concise and a factual description of the problem, thus, no further comment was needed other than a "support" comment. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary without real-world content. Lack of coverage in secondary sources indicates this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No amount of editing can fix the fact that no sources exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not convinced that it is a hoax. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - While primary sources may be good enough for you, they aren't good enough for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Those who create, work on, read, and argue to keep these articles obviously feel differently and I am far more interested in siding with what the majority use Wikipedia for so long as it isn't nonsense, because these editors help build our project and even become donors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So your position is in opposition to Wikipedia's editorial policies? Okie doke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My position is in support of what the community of article creators, contributors, and readers actually want or how they interpret policies and guidelines. This notion that a handful of deletes somehow better reflects what the community wants than scores of article contributors and thousands of readers seem anti-logical. But even that aside, in my opinion the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e. a comprehensive paperless reference guide. The information is not from some game I made up and a few buddies play, but rather something a sizable group of people are familiar with. I am not convinced that as it is clear people do come here for this term, we would not at least redirect it to a section of an article that mentions it and we can do that without deleting the edit history as I did not notice anything particularly disturbing in the edit history that must be deleted right now. I am simply not seeing a pressing need to redlink it now. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a sub-division of a sub-division of a fiction organisation within a fictional culture that itself struggles for reliable sources. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:40, 22 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) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of the Imperium[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that it fails WP:RS, but it certainly fails WP:N as none of the sources it quotes are independent. for the benefit of users unfamilar with Games Workshop: the extensive backstory developed for the games is done so by the company in order to sell ancillary products (such as novels, guidebooks, etc.). As such, they control the copyright pretty tightly. While it is tempting to argue that future research can always result in the discovery of independent sources, it isn't too likely with games workshop's intellectual property. The content produced by games workshop is voluminous, yes, but it is so because of the intent in creation, not because the subject matter merits voluminous coverage (as would be the case if the makers of reference material were independent from the subject). Therefore this should not be viewed as a case where the general notability guideline is wrong, but a case where it is properly applied. And since this article cites no independent secondary sources to assert notability, it should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. This is barely covered by the game, a couple of pages in the sourcebooks over the course of twenty years or so, and there is no chance that it received a wider treatment from reliable thrid parties. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Cunningham. Extremely doubtful reliable independent sources have ever devoted substantial coverage to these fictional languages. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown, and no reliable sources. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an extremely trivial aspect of the WH40K background, barely even treated by Games Workshop's primary sources let alone secondary sources. the wub "?!" 11:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks references to secondary, third-party sources reflecting the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 19:05, 23 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) 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Lords of Terra[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Wholly in-universe repetition of plot information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to this. Plot material. All in universe. Almost zero impact on 40K the game (As well as 40K the fictional setting). No reliable secondary sources discussing the topic. Fails WP:PLOT (this is debatable depending on your interpretation) and WP:GNG (this isn't, really). Again, for the sake of discussion, the sources provided are produced by Games Workshop in order to sell workbooks, fiction and toys. They don't write codexes because there is a rich game world to chronicle. They create the rich game world in order to sell codexes. This distinction is important in considering why WP:GNG should apply here. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion when the article is notable to a real world audience and has sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - TThat was not the reason given. --T-rex 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet more warhammer with no independent sources --T-rex 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 23 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, discounting the last "keep" comment. Sandstein 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daemonhunters[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. The material is significant in the game universe, to the point where multiple novels and the Inquisitor game are based around it, but this can be adequately covered in the articles for the nevels and the game without needing an article on the background itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. See also this book, which is similarly spelled and therefore suggests at worst a valid redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Big chunks of the article are either unsourced plot summary or original research. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In theory these are at about the same level of importance as the space marines for the miniature half of the fictional universe (not saying they are, but if we were to make an organizational chart, they would be closer to the top than most of the articles sent to AfD in this batch). If we were to create some guideline for inclusion of fictional subjects, this might be about the level that we would make the cutoff. On the other hand, while they represent a similar level of organization, there don't seem to be too many WH40K specific mentions in independent sources about them. Perhaps a merger into Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) (The level of organization equal to the space marines in the fictional world distinct from the miniature portion)? Protonk (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion when the article is notable to a real world audience and has sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Im certainly not doin'it the right way, with the correct templates and everything, but in my opinion, even if a book is the worst ever wrote, even if a webpage is totally useless, only the NAZIS BURN BOOKS, and to me, an online encyclopedia is like a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.191.132 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 August 2008 — 90.4.191.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hmmm, I was wondering how long it would take until one of these AfDs would allow the invocation of Godwin's Law. Sigh... --Craw-daddy | T | 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if you look at Book burning, you will see that unfortunately more than just Nazis have burned books throughout history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:04, 24 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 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomican[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. Written in a completely "in universe" style and contains content that is not even relevant to the game as it is played. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Wholly in-universe repetition of plot information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primarily plot repetition and not even significant within the gameplay. You could play 40k for a dozen years and never know about this topic. Not covered in reliable sources independent from the game manufacturers. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. Thanks and --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:PERNOM: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom.""
    - My concern stems from this, i.e.
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schola Progenium ‎
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of the Imperium ‎
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Lords of Terra ‎
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daemonhunters ‎
      - 05:19, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomican ‎
      - 05:19, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Arbites ‎
      - 05:19, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Custodes ‎
      - 05:18, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Strife ‎
      - 05:17, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Hunters (Warhammer 40,000) ‎
    - Three "per noms" in under a minute at 05:19 and FOUR "per noms" in under a minute at 05:20. Can you read four articles, check for sources, and read all the posts in four AfDs in under a minute? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a fair comment. I'd not looked at the user's other contributions. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, Le Grand, what you describe is not possible. However, it is possible to read four articles, check for sources, and read all the posts in four AFDs in 15 hours, then reply to all four in under a minute. You should have brought this up on the editor's talk page first to determine what happened. Pagra shtak 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Possible, perhaps, but unlikely as from experience it's usually the per noms that never return to discussions to take into account whether or not the article has improved, sources have been added, etc. Assuming good faith does not stretch to the point of being naive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is.
        Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is.
        Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is.
        Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is.
        Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is.
        Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is.
        Hey, I'm just sayin'... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As others have pointed out, the odds of this (or any of the AfD's I posted to recently, not all of which were Warhammer related) being sourced properly or legitimately are slim. I've been following the discussions, and cast my votes *when I was ready*. I found the nomination language to be concise and a factual description of the problem, thus, no further comment was needed other than a "support" comment, and as someone pointed out, my comments are actually *allowed* under the WP:PERNOM page that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles pointed to - there was no need for him to try and diminish my comment by adding "Please see WP:PERNOM" to almost every page I commented on. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Try and is nonstandard for try to. I will try to (not try and) be better about writing to you." -Diana Hacker, A Pocket Manual of Style, 39. "Takes the infinitive: 'try to mend it,' not 'try and mend it.'...try to is precise, and when you are writing formal prose...write try to." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 62. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The big difference is I also make additional comments throughout the discussions and usually do something to the articles as well. Plus, you can do the same thing with practically all of the deletes here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. As it stands, article is entirely plot summary and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Astronomicon is a psychic beacon that directs travel through the daemon-filled 'Warp', allowing faster-than-light travel." Put this in the WH40K article or the Imperium article or wherever and delete this. No GFDL concern because, well, I skimmed this and learned nothing, and there's no sourced info to merge anyway. The hope of sourced info for this is vanishingly slim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable cruft with no independent sources --T-rex 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT are both invalid reasons for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No independent sources is, however, a perfectly valid one. Are you being willfully myopic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not persuaded that no sources exist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you disagree, which has nothing to do with WP:ATA. Don't misuse WP:ATA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirectas the practical solution for all of them. Preserve the history, in case anyone does actually find sources. Experience shows that doing so for these articles is possible, but slow and difficult, and so far few people here have the determination and patience. DGG (talk) 16:51, 24 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 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Hunters (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. A reasonably recent addition to the game background, there isn't even a complete miniature line on this subject yet (which means it lacks even a real physical presence). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. At worst, it could be merged and redirected without deletion to something associated with this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. The majority of the article is unsourced plot summary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) See the Daemonhunters AfD. I consider these a less significant version of the demon hunters (as no codex has been written for them). Article currently represents a bit of WP:PLOT and WP:OR. It is, as should be clear now, not notable per the WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion when the article is notable to a real world audience and has sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just not notable was not the reason given for deletion --T-rex 15:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more cruft with no independent sources --T-rex 15:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 23 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 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Strife[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. While this appears as if it might be a core part of the game background, in actual fact the majority of this material dates back to 20-year-old supplemental articles, all from the publisher, and it is seldom if ever referred to in the current game at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is almost entirely recapitulation of backstory from the warhammer universe and so fails WP:PLOT. Beyond that the "age of strife" in warhammer 40K is not covered in independent sources, failing the WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a compelling reason to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, that's exactly what he hasn't said. the wub "?!" 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:36, 22 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 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Custodes[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Appears to be primarily drawn from a single sourcebook (Slaves to Darkness), with an additional smattering of original research to provide an out-of-universe link to the current game universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor background characters, no real relevance to the game (only the background setting), not even consistently conceived. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are at least worthy of a merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No article would benefit from a merge of this fanon and speculation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we have any articles that mention this, then there's no reason not to redirect without deleting as more editors and readers believe it worthwhile than a few deletes in some snapshot in time AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't, and we shouldn't. There's precious little in the way of verifiable claims one can make about these even if you were to use fictional works as sources. "The Emperor has some guards. They're a mysterious deus ex machina that looks and acts different every time they appear. The end." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Even that sentence suggests we would at least mention them somewhere and at worst redirect them there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's OR anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can use primary sources for basic referencing, especially if we're saying within a larger article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability from sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, when it is a notable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has no citations to third-party sources, which are required to establish notability of a fictional topic. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of zero significance to a player of either the miniature or computer game. Of vanishingly little significance to the reader of the fictional works for hire of the 40K universe. Cites no reliable third party sources to establish notablity per the WP:GNG (and given the first two sentences of my rationale AND the restrictive IP policies of games workshop, is unlikely to cite such sources). Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:38, 22 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 with a recommendation that interested editors consider starting a merge discussion. Contributors could not agree on whether the available (or potential) sources were adequate to satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability policies. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Arbites[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) or the like (surprise, not a flat-out deletion on this one). Pretty sure there are independent sources which have covered the overt copying of the 2000AD Judges, especially given that GW used to license from 2000AD. Most of the article is still in-universe junk, mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a headscratcher. This article is awful, but merging it to Imperium dumps it into an even worse mire. Under all the fancruft is a game line sold by Games Workshop, about which we could actually write an article (or an article subsection I guess). Weak keep, with no prejudice against deleting every single word in this crufty article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the kerfluffle about characters offers both the remote chance of secondary sourcing and out of universe discussion. Odd that someone would make a stink about 40K ripping off other fiction but say little about some other bits of borrowing in the world of space marines and orcs. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. Thanks and --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets not go crazy here. Transwiki to /dev/null Testmasterflex (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all other articles* Let's not go crazy here. Let's slow down our deletion and discuss things in a more relaxed manner. How many articles have you deleted? At least a hundred. Why do me and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles have to keep reminding you? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if the articles had even a shred of real-world context (how they were used in the game, what processes went into the design, relevant influences etc) and had some reliable sources that satisfied WP:SOURCES I wouldn't have a problem. I'm a huge 40K fan, but I can't see any reason to have encyclopedia articles that tell me nothing about the actual entity as it applies to the game, but have vast quantities of plot and background that make them read like a Black Library flyer. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion started in earnest in November last year. You have been aware of it since at least December of last year, though you chose not to discuss the issue centrally with the rest of us. I don't consider nine months of planning and discussion to be drastic haste. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea this project even existed for several months till the deletion began. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete. I hadn't heard of the Adeptus Arbites before, but given the article's length, they are important in 40k. Lets just transwiki the article, and let someone merge it if they want. I must agree with Nemesis646 on one thing, though; there seems to be a crusade akin to the Horus Heresy to remove 40k related articles, and I'm starting to lose faith in the system. Tealwisp (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was transwikied eight days ago, and this "crusade" has been planned in detail since November last year on the 40k WikiProject talk page. It couldn't have been made any clearer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Horus Heresy wasn't really a crusade, either. It was a civil war. The Great Crusade, starting in the millennium before the Horus Heresy, would be a better comparison.210.160.15.16 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no third-party sources. Transwiki sounds like a good plan. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources. Not notable on its own --T-rex 21:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of merging, but i'd say merge is the best course of action, since at least some of the content is sourced. If a merge isn't proper then keep per above. Wizardman 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While there are some sources cited, they are ALL primary sources. WP:SOURCES says we need "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Primary sources simply can't be used to establish notability. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I concur with Wizardman. Eh, this one will probably end up without consensus... Lady Galaxy 22:31, 28 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) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Mendez[edit]

Non-notable actress. Google search lists social networking as top finds, and one hit on anime.com for voicework. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actress. Schuym1 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN actress with a trivial IMDb entry ... fails WP:ENTERTAINER ... also note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Minutes to Heaven ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Davis (actor). — 72.75.91.179 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable.--Boffob (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN, although she's pretty hot. Evidence of sock and meat activity in the revision history. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. I agree with Scjessey, though; she's a pretty girl. Prettiness != notability, however. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per related discussions HERE Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable OR, written by meatpuppets. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article asserts she is best known for a film that has not been released yet, which seems an excellent example of non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "best known for (a movie that hasn't finished filming yet)" says it all to me. From a policy/guideline perspective we're talking failure to meet both notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 22 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 nom withdrawn. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chugging[edit]

~~Reincarnation of previously deleted article, failed AfD as a non-notable neologism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Good job to those who provided material support for this article. I rescind my nomination and recommend a speedy keep. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - (1) The article itself asserts that its subject is a neologism: "articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate" (WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms) (2) There are many reliable sources that use the word "chugging", but "chugging" is not significantly the subject of the sources I have found.-Samuel Tan 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed my stance in the light of the three sources provided below. Looks like the topic has been covered significantly in reliable sources (and so fulfills WP:N). -Samuel Tan 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would these sources be any good? [20],[21], [22]. RMHED (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've changed my stance. Are you the author? If you are, do remember to update the article with those sources. It will spare you the agony of yet another AFD.-Samuel Tan 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added refs and some more content. RMHED (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable neologism, more than just a dicdef. RMHED (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neologism in common use (at least in the UK); article is sourced and is more than a dicdef. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 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.Had to go close the window with the weather out there. Wizardman 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Miyan[edit]

Tagged non notable since Oct 2007. Does not meet WP:BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see how this person can be non-notable... BBC News has at least two articles that cover the man significantly and even a photo gallery about his life. The first article even mentions him shooting "into the limelight" and that he was "reported to be the oldest in the world". There are other reliable sources, including this source in The Times of India.-Samuel Tan 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If not verifiable to be the oldest man, he definitely earns a place in wikipedia on the number of years he drew pension! --STTW (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in newspapers all over the world. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable, with lots of sources about his claim. Lugnuts (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine. --Candlewicke (Talk) 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be referenced well enough, I could try and add some more if I really wanted to (but gotta 3 hour drive ahead of me so not now). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 15:12, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duology[edit]

Whilst "Duology" does seem to be used by some people to describe a cycle of two films or novels, it is not a dictionary defined word. It does not fit into the pattern for trilogy, tetralogy, etc which are made from greek words (whereas this is a hybrid of Latin and Greek). Also, after trying to give the word the benefit of the doubt and having made edits the list to remove things which could not be considered to have been conceived as a "duology" (in the same way that a trilogy might), it became apparent that this page was here just to list series of two films or books, and included some unsuitable entries (Ghostbusters 1 & 2; The Iliad and the Odyssey). It also became more and more apparent that hardly anything would qualify as a "duology", unless, perhaps, the author had conceived it to be thought of as "The something Duology" (like the tetralogy "The Alien Quadrilogy" has been described in marketing materials). I am yet to see an example of "Duology" to be used in this way. Robsinden (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While duology is a perfectly valid term (wikt:duology) and there are many books described as duologies, the article appears to fall foul of WP:DICDEF. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can wiktionary be cited as proof a word exists? i believe that the wiktionary entry should be deleted too - it doesn't seem to be a real word - it doesn't have an entry at dictionary.com or any other online dictionary that i can find![23] Robsinden (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word certainly exists, and has been used for as long as I can remember (I'm 35) to describe a series of two books telling the same story in two parts. Google finds 107,000 results for the term and Amazon has 21 results in "Books". While Wikipedia itself isn't to be used as a source, there are 154 articles containing the word "duology" at the time of writing. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete something at Wiktionary, you'll have to bring it up there. That project has different criteria than we do. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at best a dicdef, but probably unsourceable as a word. No, Wiktionary cannot be considered a reliable source (itself), nor would a dictionary entry even in a reliable one confer actual notability. I'm very skeptical of tetralogy and heptalogy as well. These should probably all be redirected to trilogy or perhaps sequel. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect this, tetralogy/quadrilogy, heptalogy, trilogy, etc, to series of works or somesuch. They are more or less the same thing, a set of works forming a larger single work. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly unencyclopedic per WP:DICDEF. It consists only of a definition, discussion of coinage, and examples. Ningauble (talk) 22:31, 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 speedy delete. Second place in a pageant for six-year-olds is not a sufficient assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhianna Mantos[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABLE. Simeon (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, not notable, many problems with article, fresh start from independent user would be good anyway (if notable). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only sources I found online were wikipedia-related. -Samuel Tan 14:36, 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 by Toddst1 (CSD A7). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LongIsland.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Could be merged somewhere. Burningjoker (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable advertisement. Possible G11. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a prod to this under Wikipedia:CSD#G11 since it appears to be blatant advertising with no notability established. I don't think AfD was warranted in this case: doesn't seem a "potentially controversial" matter. Coldmachine^Talk 19:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 (web) non-notable and unsourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 22 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equip style[edit]

Slim notability claim, based on award not properly referenced. NB strong suspicion article creator has COI. Dweller (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found very few sources online. All of them were either directory listings or Wikipedia-related.-Samuel Tan 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(speedy) delete Advertising - Nabla (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:27, 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. Sandstein 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Planet[edit]

Recreated shortly after a unanimous deletion discussion, by a new user. Still fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - the article relies on the organization's own homepage or doesn't cite references at all; no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources is given: the cited CNN page contains merely a trivial mention of United Planet without any additional information, not a "feature" of the organization as the description suggests. "Hard facts" such as the funding sources or the size of the budget are still missing. HaeB (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY#G4 (Recreation of deleted material). -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep I can't see the previously deleted version so if this one is "substantially the same" as that than so be it but, if not the article is in desperate need of cleanup and better references but, seems on the surface to have coverage in multiple 3rd party sources per some of the results here although, some of the articles are behind pay walls. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I've had reason to look into the organization in the past, and all I can tell is that it charges fees to route people into mostly pre-existing volunteer programs. Robertissimo (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that I would consider a proper reference, ie being the subject of a non-trivial work is [24] and its more about the person than the organization. The Christian Science Monitor piece and the Seattle Times piece are merely articles about volunteer vacations where the firm is just mentioned in a blurb as a provider. Other links out there are to a reader blog, a Q&A where the org is mentioned. If you want to consider the CNN Student Bureau piece as a proper source, feel free. Its not cutting it right now for me. Montco (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:27, 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 speedy delete as a copyvio of this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Wives for Muslim Men than what is for Muslim Women in Islamic Paradise[edit]

I came across this when looking through Special:NewPages; its history shows that it has been {{db-g1}}ed before; I thought it would be best to bring this to the attention of others now that this is a second request. The article reads like an essay of sorts, except that I cannot really follow or understand it; it seems like some sort of Islamic POV push, at any rate. No references, badly written, unenyclopaedic (at time of proposal, anyway) - please delete. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not nonsense, but rather an essay which would seem to be WP:OR, which has no place on Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Od Mishehu's explanation Theserialcomma (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I re-added the db-G1 tags as the editor creating the article removed them, and it was declined. I'd have trouble finding a policy this article doesn't violate. The entire thing is OR and looks like it should be in a userpage about to get deleted. Not appropriate for WP, and has no room to be improved. Could also be considered an attack page. --MattWT 11:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like WP:OR to me, and in essay format rather than article format. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. Even if we assume the subject (whatever it might be?) to be notable, we have lots of articles on Muslim culture and belief, any one of which would be a better place for neutral and verifiable information on the topic. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like the whole purpose of the article is POV-pushing. Green caterpillar (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of this. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:03, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Hammad Usmani[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced article, notability not established, no Ghits other than Wikipedia clones. Appears to be a vanity article created by a relative. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS with a liberal helping of WP:OR! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:28, 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 delëtè. Sandstein 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Eldarin literature[edit]

Non notable fan-made literature, based on the languages invented by Tolkien. The only place these texts appear are either on the web or in a few Tolkien related magazines. Not notable, hasn't received any attention outside this circle. Fram (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:OR. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a category for notable examples of works written in fictional languages or somesuch may be appropriate this article seems more essay and original researchish than like an encyclopedic article on the subject. Notable or not (i'm sure there is something in the policy for "cult followings") the subject fails policies and guidelines due to its lack of coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. Shot info (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research about a minor sub-subculture of fanfiction. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:28, 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 (non-admin closure), retracted by nominator. Multiple sources exist, other problems can be solved by editing the page. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danvers Statement[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mirror of the CBMW website (WP:NOTMIRROR). Also, not notable. Wronkiew (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6 Google News hits, 60 Google Books hits inc. a 50 word entry in "Encyclopedia of evangelicalism" by Randall Herbert Balmer, 36 Google Scholar hits. The full text of the statement is not encyclopedic, however printed encyclopedia often include large slabs of text like this, and Wikipedia has no reason to exclude something like this when it is useful. There is ample introduction to this Wikipedia article, and more sources can be added. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting comparison: "Chicago Statement on Inerrancy", produced by International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, only returns 16 Google Book hits, and 10 Google Scholar hits. The ICBI is definitely notable, and I suspect that the three statements they produced are all separately notable too. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it can support extended text when necessary. However, the guideline you quoted makes an exception for content that violates the five pillars. Including the full text of the statement on this page goes against two of the pillars. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). It is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP). It is free content (WP:C), and, as mentioned below, this content cannot be edited without infringing on someone else's license. Perhaps the text of the statement could be excised from the article. However, without the actual text, it would be impossible for the average reader to figure out what the statement was about. The Encyclopedia of Evangelicism, another thing Wikipedia is not, contains a much better explanation of the statement without including the statement itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronkiew (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you SineBot. Wronkiew (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt mind if the statement was removed. You say that "without the actual text, it would be impossible for the average reader to figure out what the statement was about", and then say "The Encyclopedia of Evangelicism ... contains a much better explanation of the statement without including the statement itself". They cant both be true.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of Evangelicism, and an encyclopedia of Pokemon, and an encyclopedia of US towns with less than 100 residents, and other stuff too. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of Pokemon, and just because we have an article about something less notable does not mean that this article is worth keeping. However, on further reflection, the Encyclopedia of Evangeliscism is probably a reliable source, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. I still think the text of the declaration should be removed from the page. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - the "news" hits reported above are hardly the "mainstream news organisations" asked for in WP:RS (excamples given are "The Washington Post", "The Times" and "The Associated Press" - I can't see that the "Raleigh Biblical Recorder" would be held in such high esteem!) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the book and scholar results that matter, not the news hits - they are irrelevant for this topic. Most significantly, the existing dead tree encyclopedia entry John Vanderberg linked to above is enough in and of itself to demonstrate that the subject can support an encyclopedia entry. The full text of the statement should not be here; if the license is strong enough it could be transwiki'ed to Wikisource. GRBerry 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Copying (or moving) to Wikisource sounds like a good idea. Does the document fit Wikisource criteria? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It would be nice to have this on Wikisource, but the permission given on the website doesnt extend to altering the text, so it is not considered free content. See Freedom Defined. The missing freedom is to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works. Perhaps someone could persuade them to release it under the terms of {{CC-BY}}, {{CC-BY-SA}} or explicitly put it into the public domain. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs expansion, and could very appropriately be tagged as such. It needs more info on its reaction, opponents, etc., but it fundamentally belongs in Wikipedia. I don't see any pillars being violated here. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 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 Boldly changed to redirect to correct title. I'll drop a note at the other AfD discussion asking the closing admin to take a gander here for more arguments. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Camelot Lost"[edit]

Non-notable book; satisfies none of the criteria of WP:NB Smeazel (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self published (PublishAmerica is a print on demand publisher), no indication of any notability. Fram (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article asserts no notability and fails WP:BOOKS and WP:RS. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable self-published book. Schuym1 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BOOK criteria.--S_RX 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than 20 ghits, it does not appear this book has received substantial coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since listing this page, I noticed there was also a near-identical page at Camelot Lost (without the quotation marks). Had I noticed that page at the time I listed this one, I would have listed both pages together; as it is, I made a separate AfD listing for the other page. (If a more experienced editor knows of a good way to combine the two listings, you're certainly welcome to do so.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.246.81 (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, that was me, of course; didn't realize I wasn't signed in. Sorry. --Smeazel (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-published and a violation of WP:BOOK. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published books are seldom notable, and there's no idication this one is. Article appears to exist solely to advertise the book. Also, considering the duplicate article, Salt. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 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) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Steverson[edit]

Contested prod. Article contents are unverifiable. Prod removed with the addition of sources, but none of them are about the clan Steverson. As I said on the article talk page: the article lumps all people with a name resembling Steverson together, and claims that they all belong to a clan. Where is the evidence for that? There are 12 distinct Google hits for Clan Steverson outside Wikipedia[25]. There are no reliable sources that mention Clan Steverson (no books[26], articles[27], newspapers,[28] ... looking for "Steverson clan" gives even less results). The sources used; Nationmaster is a copy of Wikipedia (see the bottom of that page); the second source lists a whole bunch of names related to the border wars: anything resembling Steverson is clearly absent though; the third source discusses Adlai Stevenson, but does not mention Scotland, clans, or Steverson. There is no evidence of a clan Steverson to which all these people belong. There is some evidence of a clan Stevenson, which Robert Louis Stevenson tried to establish / fabricate, but that is a different thing and would better be rewritten from scratch (and with good sources). Fram (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of missing sources / faked references: The given sources are not only, as the nominator remarks, off-topic (do not mention the Clan Steverson), but don't even support the statements which they are cited for. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - genealogical vanity page. No sources of substance, no verifiable assertion of notability.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - No evidence this is a recognised Scottish clan. Also, a GoogleBook search turns up absolutely nothing, not a good a sign for a supposedly notable clan/family. Pretty clear i think this is non notable.--Celtus (talk) 05:30, 22 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) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Maa Motion Pictures[edit]

Suspected hoax. Zero Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. THIS search gives a result that leads only back to other Wikipedia articles, which should themselves now be re-examined as part of a larger hoax. No other sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I took a long hard look.... its a MUCH larger Hoax than I thought... all based around Sharan Kapoor, his "business" website free-hosted over at Wetpaint.com and a growing number of suspected puppet accounts, all set in place to promote Durga Maa Telefilms. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms. --Amalthea^Talk 11:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 22:30, 23 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 A7 as a NN-Band Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RiverBend[edit]

The subject does not meet the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, only one ep, not enough for WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as A7 Nn-band Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:50, 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; article cleaned up really nicely. Disclaimer: Closer had suggested deletion. — Coren ^(talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Side note - nominator came around to the position of keep after the article was cleaned up NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Postville Raid[edit]

~~My G12 speedy delete was declined, but I still believe this is a blatant copyright infringement. So, I'll hand it off to you guys. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination now that it has been cleaned up. Anyone want to perform a close? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, verbatim recreation of previously speed-deleted Postville Iowa Raid (Agriprocessors Kosher Meat Plant). Cached version of deleted page here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But the reason it was deleted, actually does not reflect what is written. This isn't an attack, nor is it a BLP concern. Synergy 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy; it's still a poorly sourced hatchet job. Maybe an article can be made out of the event, but this is not it. Note that an attack page needs not have a BLP as subject to be an attack page. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren: Would you care to elaborate on why this is an attack? I may just be missing the obvious at the moment, but this looks like the straight reporting of events. Could not this be solved by renaming the article and other editorial adjustments? Synergy 12:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not finding a verbatim source for the text here, so I can't document a copyright violation. NuclearWarfare, do you have a link? I'm going to attempt a cleanup, but don't want to go too far if the entire thing will be deleted anyway. It sounds like the subject might be notable, but it's a bit unclear - thus, the cleanup. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possible source now linked in my comment, below yours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am comparing this with the source line by line. I have so far substantiated some duplication, but only two sentences. I'll see what else I can find. Meanwhile, the article that this copies is at DRV, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Synergy 13:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update, I've done a comparison of the article with that source and found minor infringement in an evident good-faith effort to write in own words. I've got to run--dentist--but wanted to share the outcome of comparing those two, at least. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated - concur that everything appears to be good faith, and there is some good stuff in there. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ditto. Most helpful. Synergy 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the long bit in the middle discussing case dispositions came from here, an ICE press release. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one would have been okay, as it was a government release and was sourced. But it's good without it, too. :) Well done! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agriprocessors. Any collaborative efforts can happen over there. We don't need a separate article on one specific event thats already covered in the main article. Synergy 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agriprocessors. Per WP:BOLD, and on the premise that the existing article duplicated a copyrighted source (which seems to be at least partially the case, per above), I put together a stubbed version of this article, which could be expanded - but I see that there is already good coverage at Agriprocessors. That has the added bonus of not being a single-event article. So, if a separate article is in order, it should probably be at this title - but if not, that article would be the better choice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The revisions make it look a lot better (good work Ultra). But I'm still questioning whether this should exist on its own. I'll be happy to change to keep in the event its a notable fork. Synergy 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, now I'm torn... Agriprocessors is mostly criticism of the subject - well-sourced, and possibly well-deserved criticism - but, meh. Adding a lot of information about this raid might bump up against giving that criticism undue weight, even though I'm not finding a lot of positive material about that company. On that basis, a fork might be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been beautifully cleaned. It is certainly a notable event within Agriprocessors, but it seems to have had a huge impact onPostville, Iowa as well and also looks like a valid "see also" for other articles. According to one of the linked sources, it is not only the largest raid in Iowa, but "the largest raid of its kind in the nation's history." It's notable well beyond the boundaries of the company involved; it's sourced; it's neutral. Keep, I think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion at Deletion Review has been leaning toward keeping t he speedy-deleted article, but edited as necessary. I think that the significance goes beyond just the company to immigration policy generally, and selective enforcement of it in particular, and a spearate article will be appropriate. Otherwise the purely political aspects will overbalance the main article and make it even harder to get NPOV there.. DGG (talk) 18:59, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Electric[edit]

Various issues, primarily no external sources or compliance with WP:CORP. Prod contested with no valid rationale, only an extremely un-wikipedian assertion that the prodder should "just ask a welder" and stick to his own "scope of knowledge". The opinions of welders are not, AFAIK, preferred to Wikipedia policies when judging notability. Deiz talk 06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bad faith nomination by User:Deiz, owing to a disagreement between two editors (I'm the other) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Blair (senior). Sadly I see that User:Deiz is an Admin, who ought to be above such petty squabbles. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's frankly insulting. I noticed an article that fails WP:CORP, and accordingly nominated it for deletion. There is no provision on Wikipedia for having to ignore failing articles simply because you noticed them through involvement in another discussion. Deiz talk 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you've a strangely coincidental interest in non-notable welding machine manufacturers, or else you were led here by following my edit trail from Leo Blair. Via my talk page, where you posted, "noticed some other issues you have been involved with". You didn't just "notice" this article, you were led here because you were sniffing my edits. Please, apply whatever good faith or civility you like about me, but don't pretend I'm an idiot. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I notice this on your talk page? Yes. Have I attempted to cover that up in any way? Not at all, as disclosed above. Have I ever claimed any interest in welding? Absolutely not. Does one's personal "scope of knowledge", as you so succinctly put it on another page, or the manner in which one comes across a page have any bearing on the topics editors can edit and opine on? None whatsoever. Hope that's clear enough. Deiz talk 23:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a poor article, but the subject is notable. Miller are a commercial body easily large enough to meet WP:CORP (just from the stamp-collecting aspect of documenting big industrial players). Their real interest though is their product. Miller arc welders are ubiquitous throughout any USA sites where stick welding is done. These things are the Hoover of welding. Now, does anyone have the spare time to do the legwork on fixing this article? I certainly don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which part of WP:CORP refers to "the stamp-collecting aspect of documenting big industrial players"? How about something which actually satisifes the guideline, such as primary coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Deiz talk 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company and its product appear to garner coverage. There appears to be a minor mention of the company here, and there are product reviews here and here. Trudging through the search results are bit tedious but the two reviews already found would indicate that more are likely given teh large number of Google and Google news hits -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a welder, and I knew this company made arc welders. Gnews search gives a lot of promising hits -- article just needs some sourcing and editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrictramp (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SETI paradox[edit]

Nomination: No mention of notability, and I suspect there is none at this point enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Additionally, the article is largely composed of speculative opinion that I doubt can be attributed. I'm not even sure if the opinions of this Zaitsev is a mainstream one worthy of mention, eg. Google turns up only message boards and blogs (other than his paper, Wikipedia and its mirrors) none of which seem to meet the criteria for a reliable source or expert opinion. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest to your notice an article: SETI’s Paradox and the Great Silence (with 52 comments) —Preceding unsigned comment added by METIfan (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Most of the sources on the subject appear to stem from a single paper published over a year ago, and they are mostly blogs (for example, here or listings of the paper (for example, here).-Samuel Tan 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this can be sourced somewhere. SETI was a pretty popular concept among scientists for a while and some breathless conference papers were written about it. Perhaps somewhere criticizing the Drake equation (aside from the criticism of it being non-scientific gobbledygook). I'll look. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Oh yeah! This can probably be merged into Fermi paradox rather than deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Samuel Tan. I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while and it's seemed pretty clear that this has no secondary sources to back it up. fethers (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fermi paradox (if they're out there, why haven't they contacted us by now?), which this is a corollary to (If everyone's listening, but nobody is transmitting, nothing will happen). I think Protonk's suggestion is best, unless there are secondary sources (although like Tonk, I also have a sneaking suspicion that this can be sourced, and that Dr. Zaitsev has been noticed by other publications besides the Bulletin of the Special Astrophysical Observatory Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete if no suitable home can be found. MediaMob (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging is not a substitute for deletion. The main problem here is that there seem to be no reliable secondary sources that can establish the notability of this "paradox" in the SETI (or astronomical, etc.) field, and merging will not fix that problem. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 07:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and do not merge as we should not be merging unsourced information -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 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 delete and protect against recreation by Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akaika[edit]

No results for this in search; WP:MADEUP. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:57, 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 patent nonsense not even worthy of the name bio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave kleber[edit]

Unverified, unassertive, random information regarding a non-notable individual. Creator avoided speedy deletion by blanking page. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:44, 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 as copyright violation. Kevin (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Rock of Eufaula, OK[edit]

Text is WP:COPYVIO from 1. In addition, Eufaula Lake already has text about the Standing Rock. Propose merge into Eufaula Lake and deletion of copyrighted material. (As an aside, I did change this to a redirect, but the original author changed it back.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this article had already been speedily deleted, according to the creator's user talk page: User_talk:Nfarrow but he brought it back. How nice. -- Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's back again. This is the fourth time User:Nfarrow has brought back this article after it was deleted. He has removed the copyrighted content, but has photos that may or may not be copyrighted. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:41, 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 --JForget 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Port tram stop[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Won't be built until 2013, and that's assuming that it will be built. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This and any other articles on tramstops on Midland Metro line 2. To the best of my knowledge, the project remains unfunded, and construction has not started. I do not think there should be any articles on planned stations (or tramstops) until the line is under construction or at least until it is funded and a construction contract is let. Until then is is mere WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- in the absence of significant sourcing or firm evidence that it will be opened. Smile a While (talk) 19:27, 25 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Victor Tooms[edit]

This article, in the years it has been on Wikipedia, asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is only notable in relation to the two articles on the characters two appearances. It is an in-universe repetition of plot points from the X files episode articles, and is totally duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. Transwiki it to a X-Files Wiki (if it's not already there). RobJ1981 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Tooms, the article on the episode (X-Files episodes each have a article).HeartofaDog (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - (Merge/Redirect is good, but Keep is better) I'll go with the line that this character has a significance beyond a single episode (plus a comment that this was a time-wasting nomination based on inadequate research). HeartofaDog (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to The X-Files so another editor can try to work on it later without having to restart it from scratch.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with episode. Tim! (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reliable sources for this. The absence of these from the article is the occasion for improvement not deletion per our editing policy and WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Doesn't anyone read WP:BEFORE before making nominations? This is an obvious redirect to the episode, as a name which might be searched for. Neier (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point but Tooms appears in more than one episode. He also appears in other forms and media such as the CCG. A separate article is a useful way of pulling this together. As for WP:BEFORE, this nominator routinely asserts that topics are not notable when a simple search indicates otherwise, as in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per lack of sources that meet WP:N- unless Colonel Warden can point out where these "numerous reliable sources" are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to sources on the talk page of the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok (still better to actually post the sources on the AfD, not the searches.) I could find one good web source which meets RS and secondary criteria, and several books make mention of him being a favorite. However, there's little that could be used to turn Tooms into a good article longer than a stub. My new recommendation is merge and use the sources found to improve the episode article, which possibly could become FA. Better to have one good article than two crappy ones, and spare us tenuously notable villains. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just added a USA TODAY based-sentence with reference to the lede. Without the existance of such references the article might possibly need to be merged with another. But since there are significant references that isn't the certainly case, so no sense speculating on that. There are enough references and coverage for the article on this character to stand alone. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge real-world info with List of MOTW characters, then redirect; I am open to unmerging if it gets too much for that list some day. X Files is probably notable enough to have some bits of real-world information for every minor character, but this doesn't justify keeping/having an article for each barely notable fictional element. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:11, 28 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 & salt. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_24#Piotr_Blass

Still doesn't seem to meet notability guideliens. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable failing candidate. He might be notable some day, but not now. Fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this should be the fourth nomination, not the second. Also,this was deleted in the first and second AfD. Undeath (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt or leave as stub. In the past this has been a problematic article, the subject has edited the article himself adding lots of positive spin, there is also quite a lot of negative press about him (see deletion log). There are sources aplenty see for example [29]. Mathematically he is borderline notable for his work on Zariski surface, being editor and translator of influential Elements of Algebraic Geometry Five by Alexander Grothendieck, an being involved with an early online mathematics journal Ulam Quarterly. Balancing the negative press and the subjects account would be a tricky task and the only stable state for the article seems to be a stub. --Salix alba (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt history is quite clear here. --Buridan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. I am not sure about his notability as a politician (the older version [30] does cite quite a few sources) but academic notability under WP:PROF is passable but weak. It is true that he was the editor-in-chief of Ulam Quaterly, which may indeed have been the first online math journal. However, the journal's existence was fairly brief (1992-96) and it never really managed to get off the ground. Notability from editing Grothendieck's notes is derivative. In terms of his own work, MathSciNet shows 33 papers (the last one in 1996), none are widely cited. WebOfScience shows top citation hits in single digits for his papers. Similarly, little in terms of citability in GoogleScholar[31]. However, his book with Jeffrey Lang on Zariski surfaces is widely held in academic libraries per WorldCat[32]. Still, for a mathematician, I would want to see some more direct evidence in terms of citability. If judged purely as an academic under WP:PROF, I would probably have !voted "weak keep". I am not sure about the political activities and the past problems with this article on WP. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question I remember this article from previous AfDs (this is it's fourth). The DR decision to unsalt was based on "Significant new information has come to light since the deletion." but reading this new bio, I see no new information, no claim to notability even (failed candidates for local office fail WP:POLITICIAN, and a weak claim to pass WP:PROF). Does anyone know what this "new information" was? Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was [33] which was a complete rewrite differening markedly from the deleted version [34] (I've just restored this for comparison). --Salix alba (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable in any way. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:POLITICIAN, fails. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think his political activities fail WP:POLITICIAN (local gadfly of WP:NOT#NEWS variety, no eternal historical impact), and fails WP:PROF (main claim to notability as I see it is via book co-authored Jeffrey Lang, and the most common blurb I see for the book mentions it containing Lang's dissertation work). Given the long history of this article, and the failure of it to show a consistent trend towards accumulating stronger claims to notability, I suggest a re-salting is appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The version linked to by Salix Alba contains one possibly notable claim: an on-line mathematics magazine (unnamed) from 1987, and a write-in campaign for governor of Florida in a race for which our article lists 147 total write-ins. I don't think that's enough. Weak delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 22 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) 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shurikenbrothers[edit]

YouTube-based "filmmakers"; outside of search results either on YouTube or pointing to it, there is no mention of this group. Fails WP:NOTE Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom/'cuz YouTube films aren't notable enough for inclusion into the 'pedia.Kfc18645 talk 04:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article's claim of "small cult following on yotube" not sourced nor proven. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because YouTube is not a reliable source and there is not evidence for notability in real world. Sounds like self-promotion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:54, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrendra Gangadean[edit]

Not notable under WP:PROF, and anyway, the article is really a Coatrack for a book that is not notable under WP:BK. Nearly the same text was added to existence of God, philosophy of religion, natural theology, and presuppositional apologetics, which seems a bit like POV pushing, not to mention that it asserts God's existence has been definitively proven. Also, it's a possible copyvio. Flex (talk/contribs) 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply a WP:COATRACK of one of the topic's claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, specifically WP:COATRACK. Author is POV pushing. andy (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could find no sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless someone finds some sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Professors at community colleges are rarely academically notable and this case does not appear to be an exception. GoogleScholar shows one book review (for some reason listed several times), but not much else in terms of academic citability[35]. Almost nothing in GoogleBooks either[36]. WorldCat shows one book that is not widely carried by academic libraries[37]. Nothing else to indicate academic notability. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF as shown by Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hopelessly POV article about a nonnotable person. That being said: I was shocked to see this, as I know several people who once knew the man! Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 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 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Mine: Adam Freeland[edit]

Completely fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Each of these is a series of individual "mix" albums from a series called "Back to Mine." A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things. The series itself is barely notable, much less all of the albums in it. They have no extensive coverage in reliable sources and all of the articles are little more than a note of the artist, release date, and the tracklistings.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reasons:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Artist doesn't qualify for any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, same goes for song. Calor (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Artist has been nominated for a Grammy, thus is notable. "same goes for song": What song? - McCart42 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to above assertions, the artists involved qualify easily under WP:MUSIC, and these albums individually have received non-trivial coverage in; The Independent on Sunday (Roots Manuva), The Guardian (Death in Vegas), NME (Adam Freeland) The Telegraph (Faithless), Boston Globe (Pet Shop Boys) etc. This is hardly a non-notable self released series, but one of the most successful mix-album series in dance music, and has received large amounts of coverage in sources as credible as the ones above. I don't assume bad faith on the part of the nominator, but there is no credible way that these albums fail WP:V. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One single bit of coverage each do not make them notable. Significant coverage in multiple sources is required, and the notability of the artists does not confer to the album. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I only put up those links to illustrate a sample of the coverage, not to exhaust it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without real evidence of notability, and all of the articles actually showing it, then they still are unnotable and should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they should be submitted for cleanup and not deletion, since User:Mostlyharmless has just shown you the evidence you claimed does not exist. Please be willing to change your opinion in the face of clear evidence. - McCart42 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link per is not clear evidence of anything and notability still has not been established. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Grammy-award winning DJ compiles an album, said album is reviewed in NME, and that's non-notable? Maybe someone else can share why they think this is so? - McCart42 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a SINGLE review from a music magazine does not establish notability at all, and it doesn't matter who compiled it. Again, the album must be notable on its own. And sticking in a forum posting quote really doesn't improve the article either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, there is much more than a single example of coverage in reliable sources for each of these articles; you didn't do the requisite looking for sources as is required by the deletion process, and now you seem too committed to deletion to admit any ground. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One could certainly take an axe to many of the AfD submitter's articles as well as being something insignificant, and yet most of us are capable of understanding that there are works that we don't appreciate and yet others do. If this place has room for 8000 words on a List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, I think we can spare some space for a compilation by a Grammy-award winning DJ. If there's not enough descriptive text right now, then such text can be added. And anyways, weren't you going to delete the entirety of the DJ-Kicks series too? - McCart42 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, one could not take an axe to many of my articles, or even some. I actually create articles that meet our notability guidelines. The meerkat list is a featured list with extensive sourcing to back up its notability, and part of a featured topic. It is not one of a dozen little stub articles that have no other purpose than to let people throw up the track list for CDs, mirroring any retail site that sells it and completely violating WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTCATALOG.

Should also note that McCart42 is the creator of most, if not all, of the nominated articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "most, if not all" you mean "one". And I do question your motives for not submitting for deletion the entirety of the DJ-Kicks and Late Night Tales articles at the same time. Do you mean to have this debate on the smallest subsection and then delete the others one group at a time, so as to minimize the number of commenters opposed to the deletion? - McCart42 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question my motives all you like. I nominated the ones in front of me that were all from a single series. I have no obligation to hunt down and nominate every last other similar series just because you want to use the WP:OTHERSTUFF claim to justify this set. WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid argument. And I stand corrected, you only created one, the one that caused a copyright alert that brought me to the page in the first place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you have no intention of writing an AfD for the articles these other users have contributed? Because otherwise you appear to be deleting small quantities at a time so as to arouse the least interest in those who would want to keep these articles. Considering that the only objection appears to be that there is not enough descriptive text, why not submit these articles for cleanup and not deletion? - McCart42 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment McCart42 has appears to be engaged in canvassing for people to come to this AfD, implying on other article talk pages that if they don't save this one, "theirs" will also be deleted[38][39][40] and leaving messages for other editors of similar albums because they are likely to support his keep.[41][42][43]
Comment Since when is a Google News search criteria for determining notability? I find 3 hits for Wolf's Rain, does that mean it's non-notable and should be deleted? The lack of Google News search results is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. - McCart42 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Rain notability is well established by Wikipedia guidelines. Why not actually address the issue instead of continuing to attack other editors and articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's rain has a bloody good point. In the past, I've failed to stand up for articles that easily pass WP:V and WP:RS (such as the ones above), because fighting a determined deletionist is hard work. And then 6 months later I've seen things I did care about nominated and deleted, mostly on the strength of WP:OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED. There is no way DJ Kicks and Late Night Tales are much more (or less) "notable" (the most subjective and useless criteria on Wikipedia), or have received greatly more press coverage. They're at risk from deletionists too. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...Wolf's Rain has 34 sources, all reliable. Its aired nearly worldwide, won multiple awards, critical acclaim, and has an award winning soundtrack (and note, that despite being award winning and easily more notable than half these CDs, it does NOT have a separate album article). And the one "keep" speaker to do any work on to show notability here has found, what, 1 each for some of the articles above? If you don't want stuff to be "at risk" either only actually create articles about notable stuff, or go find the sources to back up all your claims that these are somehow notable albums, because right now, no one has proven they are. Claiming they are notable just because you say so means nothing. Notability is not a subjective criteria. Its well defined and easily shown. So show it, or just accept that these albums, and those others, are not notable and either delete them, or be proactive and look at merging them into a single discography-style list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have thoroughly failed to comprehend the point, so I'll clarify a bit for you. Your assertion of lack of notability was based in part on the statement that "A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things." Fine, Wolf's Rain is notable, and yet I've just demonstrated that a Google News search has only 3 hits. So you're voluntarily choosing a very flawed argument to show lack of notability. Why is that? Not one of these artists' notability can possibly be in question. Most are DJs, and so a "compilation album" is in fact what they do for a living. Go look at Adam Freeland. He's been nominated for a Grammy, sold millions of albums, and yet all but one of his works listed are compilations. Since there are others who feel as you do that compilations are non-notable, very few of his works have articles. I would say that his notability allows leeway in including an article on all of his albums. Now I've begun adding refs to the entry I created, and others have demonstrated that these refs exist for every one of the articles you've AfD'd. It's come down to the fact that it is a bit easier for you to delete than to fix. Have it your way, I guess. Like I said, you won't be stopping at Back to Mine if you're at all self-consistent, I assure you. It's a bit puzzling, though, that someone who spends so much time writing about esoteric subjects feels so compelled to delete the work of others for allegedly being insignificant. - McCart42 (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also failed to comprehend the point. I never said Freeland himself isn't notable. That does NOT make every one of his albums notable, compilation or not. Its still a non-notable album that you have not demonstrated any notability for. You added one ref (repeating it doesn't make it more significant) to again, one review from a music magazine that likely reviews most CD releases. That is NOT significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"from a music magazine that likely reviews most CD releases" - So you're just guessing at this point, I see. How many CD releases do you think there are each week? And how many reviews do you think a print magazine can write? There's a editor's review by Alastair Lee in BBC Collective as well which you've decided to ignore in saying "You added one ref". Please stop making false statements in support of your point. - McCart42 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see a forum posting as falling under WP:RS. So my statement still stands. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Lee is a founder and editor of BBC Collective, and he wrote the review. You're welcome to ask someone in a position of authority whether or not BBC Collective is a reliable source, but this falls a bit above the level of a forum posting. I'd rather you not respond in such a misleading way in the future, but my previous requests haven't been heeded so I suspect this one won't be either. - McCart42 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very much part of an important series of Back to Mine albums, which were very popular in the UK... not sure how high each one charted, but I certainly remember the adverts in the Underground station whenever a new one was released. These compilations were always hotly anticipated. Of course it should stay. 193.200.176.30 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —McCart42 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSeries is notable, but there is no need for 20 articles consisting tracklists. Merge the 20 back into the series article.Kww (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which is it: Delete or Merge? - McCart42 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete, because I see no reason to leave 20 redirects, either. There is some information in each of the album articles that should be preserved, so if there is a history issue with the GFDL, someone should merge the histories. In the end, no article under this name should exist.
Kww (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This series of albums (along with DJ-Kicks and Late Night Tales) are very popular in the UK, and generally receive reviews by the UK dance press (Mixmag, DJ Magazine, i-DJ etc) upon each release. Since the compilers of the albums are unquestionably notable, and considering that the content of these albums is music by other notable artists, it seems churlish to delete these articles. Examples of reliable sources are mentioned above, more are here, here and here, if you'd care to look. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all of the series is important in the UK, its compatible to the "Now That's What I Call Music" for many stations and DJ. The albums were released by a label and they were released by legitimate musicians. I feel that deleting the articles is damaging to Wikipedia's music section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another good point: Not a one of the dozens of articles in List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums admit more notability than the Back to Mine series. If any of these albums is deleted, those should be deleted for the same reasons. It is only proper if we are to be consistent with the rules of notability as interpreted by Collectonian. I'd love to hear an enumeration of "all aspects of WP:MUSIC and WP:N" which these articles so completely fail. Suspect we'll all be waiting for some time however. - McCart42 (talk) 02:02, 25 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) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School 66[edit]

Seems like a fairly obvious hoax. Filming 58 episodes in December? Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a hoax, and at the least it fails WP:NOTE- google returns nothing. Plus, TV shows usually don't have the number of episodes per season for the entire series when they are still filming the first season. If it's a hoax, it's not even a good hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusing (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax/vandalism. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - probably a hoax but not obviously a hoax - have therefore declined the speedy request. nancy ^talk 07:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, in the rare case that it's not a hoax, then WP:RS and WP:V-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy G3 has already been declined - see above. nancy ^talk 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Atwood[edit]

Non-notable blogger who has a podcast; no published works and not well known within his field. Article provides little or no relevant biographical information and contains no real encyclopaedic content, nor any reasonable assertion of notability. IngeniousCritic (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Fails to back up the assertion of notability with reliable sources. While notability is asserted, it isn't really proven out: no awards for the blog, no recognitions, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:Bio. Toddst1 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't mention why the subject is notable. Fails WP:BIO. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 07:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:N. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - sources fail to establish notability, and there would be nowhere useful to redirect. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is actually an author for the technical book: ASP.NET 2.0 Anthology and he has also been a keynote speaker at the 2008 CUSEC conference. His blog is quite popular and I think that with some time, the article has potential. Althena (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 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 Redirect' to Korobeiniki. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korobushko[edit]

Apparently, it's ... a song. Corvus cornix_talk 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, band that performed it doesn't have a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korobeiniki per Duffbeerforme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Cliff smith ^talk 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a traditional Russian song and folk dance called Korobushka (yes, I was a folk dancer in my younger days), which might merit an article, but this article, about a particular version/adaptation of it by an apparently nonnotable group, isn't that article. Deor (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with comment below) I really have to learn to search WP before commenting. We have an article on this piece of music at Korobeiniki, to which I recommend that we redirect this article. Deor (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bond's Album has placed 1^st place in 21 different charts. Is that nonotable? This is also not an adaptaion of that song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta Op Alpha 1 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the video of Bond's version here, what they're playing is clearly an arrangement of the Russian folk song I referred to. Deor (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bond are a notable band. Their first album Born contains a traditional song called Korobushka that is linked to a redirect that goes to Korobeiniki. This Korobushko page is a mispelling that may be useful as a redirect. bonds version of the song could be mentioned on Korobeiniki. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to Korobeiniki. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, i.e. active efforts to improve an article created just today. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me. The name of the song is Korobushka. The bond version is slightly more that a little differnet than the original though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta Op Alpha 1 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nevertheless, I suggest that you read WP:MUSIC. An album cut that was not released as a single (as this one apparently was not) is usually considered nonnotable, no matter how popular the album is. A mention of Bond's having recorded the piece has been added to Korobeiniki, and that should be sufficient for now. Deor (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 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 Withdrawn Having a chart hit asserts notability quite nicely. Of course, it would've helped had I known that the Italian music charts really are called the Italian Charts. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotta (musician)[edit]

~~No sources. Claims to be famous but I'm not finding anything about him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well not huge, google isn't silent on him. Neither does the italian version of the article appear to be lacking. If I could read italian I could give a better analysis of the sources --T-rex 03:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references in article.Callelinea (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, no real notability. The Italian article may be a candidate for WP:TIE some time in the future. Calor (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would be him on the ItalianoWiki [44], and the album with the that is mentioned in the article. Very devoid of references from what I can see. I can find nothing that meets any of the notability criteria laid down for this wikipedia though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Piotta had a single which hit #15 on the Italian Charts. Meets WP:MUSIC for charting a hit. Current lack of sources is not a valid rationale for deletion; are we sure we're checking non-English sources? Chubbles (talk) 16:22, 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Union[edit]

Fails to meet criteria for a music article, band has no notable members and are on unnotable label. Their biggest claim to fame seems to be the fact that one of their songs was once played on a BBC radio station. Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the bands toured with is impressive, I can find almost no independent sources mentioning the band, and not much that isn't "trivial coverage" --T-rex 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale is disingenuous. Science Records is not an unknown; it is a sublabel of Virgin Records, and among its signees are Blessthefall, Greeley Estates and Photek. The fact that the band has no notable individual members is immaterial. Furthermore, they were not played once on BBC Radio; they had regular rotation on BBC 1. Alongside all this, Beat Union (who are British) played the entire American Warped Tour in 2008 and are embarking on a US tour with Flogging Molly in about 2 weeks. The group meets WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 4, and 11. Chubbles (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles has added many sources to the article. The band has been the subject of coverage in bbc.co.uk, Chart magazine, Alternative Press, and allmusic. There's enough there to meet WP:N (criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC). Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 25 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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Surrender[edit]

Fails to meet criteria for a music article, band has no notable members and are unsigned Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they sound good, but no independent sources found --T-rex 03:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- change to Keep - based on sources found by User:Paul Erik --T-rex 14:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few independent sources and added them to the article: The Monitor, the Evening Chronicle, AbsolutePunk.net, and Wonka Vision all reviewed this band's albums. I think it's enough to establish notability under criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band meets WP:MUSIC points 1 and 5. The nominator's rationale is poor; the band was signed to EastWest Records subsidiary Broken English for two full-length albums and only recently self-released their latest, and their having no notable members is moot; many notable bands don't, particularly when they are relatively new. Chubbles (talk) 13:51, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadichi dollars[edit]

Apparent promotional article on a non-notable musician. All releases seem to have been done on a self-publishing label, and I can't find any evidence that they have been on the (specialized Tunecore) Billboard charts as they claim. The lack of overt promotional content and claim to have charted on Billboard prevented me from speedily deleting it under WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11, so I'm bringing it here for discussion instead. jonny-m t 03:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Billboard, Allmusic, Amazon, all nothing. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being listed on ASCAP is not a claim to notability. Zero independent sources found --T-rex 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artist IS on amazon.com, and iTunes for that matter. i'm new to wikipedia. i don't understand everything yet especially your "referencing" hypertext stuff, but i've been trying paraphrase several pages of CD linear notes, in attempts to construct this article. I've been searching around the net for links to artist information. - kevin j powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin J Powell (talk • contribs) 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got a couple of extra notes on your talk page from myself and another user with some additional resources, but basically I'm not contesting that the artist exists so much as I'm suggesting that he is not notable and thus not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can find some reliable sources (i.e. places where he has been written about in a situation that provides editorial oversight--things like profiles in magazines, newspapers, and books are ideal), feel free to post links directly in this discussion if you can't figure out how to put them into the article. As I mentioned on your talk page, you have at least five days, so please feel free to take your time and ask any questions you may have. --jonny-m t 05:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think i'll start here. thanks to those who helped this article out, as far as the references that it now has. i don't know. I heard half of this song by the guy from Day26, Que on sirius radio in the car two weeks ago and actually thought Que had come out with his own album? couldn't find Que's CD at walmart yet, thanks to the chorus, managed to locate the song on iTunes, but didn't buy it cause i wanted the genuine cd to play in the car. now, Day26 was on MTV's "Making The Band 4" earlier this year, but even more last year. i ended up hunting the song down on CD and bought it last week via paypal from a chick on discogs.com by the way, Que's song "Cry No More" has a bunch of remixes up on YouTube too with about 7,500 page views in total. then, when i got around to listening to the rest of the CD while driving... i realized he had two other artists on here that have been a little quiet for a few months:

1) NYCKZ... who has an accumulated total of over ONE MILLION page views on youtube.com, all spread out over 2 dozen videos or so. he's also on the Beef 4 DVD alongside Paul Wall, NYCKZ has a song on this CD too.
2) Arab... who i think has recorded songs with souljaboytellem, most notably the video on MTV and BET last year, "Pass It To Arab".

now that i think about it, i understand why its ramadichi dollars AND friends or why its not on all music guide, you got 3 different people on 3 different career paths who are all in the public eye on the same CD and produced by the same guy, who needs all music guide or a publicist when you got friends like this. ramadichi whoever he is has some, pretty VISIBLE friends. they were all over FM Radio, international television networks and the internet, last year and this year. noteworthy or "notable"... maybe not, but definitely visible. i was surprised when i referenced "ramadichi dollars" on wikipedia and didn't see anything... but i guess that's why everything this guy wanted to say was in the linear notes of this second-hand, used CD i bought online. i was just trying to do the best i could. sorry i didn't understand all the referencing hypertext stuff.

if you want to delete it. FINE, but i think it belongs right where it is. if more people could help with the referencing or if someone else out there has this CD too. Maybe they could make the article better or something. so that wikipedia can continue to be the best free encyclopedia in existence.

hope i didn't offend anybody, didn't mean to. first time here, and i think this place is still pretty cool. ramadichi or no ramadichi. - Kevin J. Powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin J Powell (talk • contribs) 06:58, 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 Delete --JForget 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiyaon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Google books shows only one ghit [45], no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made this stub after a prior article about a cryptid under this title was speedied as a copyright violation. There are, in fact, two sources given: the Mothman book, and an Italian newspaper article. They really say very little about this monster other than the name and the vague description. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although there is very little information available on this legend, there are a few more references (of dubious reliability): [46], [47]. However, I'm mainly hesitant to delete because of the systemic bias issues: it is inevitably going to be difficult to find online references about a legendary creature of the folklore of West Africa. The limited references so far are sufficient, I think, to show that the legend exists; given the obscure subject matter, notability is rather more difficult to ascertain. Terraxos (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the existence of a creature does not mean it should be included as an article (my nose definitely exists but if I create an article about my nose I should expect to see a CSD warning template appear on my talk page soon after). If notability cannot be ascertained, the article should be deleted.-Samuel Tan 15:06, 19 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 13:13, 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the point about finding scholarly articles about this creature is valid, I'm concerned that it doesn't appear even notable among cryptids. The book referenced in the article actually quotes another author, Darren Naish, about this creature, and it is a very brief mention. Compare with Nguma-monene. Without more verifiable information, how could this be a good article? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the online sources I found that cover the topic significantly are blog entries or personal websites of very dubious reliability. Even this source is blog-like, and seems to be some sort of recounting by the author of African experiences (first hand or otherwise, see its index page).-Samuel Tan 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non-notable. MediaMob (talk) 21:39, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web design agency[edit]

WP:OR issues burden this essay. The wobbly writing style doesn't help, the lack of references is fatal. Pending a full rewrite, I am not certain that it belongs here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the subject itself is notable. The article needs some serious cleanup and wikification as well. Perhaps their is a good merge target for this? --T-rex 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is not talking about website design, it is talking about a certain class of designing companies that concentrate on services to specific industries. Perhaps in the authors context, "web" means as in "spider's web", and not the Internet. Also, note that the categories (which tie it to website design) were added later, by another user. In this context, the article is non-notable IMO - I couldn't find any sources that refer to the subject as the author intended it. -Samuel Tan 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MediaMob (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overly high opinion-to-fact ratio. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:50, 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) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskers (band)[edit]

Me-owww! Appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reminder: Search for sources first please, and say so in the nomination statement.) I found nothing in Google News archives nor in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reminder: Please read the nomination statement - WP:RS was clearly cited as a reason for the proposed deletion. I always check for sources before submitting articles for AfD consideration. If I found sources, I would've added them to the article and not put it up for deletion.) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, Ecoleetage! I misunderstood. Other editors sometimes write "fails WP:RS" just with respect to the sources that are listed on the article, not as an indication they have performed a search. I'll be more careful about my "reminder" comments. Sorry about that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources given, no sources found. --T-rex 03:49, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lynne Holbrook[edit]

Article is of non-notable individual, and created by username nearly identical to that of the subject of the article in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and specifically WP:Autobiography. Volunteerism does not assert notability, nor does entry, placement of winning of a contest. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is questionable, at best, and as much as I don't like judging people by their usernames, when they create articles with exactly (or nearly exactly) the same name, it's quite suspicious. --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, if there was some news articles as references to prove her notability then I would say keep but since there are none. Callelinea (talk)
Delete Without any independent sources, its hard to demonstrate any notability. At least if she had won, that might count for something, but being a career runner up doesn't help. Montco (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 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) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Williams[edit]

This article may be a hoax - a Google search for "Rock Williams" and "KFWR" only turns up this article. The charges of sexual harrassment cited in the article are also not confirmed in an online search.WP:RS and WP:V, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the charges are libelous against Steve Harmon, in and of itself a reason to delete this quickly. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, those charges have been in the article for 2 1/2 years!!! I've removed the blp violation. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've cleaned up the article and feel strongly that no longer qualifies for a Speedy Delete although unless notability can be established I still feel that it should be deleted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. I came to this article expected it to be about the sax player, a well known session musician from Nashville but found this DJ instead. Not finding any references to backup his notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:19, 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. GlassCobra 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMPP[edit]

Delete nn software package 10 GHITS, most from wikipedia or the developers Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand. There is no explanaton of the purpose or the mechanism of HMPP. Andreas ^(T) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to do the same thing as OpenMP, right down to the #pragmas. Except, well, it's Better and you should Use It Instead. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 06:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is similar to OpenMP, but it is about GPGPU programming. --Jakub Narebski (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first page of a Google test reveals only press releases and official company promotion, which clearly do not establish the notability of the software. Non-web sources are expected to be nonexistent given the lack of online sources, since this concerns a software product. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 06:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would expect any wiki article to direct me in such a way as to gain a basic understanding of the subject. I'm left completely baffled by this. There are no inline citations, it appears to be solely about a commercial product, it does not discuss what is notable about this product. The very first line doesn't actually make any sense. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject appears reasonably new and could become notable if it isn't already as it's a growing area. May be fixable? MediaMob (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if subject should become notable. But it isn't currently. RayAYang (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:53, 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 merge/redirect to Ministry of Defence Police#Special capabilities. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Support Unit (Ministry of Defence Police)[edit]

Non-notable unit of a police force, contents already included verbatim in Ministry of Defence Police. ninety:one 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Two sentences? These should simply be added to the Ministry of Defence Police article.Wikigonish (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:27, 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 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Ministry of Defence Police#Special capabilities. I see no reason to dwell on this one. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ministry of Defence Police#Special capabilities' - there is very little to add --T-rex 03:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE/MERGE - This article needs a huge amount of work and is only a small unit. This article should just be a section of the MOD police article. It needs a lot more info.. According to MoD Police Website its a, "The OSU is the MDP's mobile, flexible reserve. OSU officers are able to be deployed at short notice anywhere in the UK, and provide specialist police skills in areas such as ammunition and explosive searches, anti-terrorist searches, personal protection for VIPs, public order and nuclear, chemical and biological hazard response teams." There isn't much more to say! This should just go on the MoD Police Wiki Page,a nd this article deleted.. Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 08:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge - I would love to argue that we should keep it and in some ways I think we should, but it is a unit which could easily be explained on the MDP pagee. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:48, 22 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 merge. Wizardman 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers Type 40 mm AT/AA Gun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vickers Type 40 mm AT/AA Gun

No facts, dates, references, images - in fact nothing of any use

Note: This AfD and above the comment was originally posted by Rcbutcher on 16:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC). I have since created this sub-page (for correct formatting) and moved the original listing here. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —- Icewedge (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to (I think) Ordnance QF 2 pounder. Megapixie (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is about a Japanese clone of the pom-pom (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_40mm-62_HI.htm). Bukvoed (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think - make it a variant in the QF 2 pounder naval gun article ? Or keep it as its own article ? Megapixie (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge it into QF 2 pounder naval gun as a variant. Bukvoed (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:56, 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 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article might be salvageable via the references given at [48] Also found at p 21 of "Japanese Army of World War II" by Philip Warner, Michael Youens a statement that the Japanese used "40 mm Vickers machine cannon (water cooled, recoil operated, link-belt-fed automatic" and also used their own copies, although they were obsolescent. So merge to the main article on the weapon. Delete Fails verifiability. I doubt the Japanese official name for it was "Vickers" which was a British company The article title also calls it a "Type 40 mm" which seems to conflate the type designation and the calibre.. No referenced or useful information in the article. Edison (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into QF 2 pounder naval gun. There is unlikely to be enough material to justify its own page. Smile a While (talk) 19:30, 25 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 (Non-admin closure). Protonk's cleanup got the job done. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics in industrial organization[edit]

Title aside, this article does not comprise a distinct subject in the field of economics. "Production" belongs in Manufacturing, and the other concepts in microeconomics and managerial economics (pricing already has its own article). It's just an unsourced amalgamation of topics (not even mergeable content) that are somehow related to production theory. FrankTobia (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find references for this article and the article is GOOD--Puttyschool (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So why don't you? --Amalthea^Talk 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, because I think that the topic is already far better covered in Microeconomics and the more specialized Production theory basics etc., and the article as it is is really a mishmash of topics. The first section seems useful, and I could imagine it in form of a list or infobox (like on Four_p's).
Nevertheless I'm not an economist, so I don't have a strong opinion about this. --Amalthea^Talk 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my vote, since the first section has just been turned into a list. Thanks Protonk. --Amalthea^Talk 18:11, 19 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 02:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this topic is too broad to effectively cover anything. All material is already better provided in a number of other articles --T-rex 03:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first section is a collection of links to other articles, and would better fit in an infobox or category. From "Production systems" onward, there are no links anywhere, nor any citations. The remainder of the list-article reads like an exam cheat sheet. It states either unverifiable or miscellaneous factoids and would be extremely useful for picking out keywords to write a school essay about, but is of little encyclopedic value. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 06:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essay parts removed. The article has been moved to List of topics in industrial organization since it basically is one. Meets WP:SAL. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 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 No consensus (non-admin closure) Leonard^(Bloom) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Binary[edit]

Non-notable album. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:MUSIC#Albums, "the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles.....should include independent coverage". There was a 4 star Allmusic.com review already on the page before this AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:MUSIC#Albums - the band are notable, so is this album. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - McCart42 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May you disclose a reasoning for your AfD !vote? Thanks, RyRy (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC#Albums, all album articles must also meet WP:N and there is no automatic notability from the artist. The album has significant coverage in multiple, reliable third party sources and is therefore unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wisdom of Harry per WP:MUSIC: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article".
Unless there is noteworty information on the album that I missed a redirect is appropriate. Besides the track listing there is no noteworthy information in that article, so I don't consider a merge. The alllmusic link has only a rating, but not a review. --Amalthea^Talk 22:21, 26 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Masand[edit]

Film reporter and reviewer; he does work for a cable network, but I haven't found any articles on him per WP:BIO. Nearly all of his biography is pulled directly from Startv violating WP:COPYVIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Mspraveen (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyvio and lack of sources identifying him as notable. -xC- 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! It appears that in his part of the world he does have a career outside StarTV and is notable...Times of India publishes his interview with George Lucas, one of his reviews in Naachgaana, quoted in marketplace.publicradio.org, his reviews spread through FilmiKhabar, Truveo seems to show his opinion matters to somebody, Mutiny.in speaks toward his abilities, Ongoing review series at AsianOutlook.com, et al. Use this search or this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 18:36, August 21, 2008
- Sorry. I must have been signed out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD was incomplete, with the appropriate notice missing from the article itself. This has been corrected.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per MichaelQSchmidt, I think the sources do exist to show some notability for this person. A quick Google News search pulls up 26 hits. He is the film critic for a national news channel, and has at least two television series: Masand's Verdict and To Catch a Star. It does, however, suffer from being a creation of the subject or someone who knows him, leading to a serious lack of neutrality. Its been stubified, but also still needs checked, rewritten, etc. Tag for issues and give some time. I've done some of the needed clean up already. No prejudice to renominate after a month or two if significant improvements are not forth coming and sources do not pan out.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shyambhagat

Respected Editors. I don't know what wrong with the review table of this article. If you see the articles of other Critics, you can clearly see given points and their official comments for number of films. I removed all the controversial comments and points raised by all. But now I don't think so that the unsortable review has a problem. If someone is raising any violation point, it isn't true. Because ultimately the website hosting this articles is been ultimate beneficiary. If some tell me any valid arguments on this point, I will never update this list again.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:54, 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 Withdrawn I noticed the NSAI awards before, but I wasn't sure if they're notable enough; apparently they are. Between that and the lawsuit regarding "Prop Me Up", I'm now barely convinced that he meets notability guidelines. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Perdew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Was kept last time depsite a total lack of sources; closing admin noted "keep. a lack of references does not require deletion: it requires references. I'm inclined to err toward inclusion." Well, there are no references besides one Wikipedia page and an article which has a mere mention of one song that he co-wrote for Joe Diffie. Therefore, I feel he fails WP:N and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- I did find the following link that mentions he won a prize of some sort: 1. Other ghits mention that he's helped write a lot of fairly prominent songs, which indicates he's contributed a great deal to his area, but the sources only mention him in passing. I'm leaning towards weak delete but I'd be happy to review that if someone comes up with better material. Normally I would take a dim view of someone nominating the same page twice in the space of about a month, but I agree that the admin who closed the original AfD nomination shouldn't have; it should have been relisted to get a better consensus. Reyk _YO! 05:26, 6 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 11:13, 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. I know nothing about Country Music but he was involved in a Copyright lawsuit about one of his songs and it made it to US Court of Appeals (I looked in Google News). Callelinea (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That info is more pertinent to the song than to the writer(s). Being involved in a lawsuit doesn't make you inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also won 2 awards for his song writing abilities, so I have now changed it to KEEP.Callelinea (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — The arguments made to delete are slightly more persuasive than that to keep. In particular, TenPound's reply on the 19th at 04:25 leans me to the side of delete. Though, as with Reyk, more sources would be good... Perhaps a redirect to the song where his name popped up in the news might also be a good idea. *shrug*. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's written three or four songs for Joe Diffie (including his biggest Number One, Pickup Man), so I don't think it'd be a good idea to redirect to Prop Me Up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having co-written notable songs such as "Pickup Man" and "Prop Me Up Beside the Jukebox (If I Die)" makes him notable according to WP:MUSIC which states under the Criteria for composers and lyricists: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. Also, winning the awards means he meets criteria #4 there as well. --JD554 (talk) 08:17, 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 delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aksent[edit]

Article has been around for two years and neither gives references nor establishes notability. It is basically a list of a firm's clients, only four of them having an English WP entry. The corresponding Japanese article - as far as I can tell - seems to be an even longer list with little more information. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why didn't you request more information then (perhaps a {{notability}} tag or something?), rather than just nominating it for deletion? Now you're requiring whole pile of work be done immediately rather than giving a decent amount of time for it to be done. I'll do what I can, but I won't have time for a few days to do any significant research, and by then it may be too late. And yes, I realize the article has been around for two years, but it's still common courtesy to ask for references before outright Afd-ing the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I thought that any notability could be established, I might have taken that approach. But the article says nothing than that it is a Tokyo based talent agency for voice actors AND the Japanese article does not look better. I just ran some of the Japanese infobox info through Babelfish - not much more in there: address, a registered capital of 10,000,000 Yen ($100,000) and 13 employees. So I do not see any chance of establishing notability, any new article like this might have been speedied under A7. If you show me any reliable source (in English would be great, but anything I can babelfish will do), we can talk about withdrawing the nomination to give you more time. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 07:51, 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 02:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still do not see any source for notability. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not for 2 year history, speedily. It's an A7. Simply being a talent management company is not notable. TravellingCari 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nonnotable company, after which recreate as redirect to Accent. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 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. Sandstein 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya's national unity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Malaya's national unity

Historical essay. Unsourced and POV. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article about the history of Malaya during the time discussed. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see much worth salvaging. The information appears redundant (if verifiable at all) and should already be adequately treated in other articles, such as Japanese occupation of Malaya. The article also appears to contain more opinion than content. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations, no reliable sources, and vague rubbish like "myth of western superiority". "Transcend divisions such as race and religion" also looks like a tagline you'd see in a tabloid op-ed or political campaign; additionally, statements like "this race did this" are evidently forcefully and purposefully controversial (see Ketuanan Melayu and HINDRAF for a rough idea), and should be expressly removed unless sourced. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of the article is unsalvageably POV. --YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 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 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Dreams[edit]

Article for song that has no reliable sources to show it is going to be a single, therefore failing WP:MUSIC#Songs Aspects (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to the album Carnival Ride as a plausible search term. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - fails WP:CBALL at this time --T-rex 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carnival Ride and remove the link from {{Carrie Underwood}}. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term "crazy dreams" is too common to support a speculative redirect. I.e. it's likely that some other article may want/need/use that name, and having a redirect for pure speculation seems unnecessary to me. Just go ahead and delete it, and let's let our authors wait for verifiable information before rushing to the keyboard. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:53, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 1989[edit]

withdraw-nomination

Reason Mattcontinental (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article is listed as an aircraft accident. The actual flight did not experience an accident.
2. Numerous contradicting information between the four aircraft involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Mattcontinental (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Besides this, what sources are you considering unreliable? -- Veggy (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An anonymous letter on a website which says "propaganda" at the bottom is not what we refer to as a "reliable source." Edison (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's why I said besides this. -- Veggy (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The three ".gov" sources do not mention 1989 at all (The two PDF sources are the same document). It was not apart of the threat on the United States; it did not take part in the attacks. Mattcontinental (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no idea which three you're talking about. Numbers 1 and 2 are the same source cited differently to denote differing chapters and both mention Delta 1989. The third mentions a Delta flight, but not by name. -- Veggy (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThe mentioned flight may be Delta 2125.68.83.0.163 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The 9/11 commission report did not identify 1989 as a hijacking (pg 28, paragraph 6) but rather a suspicious flight.Mattcontinental (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Or it could have been 1989. Regardless, there is a reliable source which mentions it throughout. -- Veggy (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reasons to delete. You have listed <probably> valid points for improving the text, not deletion. Anyway, the official commission report, p.10 and 28, definitely addresses flight 1989. NVO (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Covered by reliable sources, so passes WP:N and WP:RS. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The plane was not hijacked and there was never any attempt to hijack it. A non-event. Right up there with the terrorist planes headed toward the Sears Tower that same day, which was also a baseless rumor. Not every rumored thing that gets passing reference in a humongous investigatory report needs to have its own encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This isn't a rumor. -- Veggy (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this should be part of the 11 September article, or part of a larger article on reactions that involved all suspect aircraft, or the grounding of all North American planes. It is interesting, and should be somewhere, but what is notable was the amount of confusion that reigned that day (quite understandable) as authorities tried to understand the whole picture of what was going on, something that was altogether new. The specific flight that was subject to a mistake is not notable. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless some one can establish that this is a hoax. A plane suspected of being a 5th hijacked plane was at risk of being shot down. Yes, it proved to be a non-event, but the suspicion makes it notable. It might be better being shortened and merged with a broader article, but that is not an AFD issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply NORAD did not deploy nor did they consider deploying interceptors until after contact was restored with the pilot and the plane was declared to be not a hijacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcontinental (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep actual event, notable, especially in the context of 9-11. Mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report. In re 9/11 report not mentioning it, "Remebering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989." Page 28 of the hardcopy, and it goes on from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted There was no threat at all. The flight was NOT hijacked. The flight made communication with ATC throughout its flight. The only reason the flight is mentioned in the NTSB reports is because the idea of 1989's hijacking was purely that of a conroller who mistook a transmission coming from United 93 as coming from 1989. Delta did nothing unordinary. As for the section of the article that describes the plane being held at gunpoint on the tarmac at Cleveland, there were many aircraft that were subject to this because of suspicions.68.83.0.163 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This anonymous user is almost certainly the nominator based on similarities in edits. [49], [50] Regardless, none of what he has mentioned is a reason for deletion. -- Veggy (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually, I am the nominator. I agree with this anonymous user: there was nothing showing that the plane was a threat. There is no other article on Wikipedia that is of a suspected hijacking which turned out to be without threat. Many planes, including three planes near Vancouver, were being watched as hijackings headed to cause destruction, as mentioned here.Mattcontinental (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your argument is not a reason for deletion. I suggest you read up on the process for deletion and try to mount a reasonable argument as to what to do with this article. Oh and sockpuppeting is not kosher. -- Veggy (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:I can see now the point to keeping the article. I do believe, however, that there needs to be some work done on the page with contradicting facts and such. There should be more sources linking the flight as a notable even.Mattcontinental (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Cool. Just write withdraw-nomination at the top and inform an admin. Thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyAlthough the article may or may not be deleted, the fact of the matter remains that the article is about a suspected hijacking but the sources do not mention it as a suspected hijacking; just a suspicious flight, along with many others. I am just not sure whether it is a significant enough event.mattcontinental (talk) 04:26, 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 Deleted as A3 - no meaningful content. SkierRMH (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for olympics 2008[edit]

Reason Vrefron (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No context, entry doesn't explain how it's related to title, honestly it's hard to explain why I AfD' it, except for I see no valid reason for this page existing.

Snow Delete - pure nonsense, WP:CSD#G1.--S_RX 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 or A1, nonsense without context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:51, 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, cloudy with a chance of SNOW. TravellingCari 18:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeToya's second album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/LeToya's second album

Future album with no concrete release date, (mostly) poorly sourced content and rumours galore. Fails WP:V, Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Proposing deletion without prejudice if/when further official information becomes available. Anything useful can easily be merged into main artist article. It's too soon for this one. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Track list, etc. haven't been verified; all we know is that it WILL exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HAMMER, has not been verified.--S_RX 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smite this with the ten-pound hammer, as per above: no title, no track list, release date TBA. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CBALL. Cliff smith ^talk 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hammer time! Tavix (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time *cue man doing silly dance in parachute pants* Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan may his pants flow like the wind.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:12, 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. Sandstein 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Philosophy of Martin Heidegger[edit]

Essay without the potential to become a genuine encyclopedic article. The article has existed without significant change for a long time. It is not a significant area of Heidegger research, and seems to be a personal essay by one user, originally cut out of the Heidegger article where it did not belong. However, it really doesn't belong anywhere. Merge would not be appropriate. BCST2001 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay unless someone wants to attempt a merge. JJL (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Heidegger has his own article, and this fracture isn't warranted by the length of that article. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:39, 22 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) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster-funk[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:V.--S_RX 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO SkierRMH (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At least one published book defines the term. It appears, however, to be self-published. That said, it and its website have a long list of press clippings, including some from the New York Times. This is not a keep vote. Just some info. Fixer1234 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did a search and cannot find any reliable sources -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NEO at the very least. It asserts itself as a more polite variant of clusterfuck, which is covered pretty well under the wiktionary page. If this variant (with an 'n') was in any way verifiable then a footnote to either that page or to the snappily titled list of U.S. Marine Corps acronyms and expressions would suffice, rather than a dedicated article page. But as it isn't... it doesn't. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clusterfuck is a notable slang term. Clusterfunk isn't anything. Ford MF (talk) 01:05, 22 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Samantha[edit]

Non-notable musician. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.--S_RX 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Queen Samantha is a notable, hit-charting legendary disco artist, perhaps one of the best known singers from France in the 1970s and 1980s to chart here in the USA. Her song "Mama Rue" is an international worldwide hit. (Randyfx (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - notable « PuTTY^SchOOL 08:15, 25 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. The reds have been mostly blued. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knox County Courthouse[edit]

This is an unneeded disambiguation page as there is currently no articles of this name. This was originally prodded but was removed with a message saying that the Knox County Courthouse is notable. I am not here arguing whether these courthouses are notable, but that if there are no Wikipedia articles for a certain disambiguation, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Disambiguations are not lists as there already is a list which documents these courthouses. Note: This can always be recreated if there is a need for it in the future, but right now its not needed. Tavix (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per my !vote and follow-up comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rogers House‎. Deor (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep now that articles have been created, but reiterating my opinion that dab pages consisting entirely of redlinked entries are deletable. According to WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles" (my emphasis); and whereas redlinks in list articles can serve the purpose of indicating articles in need of creation, such use of them in disambiguation pages is to be discouraged. Deor (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nom stated, disam. goes nowhere.--S_RX 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The dab page is actually very informative. One searching for "Knox County Courthouse" now knows that there are four different places with that name, and knows the States where they are situated. In addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis (I know, I patrol new pages). It won't be long before there are articles on atleast two of the listed places. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you can also find that information if you go to List of National Register of Historic Places entries and search for Knox County Courthouse. This is a disambiguation and not a list, and therefore goes against what a disambiguation is used for. "n addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis" This disambig was created several months ago and there still isn't any signs that any of the articles are going to be created. If any of the articles are created, wouldn't it make logical sense just to recreate it? Right now, however, this "disambiguation" goes against policies. Disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." This doesn't refer to any pages. THERE ARE NONE! There are plenty more points I can bring up, but hopefully you get the point. Tavix (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that information only if you know that it's on the List of National Register of Historic Places entries and only if you know how to get to the list. The people that I am catering to are the non=Wikipedians that don't know how to move around here like the rest of us at this discussion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. These articles will all be created eventually. Deleting the dab page now and recreating it later just makes too much work for everyone. Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How? It takes 2 minutes to create a disambiguation, literally. I've done them a few times and they take little work. Right now, this goes against policy. (See my reply to Brewcrewer). Tavix (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. For a reader of the encyclopedia, the disambiguation page itself provides information on the location of the property, AND serves notice that there are multiple properties with the same name. Those are pertinent pieces of information when using Wikipedia as a starting reference point. Minimal information, yes, but hardly unuseful. 2. As for style rules, note WP:MOSDAB#Break rules: "For every style suggestion above, there is some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Utilty to the reader here trumps other style requirements. 3. For an editor of the encyclopedia, it's nice to know up front that an article should be unambiguously named; disambiguation pages are useful to flag repeated property names. For example, there are (at least) two Park Avenue Historic District, as I found when I wrote the Detroit article (and moved the Talahassee article, and edited links thereto). It's not a disaster to have to rename and relink, but it needn't be necessary, either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MOSDAB#Red links states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guide for editors toward needed notable articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a coatrack. Create the articles. Why try to duplicate the register? Why not just tell people to go there to see a list of articles to create? What makes anyone think that this is likely to generate articles, if that won't? I suspect the people who know about a Knox County Courthouse that's on the NRHP, they're just going to do it. This does not perform a generative function, does not disambiguate anything in existence, and seems to be just another cadging of lists from outside sources without the hard work of writing articles. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree. If this DAB pages to red links are allowed, it may open a can of very disgusting worms, because articles that are not yet created not only may not be notable, their subjects may not even exist. It will lead to either a proliferation of nonsense DAB pages, or to complicated rules regarding what types of uncreated (!) articles can be included in a DAB page (notability of uncreated articles?!).-Samuel Tan 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cart before horse: disambiguation pages are internal navigation tools and so far here there's nothing TO disambiguate. Write the articles first - or at least one.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ - Per WP:DAB, disambiguation pages are to resolve conflicts in article titles, and they are "paths leading to different articles which could... have the same title". (1) If none of the articles on a DAB page exists, the DAB page is useless per the above quotation. (2) Editors do not need to use DAB pages to decide which articles are needed. WP:RA is there for that purpose. (3) The fact that red links can be included in DAB pages does not mean the DAB page must exist. It is like saying that a nose can exist on a head, so I must have a second head! (4) DAB pages are not meant to be directories about where a certain organization is located. -Samuel Tan 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the DAB page is useful now. Yeah, I agree with the user below that the nom should be withdrawn. :) -Samuel Tan 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I took three minutes and wrote one of the articles, addressing your lone objection. While the dreaded slippery slope argument is in general a poor one, it has even less logical weight here as a list of articles for locations on the National Register of Historic Places where there is an extremely well-defined set of "different articles which could... have the same title". There is rather broad consensus that locations on the Register are inherently notable, and it is a trivial matter to create articles for such places, as I and other editors have already done. As each of these articles had already been listed as a link on one of the "List of historic places in Foo County" articles, backed by appropriate sources, it establishes no precedent whatsoever for the dreaded "proliferation of nonsense DAB pages", as every one of these potential articles is backed by a rather finite list of nationally-recognized landmarks. This particular AfD now appears to be moot, and I would argue that all of the others are no more worthy of debate, even without any of the articles having been created. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the whole problem can be sidestepped in future in similar circumstances by ensuring that the articles, or at least one of them, are/is written BEFORE the dab pages. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Agree! Perhaps that should be stated somewhere in WP:DAB.-Samuel Tan 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knox County Courthouse, Knoxville, Tennessee already existed. Just needed a re-direct. These exist and can be created. Seems to be a case of fix it. TravellingCari 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two articles already disambiguated on this page now: if the only objection is that this is a useless disambiguation page, it should be withdrawn. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Tavix's nomination of this disambiguation was more or less in good faith, but, as I explain in User talk:Tavix#Lewis House and other disambig pages, there is considerable value provided in disambiguation of NRHP pages. It saves considerable amounts of work later, if the first NRHP page created under a common name is the disambiguation page pointing out all the NRHP sites, rather than a page for just one of the NRHPs (see that user talk page for expansion on this point). I also ask that Tavix withdraw this AfD nomination. doncram (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone that spends loads of time starting articles about historic places, I agree that is is extremely helpful to have the name of the article already on a disambig page even if the article has not been written yet. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now now 2 bluelinked articles and the other two have links to the articles that refer to them. It should be withdrawn by the nominator. clariosophic (talk) 22:28, 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 and convert into a protected redirect to Kellie Pickler until the album's release date. Blueboy 96 14:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Pickler (album)[edit]

Not again. This keeps getting re-created without any sources at all. There are no reliable sources yet to verify the tracklist or anything else. This creation has a little more, so G4 doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the title, track list and release date can be verified by reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MUSIC#Albums and per nom.--S_RX 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when it is sourced. JJL (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can confirm the artwork and release date here at Amazon, but nothing on the track listing. For me, the track listing is quite a big part for the "completeness" of an album, so for the moment, it's a delete for me. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only can find sources to prove title, release date, but nothing else like full tracklist. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a title, a tracklisting and a release date. what more could you want? --T-rex 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete - tracklisting was not as confirmed as I thought it was. As such this article is premature --T-rex 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I've seen she's only mentioned the single released, the song w/ Taylor, and Rocks Instead of Rice - its even got a song listed on it that was from her previous album, like that would make sense CloversMallRat (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added a source that verifies the release date of the album. The track listing may not be confirmed by a reliable source, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does: until the title, release date and track list have all been verified by reliable sources, an album shouldn't have its own article per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not at all what WP:MUSIC#Albums states. In fact, it explicitly states that "...properly and reliably referenced information about the album's recording process, such as known guest musicians, may be sufficient to justify an independent article." While I agree that a track listing is not appropriate until verified by reliable sources, the absence of that alone does not disqualify this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:MUSIC states that: "Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation." Until then, this should be merged with Kellie Pickler. Cliff smith ^talk 21:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that it does not state that "...until the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is a WP:N violation." Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's just not enough verifiable content for its own article yet. Cliff smith ^talk 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't have enough info on the album. No cover, only 3 songs are listed. And that's not enough for it's own article. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 17:06, 23 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 withdrawal of nomination, keep. Evidence of significant coverage in Atlanta newspaper, although it is a pay site and I am unable to access article for reference.. Tan ǀ 39 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Victory[edit]

Does not meet any notability criteria of WP:BK. No sources, looks like WP:OR. Tan ǀ 39 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - like I said in the AfD below this one, their are sources that verify the books notability per this engine search of reliable sources.--S_RX 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I replied in the other AfD, noting that this book is found on Google does not establish notability criteria per WP:BK. Your statement implies that any Google hit is a "reliable source", which is far, far from what a reliable source actually is. Zombie might be on to something below, however. Tan ǀ 39 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found entries on this book at Uchronia, Library Thing, Amazon and The Internet Speculative Fiction Database (the last two shows it was published as both a hardcover and paperback). I also have found a review [51], and its mentioned in another book [52]. Also according to this site [53] there are reviews from Publisher's Weekly and The Atlanta Journal Constitution. I'm not sure if this is enough or not but it is a start. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to have to say keep it. Though I have not read the book myself, I think I have found enough info that someone who has read the book can build upon. The Plot summary though needs to be rewritten.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found three articles on the Atlanta Journal Constitution about the book [54] problem is you need to pay to see the full article.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a bit new to Wikipedia, but looking through what is already there gave the clear impression that this article is quite in place. The Timeline-191 by Harry Turtledove which has exactly the same subject - a world resulting from the victory of the South in the Civil War - does not have just one article - it has THIRTY-SIX articles. There is an article for the whole of the Turtledove series, articles for each book of the series separately (nine of them), an article for all the characters of the series Characters in the Southern Victory series and special articles for some specific characters, articles for particular events and institutions in the series USS Josephus Daniels, Barrel Roll Offensive, Hispano-Japanese War, Second Mexican War etc. etc. Tghurty-six altogether. There is also an article for Ward Moore's Bring the Jubilee which has the same subject, also for other alternate history books about this and other scenarios. I don't say there should be 36 articles about "Gray Victory", I do think that having one is quite reasonable. Anne McDermott (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this (these) articles. No one here has addressed the fact that it does not meet WP:BK notability criteria, and is completely unsourced. Tan ǀ 39 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. I have been able to find a review and the novel is mentioned in another novel as I have listed on the article. Also it appears there are two others reviews that can be used but I have been unable to find their full entries.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd never read it. I'd never want to talk to people who have read it. However, St. Martin's is a significant press. I think it's pitiful that our standards are so low as "published by a major publisher," but, if they are, then this is a keep. I do not get any vibe that this is a major novel or a very significant one, but we no longer ask for that. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I haven't read the book either and though I hate to turn this into a forum, I have to ask: whats with the hostility?Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk to avoid both of those perils. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this !vote; there are five criteria of WP:BK, and not one of them is "published by a major publisher". Tan ǀ 39 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has an ISBN number listed, a publisher just big enough to be major, and per above users has outside references, making it by the skin of its teeth passing notability. It could use a rewrite though. Jon (talk) 17:44, 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 issues raised as basis for deletion were addressed. Gnan garra 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Eagles[edit]

Does not meet any criteria of WP:BK. Redlinked author. No sources, looks like WP:OR. Tan ǀ 39 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it's not WP:OR, it actually exists per [55], [56], and their are other more reliable sources on this engine search.--S_RX 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the book itself was completely fabricated. I meant the plot summary, analysis, POV, etc was all the article author's original work. Also, simply linking to the google list of hits doesn't show that the book meets the notability criteria of WP:BK. Tan ǀ 39 01:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of significance whatsoever. Loads of books exist, but to have articles they should be notable -- meaning significant within their field. There is no indication of this at all. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see an ISBN # listed in the article. Unless there is one, it's a fast fail of notability. Jon (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one listed on Amazon and its publisher was Fawcett, which I believe may refer to Fawcett Publications.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been able to find an entry on Uchronia and Library Thing about this novel. Also this book is cited in the novel The World Hilter Never Made [57]. Also apparently the novel is mention in this article but I have been unable to access it. However I haven't been able to find any notable reviews but there appears to be a lot of things (novels, dvds, games, etc) that share the name of this novel so its difficult to shift through all of the info. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around some more I have been unable to find any other notable sources about this novel than what I was able to find above.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me quote: "Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, a Division of Random House, Inc., New York, and simulateneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. ISBN number 0-449-14596-4, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-93042". I think this takes care of most of the objections appearing above. (By the way, the Wikipeida page notes that "Random House of Canada", originally only the Canadian distributor of the American Random House Books, established in 1986 its own indigenous Canadian publishing program that has become one of the most successful in Canadian history; this book was published in 1990, i.e. was among the earlier books put out by this notable Canadian publishing success). Another important aspect: it is a very well established situation that Wikipedia has numerous pages for books and films dealing with all the horrible ways that the world might have looked like had Hitler won WWII. Here are some (I think not all): "The Ultimate Solution", "Fatherland (novel)", "It Happened Here", "The Man in the High Castle", "1945 (novel)", "SS-GB", "In the Presence of Mine Enemies", "Collaborator (novel)", "The Sound of His Horn", "Making History (novel)", "Swastika Night", "The Plot Against America", "The Iron Dream", "The Children's War". I think it is very justified that it is so, because this is a subject of specific interest both to people interested in alternate history and to quite a few of the people interested in Nazi Germany in general. "Clash of Eagles" belongs with all these other books, and people to whom the other pages of this kind are interesting and useful are also likely to find this page interesting and useful; in short, creating this page had filled a gap and deleting the page would re-create this gap. Perhaps all these pages should be combined into one super-page, say "Nazi Victory Alternate History", but until and unless this is done, "Clash of Eagles" deserves its page as much as any of those others. Anne McDermott (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, I'm trying very hard to maintain patience with your arguments, but there's only so many times I can say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - please click on that link - is not a valid argument. Also, I'm going to post the specific requirements of WP:BK below, because you have not even touched on it; it still appears you have not even read it. Tan ǀ 39 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.[6]

Hi "Tanthalas39" (we seem to be on a first-name base, but I don't know yours - even if I do know now what you look like, sun-glasses and all). I have taken the trouble to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thoroughly and found that unlike your very very emphatic and impatient argument about "not a valid argument", what it actually seems to say is that this could be a valid argument in some cases though not in others - and I think I have good grounds to say that this particular article is one of them.

I agree, the mere fact that other similar articles exist, even many of them, could not be in itself a reason to keep an article; it could just mean that all the hundreds or thousands of others also deserve to be deleted, just nobody had (yet) taken the time and trouble to do it. (Though even in such a case it could make a person wonder why his or her articles are the particular ones to be targeted). But anyway, I am what I want to contend is:

There are in Wikipedia many pages devoted to alternate history books (and films) describing how the world would have looked like had the Nazis won;
There is a good reason why there should be such pages in Wikipedia, because the subject is of interest to quite a few people;
These pages should be considered as a series or structure, which have implications for and interconnections with each other, and this aspect should be considered in whether or not they should be there - as well as each page's individual merits or lack of them. Many of these pages already have cross-references to each other in their "See Also" section. I think that there should also be set up a "Category: Nazi Victory Alternate History" for the convenience of people interested, as well as a page with the same name having an orderly table listing all the individual books and films. This is one of the projects on my agenda (if I don't become too discouraged by too many things I try to do being reversed or deleted).
As such, "Clash of Eagles" has a clear place in the spectrum or continuum of Nazi Victory alternate history. As a description of a world where the Nazis conquered part of the US but not all, it stands about half-way between "Fatherland (novel)", which describes a world where the Nazis conquered Europe but not America, and The Ultimate Solution where they conquered the whole of America and the entire world and there is nowhere to run from them (brrr...).
Therefore, it is quite useful for a person interested in the subject (for example, wanting to compare different books with each other) to have the "Clash of Eagles" page with a plot summary readily available in Wikipedia - and it would be quite inconvenient to have this page deleted and have once again to hunt for information about this book in other websites which give a much less comprehensive description. (I speak of the concrete experience of specific people which I know of.)

I respectfully submit that all the above is a quite reasonable justification to keep this page on, completely consistent with the guidelines set out in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anne McDermott (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Anne McDermott (I hate to offend you), I respect that you are spending time on this. I also would like to say that I have zero inherent interest in having this article deleted; I merely think that as it is - completely unsourced and lacking notability - that it undermines Wikipedia's credibility and integrity as a place to obtain knowledge. I notice that you have once again ignored the entire list of notability criteria found in WP:BK. The fact that there are alternate history book articles on Wikipedia doesn't establish notability. The fact that "quite a few" people are interested doesn't establish notability. If the category as a whole has notability, as you imply in your third bullet point above, then the category should have an article, and not each individual book. Wikipedia is not a book review site. We need to find some claim of actual notability. This means meeting one of the five points I listed above. "Being interesting" or "having a following" is not valid. I'm relatively sure that it will not meet the last four; so what we need is to find something from the first point - "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." This does not mean being found on Amazon or Google, nor merely mentioned anywhere. Whether or not we discourage you from pursuing your planned project is irrelevant to me; I am here to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. Tan ǀ 39 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is discussed in detail in The World Hilter Never Made, a scholarly and comprehensive book on the specific subject (Nazi Victory Alternate History) whose sources are indeed independent of the book itself and which definitely serves a general audience. There are references to the place Rutman's book has in this overall sub-genre and comparison of it to other books - which seems to bear out the arguments set out by Anne McDermott. (Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, the writer of "The World Hilter Never Made", also communicated with Rutman by email to ask his opinion on some points, as is quoted in footnote 154)[58]. By the way, I would like to congratulate Anne McDermott on joining Wikipedia in general and the Alternate History aspect of Wikipedia in particular. It is a pity you had to get into such a rough struggle so early on in your Wikipedia career - sometimes you must jump in at the deep end. But the rewards for persisting are many. Good Luck and welcome! Andreas Kaganov (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and don't worry, I am not easily intimidated by rough struggles.Anne McDermott (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That cite just shows the book was mentioned in the novel, where does it say they communicated by email?Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Footnote 154: "E-Mail message from Rutman to author, October 21, 2002"[59].Andreas Kaganov (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies, thats what I get for sometimes skimming a post.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to add that Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, Ph.D is not only the writer of the above-mentioned book but a also a lecturer in (actual) history at the University of California, Los Angeles (Dep. of History & Program of Judaic Studies) [60]. He also referenced "Clash of Eagles" in an article entitled "Why Do We Ask 'What If?' Reflections on the Function of Alternate History" published in "History and Theory", a publication of Wesleyan University devoted to Studies in the Philosophy of History (Vol. 41, No. 4, Theme Issue 41: Unconventional History (Dec., 2002), pp. 90-103)[61] [62]. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those last two links don't work because a lot of people don't have access to those websites. However if you see my earlier post in this discussion I listed on abstract of the article and here is another one:Why Do We Ask “What If?” Reflections on the Function of Alternate History by Gavriel Rosenfeld, article abstract Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the above I found a reference to this book in the 2007 essay ""The Third Reich and Allohistorical Normalization" by Joe Cole [63]. There is also a reference to "Clash of Eagles" in an article in Hungarian [64]. And I would like to add, the numerous entries you get in Google for "Leo Rutman" + "Clash of Eagles", even if they are not enough in themselves to establish notability, should also be taken into consideration. Adam Keller 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a lot of these sources is that they are great if we are going to write an article about The World Hitler Never Made but they aren't very useful in expanding on Clash of Eagles. A bare mention of Clash doesn't help expand the article even if it may establish some notability. Can anyone find an newspaper article, book review, or essay that focuses exclusively on Clash?Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least those quotes give good sound reasons why the page should not be deleted, which is what is being discussed here. Keep the page alive and I promise to search diligently for more information! Anne McDermott (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said if it may establish some notability but that again maybe not. A book review by some guy and an article in Hungarian to be used on the English Wikipedia doesn't really help establish notability at all (no offense Adam) and both articles are better suited for not deleting an article about The World Hitler Never Made but not Clash. As I said before a newspaper article like I found for Gray Victory would be perfect, but I have had zero luck with that. I reccomend doing that search your promising now instead of later.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being unreasonable. "The World Hitler Never Made" does not just make "a bare mention" of Clash. It has a page and half devoted to this book, including quite a detailed plot summary (in fact, I think it would be worthwhile to take some quotes from that and include them in the article itself), and a detailed analysis relating the book to the events at the time of writing (1990, i.e. one year after the fall of the Berlin Wall - and Rosenfeld thinks that this is connected with the happy ending where New Yorkers rebel and finally throw out the Nazis). Rosenfeld did not just read the book itself, he also corresponded with Rutman to ask him what exactly he meant by writing what he did. This is quite a bit more than "a bare mention". So, does this book pass the WP:BK or does it not? Well, we have a book published by a reputable publisher, taken up by a professor of history in a respectable university who tries to understand what the book means, than writes about it in a book of his own and also in an article which is published in an academic publication of another reputable university, then somebody else writes about this book in an essay and also makes an analysis of what the book means, and then it is also taken up in other languages... To me, all this seems quite a bit like "non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience". Adam Keller 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, honest question - I could seriously change my entire stance based on your arguments. However, you are missing a key phrase from WP:BK. This phrase is, "has been the subject of non-trivial, published works..." Do you see the major caveat here? Everyone's "keep" argument above is based on "mentioned this" and "referenced in that", when in reality, the criteria demands that this book be the subject of a significant, third-party source. Do you think your argument covers this? Tan ǀ 39 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have now taken the trouble to read thoroughly WP:BK, as you earlier urged me to do and as I indeed should have. And I found there a precise definition of what the subject should mean: "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment". I think that the sources which these good people have found (thank you all!) fit perfectly within this criteria. When I look at the full text of WP:BK, I think it was drawn up be sensible people who wanted to ensure that Wikipedia would not be swamped by millions of pages on millions of books nobody ever heard of, but not to exclude books which do deserve to be here. Anne McDermott (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam: note that my problems with the sources involved the sources that you provided and not The World Hitler Never Made. If you read the first posts to this discussion you will see that I was the first to point out Clash appeared in the novel. In fact I provided two sources that pointed this out, so I don't believe I have been unreasonable with that source. My problem has been that all the sources so far deal specifically with World and not with Clash, a point which seems to tell me we could make an article on World should anyone be interested in writing it. No one, however, has yet been able to find a single journal or newspaper article that deals with Clash. I, however, have yet to vote in this discussion and though I'm tempted to say Keep because of World I still would feel better if someone can find at least one source that deals specifically with Clash. Again as I stated before my own research has turned up nothing notable but if you or someone else can find such a source I would have no problem voting keep. Then again based on the current support my vote probably won't matter.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep based on the sources people have found. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based upon the sources provided in the discussion above I feel that this article just barely passes WP:BK and therefore should be kept.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:18, 22 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. Blueboy 96 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Street Historic District[edit]

This is an unneeded disambiguation as the disambiguation doesn't direct anywhere. This was originally prodded but was removed by the author of the disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nom said, it goes to nowhere.--S_RX 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per my !vote and follow-up comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rogers House‎. Deor (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep now that articles have been created, but reiterating my opinion that dab pages consisting entirely of redlinked entries are deletable. According to WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles" (my emphasis); and whereas redlinks in list articles can serve the purpose of indicating articles in need of creation, such use of them in disambiguation pages is to be discouraged. Deor (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly unnecessary, at least for now. --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The dab page is actually very informative. One searching for "Walnut Street Historic District" now knows that there are nine different places with that name, and knows the States where they are situated. In addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis (I know, I patrol new pages). It won't be long before there are articles on at least two of the listed places. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am assuming good faith that these are real places. Any one is probably notable, so a disambig page is certainly a good thing. It does seem rather odd to start this way, maybe the author has a plan to start the articles too. Borock (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I was thinking the same thing, but this was created back in June and there are still no articles of this name. Even though the articles may be created in the future, it doesn't make any sense to create the disambiguation months before you even start to create the articles. Every single one of the links are redlinked so that goes against what a disambiguation is for which is for "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." THERE ARE NO PAGES! Do you see how unuseful this is? Right now this certainly isn't a disambiguation because there are no pages!. Tavix (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MOSDAB#Red links states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you also read in the MOSDAB, you find that "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." When there are no wikipedia articles to choose from, it goes against what this sentance is stated. Although the articles DO have a possiblity of being created in the future, they serve no purpose of linking to other articles and is thus unuseful.

Keep 1. For a reader of the encyclopedia, the disambiguation page itself provides information on the location of the historic district, AND serves notice that there are multiple districts with the same name. Those are pertinent pieces of information when using Wikipedia as a starting reference point. Minimal information, yes, but hardly unuseful. 2. As for style rules, note WP:MOSDAB#Break rules: "For every style suggestion above, there is some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Utilty to the reader here trumps other style requirements. 3. For an editor of the encyclopedia, it's nice to know up front that an article should be unambiguously named; disambiguation pages are useful to flag repeated property names. For example, there are (at least) two Park Avenue Historic District, as I found when I wrote the Detroit article (and moved the Talahassee article, and edited links thereto). It's not a disaster to have to rename and relink, but it needn't be necessary, either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're notable, merely need to be noticed by authors. This page will help articles get created following naming conventions and helps confirm one does not yet exist. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coatrack. Step 1: Create an article. Step 2: set up links. Do not grab an almanac and assume that every potential place is properly set up by a redlink. I've gone through the 17XX in literature articles, and people will create a red link for every work by every author. This is hilarious when the work is Works or Complete Poems or Autobiography. However, without investigating, without researching, without knowing, they set up the red links. This is a bad practice that results in bad pages like this one. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. Walnut Street Historic District (Chaska, Minnesota) has been created. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has Walnut Street Historic District (Oneonta, New York). Red links that can never be pages are different to those that are not yet pages. I'm not going to spend the day arguing at AfDs. Instead I'll create the stubs. They appear notable. Seems like a more productive use of time to me. In other words, keep. TravellingCari 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four articles have already been written: nominator's reason for nomination is obsolete, as this is quite a useful page. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This disambiguation page looks useful to me. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom's concerns have been addressed. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Highly recommend WP:SOFIXIT to nom. Places on the National Register of Historic Places are very easy to research online, and it would take less time to write a decent stub than to keep nominating these disambiguation pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 22 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 snowballed delete. Probable scam and SPA violations. Account will be blocked as well, and a notice posted at WP:AN. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nom withdrawn, see here. TravellingCari 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anghel Andreescu[edit]

Claims notability, but can't find any intellectually independent sources (at least in English). Article is a disaster; discovered the lack of sources while attempting to clean it up. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if these are for the same person, he appears to be notable. No question that the article needs to be cleaned up but that's not a reason for deletion. TravellingCari 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Wikipedia is not Monster.com. This looks like his CV and not an article. There isn't any formatting at all. The stuff isn't written discursively at all. It looks for all the world like someone took a big dump (of data) on us. There is nothing in what is presently there to keep. That the name might warrant an article is neither here nor there, as we are considering an article for deletion. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment clean-up took about five minutes. AfD is not the answer when cleanup works just fine. I think it's still a weak keep but strong delete based on something that could be fixed...? TravellingCari 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somebody with far greater Google-fu than I appears to have found some intellectually independent sources, which was my rationale for deletion. I'll withdraw my nom. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 18:54, 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.