Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 21

< August 20	August 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Devin[edit]

Page seems to have been initially created as an autobiography by User:Rickdevin. When, in 2006, somebody left a talk page message about autobiographies and their possible drawbacks, he responded by offering to have his "record company executives" resubmit the article. Nothing in the article (which is almost entirely referenced by his own webpage) indicates an ability to pass WP:MUSIC and my research didn't find anything that could support his notability. Don't be fooled by the claim (sourced, of course, by his webpage) of "three Grammy entries." This is the initial stage of the Grammy nomination process and it consists of submitting your work to NARAS for consideration. Movingboxes (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of LexisNexis Academic for the phrase "Rick Devin" and the word "musician," going back 100 years (i.e., the entire database), and covering
- Major U.S. and World Publications
- Major World Publications (non-English)
- News Wire Services
- TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts

turned up one false drop and one probable relevant hit from The Colorado Springs Gazette where he is mentioned thus:

Manager Rick Devin is the featured musician at most evening concerts;

- Katie Johnston. "Singer-songwriter Michael Martin Murphey is cowboy to the core." ENTERTAINMENT SECTION. July 6, 2001

This, to me, falls under the "barely notable" category as he is mentioned only once, seven years ago, in an article about someone else. Delete for that, and all the WP:COI and WP:AUTO stuff. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete despite a couple of GNews hits here. I can't find anything from reliable 3rd party sources which prove more than his existence. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the 15 Gnews hits to which you point, two of them are duplicates of the Colorado Springs Gazette article I cite above, there is one new brief mention of a cowboy musician Devin in a 1999 Gazette article, and all other hits are false drops about a Rick Devin who is a librarian and artist from Rhode Island, and a Rick Devin from Florida. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing "from reliable 3rd party sources which prove more than his existence". just like we already said. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a autobiography of a musician who has kept himself employed, but hasn't garnered any notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to see if I can assist in clearing up some of the items that are confusing for Rick Devin being included within wikipedia, I am somewhat new to this process, and I hope that I am conforming to your guidelines. I found several online news articles about Rick Devin, which I just added/edited onto the wikipage page that is in question. I hope that these will assist in your decision making to not delete him. One can be found at [1] and an other at [2]. Additionally, I agree that his 'consideration' for a Grammy Award is not news worthy for inclusion within Wikipedia and I deleted that information - If he had been a top finalist or something, okey, but... Also, I substituted some of the rickdevin.com links with links to allmusicguide.com, I hope that that is also of assistance. Thank you, sincerely, Linda Norden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcloudrecords (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The later article is essentially a cut and paste profile pulled out of the first article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mascarello[edit]

Unnotable bus company. I tried to search for references but I could find none in English, which if notable there would have to be some English references. Tavix (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's a Brazilian company (which it is) and has most of its sales in Brazil, then I wouldn't require it to have English references, since its activities would be mostly of interest to Portuguese-speaking people. But, in fact, there are a few English references anyway. See [3], [4]. I am not saying that these references are enough to establish notability. I am saying that a Portuguese-speaking editor would be better equipped to assess notability based on the existence or nonexistence of Portuguese-language sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Metro, and I'll poke Ecoleetage to see if he can help with sourcing. I think there is information available and hopefully it can be found before the AfD is done, because right now it certainly is speedy eligible. TravellingCari 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cari, watch where you're poking me -- I bruise easily! :) Seriously, this appears to be a legit operation. I added a couple of English-language links; the Brasil media links are business and transport trade mags that look fine to me. In regard to Brasil-based bus builders, they seem notable. So, Keep Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecoleetage. A Google search shows that this company is indeed notable. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whole text of article is "Mascarello Carrocerias de Ônibus is a Brazilian bus coachbuilder established in 2003." Article does not claim notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:38, 29 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 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast With Spanky[edit]

Notability is not proven and not likely to be. Quite a few Google hits, but nothing reliable and independent. Basically its a show on a student Radio station with a single-digit rating in a city of 300,000 dramatic (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Movingboxes (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N, all the google hits are either youtube videos, the station's website or a blog or 2. I see nothing notable here. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable program. --Winger84 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, I'm not finding any suitable 3rd party references.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N--PuTTY^SchOOL 18:58, 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 08:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn flour in Chinese cooking[edit]

Contested prod. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a essay on how to cook with corn flour. Movingboxes (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTHOWTO. Calor (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a bad article, just not an encyclopedia article. Calor is correct about WP:NOTHOWTO. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks cookbook? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cooking essay. JJL (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with User:Ihcoyc send to wikibooks all it is is a cooking essay. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:38, 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 --JForget 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonopist[edit]

Possible Hoax, Notability failure NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a religion someone made up one day and didn't really think very hard about it. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources (or indeed anywhere, as far as I can see) suggests this is unsourceable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ghits[5]; if it's not an outright hoax, it's almost certainly something the editor just made up one day. --Smeazel (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft JuJube (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously something someone too poor to invest in a spellchecker just made up. Should have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm always a defender of true minority religions, but nothing that fails WP:NFT merits my efforts. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strange!!!--PuTTY^SchOOL 19:02, 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 --JForget 23:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Rail Adventures[edit]

Appears to be fake, nothing on Google. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No google hits[6]; of the two external links on the page, one goes to a page that does not reference the article subject, and the other goes to a page that doesn't exist (but the page it was probably intended to go to doesn't reference the article subject either). Agreed that it's probably fake, but even if it does exist, it seems to be completely non-notable. --Smeazel (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Appears to be something that exists only in a kid's mind (or as drawings in a school notebook). Deor (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion also applies (with the same rationale) to the second article added to the nom. Deor (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I restored the AfD that was removed and placed a warning on the talk page. Also requested him to supply any real references he might have. This appears to be something that was made up. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this exists and "references" are merely to the media it is based on not to anything to do with the comic. (Emperor (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article author has removed Afd tag a second time. They have also created the related article Duckbillz, which I think should be bundled with this for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It'll save us having to come back and do this all over again. (Emperor (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - Decided to be bold and added it. JuJube (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Deb (talk) 13:46, 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 - while the debate about sourcing is stretched to the point of irrelevance, all the sources only point to the existence of the documentary (not its notability). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconfliction[edit]

Non-notable. Searching for 'deconfliction transgender' returns no books or news articles, and only mirrors of ghits. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Such a list could go on forever, and there is no organizational elements which makes any sense out of what is there. Examples are sufficient (main article) without adding an endless set of more examples. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er...was that supposed to apply to the next AfD (Bildungsroman examples (pre-1930))? I ask because the mentions of an interminable "list" and an "endless set of more examples" would make sense for that AfD, but don't seem applicable here. Not that I'm necessarily saying this article shouldn't be deleted, just that the particular reasons you cited make it appear to me that your comment may have accidentally ended up in the wrong AfD... --Smeazel (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, er, er... You're right! Very sorry. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tried a few different search parameters and found plenty to show notability. [7], [8], [9]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for pointing that out, but none of the sources you added get the article to pass WP:NOTFILM, the notability guidelines for films. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. It has been well received at a number of festivals, So I've kept digging. I found these: IndieExpress interview of Edward Tyndall, NewYorkBlade (paragraph 14), and the NewYorkCool review of film. It is still cycling and more will appear. It is an indie film after all... making the festival circuit, and not some blockbuster. For what it is, and in carefully weighing WP:MOVIE, and considering "sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia", it just squeeks in with notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IndieExpress is not a reliable source. The three sentences in the NY Blade are not "significant coverage". I'm not sure about New York Cool - that *might* be a good source of info. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, WP:RS specifically states "How reliable a source is depends on context." We are not speaking about Quantum theory... we are speaking about a short film. The Indie Express context is an interview of a filmmaker. The New York Blade paragraph is a report about a transgender film. Based upon Evidence of Notability guidelines, which guideline relies 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", in the context offered, and in that no exception claim is being made, the IndieExpress and The New York Blade pass WP:V and subsequently WP:RS for this film. Further, The New York Blade, being a "weekly newspaper for gay and lesbian community of New York City", must be considered for their offering of a minority viewpoint and, for what they offer, they pass WP:RS. Significant coverage" must be judged the same way. WP:RS does not expect a low-budget short film to be judged by the same standards as a multi-million dollar feature. Where a block-buster might have received reams of coverage, an indie short may have bare sentences. It does not have to be a manifesto. Three sentences are not much, but they are significant enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Context here means films, not films of a certain length. Short films, like short stories, are less likely to achieve independent notability, because they are short. I see nothing in the article to set this apart from other film projects, and the article also doesn't mention the runtime and disagrees with IMDB on the production date. The only hint that this isn't an hour long is the limited subject matter. Which contributes to non-notability. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct... the context is about a film... a short film Which is why the guidelines are less stringent for short films, else there would be very few short films listed on Wiki. That fact that this film deals with a transgender individual gives it notability to the LGBT community. That also limits mainstream coverage. For what it is, who is seeing it, and for what it shares to that community, it has notability. As far as production details... those maters can be reserached and added to the article. There lack does not remove notability, only neans the article should be cleaned up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:FILM does not distinguish by length. Few short films do have articles here and having an article is not like being "listed." Read FILM again for yourself and see if you can find that kind of source. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No? Yes. I have read the guideline WP:NF: "...a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." WP:NF states that it "...gives some rough guidelines..". It does not state that it is an absolute. Further, I have read the Evidence of Notability guidelines. The guideline is based upon the policy WP:V, "one of Wikipedia's core content policies", which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Further, WP:NF relies on WP:RS where one may read that 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 since "Other evidence of notability" allows an editor to consider other factors in a film in considering its notability, I am allowed to consider the relationship of the subject matter to the LGBT community. I am allowed to consider the story of a transgender individual who speaks of the causes for gender identity issues. I am allowed to consider that a short indie film does not have the promotional or distribution resources of a major feature. I am allowed to consider its notability in relationship to its smaller audience and its smaller press coverage. WP:NF and "Other evidence of notability" allow me to do just that. So with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with (slowly growing) notability (even if minor). You are as welcome to your opinion in this discussion as am I. I do not think anything I say will change your mind, just as it is unlikely that you will change mine. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No review = no RS. I looked at all the references, and two weren't copies of the same synopsis. They both dealt (briefly or generically) with the filmmaker himself rather than the movie. Small coincidence that the article's content mostly reflects the synopsis, which most likely is ultimately by the filmmaker in contradiction to RS. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No Review" is not the issue, as reliable source does not madate that an RS must only be a review. Per "Verifiability: Reliable Sources", a source may 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 since "Other evidence of notability" allows an editor to consider other factors in a film in considering its notability, I am allowed to consider the relationship of the subject matter to the LGBT community. I am allowed to consider the story of a transgender individual who speaks of the causes for gender identity issues. I am allowed to consider that a short indie film does not have the promotional or distribution resources of a major feature. I am allowed to consider its notability in relationship to its smaller audience and its smaller press coverage. WP:NF and "Other evidence of notability" allow me to do just that, so I will adhere to my points as made above. I respect your interpretation of guideline, and I 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. 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. The article needs attention, but can be improved. Wikipedia is better for it being here addressing a film that has growing notability to the LGBT community. So again, and with the greatest of respect, I think the article squeeks in with notability... not the notabilty of a multi-million dollar, highly promoted and touted blockbuster... but a notability nonetheless. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't think that the proffered sources are enough. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:24, 30 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 17:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bildungsroman examples (pre-1930)[edit]

This is a continuation of an already uselessly long list of examples for this genre. noit (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. I hate this sort of debate because there could be a perfectly adequate article with this title. However this is just an unsourced list of works which some Wikipedians thought met the criteria. (And, in some cases, rather questionably, in my humble-type view.) The parent article is very short, and would definitely benefit from a section containing a few well-chosen and well-sourced examples. But creating a comprehensive list is probably a futile endeavor, and I see nothing here that I'd want to merge. AndyJones (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reference/indexing list of notable books that have their own articles. Lists do not need separate references if they are lists of links to articles that make the case for inclusion on the list: their inclusion then becomes needless clutter. Whether individual books meet the criteria for inclusion can then be discussed on their own articles in chief. This is just a compilation, meant to be helpful to readers interested in pre-1930 Bildungsroman examples for comparison purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't agree. I'd have voted keep if this was a navigational list, but it's not: it purports to be a list of examples of a particlular literary phenomenon: and to populate such a list requires sourcing. Your suggestion that the sourcing could be at the individual pages would carry more weight it it actually was. Not one of the first ten items on this list mentions "Bildungsroman" in its body text. AndyJones (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Such a list could go on forever, and there is no organizational elements which makes any sense out of what is there. Examples should be sufficient in the main article without adding an endless set of more examples. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:04, 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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Frightened Prisoners of the Kraken[edit]

Nonnotable band with one independent release in 2001. Only claim to notability is airplay by a couple of DJs. No independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since it seems there are no good sources to be found (according to google). --Twinzor (talk) 02:53, 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. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Llegos Me Voy[edit]

Future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. It does have a title, but the rest is speculation and rumor. Contested prod. TN‑X-Man 19:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I would say keep, but the article is unreferenced (unless I missed something). RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are absolutely no Google results for "Llegos Me Voy" outside of Wikipedia, exactly 0. Unless someone is able to pull a few RS out of this void then I must say this CD is pretty dang unnotable. I did some other google searching to see if it was a misspelling but I find no CD's by Belinda (entertainer) with titles even close to 'Llegos Me Voy'. - Icewedge (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and likely unsourceable given that the creator of the article is a hoaxer. See also Mi Final Feliz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mi Final Feliz -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 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 Redirect to List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball#Vegetto --JForget 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Note: There was already a Vegetto entry that was redirected to the main article/section. I will though still keep the redirect article with the double G. --JForget 00:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veggetto[edit]

Nonsense article. The name isn't even spelt correctly. Fails WP:ORIGINAL, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOTE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball#Vegetto since Vegetto already redirects there. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - article was created via a typo, and is reasonably assumed that more would make the same spelling error. Turlo Lomon (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for exactly the reason Turlo Lomon gives. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect this is obvious. If not for the minor spelling change, it would have been exactly like the merged Vegetto. Redirect now and save us all the trouble of the AfD process. Sasuke9031 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This type of article that we should specifically avoid creating. Although it contains a relatively short character summary, beyond that, it is simply a list of "attacks" and "powers" which don't confer any information relative to the character's role in the plot or his real world relevance. This article is more in line of what you may expect on a fansite instead of in an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 16:48, 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 delete. Wizardman 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Andrei Garcia[edit]

Promotional piece about an unnotable child actor. Fails WP:BIO. All "sources" are his own websites and directory listings except for a minor piece about one television series. Declined speedy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: While it does seem slightly adverty and could use some work, he does seem to play a significant character on Kung Fu Kids and there are other works. It took me only a few seconds to find http://beta.abs-cbn.com/tabid/71/xmmid/387/Article/8876/program/kungfukids/xmview/2/Default.aspx as a source. (I was the editor who declined speedy). Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. --PuTTY^SchOOL 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe he'll be notable one day, but ads and an unknown number of appearances on a Philippine TV show don't do it. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:17, 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) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinestone Cowboy[edit]

Technically this is part dicdef, part muddled disambig. There are only partial matches ("David Allan Coe" = "mysterious rhinestone cowboy"; never heard of that before), a song by a non-notable hip hop duo, and part of a nickname for Loy Allen Bowlin. Given that there's only one exact match that actually has a page (the Glen Campbell song), I think this should be deleted as a confusing semi-dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with you that none of the targets other than the Glen Campbell song are remotely high-profile enough to warrant a disambiguation page. Delete this page, move Rhinestone Cowboy (song) here, and we can worry about disambiguation in the indefinite future if one of these other uses of the word becomes remotely commonplace. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mazca. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heard the Glen Campbell song this morning on the radio and would love to delete that, too, from existence. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Keep the Glen Campbell song, delete the rest as not notable. Eauhomme (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other uses of the term that might be notable enough for articles, but this page is not it; to find out if there's enough info to support those other articles, someone would have to write them. Unless those uses have articles, there is no need for a disambiguation page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:20, 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. Sandstein 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Intelligent Design[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a future book publication, thus violating WP:CRYSTAL. Content seems largely copy/pasted from the only reference cited, which is the publisher's homepage. No objection to re-creating article once book is published. TN‑X-Man 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Copyright violation of source text. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the copyright violation, so that part is no longer an issue. However, it still violates WP:CRYSTAL and does not assert notability. -kotra (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPAM. Contender for Wikipedia:CSD#G11? Coldmachine^Talk 19:53, 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 (though I was very tempted to go with delete; this appears too random an intersection to be truly useful). Black Kite 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol Hot 100 singles[edit]

Trivial intersection; a list of all Hot 100 singles for American Idol contestants. This list, in addition to having no sources for the chart positions, is redundant to the existing discography pages. Also, the "Most weeks on chart" sections are unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial --Puttyschool (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate fork of American Idol. After discussion on Talk:American_Idol#Very_long_article, the section was deleted from American Idol, [10], and transferred to American Idol Hot 100 singles, [11]. Aspects (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is worthwhile even if only as a navigation aid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Wikipedia is not a repository of every ranking chart and collection of lists. Wikipedia is not The Hit Parade doktorb _words^deeds 12:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aspects. This can be considered an important part of Wikipedia's coverage of American Idol. Splitting articles is a smart way to organize content in complicance with WP:LENGTH. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LENGTH is one of the strangest keep arguments I've ever seen at AfD. I see no particular reason why the number of Billboard "Hot 100" singles is a useful metric that enriches either the American Idol article or is in any way more useful than the category system as a navigational aid (e.g., check out the bottom of "A Moment Like This"). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:49, 31 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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen Letter[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. It has gotten coverage in secondary sources. In addition to the references in the article I found [12], but I do not think that it adds up to significant coverage.
Tagged for notability since June 2007. Amalthea^Talk 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:40, 16 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, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, more than adequate time given to improve the article. Movingboxes (talk) 23:28, 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 Speedy Delete per A3 by Toddst1. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Angels (album)[edit]

Per WP:NM and WP:CRYSTAL. Mycroft7 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused--the page is blank except for the deletion notice, and the page history shows no edits prior to your nominating it for deletion. Was there some kind of glitch--was the page deleted just as you were nominating it, maybe?--or am I missing something? --Smeazel (talk) 18:28, 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 Speedy delete g3 nonsense/hoax, a1 insufficient context, WP:BOLLOCKS. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Scale[edit]

This article is unsourced and a web search reveals no notability. It is also hard to understand, and has previously been speedily deleted under category "G1" (patent nonsense). I am not convinced the current version quite reaches that threshold, hence taking to AFD rather than CSD-G4 (recreation of deleted content) — Alan^✉ 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero google hits[13]; probably something invented by the article's editor (whose has contributed to no other articles[14]), certainly non-notable. And yeah, pretty nonsensical too--maybe not quite enough to qualify under WP:CSD#G1, but it's pretty bad. (The scale supposedly allows things to be compared that "cannot be empirically measured", but it uses ratios to do this, which implies some kind of quantified measurement. Also, the scale's "unique feature"--"the standarization [sic] of a previously agreed upon item"--is anything but...pretty much all scales work that way!) Okay, anyway, given its complete lack of notability or reliable sources, the fact that it also doesn't make sense is beside the point, but anyway, delete, delete, delete. --Smeazel (talk) 18:21, 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 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends For Life Bike Rally[edit]

Pure advertorial billinghurst (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - promotional tone is not a reason for deletion, but notability is. Article does not assert notability or cite any references. A cursory google search only turned up one mention in a third-party publication. If there are more sources as good or better than that one (and they are used in the article), I would say keep. As the article stands now, though, delete. -kotra (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both to Tha Carter III. You Ain't Got Nuthin wasn't properly tagged for AFD, but I'm invoking IAR per unanimous AFD consensus. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Peat (song)[edit]

Non-notable single, has not charted on an airplay chart (Mediabase 24/7, BDS, etc), per the typical standard for notability of singles (Hot 100 is largely digital and traditional sales based). Winger84 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 other songs with the same kind of dispute. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~: "has not charted on an airplay chart…per the typical standard for notability of singles". Per the typical standard for notability of singles, actually any "national or significant music charts" meets the criteria. Please follow the actual guideline when making presumed factual statements. In addition:

The song is actually not a single. Notice how the word "single" is nowhere mentioned in the article. Not all songs are singles.
The Billboard Hot 100 is actually a created through a combination of airplay and sales chart. Hence the Hot 100 Airplay, the Hot 100 Singles Sales and the Hot Digital Songs. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the record has not "charted," that is, it has not reached a position of #40 or better. --Winger84 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "Hot 100"…anyway, who says that "charted" means "reached a position of #40 or better"? I'm pretty sure that to chart only means "to appear on a hit-recording chart". Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research, actually. It's a common sense term and definition used in the music industry. Ask any artist, record rep, radio station music director or program director (such as myself) what a song must achieve to "chart" and to a person they'll reply "the top 40." --Winger84 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would be that on an English encyclopedia we use words according to their definition in an English vocabulary, not the one "used in the music industry" because "any artist, record rep, radio station music director or program director" would say so.^{[citation needed]} If you don't like the terminology, go complain about it at WT:MUSIC, as this really isn't the place to do so. Till then, please try to debate according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and not the alleged-music-industry's ones.Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Yes, it charted. However, it's not an official single of the album. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, under that rationale, Redirect might be the proper vote? Just a suggestion, not intended to undermine you. --Winger84 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSIC#Songs. Being a single is not a requirement for notability. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the albums. These songs did chart, but there doesn't seem to be too much else to say about them. Just charting doesn't make a song inherently notable, otherwise every song in existence would have a page. Given the lack of sources right now, I feel that they should be merged, because they can always be split off again should more info crop up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks. I agree with merge. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreeing to merge all. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also agree to a merge. --Winger84 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 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 Speedy Delete per A7 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gropius Ensemble[edit]

This article is about a non-notable musical group. A tag was added to the top of the article in April asking for it to be re-written to establish notability, since when the article hasn't changed much. It still has no links to any reliable sources even attesting the group's existence, let alone notability. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Does not establish notability, placed db-band tag YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 18:55, 21 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 Keep-- geographical features are notable, and sources exist. "never heard of it" is not a good deletion argument. Verfiable sources appear adequate. Dloh cierekim 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prankers Pond[edit]

Subject is not notable. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely not notable. I live a few miles away, and I've never heard of it. Only a handful of ghits, and almost all of them are about parties at Prankers Pond, not the Pond itself (e.g. size, location, history). Calor (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable geographical feature: see the various sources I've added. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here are another couple sources, apparently there was a dam rupture at the pond in 1957 that caused some significant issues.
- John Laidler, Globe Correspondent (2004, December 12). RIVER RESTORATION PLAN FORGED ; UPGRADE SOUGHT AT IRONWORKS SITE :[THIRD Edition]. Boston Globe,p. 3.
- THOMAS GRILLO (2004, February 29). SAUGUS :[THIRD Edition]. Boston Globe,p. H.2.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the secondary sources on the topic as indicated by Captain tucker. --Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 29 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 Layer 8. Revision history is still in place, but I don't see mergeworthy content. Non-admin closure. --Amalthea^Talk 20:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Level 8 error[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a dictionary definition, with little apparent room for expansion. I'm hard-pressed to see how this is notable. TN‑X-Man 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-contested. The article is a documentation of a movement by IT professionals that is intended to be inclusive and expanded upon by those who are close to or within the movement itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatescott (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~. Patent nonsense. (I think I have seen the term used as a joking reference to human error - see the linked-to image - but that is non-notable and not described in this article.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my revision below. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The correct term is Layer 8 error, not Level 8 error. The term is already covered in the Layer 8 article. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ultimatescott, I don't think "Non-contested" means what you think it means. By "Contested prod", what Tnxman307 means is that he put up a tag proposing its deletion, and you removed the tag, thereby contesting it, i.e. arguing that the article should not be deleted. When a deletion proposal ("prod") is contested, the standard procedure is to bring the matter to AfD here, which is what Tnxman307 did. If you say the prod is Non-contested, that would mean you're not arguing against it, i.e. that you're okay with the article being deleted. I'm guessing that's probably not what you meant. (See WP:PROD for more information about the deletion proposal process.) --Smeazel (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Layer 8. Specifically, the referenced portions only. I believe this is a plausible typo, as several texts I own refer to the OSI Model as layers or levels. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Layer 8. Thank you Turlo Lomon for reminding me where I had seen the term. But this is patent nonsense - there is nothing to merge. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:06, 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 all. Pigman☿ 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Productions[edit]

Web of six interconnected articles (of which one, Pablito SacoRojo, was earlier nominated separately), all about completely non-notable subjects. At first, I thought it was nothing but a hoax--a Lambda Productions does exist[15], but it's clearly not the company the article is about, and "Davi Jueves" and "Esteban Iceberg" yield no Google hits except to Wikipedia itself, mirrors, and coincidental conjunctions of words[16][17]). Plus, aside from the implausibility of some of the content (for example, La Vida Saludable Con Davi "grossed a worldwide total of $0" and "was an instant success"?), the external (and some internal) links link either to nonexistent pages or to other locations than they claim (the link allegedly to the IMdB entry for Esteban Iceberg, for example, actually goes to the entry for Spike Jonze, and the link to "Gremlin Award" in Davi Jueves actually goes to Academy_Awards). But then I googled "La Vida Saludable Con Davi" and found this. So "La Vida Saludable Con Davi" does exist, as a ten-minute video on YouTube. Which means this isn't just a hoax--it's a whole network of articles created to publicize a YouTube video. Which may be worse. --Smeazel (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're all part of the same interconnected set of articles:

Also, as mentioned above, Pablito SacoRojo, also part of this web of articles, has its own AfD here.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Smeazel (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I know "per nom" is frowned upon, but after checking for myself, there's nothing more to add to the detail already provided in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 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 deleted. I realize this was recreated after a prod deletion, and this is the appropriate venue. The article does not belong on Wikipedia, and we don't need five days to figure that out. Creator sufficiently warned. Keeper ǀ 76 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Manderson[edit]

Article about a common (albeit prolific) traffic criminal. No information is provided other than extremely negative information (even though it is cited). This opens the doors for articles on all criminals who get spot coverage in a news article somewhere but have no actual notability.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, but you are the nominator?!? Man with a tan (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hency why I say, As Nominator (as opposed to per nominator). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information provided, whilst not exactly flattering, is neutral and factual. Article is certainly notable, given the frequency at which convictions occur. Man with a tan (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above editor re-created the article. Please disclose this next time. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually speedy deleted it the first time. Probably should have taken it to AFD (hench why I have done so once it was re-created). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near enough information for him to have his own WP:BIO article. Perhaps the content could be merged to Traffic ticket or somewhere similarly appropriate, but I'm not convinced he's notable enough for that to be worth doing. EyeSerene^talk 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as an attack page on a non public figure. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 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 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xandrei Van Galen[edit]

Possible non-notable person. I found nothing about him on the web, and he seems to have won nothing of importance. No sources in the article. EyeSerene^talk 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor ultimate fighter. Has won one non-notable tournament and has no claims to notability beyond that. TN‑X-Man 17:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The author User:Geealen appears to be active in wiki for two days. There is nothing on the author or article talk page. Shall we delete the article first or welcome the new author? jmcw (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and as the promotion he's fighting in doesn't seem to be notable he probably isn't. I'll tag the article for spesific issues but unless it improves then my !vote stands.--Nate 14 81 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; note, Xandrei Van Galen page doesn't display the AfD--needs fixing. JJL (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google comes up with 5 hits in total, one of them using this very article as a reference. I fixed the AfD tag, too. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that De728631. Reading the above, I thought there was a problem with Twinkle's XfD listing script, but the notice was originally placed correctly; it was subsequently removed by an anon. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64.14.194.33 seems to have removed it several times, probalby needs keeping an eye on till closed --Nate 14 81 08:53, 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. John254 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Quilty[edit]

No real-world notability from reliable sources. Redirect to Lolita. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep

Citation Detail Title:Two looks at adultery Authors:Gary Arnold Source:Washington Times, The (DC); 07/19/2007:
"Lolita" was also released in 1962 and should have earned Mr. Sellers at least an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actor. Indeed, his performance as the lecherous, shape-shifting Clare Quilty might serve as a template for what an optimum supporting performance can be.
Title:COVER STORY; Looking for Peter Sellers; In the Dark World Behind Zee Funny Mustache. Authors:JESSE McKINLEY Source:New York Times; 12/ 5/2004, p4, 1p -- Also has a discussion of Sellers' performance in this role.
google books lists 475 hits for the term "clare quilty," the first page of which appear to be WP:RS books talking about Kubrick (who directed Sellers in the movie role) or Nabokov himself.

Sorry, but the most basic searches show that, while the article is in need of cleanup, the nominator failed to execute the responsibilities outlined in WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you disagree with me, but are any of those sources about Quilty? Or are they books/articles that *mention* quilty? Remember, we're talking about the notability of the *character* here. Just as an example, your NY Times article barely mentions Quilty in passing - certainly not the "substantial coverage" that's required to satisfy notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the full text of the article, or just the one excerpt I provided? Did you look at any of the Google Books references? While you're fulfilling your responsibilities per WP:BEFORE to search for such things, you might consider also reviewing the 149 Google Scholar hits. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through several of the most promising looking scholar articles, almost all of which focus on the work Lolita, not on Quilty. Have you found any sources that provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source does not have to be solely about the character to provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". With that kind of reasoning, books about the American Civil War would not count as sources for Robert E Lee. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A source does not have to focus on the subject, just contain significant information on the subject. This is a major character in a major work of one of the most important authors in world literature, (not to mention the film). Way over the bar for a separate article. FWIW, this sort of attempted deletion of figures in classic literature was what made me realize that the fictions I didn't personally pay much attention to were worth covering also. DGG (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major character in major work of the 20th century really should be enough. Quilty is covered in depth in certainly most if not all of the numerous works of criticism of Lolita and Nabokov's oeuvre. Certainly there may be some critics who treat him with lesser importance than Humbert or Haze, but he is clearly significant and pivotal within the context of the novel itself. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at the risk of invoking WP:WAX, if we can have a decidedly minor Star Trek character of Vash with an article, surely a major character in an important work of literature with academic papers covering it can also have an article -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden bowl[edit]

It isn't clear what this is about - one of the books in the bibliography is self-published (maybe by the author of the article?), the other's full title includes 'Peasant life in four cultures' - the subject of the book but certainly not the subject of this article! Certainly not notable. Doug Weller (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment*** Sorry, interrupted while writing this and left out the fact that the self-published book is a book about prayers, evidently not about real golden bowls. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the irrelevant "bibliography". Is the article acceptable now? 0XQ (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copying any worthwhile information from this article into Holy Grail. If this is a collection of literary references to the Holy Grail as a golden bowl (which as best I can tell is what it seems to be), then if there's anything here worth salvaging it can be incorporated into that article. This certainly doesn't need an article of its own. Moreover, there's an existing disambiguation page, Golden Bowl, that goes to a book by Henry James or a film adapted from it; as it currently stands, someone looking for information on the book or the film might end up at this article instead just because he neglects to capitalize the B, which is why I didn't recommend "Merge"; turning this page into a redirect would leave that problem unsolved... --Smeazel (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the "Holy Grail" article, as suggested, then deleted what I had written here. 0XQ (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 0XQ has now deleted all content from the article. Axl (talk) 17:39, 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. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies regarding the use of ARM or Intel architectures in mobile computers[edit]

I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted. The article was proposed for deletion by User:Potatoswatter but an unregistered user stated on the talk page that he/she believed the article should remain. Since the user in question didn't appear to be aware that a prod can be removed without debate, I've removed the prod myself and nominated the article for Afd. The original prod reason given by Potatoswatter was:

“

Considering the revision history, this article appears to be the OR of one person, and while some refs are here, the key points are not referenced. The subject matter is unencyclopedic and lacks context, as tagged. In fact there is no controversy: consumers buy for features not "guts" and engineers make an educated decision with every new product.

”

Cynical (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Weve got other templates for OR than AfD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. We can use both OR templates and AfD templates at the same time. Tavix (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. This article seems more like an essay than an article and I don't see how a few select "controversies" should be given an article If anything, there can be a controversies section on the Intel and the ARM articles, but I really don't see that as a viable option. Tavix (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledge and thank Cynical. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like an essay and was written almost entirely by one user. It doesn't really deserve a separate article, at least not in its current form. Marcan (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unencyclopedic original research and essay. --MCB (talk) 07:08, 30 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: article was speedily deleted after the author blanked the page ({{G7}}). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Mac's twentieth studio album[edit]

Stop! HAMMERtime! Sceptre ^(talk) 14:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Get the nails, because I got the hammer- Umbralcorax (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just worked to save a similar article about an upcoming album by AC/DC but this one is a hopeless case. This album is still a thousand miles away from seeing the light of day. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that it's just this minute been speedily deleted though. Premature, even if it was going to happen anyway. Isn't there supposed to be a process? It was deleted for being "previously deleted material", although this article has never been deleted before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:16, 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) 20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Misfits' seventh studio album[edit]

Hammer time. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Can't touch this. Its Hammer time. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete STOP - hammertime -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ♪ If I Had a Hammer I'd hammer in the morning! ♪ -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smite this with the aforementioned WP:HAMMER: fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Cliff smith ^talk 17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's hammmertime. Per above given reasons, and AfD above this one. Calor (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've got to pray just to delete this today. JuJube (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:09, 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 Merge and redirect to The Blue Moods of Spain. Being number 1 on last.fm is dubious, as 'Untitled 1' is a very generic title. However the info about a song can be merged into the article on the album, which appears to be notable. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 1 (Spain song)[edit]

Only claim to notability is being the top track on last.fm. Its album has no article, so non-notability could be inherited Sceptre ^(talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article which I just created using some of this song's information. Seems the best compromise, no? .... Responsible? (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:09, 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) 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Vacations[edit]

Current article is a POV rant that lacks notability and the article has historically swung from a POV rant to a POV brochure, mainly edited by single purpose accounts. Despite repeated requests, sourcing is from poor or primary sources. The lack of good, reliable secondary sources means there is no way to produce an article with appropriate balance and suggests the company is not notable enough for an article in the first place. Recommend deletion.SiobhanHansa 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources show up in the first two pages of a Google search. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: I also object to the article being deleted for the same valid reasons given by the moderator (Baronvon) on April 10, 2008:

"This article must remain. Sundance Vacations has noteriety on a number of websites due to the number of dissatisfied and irate customers. In addition many members have noted public information about court cases. This is exacty the type of information that should be available in Wikipedia. It defines borderline legal activities that take advantage of consumers." (Emphasis added) --Baronvon (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this article serves the public interest, but Sundance advocates have made numerous attempts to censor this artice despite the overwhelming public documentation of some of the problems that Sundance has experienced with consumer relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:I continue to agree that the article as it currently reads has merit and has been informative for a number of people looking for information about how Sundance Vacations really operates. The source info from public records of court actions is undeniable. I do not see how another poster fails to see that his request has been granted multiple times requiring source material. If the person requesting further information does not trust the US Federal government, various States Courts and local court systems and record keeping and public notice that is his problem and not Wikipedia.

It is interesting that Sundance has undertaken multiple ways to alter the message and failing that trying to get it deleted.

There is no legitimate reason to remove the article or change the message that it conveys. I would need to see some substantial reason why it would need to be altered from some other party. --Baronvon (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote only once. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful reading above shows the previous !vote is from User:Georganne where as this one is from USER:Baronvon. (Georganne' reference to and quotes of previous comments by Barovan make this difficult to see at first glance). -- SiobhanHansa 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for catching my error. Their comments kind of blended together. Edward321 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to an encyclopedic article. We are not a universal information provider, just an encyclopedia. We're not even primarily a consumer information web site. It is possible that a decent encyclopedic article on this could be written, but this is not it. For one thing, it needs full references from undoubtedly reliable sources for every negative statement. I see only one acceptable reference, for a minor wage regulation violation. If someone will provide the sources, I will try to quickly write a stub article, By precedent, we've used BBB and other consumer information sites under reliable and well-reputed editorial control, and of course newspaper articles. But at t his point I almost would consider it a speedy. DGG (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete:~~ There are many “reliable,” “verifiable” and public document “sources.”

Source: Press Release, State of New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/labor/press/2005/0829WageHour.htm

Source: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania docket number. 05-CV-04193 claiming discrimination. Sundance Vacations settled the case out of court.

Source: Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, docket number L-8256-06. The civil suit detailed numerous violations of N.J.S.A. 56:8 et seq. of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, by utilizing “false pretenses through the use of unconscionable commercial practices.” Sundance Vacations settled the case out of court.

Source: This comprehensive report was invited by Sundance Vacations and it is well documented from various other “reliable” “sources.” http://streettalkblog.com/?p=1860 - more-1860 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote only once.Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half the article is poorly sourced proclamations of how wonderful the subject is, the other half is poorly sourced accusations of how horrible the subject is. Neither side indicates the subject is in any way notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The Better Business Bureau is not a reliable source. The operation has been exposed since it is supported by businesses who are members, very few business members are ever held accountable. All the business has to do is respond (meaning they communicated with the filer of the complaint) to a complaint, not satsify it for the business to be in good standing with the BBB. The Stevie Awards are another bogus outfit exposed as being awards presented to those companies who pay for it. The poor business practices of Sundance are explained as clearly as can be with this being an open forum and the business in question challenging claims. Sources of legitimate problems with the company are posted and cannot be challenged by Sundance since they are public records. I do not know why User:DGG would consider a wage claim with substantial settlement "minor". Nor do I understand why User:YixilTesiphon would considere the first two pages of a Google search reliable. The documented sources from public records and many other records do not show up on Google. In fact using Goggle to authenticate the accuracy would indicate a lack of un derstanding of how research for an encyclopedia article works. --Baronvon (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote only once. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to a comment--Baronvon (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's permit the Editors to decide who's a Sundance advocate attempting to control the accurate, documented, and undeniable souces of information. It is inconceivable that anyone would question the validity, accuracy, reliability and verifiability of public records!

Wikipedia is for consumers and unfavorable but documented information should be available to the public. Wikipedia is not meant to be a commercial for Sundance Vacations as many Sundance advocates are promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) — Georganne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment Public records are primary sources and often need secondary sources to be interpreted. We do not ourselves do the interpretation, nor do we present the unfiltered sources if the interpretation is potentially controversial. We present the secondary sources, such as reliable newspapers and other material under editorial control. The BBB is in my opinion to be considered a reliable secondary source precisely because they filter the complaints. Whether they have a pro or anti consumer bias is another matter, and can be dealt with in an individual case by presenting other sources that also edit the material they get, such as reliable newspapers. I'd think that such negative information as they do include is to be considered generally reliable--if they do in fact hold a pro-business bias, that makes their information all the more reliable. That someone has made a claim is evidence that someone has made a claim, not of the facts of the claim. That something is settled out of court is not evidence of the truth or falsity of the claim. WP is not for consumers--WP is an encyclopedia providing verified information for the benefit of those who choose to use it. For all I know, everything said negatively about this company may be true, and we can include what is acceptably sourced, along with anything positive, to the extent there are good secondary sources. There are none present here. DGG (talk) 00:03, 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 - all editors have supported to maintain the article. --JForget 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of superheroines[edit]

Contested prod. Randomly assembled list with no clear definition. Fails WP:LIST. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Portrayal of women in comics. This is the logical extension of that article. See also Superhero, List of male superheroes, and List of female supervillains, among others. - jc37 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not at all random. Inclusion criteria is clear, so conforms to WP:LIST. Could perhaps be merged with List of male superheroes, but that is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No coherent reason given for deletion. WP:LIST discusses different kinds of lists and describes how to format lists in Wikipedia; there's nothing there to "fail". The closest thing it gives to a criterion for avoiding is in the statement that lists are "subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others", but if the article fails one of these other policies, then that should be given as the reason for deletion, not WP:LIST itself. --Smeazel (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous keep votes. BOZ (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. No problem with the criteria or organization of this one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:25, 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 Redirect to Diary of the Dead#Sequel. PhilKnight (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of the Dead 2[edit]

Unnotable, unsourced future film that has no sign of even being in production, must less meeting WP:NFF -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Dimension doesn't distribute indie films, even when Mirimax was owned by Disney. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diary of the Dead#Sequel since shooting isn't scheduled to begin until September 15. Cliff smith ^talk 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree with the person above me. — Enter Movie (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cliff smith. Makes good sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 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 per WP:CRYSTAL - Note: On some related articles the name of the album is titled Interpersonnal although I have not seen a heck of sources.--JForget 23:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Lohan's forthcoming studio album[edit]

Here comes the WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Stop! Hammer time! Umbralcorax (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - it's hammertime! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (& minor smerges) - Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I have a hammer. I hammer in the morning, I hammer in the evening... That said, I'm a bit mixed on this one. Unlike most untitled, unscheduled future albums, a good deal of information has been pumped out about this one. Still, I think most of the information (such as it is) that is sourced belongs elsewhere (the "artist"' or show's articles). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, as discussed above. Cliff smith ^talk 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:10, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive expedition[edit]

This article is nothing but a dictionary definition, falling squarely into WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Adding editor decided "notable" examples does not make it anything more. Leave the definition for Wikitionary. I could find no in-depth reliable sources covering the topic of "punitive expeditions" as a standalone issue, only discussing specific ones. Failed PROD; removed by article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Expeditionary Force - Although I think this would be good to merge the information added, none of it is sourced, and I have a problem with that. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and distinctive form of warfare and the number of different examples of punitive expeditions which are returned by a Google search seem adequete to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Nick says, this is defintiely a distinct concept. See also Benin Expedition of 1897 for a further example. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently distinct to separate from Expeditionary Force, suggest WP:SOFIXIT is more appropriate than deletion. Justin talk 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept is distinct from Expeditionary operations. There are probably some good discussions of it related to the Raj as some of the columns in what's now the FATA in Pakistan were punitive, similarly the second expedition into Afghanistan, and Younghusband into Tibet. the otpic has potential to develop into a credible article. ALR (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article is little more than a definition, I can see plenty of room for development. It shouldn't be axed, but rather expanded from the current stub. Like others, I find it a notable concept and a particular type of warfare. I don't like the current format because it seems to be begging an unfortunate list format, but I think it can be expanded, hopefully re-formated, and is still worth saving at this point. --Trippz (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Definitely a promising article. No article was created FA, let it grow. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a stub, it is a distinct and recognized form of warfare. I'm not sure that it should be merged into Expeditionary Force because not all EFs are punitive expeditions. The EF is a type of force, while the term "punitive expedition" addresses a type of mission. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is more than a dictionary definition and is not the same thing as an Expeditionary Force, as shown by the specific examples found by the nominator. Nominator’s assumption that sources must cover the topic as a ‘standalone issue’ problematic. Based on that kind of reasoning, books on the American Civil War could not be used to source Robert E Lee, since they obviously do not cover him as a ‘standalone issue’. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct: such articles are discouraged by WP:NOTADICTIONARY. All that may be said is that a "punitive expedition" is a military venture undertaken primarily to punish an adversary. That certainly sounds to me like a dictionary definition. Moreover none of the notable "punitive expeditions" have citations to reliable sources. I would suggest that military history enthusiasts turn to a dictionary rather than Wikipedia when confronted with a fifty cent word like "punitive." Aramgar (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not only do I think this article goes beyond a simple dictdef in its current form, but I think it has the potential to develop. There's a lot of questions this article could answer that wouldn't belong in a dictionary entry: What is the international law regarding such expeditions? How have they proceeded in the past, what has been the outcome of some famous punitive expeditions? The idea of a punishing force going out for some sort of revenge (rather than for conquering territory, etc) goes all the way back to Homer and beyond, and there's a lot of possibility here for a good article. Source for the definition seems fine. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a stub, and the single unsourced statement constituting article content sounds naive about why such an expedition is “usually made”. Merge into war if there's anything of value. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 19:38 z
Strong KeepThis article cites sources for many facts, and currently contains several useful pieces of information. 70.110.29.236 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The New York Times has over 1,000 references, with clear usage of the term as described in the article, dating back to 1892. The article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a glossary. I suspect that this article cannot be expanded much beyond a definition and a list without delving into original research. Over the past few years it has often been suggested that someone create glossary of military terms for useful but permanently stubby articles like this one. Consider it suggested again. —Kevin Myers 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nick Dowling, Justin and Alansohn's work to improve the article. Banjeboi 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:V, and a bit of WP:HEY added in. The article needs work but not deletion. The term as a phrase shows up in more than 2,000 Google Scholar hits and more than 3,000 Google books hits. A quick scan of the results shows that most of them refer to the military use of the term, so there are plenty of sources available for improving the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep...I don't know what the article looked like when it was nominated for deletion, but this looks like an obvious keep now. Yes, it is a stub--but yes, it is also notable in its own right. the_ed 17 19:43, 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. Pigman☿ 02:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pablito SacoRojo[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax Katharineamy (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not completely convinced this is a hoax (though the external links are certainly...odd), but if this person does exist there's no evidence of notability. There's nothing in the article that implies the person would satisfy WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER, and there are no Google hits independent of the article[18]. But either way, delete. Okay, wait, no, on further examination, I think you're right; it is a hoax--I just followed the link to the movie he was supposedly in. In fact, it looks like we've got a whole mess of related hoax articles all written by the same person here; I'm going to go ahead and nominate the others for deletion as well. --Smeazel (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Related articles nominated here. Incidentally, turns out it's not just a simple hoax after all--it's an elaborate promotion for a YouTube video. But, either way, it definitely ought to be deleted. --Smeazel (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverifiable -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 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. Pigman☿ 02:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paymo Time Tracker[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about non-notable software and sources provided give no in-depth coverage. TN‑X-Man 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, author created same page twice before as Paymo and Paymo (Time Tracker). StaticGull Talk 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tnxman307, i can call any product on that page not notable. what makes a product notabable? As long as a company is not publicly traded it can be defined as not notable. We have thousands of active users, i belive we are notable. Please be fair and remove ALL other non-notable products from the time tracking comparison table. and best of all explain define NON NOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldimlight (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please read WP:N for WP's notability criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable, verging on spammy. ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:12, 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 SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocamp Ruins Pet Sounds[edit]

Fails WP:RS (it has no sources, reliable or otherwise) and WP:MUSIC#Albums -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable artists, sources. Nothing to distinguish from any other Someone's Sound Art Project. tomasz. 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find only self published sources for this, fails WP:NOTE & WP:MUSIC. --Amalthea^Talk 11:08, 29 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. Factors which I have registered in this discussion are that nobody wants the article kept as is, and the one who wanted this merged conceded that the dates are probably unverifiable. Given that the dates make up about half the information of these articles, means that there is very little left to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osyth Essex[edit]

From the backlog I came across this article, which would appear to be an A7. Decided that given its history, a speedy is not appropriate. A search for context is not particularly helpful due to the umpteen places called Essex. There are some in this chain that have context, an explanation of notability (i.e. Eoffa de Wessex) and are therefore not up for deletion. However there are some in this chain with no assertion of notability and it's only through following a chain that you find they're remotely connected with someone. Also bundled here, created by the same person in one day:

Eoppa de Wessex
Ingild Wessex

I'm guessing these came about from an effort to make articles for those listed on the House of Wessex family tree but there's no evidence these people were Kings of Wessex as opposed to Egbert of Wessex who was a king and has the information to create an article. TravellingCari 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something wrong with the nomination as there is a redlink in the deletion notice. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the content on the ancestry of Egbert of Wessex into one article. The only sources on this are probably genealogies in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I suspect the dates are unveriable. If kept Eoppa de Wessex should be Eoppa of Wessex; Osyth Essex should be Osyth of Essex; etc. Which was the senior and junior lines (and so whether a junior line usurped the throne) is probably also unverifiable. The dates do not match for Osyth Essex being identical with Osyth. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the benefit of merging unsourced and possibly unverifiable information. If notability is not inherited and there's no evidence these people held a title, what's worth merging? Not necessarily disagreeing, but curious. TravellingCari 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eoppa and Eafa are known only as names in a lineal ancestry of Alfred the Great presented in the ASC. They held no known title, nor are they notable for any other reason - they are just names between other names in a long list of names. There is not even uniformity of opinion that they existed, rather than simply being invented to link Alfred's grandfather Egbert to the older kings. Ingild is mentioned in the same pedigree, and also explicitly as brother of king Ine, but again, no title, no other notoriety (and contrary to what the Eafa article says, they were not the senior line, displaced by a junior line - the inheritance of the kinship did not follow primogeniture, but rather passed from one strongman to another among a large family group). As to Osyth, she does not even appear in the ASC. She seems to have been invented in the 19th or 20th century as a way to link pedigrees together. None of these meet the notoriety standard. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the Eafa page to better reflect the consensus of historians. Note that this removes the majority of the context, and all that remains relating to speculation about his son's ancestry and not directly to Eafa, and would be better merged into the latter's page. Agricolae (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining this in both of your comments. You're clearly more familiar with the topic. TravellingCari 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In the light of Agricolae's comments, this article fails WP:V. AS to the wider debate, ASC is a reputable historical source, and about all we have on this period. The fact that it may be based on oral tradition in Egbert's family does not render it necessarily unreliable: we are dealing with a largely illiterate society; indeed, claims that it is unreliable are verging on WP:OR. It is possible that some of the other people also appear in charters, but it may difficult to determine if the person named (probably a witness) was in fact Egbert's ancestor, or another of the same name. They may have been earldormen, ruling a shire under the king, but we cannot know. There is a strong case for merging them all into Egbert of Wessex into an ancestry (if not already there). During the course of this discussion, I have removed WP:OR statements about usurpation by more junior relatives, as I doubt we even know who was the elder. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just addressing some of this last, for the period in question, there is no other source but the ASC entries from Alfred the Great's time, or later. It is not a question of WP:OR - it is a legitimate minority opinion, with peer reviewed published scholarship that question this descent. I have seen it, and I have seen other scholars rejecting that interpretation - I just don't have anything handy to cite. I think there is enough to justify Ealhmund, whose page I have just savaged, but not for the earlier generations. I would suggest the generations back to Ingild brother of Ine of Wessex on Egbert's page, with a mention of descent from Cerdic, but not the names before that, then use Ine's page for the rest of the descent. Agricolae (talk) 02:09, 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 Speedy Delete per G11 by JzG. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta 9 (computer game)[edit]

Not quite a CSD G11, but a non-notable game anyway. StaticGull Talk 13:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like spam to me. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only narrowly short of G11? — Alan^✉ 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 — I respectfully disagree with the above comment. It does meet G11 and is certainly spam. MuZemike (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the start of the page. The game is still in development and I would like to be able to write the story then be able to put it somewhere. --Sabre070 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could transwiki to, say, Wikia; or you could ask for userfication. Hope that helps. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's spam -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Bordering on adspam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a very high chance that this is a copyright violation - see [19]. The article here on WP was created on 21 AUG. Although the page I linked to says that the initial post was made on 22 AUG, someone replied to the original post there on 19 AUG, so maybe there is a glitch in their software? Even if it is not a copyvio, it's still spam. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as G11. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:58, 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 speedily deleted (A1, no context) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World News And Images[edit]

Original research. not sure if it's a copyvio, as I can't find anything online. StaticGull Talk 13:43, 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 although I've redirected to Outernet--JForget 23:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outernet: Friend or Foe?[edit]

Less detailed than main Outernet article, not otherwise linked to, doesn't deserve its own article? Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: the original version of the page had a summary copy-and-pasted from the Outernet article. (I wrote that content on the other page.) After Friend or Foe? was proposed for deletion, it was edited to a version more similar to the current one. In my opinion, the main article has a better description of the plot, repetition in its own article is unnecessary, and since nothing links there, it's not worth a merge. --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Outernet - The outernet article already has all the information of this article, plus more on the topic. Furthermore except for the stub tag it is impossible to tell what this article is about --T-rex 00:26, 21 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, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently a stub about a novel from a series. Ordinarily, I can figure out that an article is about a fictional subject, but in this one, apart from the tags and infoboxes, I wouldn't have known; it really is written "in-universe". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:04, 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. While there is a rough consensus to delete, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether there should be a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squig[edit]

Another Warhammer article that fails WP:RS by having no independent sources, instead relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Coutinho[edit]

A youth player NOT a notable professional footballer yet. Matthew_hk t c 13:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Technically may not meet WP:FOOTYN yet, but a €3.8M transfer fee is probably notable in itself. Even if it isn't, there seems no point deleting the article given that he's virtually certain to play for the Vasco first team this season and will meet WP:FOOTYN the instant he sets foot on the pitch. – iride scent 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep fails WP:ATHLETE i think but, may with the coverage from reuters actually weakly meet the WP:N for coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. I don't really like the "crystal ball" of "he's virtually certain" etc but, if a couple of more reliable sources can be found around the transfer fee than he would be notable for that. And 16 means he is a young player but, I don't think being young is the same as being a "youth" player (at least when it comes to football. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The transfer fee is sourced from FIFA itself, I don't see how you can get more reliable than that in a football context. – iride scent 14:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never said nor meant to imply in anyway that the FIFA source isn't reliable I'm saying in order to meet the multiple reliable etc portion of the notability/verifiability guidelines we probably need more than the FIFA and reuters entries. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't need many sources to establish reliability. Notability is trickier, but a club paying that amount of money for a player who has still to play a professional game could be notable in itself. We should normally be cautious about saying something is "almost certain" but we might make an exception in this case, see WP:IAR. PatGallacher (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, footballer fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league or competition. The transfer fee is not notworthy enough to keep the article. There is nothing of any value on the article at the moment to ignore all rules. --Jimbo^[online] 15:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Masses of in depth coverage in major news sources, found in even the most cursory news search. WP:ATHLETE is there to stop articles on people who never reach the field, and are not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some links to the "masses of in depth coverage in major news sources" cause even as a fellow keep voter I didn't find that and it would definitely help the overall argument if they could be provided. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was put his name into Google News. A small selection from the first page; 1 2, 3 4, 5 and over 200 stories on this guy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I get 150 on people named "Philippe Coutinho" (unfortunately, I can't read the ones in foreign languages). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Athlete. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced. Clearly meets WP:BIO. Whether he meets other criteria or not is irrelevent, as WP:BIO trumps the other criteria. Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete. Changing !vote based on Angelo's research below. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No official announced he had been a Inter player. And for Fabio and Rafeal brother of ManU, they was deleted too, although wide media coverage and high transfer fee. Matthew_hk t c 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FIFA.com buy news from AFP, verifiability is lower than official . Matthew_hk t c 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references are sufficient to establish his notability regardless of WP:ATHLETE. See WP:IAR, which could have been written about this article. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Dalai Lama fails WP:POLITICIAN, but is notable for the same reason as Phillipe Coutinho - there are enough sorces to establish notability regardless of the guidelines. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inter has never finalized this transfer, there's no official announcement in the club website, and no track of this move in the Italian Football League website as well. This reported move remains merely a rumour. And please do not compare Coutinho to the Dalai Lama, a major religious leader who has a much more significant coverage than a 16-year old footballer who has never played a fully professional match. --Angelo (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a record in Brazilian FA, indicated that he officially a Vasco Da Gama player, just a non-notable youth player of a notable team. Matthew_hk t c 15:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The International Herald Tribune and Xinhua are considered reliable sources, no? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has met to make a professional first team appearance. Furthermore, this AfD is a classic example of why Wikipedia needs WP:ATHLETE (rather than deleting or ignoring it as some users want), otherwise any youth teamer who happen to have a news report written about him will be eligible regardless of whether he is actually notable in this particlar field or not. In this case, all he seems to be 'famous' for is being transferred for €3.8M, which to my mind is actually WP:BIO1E. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. If the big money transfer had been substantiated then there was the makings of a notability case but I am persuaded by the excellent research of User:Angelo.romano that there is an insufficient audit trail. Smile a While (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U'ujio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/U'ujio

I think this is a WP:HOAX. No references cited. No G-hits aside from wikipedia and forks of the wikipedia article. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. In any case fails WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of Google hits for "Ujio", the shorter version of the name given, but they pretty much all seem to be either about The Last Samurai or people who chose the username Ujio (almost certainly inspired by The Last Samurai). Given the story in the article about Ujio historically being killed by Matthew Perry, I tried Googling the names Ujio and Perry together; still plenty of hits, but again, all that I looked at were based on the Last Samurai. I even tried searching Google Books and Google Scholar; still nada. I can find no evidence that Ujio really existed as a historical figure as the article asserts. Until and unless someone turns up some reliable sources verifying the claims in this article, I'm recommending "delete". --Smeazel (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bollocks, created in a couple of edits among the thankfully small number perpetrated by "Pedrossi", another of whose edits is this one, a charitable interpretation of which would be that some Rice University students like to edit after a couple too many beers. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing believable in the article. Fg2 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, no indication sources might be available. Most likely a hoax. J Readings (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 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 per overwhelming consensus. Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008

Contested prod. Violates WP:CRYSTAL as there are no sources stating a special election will take place. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delay. I suggest waiting a little while. It won't take long for the Ohio Governor to announce if/when a special election will be held.—Markles 13:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (I changed my mind. See my "Delete" below.—Markles 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. The delay should have been in creating the article, I would think. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and we're not here to "scoop" anyone, so why not wait until an actual announcement is made before creating it? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - which I would have done myself (perhaps controversially, I admit) if I had seen this article. Pure conjecture, and at any rate, it's premature. I disagree with any delay; we are NOT in the business of predictions by any stretch of the imagination. It's hard enough for us to keep up with things that actually are verifiable. Frank | talk 13:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is an event that is not certain to happen. An article should be created when and if the governor declares an election. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source dealing with special election: Officials examining options to fill Tubbs Jones’ seat, special election likely. Is it a crystal ball to ask for just a few days to consider?—Markles 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I found that source, and it just speculates that a special election is "likely" and that the governor is studying the law to review the options. If Governor Strickland doesn't know what will happen, why do we think we do? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the nature of AfD discussions is such that the delay requested above is more or less built in, unless somebody decides to CSD as a result of this discussion. If a decision hasn't been reached by the 4 or 5 days these discussions usually stay open, that would be a default delete, in my opinion. If a decision has been reached, then this discussion would de facto be decided. Frank | talk 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm kind of expecting a snowball result here. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. This article is precisely what Wikipedia is not. Frank | talk 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate if election is declared. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be recreated if a special election is ordered. The content right now would not seem particularly useful towards that article, it's all speculation. --Rividian (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Article can be restored/recreated if election is officially announced. Until then, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not necesarily going to happen... wait for a citable source.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This report cites the legal requirement that a special election be held: "Special elections needed to pick interim successor to Stephanie Tubbs Jones".—Markles 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I put that in the article because it seemed relevant, however...I'm pretty sure we're still in WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR territory here. It's not for us to decide if that court case applies here or not, even though it does look like it to me...we need sources. Frank | talk 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment. Attempting to interpret the law and predict future actions by reading court cases, while well-intended, is the very definition of original research. Until the reliable sources says there will be a special election, we cannot say that on Wikipedia, no matter how much our own research, or even the reliable sources, say that there should be such an election. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It can always be recreated if the election is called. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. —Markles 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Request Can someone WP:SNOW this? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:35, 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, clear case of made-up. No need to re-list or keep this going.TravellingCari 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday game[edit]

IP address (probably author) removed PROD without explanation Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unverifiable nonsense about a game played in some office. No reliable sources, this not what Wikipedia is for. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and the winner of this weeks WP:MADEUP award goes to... Birthday game! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Looks like our friend is removing the AFD templates. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've issued a last warning. If they do it again, I will block. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - IP blocked, warning issued to page creator. I suspect the four people in the world who play this game are now working together, probably all from the same office... J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Author blocked. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe he's driving to an internet cafe to do it all over again :D Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe we should call his boss and tell him what he's really doing... J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Is it worth asking for a Checkuser on 62.173.74.234 and Scanners81? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, they've both been temporarily blocked anyway. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. I've placed the {{SharedIP}} template on the IP user's talk page anyway. Big Brother is indeed watching him/her! ;-) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if you can, please. It's really embarrassing to Wikipedia that crap like this isn't deleted immediately. Peacock (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blow out the candle Non-notable game. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vandalism. Ningauble (talk) 22:42, 20 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, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's to be further discussed? Even before the relisting, it looked pretty snowy in here. Umbralcorax (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Why is an AfD that's only two days old being relisted? Deor (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So there would be a more thorough consensus. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are not usually relisted unless they have been active for the standard five days without a consensus having become evident. This isn't a message board where one can "bump" threads. Deor (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MADEUP. If possible follow WP:SNOW guidelines. StaticGull Talk 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that this is being relisted for further discussion. Do you think there's something special about three guys in an office playing a game? Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 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. No prejudice against re-creation when notability can be established according to Wikipedian policies. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrosopht[edit]

Cannot turn up any sources to establish notability. Google only turns up this article and the article subject's social networking sites. Kelly ^hi! 12:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, not notable, but google search does not really prove anything with notability, remember that. --Lord Sunday 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a Google test isn't the final arbiter of notability and has great potential for overuse, but for an article subject who bases his entire claim to notability on his founding of an internet record label and an e-zine, I'd say the distinct lack of Google hits demonstrates his lack of notability pretty effectively. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:RS (by virtue of not having ANY sources) and WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles on all counts. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if sources and a discography were included in the article?--Ptyrrell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources would be excellent, depending on their reliability o'course. A discography would be good to improve the article if its notability is previously established, but isn't an argument towards keeping unless the said discog has more than one album on a major or significant indie label that previously weren't presented in the article. tomasz. 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obscurity and lack of reliable-source coverage makes this article apparently unsourceable, failing WP:V and WP:N. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets first criteria for WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Mikrosopht has released numerous albums on independent, reliable labels. See:

- 18 Improvisations on Digital Biotope
- Several releases on Hippocamp label
- Recent release with Atom™ on Rather Interesting

--Ptyrrell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first criterion you quoted ("subject of multiple non-trivial published works... and reliable") doesn't mean the musician should have released multiple works on a "reliable" record label (whatever one of those is). It means that multiple reliable secondary sources have talked about the band. The criterion about albums is the fifth, and it reads "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", none of which this artist has. tomasz. 16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a huge fan of Microsopht's music and bittunes. It would be a shame to lose this worthy listing. -danny

I've enjoyed and taken part in many GXL( Benjamin Kelley label )projects. The fact that his work could be considered obscure or underground does not make it unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. He's an active artist currently building a large body of work in electronic music. Why can't an encyclopedia ( especially an online one ) be a place of exploration and discovery of rarefied or not widely known information?--Malarts (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It can be such a place, but it still must have standards. Regarding music, ours are the notability criteria. The fact that anyone's music could be considered obscure or underground does not make it unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (that's why we've lots of articles on obscure or underground bands), but the basic standards must still be met. tomasz. 16:48, 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 Nomination withdrawn with no delete votes present. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Genest[edit]

Subject is non-notable candidate in an election, which is not intrinsically notable as per WP:POLITICIAN. References to Al Gore and his father do not establish notability, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see enough about his academic career to satisfy WP:PROF either. justinfr (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Georgina Wilcock is also being considered for deletion. On that discussion, some have argued that Genest's article is a reason to keep both. Rather, I believe they should both be deleted. Personally, I like the greens. I hope they win so that I can see many, many articles about their Members of Parliament. justinfr (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think my brain might be fried today. Somehow I missed that Emmy nominated line, which is probably enough for notability as a movie producer. Sigh. Big apologies, and I withdraw the nomination. justinfr (talk) 12:42, 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 to Virtual water and/or water footprint. As anetode says, one cohesive article would make sense here. Merge tag applied to this article. Black Kite 23:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water use[edit]

An aquatic bit of WP:NEO. I recommend pouring this one out. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My, you are quick. I started this article because I wanted information on water use. I could not find the information under the various articles I looked at. Finally (after writing an article complete with a table with numbers from an article in New Scientist) I discovered the article Virtual water which contains the information I wanted. So I cut my article down to what you see now. I decided against making it a "redirect" straight to Virtual water, because the term "water use" can refer to other things, such as water footprint, and because I do not consider "virtual water" to be a very good general term for the amount of water used in producing various things. (It is mostly used in the context of trade, as to say that a particular import represents a certain amount of water used in the country of origin.) I think Wikipedia should be useful so that someone who wants information on water use won't have to think of looking under "virtual water". I also think that people shouldn't spend their time worrying too much about a few more bytes on the Wikipedia hard disks! As though "water use" is a neologism. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wait, why did you create an article about water use? You wanted info on water use? I'm confused! --Lord Sunday 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted information, and since I couldn't find it, I looked for an article in New Scientist, and wrote my own article. Only afterwards did I find more or less the same information in the Virtual water article. By the way, I have added some more information to this article, which should not go into the Virtual water article--another reason not to convert this into a "redirect". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. Much as I'd like to get into the flow of another of Ecoleetage's pun-filled AfDs, this article does seem to have the potential for a stream of sources that give it at least a drop of notability. The pour article was nominated extremely quickly after creation, and I'll drink to the likelihood that there are more references out there that discuss this concept in an encyclopedic manner. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raise my glass to you for the thirst-quenching wit. But the water level in the glass is at mid-level -- I don't know if it is half-full or half-empty. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, even though I may disagree with you on this particular AfD, I must say that your puns consistently crack me up. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I see the point of this article, but it doesn't seem to cover anything that isn't adequately covered by water supply. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Water supply doesn't cover the same things. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to water footprint. Nothing but a stubby fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "fork" is, according to your link, when you have several articles about the same subject. Here the situation is somewhat the opposite. The term "water use" can mean several different things: the amount of water used for a particular purpose (as in the article on virtual water), the amount of water used by a particular consumer (as in water footprint), and the amount of water used globally. We need an article to catch the phrase "water use" and send people where they can find more information on whichever topic they wanted. Actually, I think a lot of the information under Virtual water should be here under "water use". "Virtual water" is really a term having to do with world trade, and it would be better to make that article shorter and transfer the figures for various products to here. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep for the time being...Err...this one is a tough glassful to swallow. Subject is a stub, but agree with Eric that "water use" is not a neologism. Also further agree that "virtual water" is a separate topic, thus do not support the redirect. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into water footprint. I'm not convinced at this point that this is not a fork. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as I have said above, this article refers to three different ideas. "Water footprint" only covers one of them. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Water footprint. Conceptually, they are the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, "water footprint" does not cover some of the meanings of "water use". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect noting that theres a MOS that says something about common knowledge doesnt need to be defined. Why not make it a soft redirect, this article appears to cover two different terms both of which have article neither is wholly synonymous with this. "Virtual water" is the recipe level use ie cool 30ml of water to 0oC to make an ice block. Where as "Water Footprint" is about the total water required to make the ice block ie 30ml for the block it self plus 2l for the manufacturing of the ice cube tray plus 2Gl of water used by the power station to generate the power required to run the freezer to cool the water. Gnan garra 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Wikipedia:Soft redirect is for. By the way, "water footprint" is used more for the usage of a particular consumer or group of consusmers. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary & delete. I can see potential in an article on world water use, however the current article is nothing but a definition contextualized by the sole reference. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the article is just a stub. But that's not a reason to delete it. In my opinion, the material under "water footprint" and "virtual water" should have been put under this name, rather than under the slightly bizarre terms "footprint" and "virtual...". In any case, I don't think it should be deleted. When I originally looked for information on this, I typed "water use" and didn't get anything. It took me quite a while to find an article talking about what I wanted (namely the virtual water article). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not merge the three? It would make the whole subject much less confusing. Discuss the proper terminology within a cohesive article, else we have two divergent articles about basically the same topic and a bonus stub that goes nowhere. Assume that the casual reader is clueless to the complexity of global water management, would they find the current articles accessible and useful? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:06, 31 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) 01:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Ph33r[edit]

Non notable person. No sources. Main claim to fame, the production Arby'n'The Chief, has been deleted several times, including at AFD.

Delete - non-notable director, fails WP:BIO on all counts, and has no sources, so automatically fails WP:RS! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

d313T3 - there are no reliable sources to be found to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 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 as an unnecessary content fork. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup: Man of the Match awards[edit]

This article simply duplicates info that can be found in the 2006 FIFA World Cup group stage, knockout stage and Final articles. There is no statistical analysis here, and if any were added, it would probably count as original research. – Pee Jay 10:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 10:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator says, this information is already on the relevant pages and so there's no need to replicate this information here. Plus the 'Man of the Match' link at the bottom of the page just redirects to FIFA's homepage. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful and encyclopaedic. Though the information could be extracted from the individual pages they would not provide the overview provided here. TerriersFan (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is such an overview necessary? The Man of the Match award is not an important award in the grand scheme of things until you get to the final. No one ever remembers the individual Man of the Match award winners, and people are more likely to want to know who the Man of the Match was for a single match, rather than look at an overview. – PeeJay 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly found it useful to see who had won a MoM more than once; which I could not have gleaned from the individual pages without a huge amount of work. It was also helpful to see who had won it in the England games at a glance. I see no need to delete encyclopaedic information for what seems a purist policy approach. I can see that a standalone page is doubtfully justified so why not suggest a merge? TerriersFan (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surely it would have been easier to check who won MoM awards in England matches by checking the appropriate group article (Group B, I think)? – Pee Jay 08:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:21, 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 speedy delete per CSD G3. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Datshyt[edit]

Contested speedy and contested prod. Article is hoax and borderline nonsense. Movingboxes (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3XX[edit]

3XX is not notable (Mixing up renewal dates isn't notable) and can't find any reliable sources for 3XX. Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failure of WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article had a large removal of content [20]. Licensed broadcast radio stations are presumed notable and notability does not expire. I will check this out further. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the removed content before marking it for deletion but it's unsourced content which would have been removed anyway. I can start up a radio station tomorrow and just because it's licensed doesn't make it notable. 3XX was licensed as a narrowcast (Narrowband Area Service - ACMA and it will point out that 1611 is off the dial and is cheap since not everyone can pick it up) radio station and not a broadcast radio station. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3XX was a reasonable sized narrowcaster in Melbourne's community and does deserve to have a small detail about it's history in place on the Wikipedia community. As for sources of it's article, are the existing website cached on the wayback machine, and current articles about it's closure on mediaspy and jocksjournal not enough information? Ontheradionetau (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.110.131 (talk) [reply]

Those (The former website, Mediaspy and Jocks Journal) are not reliable sources. 3XX was not a well known broadcaster if it was there would have been a news story about it starting up and closing down but nothing shows up on Google News. Bidgee (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If, in fact, this was a licensed broadcast station in Australia, it is notable. The article needs references, but the subject is notable. --Winger84 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was licensed since 2002 (which the article claims but doesn't back-up) doesn't make it notable. Also I've found nothing on http://www.acma.gov.au about this station. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gene93k's comment above, licensed broadcast stations are presumed notable and notability does not expire. --Winger84 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding this station listed in either the list of licensed commercial stations or the list of open narrowcasting services. The closest match in those lists is 'AM 1611' but that station is licensed to Albany in Western Australia, a long way away from what is described in the article. Unless some evidence that this station was licensed can be located, it cant enjoy the benefit that licensed stations receive in receiving presumed notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise but I can't agree that a licence automatically confers notability. Taking a cause vs effect argument I'd suggest most stations of notability in fact have licenses, but not the other way around. The example of 3XX seems to prove the point, in that yes, it presumably satisfied the requirements to gain a license, but subsequently endured an anonymous existence which attracted no coverage from significant secondary sources. Murtoa (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a long established consensus that licenses stations are considered notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment ... which, politely, I'm challenging. If a group received a licence and operated a station for say, a month, would it be notable? I'm not meaning to be silly or trivialising, but this seems to be an instance where the consensus, irrespective of how long it's been in place, seems very much open to challenge. Murtoa (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Since notability is not temporary, it does not matter how long ago the station was notable nor for how long. - Dravecky (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment ... and in my view it's never been notable, irrespective of licensing considerations. Murtoa (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the presumption that merely having a licence makes a radio station notable aside (and I would really strongly challenge and dispute such a presumption), this defunct station seems to have picked up no coverage in any reliable sources as far as I can tell (and minimal coverage even as far as directories, forums and the like go). The fact that the licence can't even be easily verified would indicate to me that this article has serious WP:N and WP:V issues. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:27, 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. Sandstein 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters[edit]

Violates WP:LIST Advocate (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because of Dungeons & Dragons because I'm a player, but simply because it just doesn't belong here. Not that it doesn't belong somewhere on the web, but not on this particular encyclopedia. A complete list would be better suited on another website, and then we could reference that website from the main D&D article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - whatever cleanup issues there are, I will try to resolve. Just walk me through it. Same thing with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters‎. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I recall the list was a compromise after a huge cleanout of individual D&D monster pages. Can you clarify what you r concerns are? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page needs references, but otherwise it seems to be a reasonable list of where and how the information about D&D monsters was published. Given that, I can't see how it violates WP:LIST - if nothing else, it should easily fit as a bibliography for people interested in the subject matter. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'll abstain from making a recommendation on this one--I recommended "delete" for the earlier nominated List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, but I'll hold off this time--but I do want to say I think you need a different reason for your nom. I don't see how "Violates WP:LIST" applies or even makes sense--reading over WP:LIST, there's nothing there to violate; it's all about how to include lists in Wikipedia, and why they're important, and there are no guidelines there about when to avoid lists--there's nothing to violate! (Well, there is the statement about lists being "equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others", but if this article violates another content policy, then that should be given as the reason for the nom.) I'm not arguing against the nom, per se--like I said, I recommended "delete" on a related nom--I just don't think the reason given makes sense. There may be a valid reason for deletion here, but "Violates WP:LIST" isn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeazel (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh--forgot to sign my comment. Sorry. --Smeazel (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suitable compromise page, the sort of thing to be encouraged. Why would we want to eliminate basic pages like this? DGG (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, Paul McDonald, this is the sort of thing Wikipedia is exceptionally good at. I think you may have intended to say "this sort of thing doesn't belong in the Encyclopedia Britannica," or "this sort of thing doesn't belong in the CIA's list of sovereign countries." This is exactly the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia, however. -- Poisonink (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence to suggest that any of this content is notable either as a group or individually. It seems to me that this list or article fails, at best, WP:NOT#DIR or, at worst, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All of this content comes directly from Dungeons & Dragons publications, and the question must be asked, why reproduce it all here? Is Wikipedia to be used as a supplementary source for the publications of Wizards of the Coast? I think EEMIV has brought to our attention that the content of the article is basically a synthesis of contents & indices of various D&D modules.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, Gavin. This is one of the many things Wikipedia can do, and will do, if the community decides this is one of the things Wikipedia should do. If the consensus is to keep this article, then I for one will take that as strong support for the idea that lists of creatures within popular fictional worlds are absolutely within Wikipedia's mission. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at WP:LIST I'm not seeing anything it violates. If the argument is that the articles it points to aren't notable, then that's a different discussion. But as a list, it looks fine (perhaps even better than fine. It's really well organized given the massive amount of material involved). Hobit (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rreference tables are permitted, but all we have here are indexes and annotations compiled from primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does not violate WP:LIST, and nominator has not explained why they think it does. Edward321 (talk)
Keep I can't see how the article violates WP:LIST in any way. The nominator should frankly have explained precisely how or why they think it does, and if not I suggest we close this up as an invalid nomination. Shemeska (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not seem to violate WP:LIST. Reliable sources exist on this subject matter. They may not be reflected in the article, but per WP:N "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 10:01, 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) 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Feed the Animals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Feed the Animals

No references, I personally do go on a lot of hip hop sites and have not heard of this album. Y5nthon5a (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:RS and WP:MUSIC#Albums ("albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag". and "Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album".) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Movingboxes (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that this page was up before, and it was deleted.Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:46, 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 snowball delete as an obvious hoax. Maxim (☎) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grambling "GT All Business" Dominique, Jr.[edit]

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

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

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

Contested prod. Article has pervasive problems with POV and tone and severe WP:BLP issues. These, of course, aren't reasons to delete. The issue is that there isn't much to the article apart from the issues. The IBC--the organization the subject was allegedly a champion with, isn't a reputable or well-established organization (to my research anyway) and there are little sources to establish even the claims made for the subject in this regard. Movingboxes (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add This article was created--and speedily deleted--at least twice before. Movingboxes (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:RS. Reads like a vanity piece (potential WP:COI?) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Goto715-Goto715 I don't believe that this article has violated WP:BIO or WP:RS in any way. Article has historical references and, the claims of the artical or that that can be established. The subject is notable and is infact the former IBC Champ. His fights have all been televised and he's a referenceable subject. My investigation has turned up several sources. I vote against to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.196.196 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Comment Just so you know, this isn't a "vote." It's a discussion, where editors are encouraged to apply their knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make their case for or against deletion. Movingboxes (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user:boxxfaxx I am the auther of this article. I take firm objection to the references to my piece. I researched this subject and all the information is accurate. My mistake if it can be call that, is that I allowed the information to be personalized. This artical has all the guidelines stated in Wp:BIO and WP:RS]]. It is by no means a "vanity piece"! I reject that whole heartly! I don't know the subject but I have been to several of his fights, and I personally interviewd him along with 10 plus others for our respective publications. It is my attempt to let as many people as possible aware of this "special man". The accuratcy of this article can be researched and I reject the accusation that this information could not be found by one of the editors "investigation". I believe that you are fair , however, this is information that is correct and should be allowed to remain. Boxx Faxx (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user:nine hole I hope this is correct. I am a fan of Gt All business Dominique, and i wish to add my say here. I read the artical by MS. van Cruz, and it is wonderful! All the info is true, for once(ha) as far a media sources go and I enjoyed it. You guy's didn't delete Roy Jones artical.It has questionable material as well, and there's even a cluse that appears to on the page to provied more info to his artical. Is it because Gt, is doing some thing in the black community that you find it objectionable? What has Roy or any other boxer besides Vernon Forest done for the community, and still maintained there cel status, and not hidden behind it? Go GT, Go! nine hole 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Nine Hole (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete no reliable sources given for this information, none found by searching using real name or nickname. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. (anyone notice all the keep voters mis-spell article as artical? hmm) -Hunting dog (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Brian , and i think you should keep it. Where are you guy's looking on the net for information? This guy has to start somewhere, right? ( and yeah, I noticed that too about the article thing!!!!) hey guy's I fixed that for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.94.37 (talk) This template must be substituted.
Strong Delete aside from multiple recreations under different names to evade detection and apparent socking there's no evidence this person is notable. Going to such lengths wouldn't be necessary if he were notable. There's no evidence he his. TravellingCari 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N as, so far as I can see, no reliable source has ever taken notice of the subject of the article. In fact, the fairly unrestrictive search string " "grambling dominique" +boxing" gives one of the shortest results pages I've seen for the subject of a biography. To be fair, a search on variations of the name does reveal a couple of blog hits and the like. However, 0 hits from Boxing News, SI, or Sporting News, or any other reliable source I can find. I'm going to touch up the article a bit to remove the unsourced BLP stuff pending the outcome of this AfD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed several unsourced paragraphs, and there's more that needs to be done but I don't have time right now. Thus far I haven't been able to verify the claims contained in the article - for example I removed a paragraph sourced to the Chicago Sun-Times after I failed to locate it in the archives. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The International Boxing Council is not a major boxing organization, as the nominator and article say. Links are to what appear to be blogs and a MySpace page. Not sufficient for an article. If he has been mentioned in reliable sources, let's see them, because none of us are finding them. Oh, and the blatant sockpuppetry is not helping. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this: The Webspawner link in the article for Dominique goes to a user named BoxxFaxx, the same name as the primary author. Looks like we have a potential conflict of interest here. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this guy never fought Antonio Tarver as claimed. The external links in the Tarver article show this. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, completely nonnotable boxer, self-promotional article. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having looked at original text a bit more, I'm starting to think this is more hoax than non-notable. Events described in earlier text would have generated some news coverage, even if the subject wasn't notable, but none can be found on web. -Hunting dog (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have followed this discussion with intrest since early today. I'm a boxing fan and I don't have a wikipedia membership. this man Gt Dominique is a boxer. I have seen him fight onseveral occacions. But what i find crazy is that some of your editors are using the information from the net to firm up it's conclusions. I am not taking sides in this matter, however it's clear that your editors have no idea what they are talking about. perhap's you could do just a little more digging. I have verfied the Cleveland Plain Dealer info, Both Detroit and Chicago reported deaths, (check police blotter guys) And the mob issue. Also, the donations to the Chicago Public Schools. Perhaps you could check the info throughly guys, because you know as well as I do that all the info is limited by the net and you know it. By bthe way, Dominique did fight Tarver. Tarver won in split decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.163.239 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Comment unlike Mr Dominique's fights, Tarver's fights seem to be documented in a variety of places, whether these constitute reliable sources or not they have no reason to exclude someone he apparently beat, but they make no mention of the subject of this article. [21], [22], [23] - Sod WP:AGF this is complete WP:BOLLOCKS -Hunting dog (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Travellingcari and Hunting dog. Probable hoax. GlassCobra 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN independent of likely socking, Boxx Faxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has more than earned a block for this recreating having been final warned in July for creating inappropriate pages. TravellingCari 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen (and women-smile!), how do I began? I am a fan of this Dominique, and I live in Chicago! GT Dominique, Jr. is a very popular figure in this town at least. He has done more for the kids at risk here then all the so-called "community Leaders" have done combined. This guy is or has some Chicago Mob Connections, what they maybe, I'm not sure, but both the Chicago Trib, and the Sun Times have reported on them. Oh, let me tell you this as well, I remember with sadness when this young man fatally injuried that other fighter here. It was "ALL OVER THE NEWS" for days! Dominique, went to the family of the deceased and apoligized for there loss, and help pay for the furneral. That too was in the papers! That took sand. This kid definitely has balls! I can not say if the author of this article is in fact a fan or not, but "she" as my information has led me to conclude, does have her fact's straight! No , Dominique is not as well known as some of the "BIG NAMES" in this sport, however, he's just as loved. He earned he name in this sport. He did it the ligit way, one fight at a time! Never compermising the game for Mr. King and his followers. When he won the title, this city gave him a parade right down King Drive, up Michigan Avenue to Grant Park. That by the way gentleman was June 4th 2004. The Parade was June 5th, 2005, that Sunday afternoon! Are sports teams are crap, so we hold on to the people who do the business. I strongly reconmend that his article be allowed to remain. Edward J. McCurry, Chicago, Ill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.14.29 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete. If Mr. Dominique is a boxing champion, who has been covered in the newspapers, why has he seemingly left no trace of his activities in the Google News Archives? And if he fought (and lost to) Antonio Tarver in 1998, why would Tarver not list his victory over Dominique on his own web site? Whether Dominique is a contributor to the community or not, we can only have an article about him if we can find reliable independent sources that discuss him and his activities. Keep in mind that he is being described as a contemporary professional athlete, active during the Internet era in the United States -- the kind of person that we should be able to find lots of references to on the Internet, if in fact he has achieved what the article claims he has achieved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. just not notable at this time. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a hoax. boxrec.com shows the IBC light heavyweight title pedigree as this. Furthermore, BoxRec has no record of this fighter having ever existed. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:32, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horus Heresy[edit]

An article has again been created from a redirect. It fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. Doesn't warrant a whole article, merely a comment in Warhammer 40,000 or Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect although I'd love to have all the information on this subject in a place that means I don't have to spend £1000s this should still be a redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) as far as wikipedia is concerned. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To really get a feel for this article you need to see what it was like before it was cleaned up: old version. If it was still that version, I would have endorsed a deletion rationale with WP:PLOT. As is, the article is written in an out of universe perspective (you can thank mean old Frederick Day for the rewrite) and is the title of two separate spinoff games in 40K. If there ever were a piece of fictional backstory (in 40K) that ought to be saved from deletion, it's this one. Meets WP:PLOT and WP:WAF and probably meets the WP:GNG in a marginal fashion (if one digs through the bunches of google responses for "horus heresy" you'll probably find some minor coverage of the event en passant to coverage of the subgames. Protonk (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concede that it is a better article than it was, but it still relies on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely in-universe discussion of a fictional event. Zero coverage by independent third party sources. No objection to future re-use to refer specifically to the game distributed in issue ~171 of White Dwarf, but I doubt that was ever covered sufficiently by third parties either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? It's not great by any means, but there's no way it can be described as "purely in-universe". the wub "?!" 11:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer 40,000 or the Imperium article (wherever it is). Unlike most of these WH40K fiction articles which are completely unneeded for understanding of the game, this is one of the basic setting details, setting up the premise for the whole game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per verifiability and notability as demonstrated by titular coverage in sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except those sources are books published by a Games Workshop subsidiary. Can you provide any reliable sources that aren't primary sources? -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just look at reviews of the book for out of universe comments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If even AMIB thinks it basic information necessary for understanding the game, who am I to disagree? DGG (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. I'm actually a huge WH40K fan, just not a fan of the WH40K walled garden that snuck into WP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
confirming my opinion that it is often the fans who don't need the articles, but the other people who come here for information they don't already know. DGG (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps the fans are the only ones who care enough to make sure their fandoms are covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Who knows? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds awfully like WP:USEFUL to me. I like lots of niche things; I don't argue that they should all be deleted on WP, just the ones that aren't notable. But who am I to judge when another's preconceptions have been adequately confirmed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reference guide should be useful. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike many of the other WH40K nominations recently this is a core part of the background. Merging would also be difficult as this is shared between Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) and Chaos Space Marines, being a defining event for both. Furthermore the name is shared by a moderately notable series of novels, a collectible card game and an old GW boxed game. This page could provide background for all these, and serve as a jumping off point for the other uses. the wub "?!" 10:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protectThis article is not at all in-universe, except perhaps the "cause" section. I wrote that, and yes, out-of-universe writing is hard, but I did a fair job of keeping it that way. As for Fancruft, excuse my un-wikipedian language, but where the f*** did that come from? If JediLofty had seen the old article, which was longer than the 40k rulebook, too long, in fact, to get what you need quickly, there is a lot more that could have been put in. For that reason, the article will need semi-prtection in order to stop anons from returning it to its former "glory." Tealwisp 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)
Comment. This article may rely on primary sources, but anyone who has tried to find 3rd party sources for warhammer (or any other fictional universe) knows that third parties will rarely publish material, and when they do, they usually end up being first party sources via licensing or similar requirements for publishing. My point is, primary sources do not justify deletion, and we can agree that they are better than no sources. Tealwisp 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)
- They are better than no sources for verification. They are no better than no sources for establishing notability. It is difficult to believe that GW's IP policy makes it impossible for third parties to discuss things entirely - it is considerably easier to believe that the nature of this article means that no reliable third party has ever bothered covering it for other reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 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, blatant and obvious hoax.. TravellingCari 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tejada[edit]

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, therefore failiing WP:ATHLETE. Originally prodded, but removed by IP without explanation. Possible WP:COI given article's creator is User:Alexxx25 (player's squad number is 25). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Furthermore, according to the Houston Leones page, their number 25 is called Ross Kelly, not Alex Tejada. – Pee Jay 09:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax. There are no relevant ghits for Tejada and either "Brooklyn Knights" or "Houston Leones", only pages of sports results which happen to have a different Tejada in a baseball lineup or whatever. Knights didn't have a game on the supposed date of his PDL debut [24] [25], and didn't play El Paso Patriots at all, PDL being a regionalised league. Someone else entirely is named at #25 on the Leones roster. etc. etc. It's a hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy if a hoax (as that falls under the vandalism criteria). If not a hoax it still would fail the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax per CSD#G3. A guick google search provides no data for a player named Alex Tejada on the team RedThunder 12:33, 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 & note that the nominator was essentially contesting his own decision to tag the article with {{notability}} instead of {{db-a7}} ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Heather Chadwell[edit]

Article consists of a series of recaps of subject's VH1 reality show appearances/altercations and unsourced speculation that she is in talks for her own VH1 show. Fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article appears to have achieved some level of notability. Perhaps it could be kept if all of the apparant original research is removed and the article is fixed up significantly. Master&Expert (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Heather seems to have made a minor name for herself in three different reality shows. Her fame is marginal and likely to stay that way, but someone searching for her name might find an article useful. Article needs clean up. We66er (talk) 17:35, 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 keep. John254 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of female boxers[edit]

Serves no purpose that isn't duplicated by the relevant category; see WP:CLS and this recent AFD. east718 // talk // email // 06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with East718 on this one. This list is made redundant by the existance of the above category. Master&Expert (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It can easily add information for nationality and years of activity, in which case it will be much more than what a category can do., DGG (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by DGG. This list could be expanded with information a casual reader would find interesting.Neonblak (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep East718 - What part of the first paragraphs of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is unclear?--Mike Cline (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redundant with category is not by itself a valid delete rationale. WP:CLS says so, so citing it in support of deletion is inexplicable. AndyJones (talk) 13:01, 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. Wizardman 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nagy[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as only a candidate for office, see also WP:BIO1E. RayAYang (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per WP:POLITICIAN. I don't see any primary sources about him per se, just as another candidate. I also think the articles for deletion discussion about how to treat candidates is clearly applicable. We should be taking all the Green Party candidate pages and merging them into a single page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Potential merge target is Green Party candidates, 40th Canadian federal election. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mr. Vernon. As the precedents page says, "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability." Personally, I like the greens. I hope he wins and then gets his article :) justinfr (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and the general notability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! If WP:? criteria recommend the deletion of the pages of Green party candidates in the current round of by-elections then there is clearly something wrong with the WP:? criteria. The Green party is one of only five parties large enough to warrant Canadian government funding and to be consistently included in Canadian polling data. It is also one of only four parties to have run a complete slate of candidates in the last election. It is not just another fringe party. This deletion campaign makes it look like Wikipedia is taking sides in what is turning out to be a closely-run race in this riding. --Paulalexdij (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your emphasis should be that we're deleting Green party candidates, not Green party candidates. Candidates from other parties should be deleted too, unless they're notable in other ways. It's almost irrelevant what party Nagy is from. justinfr (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has not (and doubtful will be) elected. Neither was mayor or councillor of major cities, so delete unless Harper decides to call the general election before September 8 thus it would be merged to the list of candidates of the Green Party. --JForget 00:00, 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 Deleted Disparaging. Keegan^talk 06:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese AIDS[edit]

Sounds like original research. I searched for "Chinese AIDS" on Google and none of the top results seem to relate to what this article is saying. TML (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it looks like a hoax...doktorb _words^deeds 05:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and potential hoax. It seems that the "famed" Dr. Hubert Rosenthal does not even have a journal article that is searchable via Google Scholar. Google does not provide sources as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete note the mention of female "symptoms" and the reference to "Black AIDS." Offensive, can we make this a Speedy Delete? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:40, 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. Sandstein 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I don't know where to begin. This fails WP:VGSCOPE as gameguide trivia. WP:GNG for lack of assertion of notability. WP:NOT#PLOT for regurgitating the content of various sourcebooks, all the way down to a column for page number appearances -- it's as if all the tables of contents have been transcribed here. WP:IINFO also applies. --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC) --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gyowch. I'm a long-time role-player; I own most of the books referenced in the article; heck, I actually find this information interesting--but I agree it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. As it happens, I'm actually working on creating my own wiki devoted entirely to role-playing games (haven't gone public with it yet because I want to get it a little more presentable first)--but to be honest, I wouldn't want this article in my wiki either. In an RPG wiki, this information could be notable but would have to be presented better, but for Wikipedia, with its broader scope, I don't think it's notable enough to make the cut however it's presented. --Smeazel (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be gone! Good heavens. I'd say there's WP:LIST issues too, do we have WP:TRIVIA to whack them with? This is quite clearly the "Pokemon problem" gone mental. To have page numbers is the icing on the cake. Spellcasting - D-E-L-E-T-E doktorb _words^deeds 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly improve the current list is not worth saving. DGG (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This is also just trivial information and listcruft/fancruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of a slew of articles under List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. I think all would be subject to deletion, no? WP:LIST violation. I added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters --2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 09:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only for my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters but also for redundant redundancy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - whatever cleanup issues there are, I will try to resolve. Just walk me through it. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have started to work on adding in the sections that I have previously left blank to be filled in later. No idea how much time I'll have to devote to it, but hopefully I'm getting it to look less like a skeleton and more like how I originally intended the page to look. BOZ (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - this article is the result of the deletion/redirection of a huge amount of material last year. It is not indiscriminate as the detail would be huge if it were. Anyone vaguely familiar with D&D is aware of the absolutely massive amount of monster-related information which was often discussed in independent magazines (not the Dragon) etc. It is also not a gameguide but a list - there is no 'how-to' here. OK, maybe we don't need pages. Anyway, article quality is no reason to delete. Not a Plot doesn't apply as it is a spinout list. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think anyone has argued for the deletion of the material on the grounds of article quality or of cleanup issues -- just that this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a compilation of summarized material from primary sources. (Hence, I believe, the reference to WP:PLOT--it's not literally a plot summary, but it's very much the same kind of thing.) I'm very familiar with D&D; I know how much monster-related information is out there; I'd even started compiling a database of similar information myself. I realize how much work must have gone into this, and how much information it represents. Unfortunately, none of that is a valid argument for keeping the article. I like these articles--I even saved copies of them for my own reference in case they're deleted. But unfortunately, I don't see any justification for keeping them under Wikipedia guidelines. --Smeazel (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK that's your opinion. I see it as a list which is a spinout of a larger article for size reasons, and hence, it is not essential for the commentary to follow. Most lists are simply that - lists, with the 3rd party information elsewhere, just look at lists of bird species of a given place etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you've completely misread what I said. Where did I say anything about needing commentary? Yes, I know Wikipedia contains lists, but that doesn't mean that every possible list is appropriate for Wikipedia. As for its being a "spinoff of a larger article"--that "larger article" is also up for deletion (as you're apparently aware, since you commented on that AfD). This list isn't up for deletion because it lacks commentary; it's up for deletion because the material doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability standards. If anyone can show third-party reliable sources establishing such a list of monsters as notable, I could be persuaded to change my recommendation, but as it is, this just seems like a compilation of primary source material--going against the same principles as WP:PLOT and WP:VGSCOPE, if not literally violating those rules since it's about role-playing rather than about novels or video games. --Smeazel (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: The "lists" AFD was closed early as snowball keep. BOZ (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I meant a larger article on D&D proper rather than the uber-list actually. Commentary/critique is involved in what NOTAPLOT is about. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Setting aside the question of whether an article on D&D would qualify as commentary or critique on a list of monsters, where does WP:PLOT say anything about commentary or critique? Let me quote from WP:VGSCOPE--as I said, I know we're not talking about a video game here, but I think the principle is similar: "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry". Is this list of monsters "essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry"? Doesn't look like it. I'm willing to be persuaded here; I like the article; but I'm going to need something to establish its notability outside the primary sources it's compiled from. (Again, I'm a role-player myself; I own most of the books cited; but I'm not convinced this material meets Wikipedia notability standards.) --Smeazel (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I'd originally recommended "delete", but List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters just got snowball kept, and it would make no sense to keep that article and delete this one. (See also comment below.) --Smeazel (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The monsters are an immensely significant part of this immensely significant game. This listing method is far, far preferable to the many individual articles that were here before. The article is not in a great shape, but the skeleton is there. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't forgotten the barnstar you gave me for creating these lists in the first place. :) I'm just embarrased that I haven't done more to make the 2nd edition list more presentable, like the 3rd edition, 1st edition, and 1974-1976 lists. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, the article is currently just a skeleton - but as I understand it the intent is to flesh it out over time with the sort of information that used to be kept in individual monster articles. Contrasting it to Pokemon is a good example. Like what eventuated with Pokemon, the intent is to remove the individual monster articles (except those that are clearly notable and can be much more than a stub) and pull them together into a list. Given the extent of the project it will take time - there's a lot of monster articles to consolidate - but the result will be the removal of multiple individual non-notable works to be replaced with a more valuable List. - Bilby (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J Milburn and Bilby and keeping in mind that with the amount of ink spilled over D&D some of the listed monsters are notable in their own right, along with D&D itself and therefore the list can be valuable in establishing the wider context of such. --Rindis (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st: I am for keeping this article as it is the place to merge all AD&D 2nd edition monsters for which notability could not be established in their own right.

2nd: The proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) says:

It is likely that a toy or game is notable if:

The toy or game has been in production and commercially available for 20 years or more. This is definitly true for (A)D&D, and monsters have been at its core for most of it's existence.

But no one is proposing a deletion of the D&D game articles; it's this list of creatures. Notability of D&D is not inherited by the monsters that are part of it. And maybe even the monsters, as an overarching class/group are notable, but this excruciating 0.2MB table of names is unnecessary. --EEMIV (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd: When I as a user of wikipedia am thinking Someone told me something about a grippli, but I have no idea what that's supposed to be, I will be happy to get some answer from wikipedia (in the shortest possible way: It'a a monster from AD&D from that book, which is appropriate because of it's low notability), instead of none at all. But that is just an opinion, that may be in conflict with guidelines, important are 1st and 2nd. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's useful isn't a particularly compelling rationale to keep content. --EEMIV (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, if not Snowball, Keep This article is clearly a work in progress to REDUCE the number of other articles on this subject. So it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since this is no where near a video game, WP:VGSCOPE does not apply. WP:GNG does not apply either given the 30+ year publication history of the game of which monsters are the most notable part. And there is no plot or plot summary either here or the books they came from so there is no way that WP:NOT#PLOT can apply either. The article is in need of some more 3rd party refs. But currently this is a large project taken on by only a few people who are dedicating their own time to improve Wikipedia bad reducing the clutter and adding proper content. I would even argue that given the number of articles this project has reduced should be reason alone for this article to remain. Web Warlock (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously D&D isn't a video game or a novel, but since there are no explicit guidelines for listing elements from role-playing games, I think drawing an analogy with other media for which there are explicit guidelines may be valid. That being said, however, neither WP:VGSCOPE nor WP:NOT#PLOT are absolute rules, and in the case of particularly significant games and books there are certainly cases where these rules are superseded (Bilby's mention of the Pokemon lists is very relevant here), and RPGs don't get more significant than D&D, so on reflection, I agree that my initial "delete" recommendation was unwarranted. Sorry; I've been on Wikipedia since 2006 but haven't really been very active until recently, and in some ways I suppose I'm still learning the ropes; I will learn from my mistake here and hopefully not make a similar mistake in the future. I certainly don't disagree with your recommendation for speedy keep; in fact, I'll amend my "Keep" recommendation above to "Speedy Keep" myself. --Smeazel (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, in principle, as we need good places to merge AD&D content that can't justify an article in and of themselves. That said, this really reads like a massive, list-based summary of information from primary sources, which make for a pretty unreadable and generally bad Wikipedia article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I must admit that I'm a little baffled as to the benefit of this article. It's a bit like just listing tables of contents. My preference would be to restrict the list to creatures that have appeared in other D&D-related media, such as books, TV series or computer games. Otherwise it seems too esoteric.—RJH (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it becomes less definable and more convoluted for mine, but anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Different sorts of articles for different sorts of subjects, old bean. A more extensive article for each monster would be better, as well as something that discusses the history of the development of monsters in the game from a more generally accessible viewpoint. The widely accepted community standards don't seem to allow for this, however; deletionists have whittled down D&D monster articles until pretty much all there's room for is esoteric lists. This, then, would seem to be the appropriate format for discussing this subject on Wikipedia. On another site perhaps there will be support for going into enough detail on the monsters in question for the article to be meaningful to the uninitiated. For here? This is what the deletionists have wrought. Embrace it, love it. This is Wikipedia. This is what it naturally evolves into: its perfect Platonic form. -- Poisonink (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence to suggest that any of this content is notable either as a group or individually. It seems to me that this list or article fails, at best, WP:NOT#DIR or, at worst, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All of this content comes directly from Dungeons & Dragons publications, and the question must be asked, why reproduce it all here? Is Wikipedia to be used as a supplementary source for the publications of Wizards of the Coast? I think EEMIV has brought to our attention that the content of the article is basically a synthesis of contents & indices of various D&D modules. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for adding this to that discussion list. I hope new entries will appear there automatically?
  - nope - they have to be added manually. :) BOZ (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns set aside for a moment: When the list will be finished with a one-sentence description of the monsters, it will, in my opinion, be neither a synthesis - where would be a problem with original research? - nor a supplementary source for Wizards products - who would be able to use this list for gaming purposes without consulting the original sources? Instead it will be a summary of a large amount of information from a number of sources about a core element of D&D, but which is of course much too large to fit into the D&D article proper. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly needs cleanup/more work, but is a reasonable start. It does what a list should do: organize material. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rreference tables are permitted, but all we have here are indexes and annotations compiled from primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WebWarlock Shemeska (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WebWarlock and comment by Daranios.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:12, 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 Moved to Smith & Wesson Model 460XVR, DroneZone indef blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 460XVR Hunter 14" muzzle brake barrel[edit]

The Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 460XVR Hunter 14" muzzle brake barrel is a modification of the Smith & Wesson Model 460XVR, and should be described in the article of its parent weapon, not in an article of its own. And the name is just too freaking long! Ops101ex (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MediaMob (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, man, but this article is not for A revolver, it is for the most powerful one of this caliber, and since there is no article for the standard variant of the revolver (which by the way i'm sure you don't know how exactly to name, maybe except you) don't talk about deletion, it's silly ! And the name, i'm not gonna put it in your pocket body ! It's the same as it was with the HK417 - many of you wanted to merge it with the HK416, right. You people live for this. You don't understand the food not intended for your minds. I hate mediocrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DroneZone (talk • contribs)

Merge/Delete Does a Pontiac Firefly Turbo deserve its own page because it's "the most powerful of" its model? BMW(drive) 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Smith & Wesson Model 460XVR, has information that could be used in the main article, which is notable Scratch that and Delete. Main article does not even have an article. RedThunder 12:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's goin' on here man. I can't even finish and send my stuff. I was saying, about the joke you made for the Pontiac, that i specified that there was no article for the standard variant. So, make an article for the Smith & Wesson Model 460XVR, mention mine in it an made an internal link, don't wish for its deletion. About the signing, i dont know where to sign what. Childish game it is. Not a database. Or you can just make an article for the Standard variant and inside we'll find the plase for "the most powerfull" variant. Here's my sign : DroneZone. There. User:DroneZone. That better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DroneZone (talk • contribs)

Rename and expand per WP:BITE. Rename this to the base model, include this information within, and someone give DroneZone a hand with article expectations, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JC, this is Jetwave Dave's newest sock puppet, not a newbie. He stole the image from Gunsamerica (linked it in the article) and is now trolling so he can lambast anybody who disagrees with him. This is a poor attempt at a troll, not a real article. See Dronezone's edits and compare them to Jetwave Dave, TheWatcherREME, etc. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand, move to Smith & Wesson Model 460XVR. I would be willing to expand the article and reference it properly. — DanMP5 03:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Rename and expand; ditto with above. Jclemens and DanMP5, I like your thinking. I failed to notice the original article did not exist. Ops101ex (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good work, men ! Very productive. First the article, now the image. What next. Nice campaign you picked up. Keep up the good work. Don't disappoint the kids who watch you ! DroneZone (talk) 11:29, 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, Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation covers it nicely. TravellingCari 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Windiz[edit]

Very strange - possibly a hoax? Article created in one edit (including a citation needed tag) by a user with a single edit. Furthermore, subject of article is not found in Google Books, News, or Web, except for mirrors and related Wikipedia entries. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: possible hoax, as evident from the lack of Ghits. Cliff smith ^talk 04:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to say I'd found him but this is just a mirror site so looks like it's pretty much a hoax doktorb _words^deeds 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this person isn't listed on the faculty section on the UToronto Psych department website. Almost certainly a hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A very elaborate and well-constructed hoax, but User:Mr.Vernon's link proves it's fake. Calor (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Not really an elaborate hoax at all...the article is just copied verbatim from Morton Beiser! I think this may make the hoax blatant enough to qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3. As stated on WP:CSD, "'blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation' are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism.") --Smeazel (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3, even if it isn't obvious it is blatant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as hoax per WP:CSD#G3 RedThunder 12:26, 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'd to Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pensioners Party (Scotland)[edit]

Unlike the other party mentioned in this artile, the Pensioners Party are a failed non-notable group with no elected representation and no sign of political activity in years. There is currently a Notability policy discussion relating to our policy on political parties which I believe this party would fail. doktorb _words^deeds 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information I direct authors and admins to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imperial_Party_(UK). The idea that one failed candidature is notable has been tested before. This is not my attempt to use WP:STUFF but I would like to bring another similiar deletion discussion in for context doktorb _words^deeds 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep if this might fail according to a proposed guideline, at least wait until the guideline gets adopted. DGG (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I declined the prod on this. "Might fail a proposed guideline" isn't a legitimate deletion reason; under current guidelines, a party which has fought elections will have received press coverage and be verifiable. – iride scent 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have stood in barely a half-dozen elections, and show no signs of active campaigning in about a year at least. doktorb _words^deeds 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this ssems to assert notability, but needs refs. A guidline for political parties needs to be created. I'll bring this up at the VP RedThunder 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Per Iridescent. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Mais oui! (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The party no longer appears to be registered at the Electoral Commission. There is a registration for "The Pensioners Party" and "Pensions Actions Alliance" but both of these were recorded in 2004 (after the Scottish elections) and are only registered for elections in England. As such it appears unlikely that the article will be able to grow much further beyond its current stub status (it may even shrink if adequate sources are not found). I would therefore recommend creating an article on Defunct political parties of the United Kingdom and merging any sourced material into that article. Alternatively the sourced material could be merged with Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party as the bulk of the existing stub is a description of their alliance with the SSCUP. Road Wizard (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep --MacRusgail (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not currently verifiable or notable due to lack of references where they count, i.e., in the article. Sandstein 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - party has stood in past elections, and the article is linked to from a number of pages. The article is relavent, would benefit far more from stub status looking to expand rather than deletion. GullibleKit (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - This BBC article describes it as the "sister party" of the SSCUP; that party is notable and should be the place to briefly mention this party. Not enough evidence of notability for its own article; barely any sources give more than the election results of the party. This subscription-only article seems to cover the party's launch, if anyone can access it, it might be a useful source. Warofdreams talk 09:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere. This party verifiably existed. Continued existence is not required. In fact, by being historical, it is more important to keep the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a purely negative, unsourced biography of a living person. (CSD G10). J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Tawfik[edit]

I can't find any evidence for the existence of an actor called Elie Tawfik. May be a hoax. Grahame (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is probably an attack page against one of the author's high school classmates rather than a legitimate article. I have requested speedy deletion accordingly. (Note to other recommenders: please don't repeat the attacking aspects of the article in this AfD, because the AfD itself will not be deleted.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No relevant ghits. No evidence for truth, would likely fail WP:N, anyways. Calor (talk) 02:52, 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), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Bryan[edit]

WITHDRAWN I don't believe that Bryan quite makes the grade in terms of the Wikipedia definition of notablity. He is a sports journalist and presenter, but that is "just a job" - like being a doctor or lawyer. I doubt if there will be any significant references which are actually about him rather than the programmes he fronts. I'm happy to be proved wrong, however dramatic (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)dramatic (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A "sports journalist and presenter" is inherently a public figure. As Geoff Bryan is a national television journalist, he regularly appears on television broadcasts watched throughout New Zealand, relevantly distinguishing his notability from an ordinary "doctor or lawyer". I submit that this nomination is inadequately researched, and suggest that it be withdrawn forthwith. John254 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of New Zealand's most widely-known television sports presenters - as you should know, Dramatic, surely. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Widely known does not necessarily equate to having biographical information in independent (e.g. not TVNZ) reliable sources. Unfortunately I have limited internet resources at present and was unable to do any research. In the past we have had a number of articles created for relatively minor journalists/ DJs etc., but I thought this was an edge case. I'm glad others have found material, something I don't think would have happened had I just slapped an unreferenced tag on the article. Nomination withdrawn. dramatic (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was originally going to vote delete in agreement with the nom, in the sense that while he is well known, it is only because he is doing his job. However WP:BIO says "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published, secondary source material". After sifting thru google, weeding out all the ones that just referred to him doing his job, I found this [26]. So I believe he passes. I do however disagree with the argument that he is notable just because he is known from TV. That just makes him known, not necessarily notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 20 odd related pages on the NZ Herald website alone, interviews in The Listener and The Press, an entry in the IMDb. He is regularly in the (non-TVNZ) news as well as reporting it. I think a step was missed from WP:NOTE: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". XLerate (talk) 08:32, 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 08:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Thomas[edit]

this person is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xedgerx (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 August 2008— Xedgerx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy keep: The article asserts notability. Nom has also nominated articles relating to this person. The only contribs nom has is for 3 AfDs, this and 2 related articles. The main article is notable. – Jerry^teps 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article asserting notability is not the same thing as establishing it. The three sources attached to the article don't help--two are press releases about his band, and the third is a myspace.com page. There are zero independent sources about the subject's notability. The article, other than his discography, consists of unsourced commentary on his playing style--probably because the sources don't exist to expand this article to anything approaching encyclopedic quality. Movingboxes (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent proof of notability doktorb _words^deeds 04:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nom is a WP:SPA. That's why I didn't take an indepth look at the article. I'm sorry and I wont make the mistake again. – Jerry^teps 08:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was going to say redirect to the band but, as they also seem to fail the criteria for inclusion (and I note already listed for deletion as well) that would be pointless. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. Rnb (talk) 03:02, 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. The band does not appear on AllMusic. The cited sources do not establish notability. Most of them look like press releases or non-professional reviews. No prejudice against re-creation with reliable sources that would establish notability. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes To The Sky[edit]

This band is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xedgerx (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 August 2008

Speedy keep: The article asserts notability. Nom has also nominated articles relating to this person. The only contribs nom has is for 3 AfDs, this and 2 related articles. – Jerry^teps 02:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a basis for speedy. Asserting notability is not the same as satisfying it. Speedy keep is only used for a blatantly incorrect nomination, either on procedural or malicious grounds. Looking over the sources, I notice that they all seem to come from one or two websites, which may or may not qualify as reliable sources, and so I cannot verify if WP:MUSIC has been satisfied. RayAYang (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Yeah, i've done some more research on them I shouldn't of speedy kept them but the nom seems like a WP:SPA. So I pretty much just had a quick glance at article and the article and thought they look fairly notable (as in not not notable). I became suspicous since the nom was very short and wasn't signed so I investigated the user and saw that they were a WP:SPA. – Jerry^teps 08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator's abusive appearance is a matter of concern, and that can be taken up elsewhere, but the task before us is the assessment of the deletion guideline in regard to this article. The article fairly clearly fails the deletion guideline. We may need intervention against some local bad blood or poison pen battle, but that's not our concern at AfD. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources to establish notability for this article and have been unable to. Rnb (talk) 21:44, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Baxter[edit]

Article has not met criteria for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xedgerx (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 August 2008

Speedy keep: The article does asserts notability for inclusion. Nom has also nominated articles relating to this person. The only contribs nom has is for 3 AfDs, this and 2 related articles. – Jerry^teps 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the way, asserting notability isn't grounds for keep at an AfD. At best, merge with Eyes To The Sky. There is insufficient (as in, none) independent sources to justify an independent article. Movingboxes (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Yeah, i've done some more research on them and they don't completely deserve an article but I belive the nom put this up in bad faith as the only contributions they have are on these AfDs, its a WP:SPA. – Jerry^teps 08:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP's can't do the page creation process necessary to form an Afd, so it can be first time IP editor has needed to make account, the nom is clearly valid so not really fair to assume bad faith.-Hunting dog (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of substantial coverage in third-party sources provided in article or found by searching. -Hunting dog (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator may be in bad faith (more of an AN/I issue), but the article is a single member of a band that fails our notability guidelines. The singer, too, fails, as he does not demonstrate any achievements on the national stage. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the article on this person's band, I've tried to find reliable sources to establish notability and have been unable to. Rnb (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:09, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn Hung[edit]

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. She has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions (the reference lists her in four films, none of which appear to be particularly notable), does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (or else there would be more available sources) and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (no evidence of that at all). She does not meet the primary notability criteria, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, either. I do admit a possibility of foreign language sources, but I doubt it given the nature of her career, although I open to changing my mind if I see that they are available. The article itself is basically a wordy summary of her IMDB profile. Cheers, CP 00:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I should note that there is only a single Gnews hit on her, and that's behind a subscription firewall, and so the mention may only be incidental there. RayAYang (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 04:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google turns up wiki mirrors or sentences with "Gwendolyn" as a noun "hung" as a verb. Google Books reflects the noun verb arrangement as well. I don't know if redirecting to Fireback is a good idea since I doubt the notability of the said movie.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Movingboxes (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, neither the actress nor the project passes muster. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:23, 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 08:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. Somers[edit]

PROD contested, but sources provided do not address the core concerns. The subject of this article does not meet the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability [... unless] they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of the sources indicate that he has met the primary notability criterion. The sources do, indeed, verify the information in the article, but they do nothing to provide the non-trivial coverage required of any biography. A couple of brief mentions in articles about the elections themselves cannot provide the type of material required to write a neutral article about this individual or, really, anything more than "he won a primary but lost an election." I admit that, since I can only read summaries of the articles, there may be a few more details than that, but not enough to write something balanced and substantial. At best, a redirect/merge might be appropriate if a suitable target can be found. Cheers, CP 00:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, or merge into a list if there is a suitable one. Non-notable failed political candidate. RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or Listify to wherever appropriate - politician never elected or held office means not notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's material that is covered/included in other places (something like U.S. Senators from South Carolina). This one factoid isn't really sufficient to carry a biography, which is what it's supposed to be. All this says, of a long life, is "He got nominated and got clobbered." That's not a life. That's a fact. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 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, default to keep. Notability appears marginal, opinion of good-faith editors is genuinely divided, delete voters have a fair point that it could really do with substantially better sourcing. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Island (2002 film)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show it's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Direct-to-video animated film with no famous voice performers; IMDb has no reviews of it. Maybe there are sources that would help it establish notability under WP:MOVIE, but I am not aware of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability through sources - delete. Master&Expert (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:RS and WP:NF. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand A whole whack of the series "The Land Before Time" are also direct-to-DVD. John Loy, the writer of this movie is also involved in The Land Before Time series, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Back to the Future (the animated series). BMW(drive) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would it be mean of me to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes no attempts to establish importance or significance nor can I find anything in reliable 3rd party sources that show it is important or significant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep nor to delete articles and this one is no exception. At the most it would be a redirect but, where? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this film has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An A1/A3 speedy delete. A fact is not an article. There has to be more than "Spot is a dog" for something to qualify even as a substub. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break after re-write I have done some research for the movie/article and have made some significant improvements. It's still stub-class, but I feel it is a far better beginning to an encyclopedic article...significant enough that I hope the AfD will be withdrawn. Agreeably, this needs more work, but in the interest of saving the article, it's the best I could do in such a short time. BMW(drive) 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one source that shows it's notability though. If more sources can't be found in the remainder of this AFD, then I won't withdraw.Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and then redirect to List of DIC Entertainment productions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Struck earlier vote. Forget a redirect. THIS source proved enough notabuility for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that needs at least one more review and it'll be fine. Schuym1 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that The New York Times took an interest... and the editorial review at AmericaPoems.com. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I think it's fine now. Schuym1 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not fine. The NYT link does not show it's notability because the movie portion is like IMDB.com and the American Poems site has been appearing as advertisements. Even if I thought it was notable during this AFD, I wouldn't withdraw it because of the delete votes and I know that all admins will not accept it. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a far better, more encyclopedic article than the stub that originally existed, and my life on Wikipedia generally revolves around creating stubs :). Notability is established in article (only attempt to do a classic/famous novel in this format, notability of director, author, success in Italy). Let's not WP:DEMOLISH. Just because a website is "like" IMDB, doesn't mean it "is" IMDB, and thus is a valid source...it proves that more than one site details the film itself. This is a kids animated movie, of course there won't be big stars, so the general parameters of WP:MOVIE can never be met, but those are guidelines anyway. BMW(drive) 12:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Per the second paragrpah of WP:RS, the New York Times is acceptable. And I see no problem with the editorial review at American poems, as even the NYT advertises itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whenever I click on the American Poem link it shows up as a pop-up that can't be closed, but it doesn't do that for anyone else. Schuym1 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for the record, my opinion to delete has not changed, either. The only coverage by a reliable source, the NYT, is clearly trivial coverage that in no way establishes notability. That link is simply a placeholder (that exists for virtually all videos) for readers to rate the video (which, by the way, not a single NYT reader has done). Even the "Cast & Credits" section is empty. — Satori Son 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought exactly. The American Poems link doesn't show notability also because the editorial review is just a plot summary (It worked for me now). Schuym1 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a plot summary that does NOT come from the box, the insert, or anywhere else. It was their original research into the film - in other words, they watched it and made notes. BMW(drive) 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but AmericanPoems.com is not even close to being a reliable source. — Satori Son 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough. If there's OR in the article, strip it out. It can't all be OR. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It this going to end anytime soon? Schuym1 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can end now...I just added my input. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the information is verifiable, and it satisfies criterion #2 of "Other evidence of notability" section from WP:NF: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Esn (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability issues seem to have been addressed. Banjeboi 18:37, 29

August 2008 (UTC)

Thre is only one source so no it hasn't. Schuym1 (talk) 20:59, 29 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, nom withdrawn. NAC by Cliff smith ^talk 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc estrin[edit]

No notable works - all works are redlinked; having been reviewed by a major work does not constitute notability YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not because of notability concerns, but because of advertising concerns. The article would need a complete re-write in order to become encyclopedic. TN‑X-Man 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much applause for the improvements. I have no problem eating my own words from above and change my opinion to keep. TN‑X-Man 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Advertising, and it fails Geogre's law. The guy can't afford an upper case letter, but we're to advertise the wonders of him? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment may meet WP:N per news, books and scholar searches [27] [28] [29] certainly nowhere need a speedy or amongst the worst we get at AfD. Give me an evening or so and let me see what I can do.:) Sticky Parkin 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the article now boys and girls, admire the I think perhaps more unbiased section on his writing career, maybe there is hope.:) I mean there's still plenty of room for improvement/NPOVing perhaps, but I think it looks more like one of our articles, and it has nine cites in the article. Sticky Parkin 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also- having been discussed in major works is exactly what does confer notability- what's noted in WP:RS. Whether his books are red links or have a wikipedia article makes no odds- we are not a reliable source, the papers are. No-one's tried to make him an article perhaps, but that could be an oversight on our part. Also, his individual books may not be notable, but he himself might still be, due to all his various books added up. I'm just saying-we can't judge by our red links. Not that I've personally heard of this bloke or have any investment in the subject. :) Sticky Parkin 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sticky Parkin's massive improvements. Nom withdrawn. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but: Yes, it is vastly improved. It is a keep. I am still concerned that the first paragraph sounds like a fan site or publisher's bio. Its tone and information are for people who already know, love, and want to have tea with the author. To be encyclopedic, it should really stick to why this person is known, why this person is in the news, why this person is interesting and then give only a minimalist biography, with none of the "chatting round the fire side" quality. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the section on 'writings' is reasonably ok now, but the rest of it needs a fair bit of WP:NPOV improvement and encyclopedia-ising. Sticky Parkin 16:01, 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 nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Thompson (AMC)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to notability and verifiability as covered significantly in reliable secondary sources. The casting of this character sparked considerable media interest due to the nationwide casting call and the relevance with the Iraq War. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 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 SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Axis[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since the band's article was speedy deleted earlier, this and all other articles related to the band can probably be speedied as well. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The bands article does have notability, it is currently being written as of late. As for the speedy deletion, it was actually deleted by the writer and not speedy deleted by Wikipedia. Moietyhalf 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Band has not won any awards nor have any of the albums reached top charts. A Google News Archive search returns very few results, so no reliable sources can be found. Furthermore, albums by the band, including A Striking Silence, Go Chase Your Ghosts should be deleted, as well as the non-free images Image:158609.jpg and Image:158609.jpg. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Album by band deleted as non-notable. Cut and dried. Take Go Chase Your Ghosts also. tomasz. 10:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no sources and band is not notable. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 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.