Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10 December 12 >

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 speedy keep. MBisanz talk 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

María del Luján Telpuk[edit]

María del Luján Telpuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Irrelevant, redundant with the Maletinazo article. Orphan article. The story about the case could be relevant, but not this person. Goddess (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is the first time I have seen a WP:GA at WP:AFD, but I guess that is sort of irrelevant. However, most of the text is distinct from Maletinazo, which has not even been updated for events for the last six months. Thus, if one should be deleted it should be the other since this one has much of the current detail. Additionally, much of the other text about her career in this bio is distinct from the scandal article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This individual has developed into an undeniable minor celebrity with an unquestionable claim to notability. Although, in the performance of her low-level job, she did uncover the tip of an international corruption scandal, her rise to fame was obviously fueled by her physical appearance and personality as well as intense media interest. Simply a cursory glance at the article's fourteen professionally presented footnotes (note no. 2 is no longer valid), including a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal, magazine covers and newspaper photographs, confirms the validity of her Wikipedia entry.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I do not see this when I go to WP:AFD and look at the 11th. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by Roman, we have several good sources on the article. How could an article possibly pass the Good Article review if it were irrelevant and redundent? I'm not questioning the nom's good faith, but I really don't see any good reason to delete. Even if it's redundant to Maletinazo, the better course would be to propose a merger. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GA, well-referenced with sources that establish subject's notability above and beyond WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's done modelling unrelated to the scandal, which means WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Article being an orphan can be handled by editing and if this is indeed were duplicate information from the scandal a merge would be infinitely better than a deletion. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. Per the speedy closure of the other "Criticism of" article nominated by this person today. Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment attack pov? There's barely a sentence in the entire article which isn't sourced. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is material that may be extraneous or could be moved elsewhere but that should be discussed before any afd consideration. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ffestiniog Railway Index[edit]

Ffestiniog Railway Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not fit usual Wikipedia navigation style or format and the purpose is already filled by Template:Ffestiniog Railway which is actively used on Ffestiniog railway pages. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article has suffered repeated unwarrwnted malicious attempts at deletion since 5 minutes after it was created. It surpass the Template:Ffestiniog Railway in that it is an index for all items related to the FR/WHR, not just the Festiniog. It includes links to other websites with relevant information, including the home site. This is not covered by the template It has been accepted into Wikipedia:Project Wales and Wikipedia:Project Trains, in UK, and is used by a number of pages --Keith 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, it's an encyclopedia. I think your effort to improve Wikipedia is great, but I feel that putting this information into both the WHR and FR articles would make more useful and more accessible. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for creation of this page was to reduce the number of links that were appearing on the pages it is linked to. Whereas previously there may have been upto five links on a page, there is one - to this index page. The template, or rather two, that it supposedly duplicates contains details of quarries, and does not do the same. This enables from the "carriage page" of one railway to the "carriage page" of another, or from FR Locos to WHR Locos - The templates refer to indiviual items only Furthermore, external links to additional information is all centred on this page, rather than having the same information duplicated across numerous pages --Keith 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC) --Keith 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; this isn't how navigation is done on Wikipedia, --NE2 10:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per NE2 should use the Template:Ffestiniog Railway or you can always create a new WHR navbox for this sort of navigation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there already is a WHR template - neither of them serve the requirement of covering all the related material --Keith 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the template is insufficient, expand the template. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the page is not an encyclopedia article, and as a navigation aid, it is duplicative of existing templates. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall and final response: Given the overall comment of using the existing remplates, is indicative the people making the comment do not know what they are talking about. The page came about as the existing templates did not meet the criteria required . There are some 60 plus files involved that can be grouped in the form the page does, whereas the existing templates exist only for two sections of the three' parts of the railway. A template specifically replacing the page would also not duplicate the existing templates, if anyone bothered to look at them.

Yes, this may sound nasty, but if anyone bothered to check the templates being quoted, and the page in question, then they wouldnt make rather stupid comments about duplication which doesnt exist!!! --Keith 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Speaking for myself, but probably the other editors agree; I am not referring to the content of the template, but rather the function of the template which is to provide navigation. If the template needs expanding to provide the necessary coverage, then expand it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 promotional piece. All the references point to the organisation itself and it also violates WP:CRYSTAL Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowbunnystock[edit]

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

Non-notable music festival. A grand total of 12 Google hits and four Yahoo hits--no coverage to speak of. Blueboy96 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 00:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Spark[edit]

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

Appears to be a religious group in a handful of colleges, but lacks notability. rootology (C)(T) 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:ORG.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Average little religious groups aren't notable, and there's nothing to show that this isn't average. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable group Matt (Talk) 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Right to Die?. The consensus is split between merge and keep, with merge having a slight edge. These are both flavors of keep, so it becomes an editing issue. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ewert[edit]

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

No need for two articles: one on the documentary Right to Die? and one on the biography of this guy which says little more. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the film: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are over a thousand articles about the documentary by now [1]. The guy is notable only because he's the subject of the film. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is the same basic language used in most all guidelines. The subject of this nom meets the same criteria, the one found in Wikipedia:Notability (people) - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." If there are over a thousand articles on a film about Craig Ewert that also means there are over a thousand articles on Craig Ewert as well. It is not unusual for more than one article related to a subject to exist - Man on the Moon (film) is a film about the life of Andy Kaufman. We also have Harvey Milk as well as an article on the book The Mayor of Castro Street and the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk as well as Judy Garland and the related articles on the biography Me and My Shadows: A Family Memoir and the film Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think DMacks below intended to link to WP:BLP1E, which seems to apply here: he is only notable because of the movie. If you can find sources for his biography other than the movie about his suicide, then you can write a full biography, otherwise you're just duplicating material. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Two short and inter-related articles could certainly be put together to make one. Seems to me the documentary is the more notable, as it and its broadcast is what is generating controvesy and media attention. Conversely, WLP1E--the person appears to be just of who-knows-how-many assisted-suicides that happened to be taped. Nom, you don't need to AfD if you just want to merge...that's a simple editorial concern that doesn't necessarily need formal discussion and approval. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and redirect person→film. Not sure I was clear. DMacks (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP doesn't apply it stands for Biography of Living people and since Ewert is known for his own suicide, he's clearly not living. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia:BIO1E applies to dead people as well. I don't quite see why you guys have two rules that say the same thing anyway. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need for two articles, but the authoritative one should be the individual. Merge Right to Die? into Craig Ewert and then redirect Right to Die? to Craig Ewert Dman727 (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This clearly warrants more discussion. I'd rather support Craig Ewert being merged into the article on the documentary because he's known for only the one thing. The controversy means the documentary is the more notable of the two. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with Mgm, the documentary is the more notable of the two so merge Craig Ewert with that. Then expand the Right to Die? article incorporating the Craig Ewert info there. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is properly sourced and regards a figure made famous (or infamous) as the turning point of a controversial matter. He is exceedingly notable as the individual who chose to publicize his death in order to allow others to see the reality of assisted suicide. The film, as the vehicle for this publicity, is also famous. If there is any merging, it should be the film article into this article -- not the other way around. If a movie star makes only one hit film and then never appears again, and he is made famous by this movie, do we merge his article into that of the movie? Certainly not. And this is not a forum for discussion on merging. The only valid discussion is here deletion or maintainance -- a discussion on the soundness of merging should be held on the talk pages -- I enter a motion for speedy keep.DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Complete
If the only options are "delete person-article or not", I'd have to go Delete, as the person is not notable. However, the film is indeed notable, so "merge (now done) and redirect there" is the proposed alternative, which is a pretty common AfD result when there's some notable issue or viable content, but not enough for the topic of the page itself. He's not even the first person to commit suicide (assisted or not) in mass media--Kevorkian had a video of it in the 1990s, he's just the one who happened to do it in this case, and all the controvery seems to be about the video and its broadcast and the ideas, not anything tied to this particular individual. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as either Right to Die? or Death of Craig Ewert, since it's that one event that made him famous. I'd rather it be on the documentary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This is an invalid conclusion -- keep, delete or no consensus are the only valid conclusions. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:58, 16 December 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 Nominator's comment at the bottom pretty much constitutes a withdrawal and this would've been WP:SNOW anyway. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag carrier[edit]

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

The article is composed of almost entirely original research and unreferenced material and has been tagged that way for 11 months. There have also been many debates in the talk section about if the article is encopedic material because of all of the controversy of what airlines are flag carriers, and people adding airlines because they share the same name with the country that they are based in. Spikydan1 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but remove the section "List of national flag carriers," which appears to be causing most of the problems. The subject is notable, but the list is original research. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources that identify which airlines are "flag carriers" [2] and I think that the OR problems can be solved. Ideally, one should be able to source to an existing table. Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this is a common term by itself, so surely it's a worthy subject for an article. Having a list of such carriers can be referenced, but I agree that the list is currently a problem; nevertheless, its problems shouldn't impact the rest of the article here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list may be causing disputes, but the rest of the article is perfectly fine (referenced), and shouldn't be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the list. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like a consensus has been reached to keep the artlcle but get rid of the list because the list is the only major problem with the artlce. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannonfort[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as plausible search term. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - No independent sources, mostly original research. Redirect to either the main article or to a listing page if there are sources for that. Wickethewok (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen McGowen Green[edit]

Ewen McGowen Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem very notable. One (shared) national title, ranked below 2000 in the world. One Only a couple of non-wiki google hits, no apparent media coverage. dramatic (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The one reasonable mention I found for him on google was [3], others just say he's a chess coach. While his article says he was joint champion in 1987, New Zealand Chess Championship says it was 1979/80, and the references back up the NZCC article. Having been joint national champion gives him some notability, but not quite enough.-gadfium 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an Olympiad contestant and FIDE Master I think we should keep as being notable in his field. JodyB talk 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the AA Directions article is one I'd consider to be a passing reference - it tells us nothing about Green other than that he is a professional coach. I agree wholeheartedly that he looks like one of the most notable chess players in New Zealand (top 5?), but that doesn't help with the problem that chess seems to suffer from systemic bias in the media - no one writes about it beyond the chess community. [4] give a few basic facts, but not much to base an article on, and [5] appears to lack independence. dramatic (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable as a FIDE Master, and being the New Zealand Chess champion in 1987. This makes him notable enough for an article. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was a chess champion (read top of his field WP:ATHLETE). The fact he was joined champion doesn't lessen his notability at all. Because of the points system in chess, such an occurance is quite likely. It still makes him the best in a national tournament. His FIDE Master status is a bonus.- Mgm|(talk) 08:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page NZCF titles gives current and past titles by NZ Players and NZ champs. The article Roger I. Nokes also exists pretty much only because he is a former joint NZ chess champ so if that is sufficient notability then he probably qualifies also. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The consensus (from my understanding) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess is that the title FIDE Master is not high enough to confer automatic notability. He does not seem to be notable as a chess coach (i.e. has not trained a high-profile chess champion). And thousands of chess players participate in the Chess Olympiads every four years. SyG (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by SyG. We have deleted Charles Weldon and Boris Baczynskyj as non-notable, and both were FIDE Masters with, as I recall, higher ratings than this guy. His peak rating was only 2265, which is extremely marginal even for a FIDE Master, since current regulations require a rating of at least 2300. The national co-champion thing is nice, but let's face it, NZ is a tiny country (population 4.3 million) with far more sheep than humans, and not exactly a chess powerhouse. The consensus among members of WikiProject Chess, as I understand it, is that not even players with the higher International Master title are, without more, necessarily notable. A FIDE Master without substantial additional achievements (for example, writing a lot of chess books, or perhaps being a perennial national champion) is certainly not notable. Krakatoa (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though a bit weakly. In general, an FM title is insufficient for notability, while IM title might be borderline, yet I feel that national champions have made a sufficient claim for notability since that means you are the number one in that country. I understand the concern that New Zealand is a small country, and that people from such countries might be favored in terms of notability, but still, I don't think NZ's top tournament can be described as weak. I paused a bit because I note that Green shared that championship with two other people that year (many other countries arrange play-offs between those tying for first place, or use a tie-break score), but still I feel that "co-champion" is closer to "champion" than "not a champion". That Green won the championship is verifiable from more than the ChessGames.com forum, see e.g. [6]. Coverage on the Internet seems rather thin, but that has more to do with his championship being in 1979-1980, and the best sources are probably on paper, on the opposite side of the globe from where I sit. Participation in the Olympiad also contributes to notability, although I agree it's probably not sufficient. If we use the WP:ATHLETE guideline (which is not an exact match, but fairly close to chess players), we have "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships," and the Olympiad is the top level of team chess (though NZ is hardly the top team in that event). I feel that the national co-championship (mainly), and participation in the Olympiad (slightly) sum up to Green passing notability, barely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If New Zealand has less inhabitants than Jinan, why should the chess champion of New Zealand be notable and the chess champion of Jinan not be ? Is the chess champion of Monaco, a small state with about 32,000 inhabitants, notable ? :-) SyG (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable question, and one which does not have a fully logical answer. It has to do with that a national level championship has more glory, and more stature, than a regional level championship, even if the region is larger than the nation. I would think that the reason is similar to why New Zealand sends a team to the Olympiad, while Jinan doesn't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Remember that no guideline from a Wikiproject overrides the general notability criteria. In other words, if there were multiple neutral people who had written about Green in depth and published in reliable sources, he'd be notable regardless of the scale of achievement. That's what is lacking in this case. Also, a question: The FIDE rating appears to be for the end of his competitive career, with the possibility that it was higher prior to 2000. Is the 2000 cut-off on the website simply because that's how far back the website goes, or because that is when the rating system was introduced? dramatic (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: My comment on his peak rating was in error. As you suggested, the website evidently only lists ratings as far back as 2000. I just looked at the January 1979 FIDE Rating List (Chess Informant, Volume 26, p. 299), which lists "Green E." from NZ, who I assume is our man, with a rating of 2320. I picked out that volume fairly randomly; his peak was probably higher. Krakatoa (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Response: I have looked at the FIDE rating lists given in Chess Informant from July 1971 (Informant 12; Green not listed) through July 1996 (Informant 66; Green not listed, probably because of inactivity). July 1996 was apparently the last FIDE Rating List that Chess Informant published. Green was first listed on the January 1, 1977 rating list, with a rating of 2265 (Informant 22, p. 325). He is last listed (during this period) on the January 1991 list, with a rating of 2290 (Informant 50, p. 393). His highest rating was 2335 on the January 1, 1981 rating list (Informant 30, p. 311). He was evidently inactive for much of this period, as evidenced by his rating remaining the same for long periods and eventually being deleted because of inactivity. It is possible, though unlikely, that he achieved a higher rating than 2335 at some point between July 1996 and 2000, the beginning point for the FIDE website that I cited earlier. I continue to adhere to my view that this article should be deleted on grounds of non-notability. A peak 2335 rating (well below the 2400 threshold for International Master is fairly commonplace, and in my opinion one joint national championship of a tiny country doesn't push Green into "Notable" territory. If he were a many-time NZ national champion, like International Master Ortvin Sarapu, my vote would be different.
Note, incidentally, that NZ, with a population of 4.28 million, is less populous than half of the states in the United States. If Green is notable by virtue of his one-time NZ co-championship, then presumably every single person who has ever been champion or co-champion of any of those states is also notable. Krakatoa (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A7 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CuencaMonster[edit]

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

Despite author's protest, the page does not indicate why the subject is notable. Furthermore, that the subject is in fact not notable is borne out by the 17 googlehits, most of which aren't about this company, and the ones that are come from the company website or from directory listings. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Finngall talk 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would agree with the CSD but since it has been challenged I don't mind keeping it here - no rush. Contrary to comments on the discussion page notability is not asserted fully and certainly not verified. JodyB talk 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laclede Quartet[edit]

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

Not particularly notable string quartet looks to also fail wp:music also article is unsourced contested prod Oo7565 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The following for-pay articles look like significant coverage: [7] [8] [9] [10] Jfire (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I suspect there are some reliable sources out there. The above "for pay" articles are actually from a clipping service (I think). Someone could view the docs and then go to the original source and add the needed verification. Nevertheless, I would expect some digging at the St. Louis paper would also yield results. If free sources are unavailable it must be removed. JodyB talk 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum. As I thought, the for-pay articles are from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a reliable source. Someone just needs to access the full text material and add to the article. JodyB talk 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the first two articles mentioned; I'll see about working them in. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have another look. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nimrod (disambiguation). Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nimud[edit]

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

Disambiguation page, but only lists "possible misspellings" as uses for "Nimud", there are no actual encyclopedic topics relating to this to disambiguate. I could see this perhaps for a common misspelling with lots of possible uses, but this doesn't seem like a common misspelling, and lists a mere two things that this could be a possible misspelling of. Furthermore, if we allowed disambiguation pages like this, we would get thousands upon thousands of misspelling disambiguation pages for what people may think the person was intending on typing. In sum, this page isn't useful and sets a bad precedent. VegaDark (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Allowing dab pages for spelling errors would set a really bad precedent and since there's no article by this title, I totally agree with the nominator. -Mgm|(talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and concur with above. JodyB talk 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects for bad spelling are universally accepted; for example, nobody sees something wrong in having Untied States as a redirect to the USA article. I don't see how this is really essentially different: it's an attempt to help mistaken readers find the pages that they want. Without a doubt, this page if kept will set somewhat of a precedent, but as it can easily be useful for someone who mistyped a word, it's a good precedent. No objection to the idea of pages such as this, even if they include more than two words. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untied states is different. There someone accidentally typed two letters in the wrong order. To accept this is a probably misspelling, someone needs to show the 'r' is routinely forgotten, which seems incredibly unlikely to me. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nimrod (disambiguation), which includes Nimrud. Guest9999 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rites of Spring[edit]

Rites of Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Per WP:DAB, basically. Should be non-controversial but a particular editor has been warring over this for some time. The disambiguation is between The Rite of Spring, a ballet, and Rites of Spring, a band. Since there are only 2 similarly-titled articles in question, hatnote dabs at the top of each suffice and a separate disambiguation page is unnecessary. See the discussions at Talk:Rites of Spring (band) and Talk:Rites of Spring–the creator of the dab page took this as consensus, moving the band page to "Rites of Spring (band)" and creating a disambiguation page, though there was no clear consensus. Per WP:DAB and common sense, each article should be at its correct title ("The Rite of Spring" and "Rites of Spring", respectively) sinc the the titles are not identical, and a hatnote dab on each suffices for disambiguation. I tried to speedy the dab page but the creator contested it. Should the dab page be deleted I will move the band page back to "Rites of Spring" and fix the hatnotes accordingly. IllaZilla (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Stravinksy and hatnote the band. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it shoud redirect to the ballet. Each should be at their proper titles, with the ballet at "The Rite of Spring" and the band at "Rites of Spring", with no disambiguation in either title, and there should be hatnotes on each directing to the other article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the solution proposed by IllaZilla is the best way to deal with this. A disambiguation page is not needed since the articles have two separate titles. Amazinglarry (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IllaZilla's argument and move Rites of Spring (band) to Rites of Spring with a hat note on both The Rite of Spring and Rites of Spring. Dgf32 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per IllaZilla. No objection to this being done speedily... Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wikipedia:DAB#Deciding_to_disambiguate. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create appropriately named pages with hats per Zilla... -JodyB talk 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disambiguation page for two articles makes very little sense, especially when there's no actual name conflict. Orpheus (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Peer IllaZilla. Zazaban (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the more notable The Rite of Spring. This is not just my problem, several editors have expressed objections over it. The Rite of Spring is far and away more notable than the obsolete and defunct punk band from DC which obviously took its name from the ballet. To say that it should occupy the namespace at Rites of Spring is pretty ridiculous. All internal links to the band at Rites of Spring have been updated to point to Rites of Spring (band), so the way the page is set up now is fine. Changing this doesn't make any sense. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and this was not a contested prod, but an attempt by the filing user to speedy delete the page using {{db-move}} without any discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it was. I prodded the disambiguation article for speedy deletion so I could move the band article back to that title. You contested the prod by removing the speedy template. I did not participate in the talk page discussions until after I had tagged the page for speedy. In fact I was not even aware of the discussions until after I placed the prod tag. You advised me that AfD was the proper course, so here we are (though I was planning on taking that step if the prod failed anyway). For the record, I became aware of the issue because it appeared here and I am involved in that project. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should not occupy the namespace that is its proper name, even though there is no other article with that same exact title? Saying that the ballet is "far and away more notable" is your opinion, and from the perspective of Wikipedia is irrelevant. Both topics have the potential to become featured articles, and we do not base disambiguations and organizational moves on which topics some editors think are more notable. Having looked over the various talk page discussions I do not see the "several other editors" who you claim "have expressed objections over it". There have only been a handful of editors involved in the discussions, and if anything there are just as many who believe the band article should stay at "Rites of Spring" as there are who think that page should be a disambigution. What I do see in looking at the history of The Rite of Spring is you repeatedly removing the hatnote dab, and constantly being reverted by other editors because removing the hatnote makes no sense in any case (as it would have to remain whether Rites of Spring was a disambiguation page or an article about the band). As for the internal links, most of them were changed by you the last time you unilaterally moved the article (which was later undone due to the disambiguation being unnecessary). Anyway, internal links are easily fixed as there are only a couple dozen articles that link to the band page. In fact, I volunteer to fix them. I cannot fathom why, for some reason, you seem so vehemently opposed to the idea that someone looking for the ballet The Rite of Spring might somehow end up at an article about the band Rites of Spring instead and have to follow a helpful link to get to the correct article. They would have to follow a link anyway even if Rites of Spring remained a dab page, but you seem particularly opposed to the idea that they might even see the article about the band. Why? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because most people are not looking for the band. The band hardly meets the notability requirement of WP:BAND. For the ease of most Wikipedia users who do not know that the proper name of the ballet is "The Rite of Spring", it makes more sense to have that page serve as a disambiguation. Google results and third party coverage support my assertion that the ballet is more notable. Oh, and the fact the band formed 70 years after the ballet was debuted and literally took its name from the ballet. The hatnote was removed by me, then replaced, then removed by W.M.Connolley, then replaced, then I removed it again because of Connolley's reasoning. Despite your most earnest assertions to the contrary, I am not alone in believing the page serves the project best in its current form. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been listening? That band has had a huge influence on modern music. I don't like to assume bad faith, but I have the feeling that this is stemming from the idea that ballet is inherently 'superior' to punk and the very idea that the article exists is seen as an affront to good taste. But that's just my opinion. Zazaban (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with the article on the band. In fact, if you want to redirect "Rite of Spring" to the dab page, go for it. It just shouldn't occupy namespace when it is more likely people are looking for the ballet (which, I'm going to point out, has recieved a great deal more coverage than the band, though I don't dispute it's importance to the punk movement). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't dispute that band's importance, how does it 'hardly meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND'? Zazaban (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of disambiguation is served by having hatnotes on both articles, which solves the "ease of most Wikipedia users" issue. If people arrive at the band article when they were looking for the ballet, the hatnote directs them to it. Conversely, if people arrive at the ballet article when they were looking for the band, the hatnote directs them to it. Problem solved. Having a disambiguation page for only 2 articles is entirely unnecessary and makes no sense. We only need one when there are several articles with the same or similar titles, not just 2. You are treading the edge of WP:POINT here. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and you tried to subvert discussion by having the page speedy deleted so please don't accuse me of violating Wikipedia protocol. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was discussion, but it was before you came along. Also, this isn't a speedy, this is well, a discussion. Zazaban (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment. I was not involved in the discussion until after I prodded the article, discounting my comment here which I made last month...the article was not on my watchlist after that, so I had not seen the more recent discussions. I became aware of the dab page after the page move appeared in a bot log for WP:PUNK, and prodded it before checking the talk pages. Rest assured I was not trying to subvert anything. How could I have been, having not even read the recent discussions? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not try to prod the article. You tried to have it speedy deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. I have been under the impression that "prod" was short for "prodded for speedy deletion" (as I have seen it used in that context many times). I was unaware that there is a separate prod template, and that "prod" refers specifically to it. I will use use the correct terms in the future. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get back on topic? This is a debate on whether or not this article should remain as is, not IllaZilla's intent. Zazaban (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zazaban, let's stay on topic. For what it's worth, I don't remember what I was doing when I prodded the OC ska article last year. I didn't have much experience with deletion proposals at the time and probably just copied the template directly from some other article. That's not really pertinent to this discussion, though, so let's let it go. I've used the term "prod" in reference to speedy deletion templates many times, and didn't realize I was using incorrect terminology. I've apologized for that, so let's move on. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move both articles to their proper (similar but technically unambiguous) name, as per IllaZilla. Dab notes are fully sufficient for disambiguation here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move the band's article here. Hatnote the two remaining articles. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filter (magazine)[edit]

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

This article has existed for over 3 years, and in that time not a single independent reliable source has been cited for verifiability or to prove the notability of the magazine. Speaking of notability, the text of the article does not assert why the subject is notable for inclusion which technically qualifies it for speedy deletion under criteria A7. I am refraining from speedying this article given that it has been around for 3 years and I think the subject is actually notable. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hm, someone should probably cite that source (and more like it!) in the article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As shown here [11] Google News believes they exist, as they use them as one of their Aggregator. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a publication that exists and is widely distributed. The demand for third-party sourcing crosses into bias against some publications, just because they don't have coverage in Brittanica or whatever. In this case, as noted the NY Times has cited it, and that's enough (obviously the citation should be added where applicable). 23skidoo (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stapler vs phone[edit]

Stapler vs phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stapler vs. phone? Books? Cheese? Likely hoax. Millbrooky (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect is allowed if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NmVac A/C/Y/W-135 and related indis. collection of vaccines[edit]

AfDs for this article:
NmVac A/C/Y/W-135 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NmVac A/C/Y/W-135 DT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate Collection of Information (User's talk shows history of creating articles like this, nominating for review of notability). Wikipedia does not need a string of articles on specific versions of vaccines. At best a list. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all 3 to Meningococcal disease#Prevention -- they are apparently the principal strains used for vaccines. I suppose articles could be written, if anyone wanted to find refs. & do the work. DGG (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no context, no history - nothing that makes the entry encyclopedic. Ros0709 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vaccine - reads like the package insert, or maybe copied from the press release—G716 <T·C> 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a general article on meningococcus vaccine. As can be seen on meningitis, the vaccine itself is getting wide application and recent developments make it suitable for its own article. That said, we should keep all the vaccines together on one page, not have individual pages for each brand. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and pointless. ILovePlankton (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the editor arguing for keep is quite vigorous, sources have not appeared. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtenay Pettigrew[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable; nothing to back up magazine appearance claims. A Google search brought up nothing other than a Facebook profile - no secondary sources at all; the Fashion Model Directory (basically the IMDB of the fashion world) has no entry for her, and the subject's one listed agency doesn't seem to exist. I nominated it for deletion, but the tag was removed w/o an explanation. Mbinebri (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT DeleteOkay, I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure what I should be posting to oppose this. Anyway, Mbinebri- what are you smoking? You blatantly lie in your entry. A Google search brings up a MODEL SHOOT with several pictures (RIGHT BELOW THE FACEBOOK PROFILE), and a "talent profile MODELING auditions and casting" page. And since when is a google search the ONLY source of supportive evidence? Under Wikipedia: Verifiability, it clearly states, "Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats." What this means for people who can't read google entries is that if you were to look at the print copies of Cosmopolitan and Instyle, you would notice the subject in question. Larry1162 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry1162 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you have managed to find WP:V, can I suggest you also read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before making these kind of statements? If there are print only sources, then the article needs references to them that can be checked. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable. Talent profile at Explore Talent is blank (no photo, no resume) [13]. No photo of her on the web. No reliable sources on the web. Cosmopolitan.co.uk and cosmopolitan.com return no results. I'm confident she exists, but Wikipedia notable? No. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Mbinebri- Thanks for the link to Wikipedia: Civil. Sorry, but lying civilly is still lying. Anybody who can read can see that you lied about the google search. How about an explanation for that? "Nothing but a facebook profile" is pretty unambiguous. I have met her and if she doesn't exist, she does a pretty good impression of a fake person. As for "QuiteUnusual"- you're confident she exists, but still want the article deleted? How many models who have appeared in Cosmopolitan and Instyle do YOU know of who graduated from Princeton, was valedictorian of their high school, and got a 1600 on their SATs? They're not exactly growing off trees. By the way, the Valedictorian part can be found on that aforementioned google search that "only" brings up a facebook profile. If I can find all of this within the space of 10 minutes, then all of you can too. That DOES make her a role model, and that DOES make her "Wikipedia Worthy." In fact, I'd argue it makes her more accomplished and unique than any of those anorexic models who appear on the so called "IMDB of Models." I say leave the article on. Maybe little girls who find it will say to themselves, "hey, I can be beautiful AND smart."Larry1162 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment struck out second keep (do not delete) by same editor for clarity. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're taking this the wrong way, Larry1162, but one of the cornerstones of notability for Wiki inclusion is the existence of reliable secondary sources on the subject, and a Google search (a common Wiki test) brings up none that I can see. The top five hits are Facebook, fatcopxxl.com, barillari.org (broken link), exploretalent.com, and scheppens.com (about a clinical research staff) - all questionable sources. Google News delivers zero results. As for her educational accomplishments, they are impressive, but by no means do they confer notability as a model, which the subject otherwise seems to lack.
And as QuiteUnusual directed you to a couple policy pages, I would also recommend WP:COI. Mbinebri (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mbinebri, I think I've lost more than a few brain cells trying to reason with you people. I wasn't even able to get drunk in return. But here's an interesting thought. You've already established in your most recent post that you're a liar, since you contradict your statement, "A Google search brought up nothing other than a Facebook profile." Shouldn't this cast doubt on your credibility and your ability to utilize Google, which in your eyes is a critical and "common Wiki test?" Would I not be able to link to this webpage as evidence if I were to try to contradict whatever other garbage you've written on wikipedia?

Joe the Plumber is not notable as a plumber. He's notable as a plumber because of there were unique facts that established him as a unique plumber. Similarly, Pettigrew has unique facts that establish her as a unique model. Models are typically seen as empty headed and superficial. They're not perfect parallels, but I'll let you connect the rest of the dots all by yourself. Thanks for the link on objectivity. Having met someone does not in and of itself influence objectivity one way or the other, nor is there sufficient evidence in any of my posts to suggest I'm not objective. The reason I'm arguing is because the arguments you people make don't make any sense and are poorly supported. It makes me doubly angry to learn once again about the masses and the basic inability of the vast majority of people to think and reason coherently. Larry1162 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Making personal attacks on other editors will not sway the case for or against deletion, so I think you should calm down and try and stop accusing people of being liars. The "unique facts" you keep mentioning, refer, I presume, to this part of the article: "Pettigrew was praised as a good role model for young girls because of the wholesome image she has maintained. Pettigrew was the second model to graduate from Princeton University". The problem is there is no reference to a reliable source that backs this up as a fact. You say it is a fact, but how do we know this? Who has praised her? Who says she has a wholesome image? If it's just you, that's not good enough for Wikipedia. You have to have a link to a reliable source that makes this statement. There are particularly strong rules around biographies of living people that do not allow unsourced comments on people's characters to be included. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, because like others have said, there's no evidence of notability, and not enough references. TheFeds 06:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a search reveals no reliable sources writing about this model. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vandalism or personal essay. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God and the theroy of evolution[edit]

God and the theroy of evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonsense page, there is already a page about the theory of evolution, looks like vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanoNL (talk • contribs)

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

The result was redirect to Polyvinyl chloride#Signs. (non-admin closure) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl lettering[edit]

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

Created by User:Vinyllettering, which appears to be a role account for doubleimage.co.uk. I've removed a piece of copyvio from this article, and the user has also linkspammed a couple or other articles here and here, the article itself didn't seem quite blatant enough for a speedy. Content is copied on author's userpage. --Finngall talk 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polyvinyl chloride#Signs - it is, after all, just vinyl cut into certain shapes. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect to Vinyl polymer rather than the above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Vinyl polymer is about chemistry My suggestion is to a section on industrial applications, which would be more appropriate. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to User:VinylletteringThe article was intended to provide information on self adhesive vinyl as wikipedia does not have any information on this product which is used by sign makers throughout the world, the large majority of signs and all van decals are made from the stuff. Had intended providing even more information on the vinyl including how to apply it - but as I was having problems uploading images on the process removed that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinyllettering (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to Polyvinyl chloride#Signs as suggested by Totnesmartin. It is not acceptable to create a redirect to a user page, as the article creator has suggested, above. I'd have no objections if this were userfied (which is possibly what the creator means by the above comment), but I don't really see the point. 23skidoo (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Polyvinyl chloride#Signs. Vinyl polymer is less applicable, and userspace is offlimits. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of unrelated alpha-2 codes in ISO 639 and ISO 3166[edit]

List of unrelated alpha-2 codes in ISO 639 and ISO 3166 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:OR, WP:SYN. roux   17:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sources or anything given to suggest that this is a connection anyone else in the real world has drawn. Therefore, it's clearly OR, as the nominator pointed out. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree this crosses the line into WP:SYNTH (aka OR). 23skidoo (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One ISO is a language code, the other a country code - both are unrelated. The article pretty much states a real conflict doesn't even exist, so it's pointless to describe it. It would be a list of trivial intersections. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. It's a list of useless intersections; their intersections don't really mean anything. Celarnor Talk to me 07:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Philosophers[edit]

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

Reason: I would like wider consideration on this article. Does the grouping and title amount to original research? Are these philosophers who were members of the Nazi party? It's unreferenced so I'm not sure about an article on "nazi philosophers". If people think it's legitimate I'm happy to respect that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – surprisingly, I know I shouldn’t be, there is a genre in the scholarly area dealing with this specific subject as shown here [14]. Likewise, the article does have room for expansion, based on the above references. This brings us to the area of the lack of references in the piece right now. I do not see that as an issue in that as the article is currently represented as a list of individuals already included here on Wikipedia, other than one, whose own articles are well referenced and cited. As for original research, I would say no, in that these individuals have been grouped with the Nazi’s through second and third party reliable – verifiable and creditable sources. Hence not OR Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nazism was a philosophy, and these were its thinkers. If the list of names can be verified (and i'm sure it can) then it's OK. needs flashing out from a list though. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not original research (OR) anymore than wikipedia itself is, since it is just a list or gathering point (like a disambiguation?) which takes only one click to verify. One risk is that it may be open to name-calling, so I think it is best to keep the list quite conservative or lock it, otherwise who knows what names might appear on it! I can see at least that those claimed on the page to have been members of the Nazi party were in fact members. I can't find such a useful collection of dodgy philosophers elsewhere, though of course one might suggest another page with leftist philosophers connected with Stalinism -- a number of 30s 40s philosophers were Stalinist -- or connected with Maoism -- of whom there were quite a few in the 60s; though they usually merely approved of it without actually forming it from the inside, as for example the Biologistic race "theorists", or the New Christianity "theologians" did for Nazism. Thanks.84.203.39.11 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay. Sounds reasonable. Although I suspect (without being well schooled on the subject) that these pholosphers and other thinkers and writers were not exclusively "Nazi philosophers" or advocates only of that way of thinking. I should have mentioned that I tried to move the article to German philosphers during World War 2, but got reverted. On the one hand the title I tried doesn't focus as much on the nazi aspect, which seems to be the article's focus. But on the other hand I'm not sure it's accurate to call philosophers who professed support for aspects of nazism Nazi philosophers. Did they always support nazism? What about after the war? Should Ezra Pound be on the list? Henry Ford (assuming he espoused philosophical support for the cause which I think is right)? Other thinkers who support some, most or all of the nazi ideologies? I guess better sourcing of the article would help.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Reply There were lots of German philosophers during WWII that were not Nazis! WWII is not the issue but membership of the Nazi party or being an ideologue for it. As to accuracy, yes we should be careful to check that they were, unlike Ford, actually intelligent or intellectual level thinkers who fell for the Nazi ideology and joined the party or helped create racist ideology. If in doubt I would say leave Ezra Pound or others you seem to be thinking about off the list. No point talking about details such as what happened to them later, they signed up, lots of others didn't, and that's the simple point of it, those details can be checked on the individual's page. 84.203.39.11 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and explanation. I think the title itself is a bit ambiguous and the article being unsourced doesn't help matters. Are you saying this is a list of Philosophers who joined the Nazi party? Or is it philosophers who advocated Nazism? It's still not clear to me what the article is about exactly. What are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion? Can a non-German be on it? What about a philosopher who didn't espouse Nazism but joined the party out of expediency. I suppose it might have been difficult not to show support for a fascist regime (not to excuse the behavior) but does this still make them nazi philosophers? And by moving it to German philosophers during World War II, I was certainly not intending to imply that all German philosophers at that time were Nazis (although I think life would have been made difficult for those who refused to show support), but to broaden the topic to an inclusion criteria that made sense to me. I'm just not clear on what is meant by "Nazi philosopher". Fascist? National socialist party? People actually involved in Nazism? What about philosophers who advocated some of the ideologies that make up Nazism before or after World War II? Are they excluded because they weren't part of the Nazi party or included because they support some of the same ideas? And if someone renounced the ideology after the war are they still a "Nazi philosopher"?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let us agree to keep the criteria tight, and the criteria are: philosophers or intellectuals who were members of the Nazi party in Germany at some point during its existence, ie, 1920-1945 or provided ideology, chiefly racist ideology, for that regime and was explicitly taken up by that regime. Membership of the party is a crition and regardless of excuses or other subjective pleas: it was not quite that difficult to remain a non-member of the party itself in Germany. Those intellectuals who advocated fasicsm or nazism but were not members nor provided ideological support (other than their virtual vote) should not be included. There have been right wing advocates throughout history they are excluded from this list unless their ideology was explicitly taken up by the Nazi party that existed between 1920 and 1945 in Germany. I think you would need to give an example of such confusion before assuming it, are you thinking of someone in particular who was forced to join the party? 84.203.39.11 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the article doesn't follow standard article format on Wikipedia (see wp: lead). The introduction needs to introduce the whole article. The way it's structured is more like a disambiguation page of different topics. That's why I made the edits I did, not to nationalize the subject matter.
Secondly, to avoid being original research, the article needs sources that demonstrate the topic itself is notable. The sources should also establish the inclusion exclusion criteria. If, as everyone seems to agree, it's a notable subject, then the sources for it will show who is on the established list of "nazi philosophers". The list needs to be cited or the individual names need to be cited to reliable sources where the term "nazi philosopher" or words to that effect are included. I'm left guessing what "nazi philosopher" means and who it does and doesn't include, because there is no explanation and no sources in the article. The article's intro says "may refer to" (which is unclear) actual party members, and then later it starts bringing up other groups of people. So it's not clear to me what the article is about or where it came from. That's what I tried to fix and what I'm trying to addressed. I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to explain my perspective and how I think the article needs to be fixed.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I hear what you are saying, and I am in agreement with the points you are trying to make. However, I believe these topics are better discussed on the article’s talk page rather than the AFD. The Afd is to gather consensus on whether the article is notable – verifiable – creditable and finally hand and hand with verifiable, sourceablefor inclusion here on Wikipedia. I believe, all the criteria have been proven and we do have a viable article. Now comes the hard part, written – formatting and editing. That is what I believe your questions are addressed too. Hence, let’s discuss over at the articles talk page. I’ll start given you a hand next week. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the contents of the article aren't as promised. In actuality it is a bit of an indiscriminate list. Some entries are philosophers who were Nazis (e.g. Martin Heidegger); others are apologists for Nazism (e.g. Julius Rosenberg); still others aren't in any sense philosophers (e.g. Julius Streicher). If kept it needs to be ruthlessly pruned. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Reply Philosophers or Intellectuals are covered, but perhaps its debatable if the founder of a newspaper (Streicher) was intellectual, remove him if you like. Julius Rosenberg is not on the page, if you meant Alfred Rosenberg, then as one of the most influential intellectuals in the Nazi movement, I would think he couldn't be removed.84.203.39.11 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it has potential, although it needs to be tightened up a bit; e.g, only people who particularly contributed to the ideologies of the party or what not; an encyclopedic topic, though, to be sure. Celarnor Talk to me 07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the article mainly being just being a list, the terminology isn't verified. Nobody in the second list is explicitly associated with Nazism, and the third list is mostly a scattershot listing of people who followed some Nazi ideology. In addition, "intellectual" is grouped into the description which is a vague term. Perhaps this should be recreated as a category with a better definition of the term. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but get sources and rewrite (and change the name to Nazi philosophers). This is a valid category in academic research. But the article sucks; there are only two names on it, and some of the most well known (e.g. Martin Heidegger) are not even listed. And this should not be just a list of philosophers who some think are Nazis as others suggest; it should only include those who willingly provided intellectual support and justification for the Nazi regime. csloat (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In practice, I don't think this article as a list is salvageable. Looking at the way it is being defended, it is always going to be indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am trying to improve the article, in particular trying to sort out some of the willy-nilly inclusions in it. I am dubious that it can be saved, however. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not an OR. It is supported by numerous reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Balmer[edit]

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

Non-notable software developer Psychonaut (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The European community my disagree with you here. Regarding Dr. Balmer and Notepad2 I believe Notability has been established for both. However, in researching the piece, it looks like neither stands without the other as shown here, [15], [16]. Though I expressed a keep opinion on the bases, anyone looking up Notepad2 may want additional information on Dr. Balmer, a merge/redirect may be more appropriate. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The USA and the Washington State community also disagrees with a suggested deletion. Regarding Dr. Balmer and Notepad2 has a very useful place here as indeed additional information on Dr. Balmer is most appropriate and relevant for the reasons given below. In addition I only came to know Dr. Balmer a few days ago while looking up searching Notepad2, finding this reference, and connecting with Dr. Balmer. He responded quickly, offering academic information and suggestions; my most pleasing experience and rewarding connection through Wikipedia in many years of use! Keeping post as is with appropriate cross references would be most appropriate. Kind regards, CarySnyder (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC), — CarySnyder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It doesn't matter how polite and academic the man is; the criteria for biographies on Wikipedia is that the subject is the primary subject of independent, published sources. Can anyone provide evidence of a book or article about Florian Balmer himself? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - see the cites given in my opinion. Granted they are in German for the news articles, but we accept foreign sources as readily as English. ShoesssS Talk 13:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't cites; those are Google searches. Please provide citations (author, title, journal/magazine/newspaper title, and date) for articles about Florian Balmer, not those which merely mention him or his Notepad2 software. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any notability appears to be attributed to Notepad2 which already has a Wikipedia article. Aside from that, Balmer's notability doesn't appear to be demonstrated anywhere else. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - which lends itself to merge/redirect versus delete. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Fair enough, but the Notepad2 article already mentions Balmer as the developer. Other than that, what else is there to merge into the article from the existing Florian Balmer article? Maybe a redirect is more appropriate. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Exactly, when you say delete without merge/redirecting, the article is deleted along with the articles title and information, there by losing any reference or connection between one and the other. My contention is that Dr. Balmer as the creator of Notepad2 is shuffled to the background even though they go hand and hand as both being notable. Which I believe is a disservice to both. Therefore my merge/redirect opinion or as you say redirect. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 02:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has he truly no other notability? The article mentions other utilities, so what are they. Typically, a developer /author/artist/wgetever is more notable than a single work, because they have the potential to do more than one of them, and it doesn't go the other way round, at least not for projects done by individuals. So if there is material to add to the article, that would be enough reason to keep it. DGG (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G11. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegro CE Field PC[edit]

Allegro CE Field PC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable and unsourced. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5grs[edit]

5grs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was declined for speedy as it makes a weak assertion of notability, but I don't see how this band meets the relevant guideline. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond Myspace and other promotional sites. TN‑X-Man 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable and unencyclopedic --Church of emacs (Talk) 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google returns nothing but blogs and other primary sources. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The assertion that they are the only band of the genre with a female vocalist is not verifiable, and they otherwise fail WP:BAND. Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo.org[edit]

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

Non-notable website Blowdart | talk 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The website www.neo.org is the URL created by the Swiss-based Neo Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by philanthropist Bill Liao, social network entrepreneur and XING.com co-founder. The site is highlighted by the Declaration of Earth Citizenship, a document people can adopt and sign in support of more widespread global thinking. Signers can then add their own personal declaration, thus having a platform to showcase their commitments and attract support as well as offer support for other people's declarations.

While still in its early stages of development, neo.org has attracted thousands of signers chiefly through word of mouth. Some notable early signers include:

Rachel Sterne - founder of GroundReport.com who was interviewed on CNN CNN interview Rachel Sterne

Noted psychologist and author Arnold Mindell

Peter Block, internationally known consultant in community building and organizational change

Global futurist John Renesch

David Roosevelt, grandson of U.S. President FDR


Forward thinking academics are starting to sign too. These include Dr. Srikumar Rao, London Business School, Dr. Ian Mitroff, Professor Emeritus Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, Futurist Peter Bishop, Professor Prasad Kaipa, Indian School of Business, and Bruce Lloyd, Professor of Strategic Management, London South Bank University.

Notable media people have also become neo.org users. These include Alan Webber, founder, Fast Company magazine, James Autry, author of Love and Profit and other books, David Schwerin, author of Conscious Capitalism, Robert White, author of Living an Extraordinary Life, Sanjoy Mukherjeem, editor of Journal of Human Values, Dr. John Adams, author of Thinking Today as if Tomorrow Mattered, Debbe Kennedy, author of Putting Our Differences to Work, and a diverse roster of others from around the world. The creator and host of the U.S. television series "Thinking Allowed," Jeffery Mishlove, is an early user.

International organizations such as The Hunger Project, Collective Wisdom Initiative, World Business Academy, United Religions Initiative, New Dimension Radio, are also represented by early users.

Intersys (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)intersys 12/11/08[reply]


Although notability is not inherited, if notable individuals deem a page worthwhile and notable and are making use of said page, then, by definition, that page is meaningful.


As for WP:COI, I just happen to believe in what the site is trying to accomplish through social interaction, so no WP:COI as far as I'm concerned.

Speaking to WP:OWN, I have no vested interest in who edits the page. I claim no 'ownership' of the page or the site. I just use it.

Intersys (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)intersys 12/11/08[reply]


  • Delete The above comment is by the page's creator and in that comment there seems to be alot of WP:OWN/WP:COI violations apparent. Also, please note that notability is not inherited. Page has no reliable sources and reads like an advertisment. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's settled then, but it still reads like an ad, with no reliable sources or establishment of notability (which is not inherited merely by a list of who uses it) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable article created with a COI. Themfromspace (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete while the text can be changed and will be as more people learn about this article the underlying essence of this project is grassroots. While one person underwrote its launch it continues to grow because people care about the state of the world. There is no profit or fame motive...only to continue word-of-mouth excitement about mass participation and engaging people in being responsible global citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRenesch (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are written on Wikipedia after the subject achieves notabliy. Verifiable sources must be given to prove that the subject is notable. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball that predicts future notability. Themfromspace (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no sources on this. Just because a couple notable people have used this means nothing without any reliable sources on the subject. Wickethewok (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete neo is notable since its users are notable. It's constituency is notable and growing more so…..the entity gets notability from its populace. Are you asking me to find greater numbers from among the thousands who have signed it? Are not links to the notable signers sufficient source data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRenesch (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how many users you have. That's not in question. It would be dumb to have a rule that says websites with 10,000+ members or whatever are automatically notable. The problem here is that there are no independent, reliable sources on this subject. reliable independent sources are the foundation of Wikipedia and without them, there can't be an article. Wickethewok (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin Note that JohnRenesch voted twice in this AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he did, and i'll strike out the last vote. Sorry, John, but you can only vote once in an AfD discussion. Also, please note that JohnRenesch also edited parts of Intersys' wall of text above. And again, "neo is notable since its users are notable" is not a valid reason to keep as notability isn't inherited. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 00:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Orense[edit]

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

The subject of the article is a person who believes himself to be the messenger of Jesus Christ and who is capable of performing acts of faith healing. As per this post by the subject of the article himself, he seems to believe himself to be a reincarnation of archangel Gabriel. The article cites no references and I was unable to come up with a single reliable source through a Google search of Ace Orense or Ace Roland Mendoza Orense. All religious beliefs aside, the subject of the article has not received any notable media attention to pass the thresholds of WP:BIO or WP:N. Also, there is a possibility that the author (Acemankilla (talk · contribs)) and the subject of the article may be the same person. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Complete WP:OR that fails WP:RS and WP:V. -Pmedema (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No demonstration of notability, no evidence of notability found. Clear failure of WP:BIO as well as the general guidelines. Clear candidate for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Though notability is claimed, there are no secondary or third party sources that can verify such claims. In fact, no information, other than Wikipedia and one blog, can be found mentioning Brother Orense. In this light delete until sources can be derived. ShoesssS Talk 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above. This one's just a rambling essay/biography with no sources, and given the subject matter (angels, etc.), I doubt that we'll be seeing any verification. TheFeds 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe lewicki[edit]

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

Completion of incomplete nomination. No rationale given by nominator, but IMO this one should be speedied under criterion A7.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Road[edit]

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

This article was prodded, but opposed, without any real reason. And since then has still not been sourced and is still orphaned. The article fails to verify notability. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, article does not establish notability. HollyHuntaway (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added two "refs" (simple footnotes for now), and you can see from my edit summary that I think this is worthy enough to save, but beyond that, /shrug. I don't have time right now to massage the rest of the refs, so I've placed a note on the talk page with three others which should be suitable to support saving the article. Hopefully can get back to it later, but feel free dot dot dot Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical road, some assertion of notability. Footnotes provided, though additional references will be required; since it is an historical subject nothing as quick and easy as a google search will turn enough up to demonstrate notability. An unsourced article should not automatically be deleted if sources can be found, and user yngvarr has provided references even if he does not have enough time to actually place in-line citations. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another ref added. It may not be the Boston Post Road, but it is notable enough. Collect (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepsignificant historical route with good references available. DGG (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Google Books has some sources. --NE2 10:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by Anthony.bradbury. Lenticel (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Connors[edit]

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

Possible hoax... no citations provided, and no further information available via Google... One citation was provided, but it was a question on Yahoo! Answers in which the answer cited this article... Adolphus79 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Notability is not verifiable. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. HollyHuntaway (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely hoax, absolutely no evidence that the claims of the article are true. Searching for "Thomas Connors" wax paper returns a single hit, this article. Whether hoax or not, claims have no evidence to back them up so Delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax/unsourced. Possibly consider redirecting to Stompin' Tom Connors as a possible search term (Tom Connors already redirects there). 23skidoo (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and article on Wax paper needs cleanup (linked to this article) Collect (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - done... how excellent, the reference on Wax paper (the Reynolds company website) makes no mention of Mr. Connors either... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Love[edit]

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

There is no evidence that the subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO criteria Tatarian (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Soprano[edit]

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

There is no evidence that the subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO criteria Tatarian (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. She fails WP:PORNBIO. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. HollyHuntaway (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May not satisfy WP:PORNBIO criteria, but could meet WP:BIO criteria. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by the Philadelphia Weekly media source, along with the fact she is a regular (appearing in virtually all episodes) of an HBO series. Once an individual gets involved in mainstream productions like that, WP:PORNBIO ceases to be the only criteria. Note: I'm not implying that every indiviudal who appears in Cat House is notable enough for articles, however this person is one of only a few individuals who were considered regulars on the show. 23skidoo (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo SMSpivey (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whosbrain records[edit]

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

Does not meet Notability for companies. Bands on label do not appear to be notable - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why this label should deleted compare to other many small record label like Narrominded - davkrute —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence this record label has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See [17], [18], and [19]. — Satori Son 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails to assert notability. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that the Label does not have Mainstream internet new doesn't mean that the label does not exists. And moreover many people are interested in "independent" labels such as Whosbrain Records and many more. That's why Wikipedia should more care about these small entities. davkrute
Reply - Who said the label doesn't exist? Please read about notability --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Ok i agree but i still don't understand why only record label like Whosbrain Records should not be listed davkrute
Comment: Many, many articles on records labels have been deleted from Wikipedia over the years. Have you read WP:ININ yet? — Satori Son 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable, no independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua denton[edit]

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

Since the article claims he is the "youngest Moto Gp Racer", it's not speediable, but all I could find was Jorge Lorenzo being the youngest winner. This person appears to be unverifiable and should be deleted. Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Per nom and No sources, no evidence of notability, If its not get deleted it schould be moved to Joshua Denton. Also nowiki and extemly poorly written, (I know thats not an reason for deletion, It was more like jam on the panncakes).The Rolling Camel (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Not verifiable. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:BLP, as the nom notes that the article's sole assertion to notability does not match other records. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not meant to have any relation to Moto Gp. Since the realization of the incorrect information, it has been edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude000010 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in light of the references found by Sandstein (talk · contribs). Good rescue work. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yangzom Brauen[edit]

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

Contested prod. Actress who played a minor role in one notable film, but with little or no work in notable productions besides that. I could not find a 2005 movie on the disambiguation page for The Big One. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO. She has received extensive coverage in major mainstream German language news media on account of her movie work and political activism, including the following found on Google News:
  • Wilton, Jennifer (30 March 2008). "Ihr Kampf für ein freies Tibet" (in German). Die Welt. Retrieved 2008-12-11.
  • Nussbaumer, Hannes (11 April 2008). "In Bern geboren, in Hollywood zu Hause, für Tibet im Einsatz" (in German). Tages-Anzeiger. Retrieved 2008-12-11.
  • Weigelt, Nadia (27 March 2008). "Auf dem Weg nach Hollywood: Tibet-Aktivistin Yangzom Brauen" (in German). n-tv. Retrieved 2008-12-11.
  • "ttt - titel thesen temperamente" (in German). ARD. 13 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-11. (TV programme)
—  Sandstein  20:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A9 by Thehelpfulone, artist was A7'd shortly after this afd opened. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Flow: This Is It[edit]

Mi Flow: This Is It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Google presents nothing but record stores, blogs, and filesharing sites. Allmusic reports one song peaking at 14 on the "Latin Tropical Airplay"--but that, I believe, does not the album notable make. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A9 Artist tagged for was deleted by A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ComunionERP[edit]

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

WP:NN unreleased software. Failed PROD after SPA IP objected. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion on merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities in The Simpsons[edit]

List of celebrities in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a unneeded list of celebrities in The Simpsons. Considering how there is already a List of characters in The Simpsons and List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, not to mention other lists like one-time characters, this page seems very extraneous. In addition, it leaves out major celebrities (like Krusty and Kent Brockman) At the least, it should be merged with another Simpsons list. Crahan335 (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close nomination. The nominator suggests the content should be merged. AFD is to discuss deletions. - Mgm|(talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While I tend to agree that this might have been addressed by a merge discussion, we're already here. "Merge" is a common outcome of AfDs. I think we can easily wrap this up in a couple of days on AfD with no negative impact to speak of. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - "I'm Troy McClure and, though you wouldn't know it from List of celebrities in The Simpsons, I'm a celebrity in The Simpsons." What we need is one comprehensive list of recurring characters. Apparently, McClure, Krusty, et al. are "Media personalities" not "Celebrities". "Celebrities", per the tm, is a sub-category of "Media personalities". As it stands, the article should be titled "Celebrities in The Simpsons who do not have their own articles." The distinction is not encyclopedic in any way. Is McClure a celebrity? It seems the running joke is that he is a quasi-celebrity, known more for passing himself off as famous more than for actually being famous. This should be split between List_of_recurring_characters_in_The_Simpsons and List_of_one-time_characters_in_The_Simpsons. Similarly, List_of_fictional_characters_within_The_Simpsons should be merged as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted delete on the list of students, but I believe this one should be kept due to the length of the List of recurring characters on The Simpsons. This one is 33,218 and that one is 118,597 which would make it huge. That is the reason this list was created in the first place, because there are a lot of notable celebrity characters in the show and it seemed like a good split, it's also worth noting. In this case, all of the characters would have to be merged into the recurring list, while in the students list, the majority were one-timers or minor backgrounders. And before people say "just trim down the article", I have tried, but fanboys insist that every character needs to be in there. By the way, your logic that it excludes notable characters is false because it is only meant to have ones who aren't notable enough for a single page. -- Scorpion0422 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Honestly, I thought this was going to be about the portrayals of real people on The Simpsons-- Gerald Ford, Darrel Strawberry, George H.W. Bush, Leonard Nimoy, etc. What's this doing out of the pool? From what I understand, this is about people who are seen on TV shows that are in the TV show. If we lived inside the cartoon, and we had a cartoon version of Wikipedia, most of these people would not be considered celebrities. (Lisa: "But Bart, notabiility does not expire!" Bart: "Big deal!"). Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists can be viable if they deal with topics that are of themselves notable. The Simpsons is very notable for the breadth of guest stars it has had over its 20-year run (Alan Moore? Thomas Pynchon? These aren't your run of the mill guests). This shouldn't be connected to the recurring characters/one-time characters lists as those should be reserved for fictional creations. It would be nice if we could come up with a word other than "celebrities" for the title. 23skidoo (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the characters in this article are fictional creations. The people you're talking about appear in List of guest stars on The Simpsons. Deor (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merging this page with the recurring characters list would make it to big- better to let a large, notable group get a page than making one huge page of everyone. Rhino131 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of recurring characters in The Simpsons (these do fall into the group indicated by that title, after all), and cut some of the cruft out to make the list shorter. All that stuff about the 400 reasons why Star News Online loves The Simpsons should go for starters. Deor (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss a merge elsewhere--this is just a matter of style, not of deletion. Personally, i think its clearer kept separate. DGG (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been given and this is not the place to discuss a merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nom doesn't want to delete, so why is this here? Merge per WP:BOLD and if reverted follow the normal dispute resolution process. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Light (film)[edit]

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

This article has been in its stubby state since it's inception over a year ago and fails to assert notability. I would speedy delete it as an article lacking any sort of content or context (A1 or A3), but since I might be biased because I created an article on a film with the same name White Light (2008 film), I'd like some community input first. Mgm|(talk) 13:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. HollyHuntaway (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched around, and all I can see is that it exists. There appears to be not a shred of coverage, no awards, nothing really. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies. Yanksox (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I took a quick look at the IMDB entry but I did not find anything that would make the subject notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as spam. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cheerleader[edit]

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

An (unfinished) movie project by college students. Giving the best, WP:CRYSTAL applies, because this isn't released, and there appears to be no indication if/when it will be released. Not diminishing college efforts at film-making, but WP:V is not met. Of the external links given, the only one that might satisfy WP:RS would be the college newspaper (and I don't know how RS is applied to college newspapers, to be honest). Unable to find any guidelines at WP:NF which would apply to this film Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for so many reasons. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the film is already shooting, and may actually have wrapped, the guidelines are clear. Actually, this sort of thing is exactly what they were made for. While use of dependent sources is acceptable to some degree to verify information, to establish notability for inclusion, it needs to have won awards, include notable actors or be written about by reliable independent sources. None of the film guidelines are met. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If you read the news article from the VA Informer website, you will see that the information in the article is validated. Also, we indicate that the release date is scheduled for February 25. I will add another news article as additional proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtcheer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The issue is not if the film or if the information provided is valid, but rather if it can be supported under the requirements for inclusion. Please read WP:NF and see if you can agree if the film meets any of those guidelines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, the only 'real' coverage is in the online campus paper--locally fine, no doubt, but hardly qualifying as the kind of source we'd like to see. Second, given the lack of real coverage, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." And I don't see how the production itself is notable. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sergeant Cheer, you may want to leave the AfD notice, which I just restored to the article, in peace. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owl City. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm Dreaming[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maybe I'm Dreaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet music guidelines. For discussion by the community. --VS talk 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owl City, although that article is currently at AFD and looks like it will be deleted. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of June[edit]

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

Procedural nomination - article tagged as CSD A7 and contested. For further discussion by community. --VS talk 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add maybe I'm Dreaming, his other album. This is just another myspace act trying to plug his self-released stuff. Delete. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitting on fence, waiting to see what comes of the Owl City PROD. If that gets deleted, then these 2 will be speedied under A9. Otherwise, merge per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article".  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect While Owl City is still here this should be redirected. If the band article is deleted then delete the albums. Also A7 should not be used on albums, contesting is right. (disclosure, I added the prod Esradekan mentions) Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I seconded the prod, that Duffbeerforme added, that I mentioned.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Owl City. If that page stays, good; if it's non-notable, this should go, too. (FWIW, I removed the prod and prod-2 from Owl City after adding a reference to an independent album review.)travisl (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) by MacGyverMagic. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ub News[edit]

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

New, non notable online newspaper - no reliable, third-party, published sources. Paste Talk 10:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:N, particularly WP:WEB. Don't know why not speedy - no assertion of notability, even. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No third party reliable sources in article (nor any available online: Google search shows only results from ub-news.com), nor does it attempt to assert nobility. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7, web content. retagged as TrueBlue and I both think speedy is appropriate. (I am not disrespecting the first removal. when not sure it was the right move.) Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Robot Wars F Originals[edit]

Super Robot Wars F Originals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced list with characters from Super Robot Wars. The main article is already deleted and all the other elements of "Banpresto Originals" that were nominated, were all deleted. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banpresto Originals and all the other nominations. Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G8 as an article dependent on deleted content. (I personally think that deleting the other material outright without considering cleanup, merging or redireting was a mistake, but now that it is deleted, keeping this makes no sense). - Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Supporting Banpresto original characters has to be speedy deleted as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: mostly a navigational aid to other deleted content, with information even less significant to the Super Robot Wars franchise. Not only is this non-notable for a lack of reliable third-party sources, but also because it would be pretty odd to suggest that these minor details are more important than the characters/robots/weapons/etc. we deleted already had a consensus to delete. Randomran (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With the future possibility of adding the information to a new article about sports or football in the British Armed Forces. As there is no such article at the moment, closing as merge is not really helpful as creating such an article is not consensus here. SoWhy 11:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Marines A.F.C.[edit]

Royal Marines A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football club which fails to meet the generally accepted notability criteria for English football clubs (i.e. playing at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase) which has been established in at least 17 other AfDs (see here). In fact, the entire article is about other football clubs, all of which should have their own articles (at least one of which already does). Was prodded, but removed by an IP on the basis which they have played in the FA Cup (which they haven't)[20]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as it stands, this team doesn't pass the guidelines, having only been formed this year and never having played at a notable level. Article creator's claims appear to hinge on the fact that the team represents the same body as previous teams based in different parts of the UK which played at a notable level, albeit nearly 80 years ago. This isn't quite the same situation as if some chancers decided to "reform" Middlesbrough Ironopolis in 2009, as technically there is a vague claim to continuity given that all the teams in question represented the RM, but I can't decide if the claim is strong enough to warrant this team having an article. Hmmmm, after typing all that, I still don't seem to have made a decision - *sheesh* -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a new article entitled Sport in the British Armed Forces, as per Number57. GiantSnowman 18:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If a merge similar to the one Number 57 proposed is completed, the title should probably be Football in the British Armed Forces, unless other sports are also going to be included. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as per suggestion above. Realistically, this team is almost certainly going to meet WP:FOOTYN within a couple of years, and it's pointless deleting something that's sourceable, verifiable, potentially useful and will probably need to be recreated. The spirit of the "top 10 steps of the pyramid only" guideline is to stop every pub and Sunday-league team from insisting on their own article. Unless I'm reading things wrong, this particular team is the military equivalent of FCUM or AFC Wimbledon and not a dozen squaddies having a kickabout in the park; I'd go so far as to say that if an appropriate merge target can't be found, this warrants an IAR keep. – iridescent 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't see it as inevitable that they are going to get promoted to Step 6 any time soon, and in reality they're just another Step 7 team - only a fraction of the current team are serving Marines, the rest of the squad are local players who are playing in one of the teams that happens to be on their doorsteps. They have made a fine job building Endurance Park, and the people there are extremely friendly and want to make everyone welcome, but to compare them with AFC Wimbledon or FC United of Manchester, both of which have many many times more coverage in reliable sources, is just plain wrong. I'm too close to some of the people involved to make a vote here, so I'll stay technically neutral. - fchd (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment – I'm thinking more of the "played in the FA Cup/Vase" side. While obviously I can't predict, it seems unlikely they'll vanish soon enough not to meet the FA Cup qualifying criteria reasonably soon, not that they'll choose not to enter the Cup/Vase. Maybe the comparison with FCUM or AFCW is an overstretch, but a comparison with F.C. Halifax Town for example (yes, I know they're a couple of steps below) or the early Aldershot Town F.C. before their promotion run seems fair, especially if a case for continuity can be made. As I've previously said, IMO the spirit of the "top ten steps" rule is to keep out pub sides, school teams etc, not "legitimate" teams that have yet to qualify for the FA Cup but are on course to do so. Don't get me wrong – I won't lose sleep if it's deleted – but there doesn't seem a point providing the article can be appropriately sourced if it's going to need to be recreated in a few months. (WP:V is a policy whereas WP:N is still just a guideline, after all, and it is a potentially useful article.) – iridescent 22:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But under the current FA rules, only teams in levels 1-10 are eligible to enter the FA Cup, so by predicting that they will enter the FA Cup soon, you are effectively predicting that they will get promoted to level 10 anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Scrub that, I only just noticed you mentioned the Vase as well, which they can enter while at level 11..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of the Betrayer[edit]

Eyes of the Betrayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; never released a full-length album, and what they did release was on a scarcely notable label. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Foy[edit]

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

Two years ago there was a mostly-hoax article under this title, which I sent to AfD. The hoax material was stripped out, leaving an actor with insufficient notability per Wikipedia standards, so the article was deleted. It has reappeared, and in the meantime the actor in question has done more work, but all extra, walk-on, supporting players, and some foley, nothing substantial enough for our purposes per WP:N. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 08:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:BIO & WP:NOTE). From what I have ascertained from the article and its edit history, it appears to be promoting a possible non notable person with historically unsourced/badly-sourced weblinks [21] [22]. Judging by the remaining legitimate IMDb references that the subject is a minor role actor/extra. Previously, due to the amount of unverified garbage which had been added, I had suspected the article was a hoax. Snowy 1973 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALGIRAT[edit]

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

Possible Hoax, Google: algirat, libya (two terms of place the article suggests) gives nothing, neither does algirat, ubari. Delete if so. (WP policy the template linked to says to tag for hoax and nominate for deletion, so..) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but that 'unless...' is not very productive, and would apply to almost any AfD discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only Algirat I can find is in Algeria. That doesn't mean this one doesn't exist, but it does mean that there is no notability attached to it that I can establish. Noian, what did you mean with "algirat, libya in google shows ZIP except for a PDF with addresses in Afganistan, needs to be cited"? Why 'except for'? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in the ONLY search result was a PDF with addresses in Afganistan. Needs to be cited [to prove not hoax] is another issue (should be semi-coloned or seperate sentence, I admit). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Ah! ZIP as in NADA--I thought ZIP as in ZIP code. My mistake! Haha, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely a hoax, but without verifiable references it should be removed until some refs are found. Note that not finding a specific English transliteration of a small settlement on google is not evidence of a hoax. There are dozens of possible transliterations from Arabic. The other place mentioned are verifiable. See Tasawa, village in the Wadi Atba near Marzuq / Murzuk (here transliterated as "Morzqe"). Some variation of Al Gerat/Zerat/Querrat may be a more common transliteration. T L Miles (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick look suggests this is Al Ghurayfah, the closest village name in the Ubari oasis (where the article places the village). Without confirmation of the other material included, I still have to say this should be removed. T L Miles (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lesbian. MBisanz talk 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian-identified[edit]

Lesbian-identified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be some question as to whether this article should be redirected to Lesbian or left as its own article. To me, this is somewhere around the original research realm, with perhaps a bit of WP:FORK and/or WP:NEOLOGISM thrown in. Thoughts? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The term is too closely linked to lesbian to appear as a different article. It could be merged if its notability can be established, but I tend to agree that it is NEOLOGISM 06:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I'm unfamiliar with this particular term, but expressions like 'female-identified' and 'woman-identified' are reasonably common and established within the fields of gender studies and queer theory. I'm not sure that WP:NEO objections help us one way or the other without more detail. What I'd like to know is (a) is this term well-defined, and (b) is it sufficiently distinct from lesbian (or any other gender/sexuality related term we may already have an article on) to require its own article? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sMerge - While I feel the term is fairly well established in non-academic circles (I'm recalling a "lesbian-identified" man on The L Word), I don't see enough here for a stand alone article. The distinction between someone who "is" a lesbian and someone who "identifies" as a lesbian is a matter of outlook, similar to religious bodies that others may or may not consider cults/Christian/New Age/whatever and bodies that self-identify with those same terms. Merge the (limited) cited material to Lesbian. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I agree with SummerPhD. This is a reasonable term and it's definitely used, but I can't quite see how we can make an article about it. This topic would make a worthwhile paragraph in Lesbian, but without a lot more sourceable information about Lesbian-identification in particular I think most readers would be better-served reading this in the context of the main article. ~ mazca t|c 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SummerPhD and Mazca arguments.--Boffob (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or merge - it has two references and much potential. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there appear to be reliable sources in addition to those noted in the article that discuss the concept of being "lesbian-identified" rather than "lesbian," controversy that lesbian-identification has engendered (heh) in some aspects of the lesbian community, etc. The article is not in great shape but that's an editing concern. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up, sourcing [23] should be encouraged to clear up OR concerns. -- Banjeboi 11:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sourcing would definitely need to be cleaned up. One of the references was just an unrelated blog post. One of the comments on that post quoted from this Wikipedia article to define the term. So the article was essentially using itself as a reference. 140.247.249.98 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My delete is not eactly accurate. I too believe that this is a topic worth discussing, but there is not enough of a difference betwee Lesbian-Identified and lesbian to warrent a seperate article. The definition of one seems implicit in the other, and the research on the topic seems inadequate to make it a study independent of lesbianism.Mrathel (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lesbian. Sounds like hairsplitting to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lesbian. Definitely different than the term Lesbian itself. A paragraph should be added to the Lesbian article discussing Lesbian-identified people. --Russ is the sex (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allie McCulloch[edit]

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

not notable; promotional autobiography. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. References don't seem to claim that she was notable. (Aren't we seeing a lot of articles about minor actors/singers, and mentioning a talent agency? Possibly a deliberate attempt at commercial promotion, rather than just a fan/vanity.) TheFeds 06:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be seeing a bunch, but note that her article doesn't mention any particular agency, only that it is supposedly A-list. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triosaurus Cave[edit]

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

The cave is not referenced in any secondary media or books that I can find in a google search. One reference that appears to be independent (mycaves.com) is copyrighted to the expeditioner and creator of the article, Dave Clucas. All other references appear to be from wiki-type sites and/or mirrors of Wikipedia. Triosaurus Cave is a tiny cave claimed to be first discovered in 2006 by the creator's expedition, and I'm unable to even verify if the name has any official status. I think this article fails both WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY, and there doesn't appear to be a fix. Phil153 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Insignificant geographical feature. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought the subject was notable in the beginning, but sources all turn out to be 1st party. Nothing else can be found to prove the cave is notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structurae[edit]

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

This is the 2nd nomination. Found spamming at I.M. Pei.--Pagepage3242342 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Pagepage3242342 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the site has been 'mentioned' in various fora, in such a way that might appear 'spammy', I don't think so. The site has been around since at least December 2004. That doesn't seem fly-by-night "look-at-me!" to me. Picking just one of the "What links here" pages, Tsing Ma Bridge, gets me external link Tsing Ma Bridge in the Structurae database which gets me to information I wouldn't necessarily want here, but would likely to useful to people. There is even a template Template:Structurae created by User:Hqb to aid making references to the database. And over at de [24]. And over at id [25]. Oh, site's been around since at least 2000, as seen in an old review Highbeam Research. It is used as a reference for particulars at other sites [26][27] though these may not be the most impressive. In fact, this is way out of my areas. And I guess the question is, how can we separate the enthusiasm on the part of apparently several editors, which is apparently the cause of the nomination, from the question of "is this a useful site?" (And, OBTW, your deletions at IMPei have been immediately reverted by someone else) Shenme (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, there's over 1300 links to Structurae. I just can not believe it is not a useful site, giving particulars we don't want stuffed in here. Sounds like a sister site to me. Not a good nom methinks. Shenme (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) (Oh, same noted by another below)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely useful and detailed site which is used for multiple references and templates is miles beyond 'spam'. This seems like a bad-faith nomination from an editor that does not understand discussion or the intricacies of the GDFL. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With so many different established an trustworthy users adding links to this site in articles and it having a major part in a relevant template by consensus, I can't possibly see a case of spamming here. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Structurae has been used as a reference by my count in over 1500 Wikipedia articles.

Nominating Structurae for deletion and removing references from I. M. Pei are this user's Pagepage3242342 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first and only contributions. This behaviour is often associated with sockpuppets. I would block him for edit warring. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. - Now you can block him for breaking the - three - revert - rule - --Petri Krohn (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been warned on their talk page. Shenme (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination may be pointy and may be closed as such but article as it stands does not demonstrate it's notability. It has only one outside reference. Being used by wikipedia as a reference is no claim to notability and not a reason to keep. The site can still be a valid source without a page here, trustworthy editors on wikipedia using it does not make it notable. Being spammed into wikipedia is no reason for deletion apart from G11, which is not being claimed. I think maybe the best thing is to close Keep as pointy nom but with no suggestion this afd makes it notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this in fact failed the notability test, then we should move the article to Wikipedia:Structurae and fix the templates accordingly. Anyway, I have included this in Category:Wikipedia sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been asked to comment here as the creator of the {{Structurae}} template. I made it only after noticing that a very substantial fraction of existing Wikipedia pages on bridges and towers were already including a general external link to the relevant Structurae entry, or using it as a reference for some specific fact. So it seemed useful to give all those links a more uniform and informative appearance (many were just bare urls). As a side benefit, should the current structurae.de url ever change, as long as the database keys stay the same, it will be much easier to fix one template, instead of updating thousands of articles individually. While the Structurae site itself (perhaps understandably) hasn't seen much coverage in mainstream media, I would say that being considered a useful reference/relevant link by a large number of disparate Wikipedia content authors is in itself a sign of independent notability. (I have seen absolutely no indication that Structurae links have been mass-added to articles by anyone affiliated with that site, or other spammy behavior that would negate the significance of Structurae being cited by Wikipedia articles.) That said, the Structurae article would certainly benefit from a few more references, and I wouldn't be averse to slapping a {{refimprove}} or similar on it. Hqb (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:WEB. No reliable sources that are substantively about the site, no awards of consequence and no independent distribution of content. That some number of articles use the site as a source is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself for determining notability. Otto4711 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination by what does seem to be a sock of someone, because I have seen similar usernames before — just can't remember where. MuZemike (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be refering to user Pagepage11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Keep then, and it can be closed tomorrow. referenced/notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referenced/notable"? What are these references that establish notability? There are certainly none in the article. Easy to say "referenced/notable", harder to actually give references and establish notability. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Holm[edit]

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

Article doesn't say why this person is notable. Appears to nothing other than personal advertising. Suttungr (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs clean-up, better sourcing and expansion, but the subject is certainly notable. The nom's statement that the "article does not say why this person is notable" is clearly incorrect. The article does say that he "is the world's best known unicyclist". There is a large amount of newscoverage of him: 129 googlenewshits[28], a number of them with specific and detailed coverage (e.g. this[29]). A few quotes for these newsstories:"Kris Holm, 29, a Canadian whose claim to sporting greatness is that he is the world's leading practitioner of the sport of mountain unicycling"[30], "Canadian Kris Holm, a cult hero in the emerging sport of mountain unicycling"[31], etc. Pretty clearly passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. It also looks like spam for Kris Holm Unicycles, his own brand of unicycles. A ntv (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable, just need some styling.--Judo112 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:N. Juzhong (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Pimp[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Mentioning as 'one of' in New York Times doesn't show notability. Other refs fails WP:V, WP:RS. True Steppa (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. The New York Times reference refers to the subject as a house DJ and only in passing. Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: notability not established per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palinfreude[edit]

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

Trivial neologism only briefly in the spotlight, and even then, the spotlight was largely a blogospheric one, hence transgressing WP:V and WP:RS. All sources here are blogs, except the Guardian mention, which came only in passing and in reference to one of these blogs. At best, merge useful content into Schadenfreude. Biruitorul Talk 03:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paula Abdul#Fan Death. MBisanz talk 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Goodspeed[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because its subject fails WP:N and violates WP:BLP1E, and especially because we're an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash. Biruitorul Talk 03:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not news, not a memorial. Eusebeus (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I can only chime in here. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge any relevant material either into American Idol or Paula Abdul (or something else, if someone has a better idea). The event itself wasn't notable enough for its own article, and neither is Ms. Goodspeed, but it should be mentioned somewhere on here. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Paula Goodspeed is mentioned in a small section on Paula Abdul's article Paula Abdul#Fan Death. Aspects (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have no objections to a simple redirect. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BLP1E. The person is known for a one-time event and most of the article are other people's reactions to her event (death.) Aspects (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage, television appearances,paula abduls statements, and overall notability.--Judo112 (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could however agree to a merge of all the info to the Paula Abdul#Fan Death section.--Judo112 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly now support a keep of the article as the opinions of what to do is so widespread. If Paula is notable enough for a section in the Paula Abdul article i think their is reason to believe she is notable enough for her own article instead. And considering the huge impact on Paula Abduls life with her selling her house and everything i think thats reason enough for a keep.--Judo112 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as the fact is that Paula Abdul herself has spoken about Goodspeed on national television(and is selling her house because of the incident). I would suggest that Goodspeeds article is either kept on a weak keep basis or that all information is merged into the Paula Abdul section mentioned. We can not say that Goodspeed is not notable in any way, as she has been a subject of comment from former american idol winners and jury and the media coverage has been quite extensive. Thats my final word.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changes my vote to keep, after seeing the media interest for this person.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect so people can find the actual information in context. If it's already mentioned in Paula Abdul#Fan Death then surely a redirect is in order... - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep'. If this were just an obsessed fan, there wouldn't be enough to peg a separate article on. However this individual crosses the line into notability by the fact she appeared on a nationally broadcast TV program, a circumstance that led to her later actions. If she had never appeared on American Idol I'd say merge, but she did, so that adds notability. WP:BLP1E does not apply incidentially as that criteria is reserved only for living people and if we were to apply it to dead people, in theory that would disqualify articles such as Lee Harvey Oswald or Marc Lepine. There might be another notability criteria that could be cited applying to the dead, however. 23skidoo (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just a tabloid story, forgotten tomorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.149.86 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The woman received notability in her own right for her audition on the nationally televised show, before her suicide that was heavily covered in the media. Weightchamp (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect - My feeling is that WP:BLP1E just barely doesn't apply here. I suppose that there are two events, the poor girl's audition and her later suicide. But that's just by the skin of her teeth. If we can find a good source that covers her life outside of the stalking stuff, then maybe I could change my mind, but really I think this was the sort of thing BLP1E was made for.--TexasDex ★ 03:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally think that a strong keep is in order here. As i have witnessed alot of interest from the media for this story. And as someone pointed out here before, it has had a huge effect on Paula Abduls life forcing here to move from her home. I havent seen any convincing argument here to defend either a redirect,merge or delete, really. So "keep" would be (in my opinion) the most sensible way of dealing with this article. She was a notable media perosn before her death and had been on many shows and overall media. her death got coverage all over the world, myfriends on the other side of the world even heard of her death and their country doesnt broadcast American Idol. Shes notable per that.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3 and WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular and fat free food for science fair project[edit]

Regular and fat free food for science fair project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Looks like original research, but it is more likely just a student describing his school science project. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bad project too. Listen, can't you de-contest the prod and delete it quickly anyway? No reason was given... Drmies (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a correspondence attempt. WillOakland (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drawn Together episodes. MBisanz talk 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Reality Show[edit]

Requiem for a Reality Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article provides no reception information, no production information, and no citations from reliable sources. The entire article consists of plot summary and lists of inside jokes and cultural references. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Whoa, this is very non-notable. Are you going to put the other episodes up for AfD also? Drmies (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Probably most of them, if not all. Discussions about deleting/merging them all have proven long-drawn and indecisive, so I'm trying to deal with each on an individual basis now. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am of the opinion that picking and choosing which episodes deserve AFD is a violation of WP:NPOV. Either nominate all or nominate none. In my opinion AFD is not the way to address "long-drawn and indecisive" discussions on content. That's why God invented WP:BOLD. For these reasons I cannot in good conscience cast a "vote" one way or the other. 23skidoo (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes. Nothing indicating that the episode has any independent notability. I disagree that all episodes must be nominated at once or none of them can be, because some episodes may be notable while others aren't. Otto4711 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "discussions about deleting/merging them all have proven long-drawn and indecisive"? You mean the year-old bickering on Talk:List of Drawn Together episodes where there seemed to be a lot of opposition to merging everything to one list, against a forceful minority who seems to think that anything beyond a one sentence description of each episode violates policy? Where have you, Neelix, participated in these discussions? The types of actions exemplified by that talk page eventually resulted in an ArbCom case. But now, what are you doing to "work calmly and reasonably towards resolving [conflicts], to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate", as expected by ArbCom? How have you been "work[ing] collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question"? How is bringing episode articles to AfD, in contradiction to established guidelines, working collaboratively? As it beginning to look like to me that anyone who might have been interested in improving these articles have either been driven off the project by this type of activity, or perhaps don't know how to participate in AfD, I guess for now we must redirect and let any interested parties, if they ever dare to come back to Wikipedia, merge using content from the edit history. DHowell (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Considering the lack of professionalism and respect present in the meta-discussions previously mentioned, I have not attempted to create another. I do not presume to know that none of the episodes of this television series are individually notable; that is why I am attempting to deal with them individually, to give each its proper discussion. I believe this is the best way to "work calmly and reasonably towards resolving" this conflict, which, as has been mentioned, has been left unresolved and undiscussed for quite some time. I do not believe myself to be acting in contradiction to any guidelines; the guideline noted by DHowell suggests that AfD is appropriate in cases of unverifiable and original research. As far as I can tell, this is the case for this article. Neelix (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freeborn (film)[edit]

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

No notability asserted; furthermore, it fails the future films notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Thermonuclear Family[edit]

My Thermonuclear Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Racism[edit]

Father of Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted; virtually nothing about the film is mentioned in the article itself, and absolutely nothing referencing a film appears in the external links and references. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If the New York Times describes something as an uproar and if said film is about a notable figure, I'd be very cautious about calling it non-notable. I've asked the original creator to provide additional references to back up a film is actually in production. If this fails, I'd prefer userfication over deletion.- Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the uproar that the NYT discusses is never mentioned as having to do with a film - it has to do with flyers. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment. There appears to be no reliable evidence the film actually existed, let along passing Wikipedia:Notability_(films). The NYT article and two other (Spanish language) sources concern flyers and nothing else. Also suggest concurrent deletion of Taina_Mirabal as her only notability is through this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil153 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the film exists or ever will. Also Delete Taina_Mirabal whose only claim to fame is directing this nonexistant film. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussion in The New York Times clearly meets the requirements of WP:V. Clean up the links section, though. *** Crotalus *** 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no discussion in the NYT. The article in question only mention flyers calling him "The Father or Racism". It never mentions a movie called "The Father of Racism". Phil153 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MOVIE. This article claims four sources, but one (El Diario La Prensa) is a broken link, the one from the New York Times does not mention a movie (just fliers), and the Inwoodite blog post is just a reiteration of the New York Times article. That leaves just the one article in the Spanish-language paper from the Dominican Republic, which I don't think is enough to establish notability for an as-yet-incomplete film that is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per that it doesn't exist. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and democracy[edit]

Scientology and democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a form of original research. Most sources are primary sources, and the only meaningful points made are through how Wikipedians choose to put the pieces together. There are other articles for any useful material to go in. It's rather normal that religious ideas conflict with the ideas of democracy, and it would be a mistake to make articles contrasting each religion with a different political systems and ideas. This has the potential to be a good essay, but not a good encyclopedic article. Rob (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but cleanup; the German and Dutch govt./court decisions make this a notable subject, but it does have an OR feel to it as written. JJL (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there may be an article in there somewhere, but this one is a mess. Mostly an essay and seems to express a POV. I'm not sure about the title either. I took a stab at making the intro a bit more encyclopedicChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An artificial topic for an article, that also appears to be a POV fork. Political controversies regarding Scientology should be (and are) dealt with in other articles, such as Church of Scientology and Scientology controversies (particularly the latter). The topic is already a mess that has just landed in an arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Better to keep this mess confined to a smaller number of articles rather than proliferate it further. Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When i created that article, i did it, because: the relationship of SCN to democracy is more significant than the relationship of SCN to the internet or to psychiatry, since democracy regulates both areas in a way that displeases SCN... i dont care, if it is deleted or kept, but i wouldnt understand the reasons for its deletion... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't a clue of what you're saying. Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where some people use the word "democracy" to mean "everything good and proper", and attach no useful definition to the term. Please give the definition that you're using, and then explain how it regulates the internet and psychiatry. If "Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system", then we can happily say psychiatry and the internet are not regulated by democracy (thank goodness). Also, no major religion was founded by democrats or democratic principals. --Rob (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's pointing out that there are scientology and the internet and scientology and psychiatry articles and that this subject, is in his opinion, more notable. I think it's a good point and there are some sources to support it. As far as the definition, I don't think the article has to define democracy. That's not what the article is about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think it's ok to use a word without an understanding of what it means? Normally it's not necessary to define a common word. But in this case, the word "democracy" is not being used in particularly clear way. Everybody knows what the "internet" is and what "psychiatry" is, and it's plainly obvious how those terms are used in their respective Scientology articles. But the term "democracy" is *not* being used in Scientology and democracy in any way as it's explained in democracy. Also, there's been no explanation of how democracy "regulates" psychiatry and the internet, which is the entire justification for the existance of this article. Unfortunately "democracy" is an overused word, often used to mean "a system I agree with". For instance, the former German Democratic Republic used the word "democracy" to mean something quite different than how it's used in the Federal Republic of Germany. Opponents of the GDR were probably called "anti-democratic by the GDR. We might as well have an article called Scientology and goodness or Scientology and evil; as I can easily find countless sources discussing how good or evil Scientology is. --Rob (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning of democracy is best explored in the democracy article. If democracy isn't being used accurately in this article I suggest correcting it. If democracy is treated in an unusual or inaccurate fashion by L Ron Hubbard or Scientologists, then sourced content making a point to that effect should be added. As our elected officials legislate health care and internet policies, it could be argued that Democracy is an overriding factor in controling how they are used. That may or may not be Homer's point. There seems to be some media coverage of the church's views on democratic institutions, government policy in general, as well as on various government's views and regulation of Scientology.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's, for the sake of argument, pretend you're right about what democracy regulates: When Scientology faces comparable problems in non-democratic countries, would you put them in this article, or in another article, like Scientology and dictatorship. Of the countries where Scientology has had problems, which are democracies, and which are not, and how do we tell? --Rob (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ehm?! democracy: people go somewhere and vote for someone... that guy/gurl goes somewhere and votes for something then on their behalf... or: all people vote for a new rule... // surely western democracies regulate all areas of life (i cant knock at a certain door and force a certain inhabitant to shake me back and forth until i laugh; i cant publish what i want when i want it; i cant call myself a psychiatrist and shake my patients back and forth until they laugh again <-- people voted against that since decades/centuries)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and comment. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Talk radio. Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot talk[edit]

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

This page doesn't seem to be about anything in particular - maybe some small part of it should be merged to Talk radio, but generally it comes across as an fairly incoherent list. Richard Hock (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Best source uses term in "quotes". Notability insufficient for stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A format whose time has passed and only needs footnote treatment at this point because the current sources are few and far between. Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NmVac4-A/C/Y/W-135[edit]

AfDs for this article:
NmVac4-A/C/Y/W-135 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vaccine -- also appears to be mostly copied from the package insert. See also the other AfDs for similar articles. —G716 <T·C> 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge into one general article on meningococcus vaccination and cleanup. Meningococcus vaccine is definitely notable (see meningitis, which discusses its advantages in clear detail) but not all commercially available forms need their own pages. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per above Hard to find references to the given name but notable in a great way in it's non-scientific name. T-H
  • Delete Notable topic but non-salvageable content (copy/paste work). Don't block it from being created anew or redirected somewhere. Narayanese (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be encyclopedic, it has no in-line references and there isn't a good indication of notability. If it's kept it shouldn't be more than a couple lines about the vaccine. It doesn't seem appropriate to have medical information that isn't verifiable floating around. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per discussion of sensible alternative to deletion and to support consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find both polysaccharide and conjugate vaccines against this bacterium already covered at Neisseria meningitidis#Vaccines. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first 4 references don't support the text they have been attached to, rather the opposite. The picture to he left has a questionable license ("granted permission to use at Wikipedia", I guess it doesn't cover eg mirror sites). And the text still echos http://www.jnii-usa-bharat.com/NmVac4.pdf word for word. But I see User:Peter grotzinger is still working on the article, perhaps it will at one point in the future have some actual content. Narayanese (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the general article, per Uncle G.DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well written, helpful articles with new information and good references Kelly F.KL (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific name should be mentioned along with Trade name, per Scott D.SM (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not convince me that the product is sufficiently notable in its own right to have an article. (The text is also in need of a complete rewrite, were it to be kept.) I think it may be appropriate to include the subject in a broader article on vaccines, but I don't see the need for an article on the drug itself. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it the product may be categorized "Emerging vaccines for important diseases". Dana (talk) 9:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A vaccine for a Neglected killer Disease. KEEP IT. CH (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sennon[edit]

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

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment what the material on this series needs is a decent job of writing, starting over entirely. I'm not even going to say my usual keep and improve, because what is needed is a description of the actual books in the first place, much more than fussing about how to handle the background. The possible need for specific articles is for later. DGG (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. I was sorely tempted to !vote keep per nom. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge) even within the series itself the country is not that notable and the Age of the Five series is not all that notable. Little or no real world impact, "sennon" "Ithiana" gets twenty Google hits. Icewedge (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect--sorry if that sounds contradictory. I don't know this 'series' (whatever it is) so I can't decide if this is a likely search term (you all make the call). Now, even without the benefit of knowledge about this topic, the content of the article is pretty much, ahem, not so good. Hence my delete, if the search term is deemed not likely enough. I hope I made myself clear! Drmies (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The main article is short enough for a reduced amount of information on the fictional places to be merged with the main article. If no one can be bothered, it's still a reasonable search term. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Somrey has already been redirected and that the others probably would have been if they didn't have different meanings as well. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, if someone thinks they can show notability and wants it userfied to do so, drop me a line. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UDR Benevolent Fund[edit]

UDR Benevolent Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable charity, anything useful here can be in the main UDR article. BigDuncTalk 02:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rational, and the information is already in the main article. --Domer48'fenian' 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: I would not agree to this article being deleted as it relates to a major Northern Ireland military charity in the same way as the Army Benevolent Fund relates to a major UK military charity. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Hi Gavin Lisburn could you please provide sources which would establish its notability as a major Northern Ireland military charity. Would I be right in saying the British government don't even support it, or consider it at all notable? Would you not agree that the information is in the UDR article already? Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen evidence to show that the Government does not support it as being a NI charity, it is not required to produce public accounts etc. However, NI charity law is changing and the fund should become more visible next year. I still don't see any reason why it should be deleted and would recommend that we leave be at the moment. It has only been up a short time. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source that says the British Government support it. BigDuncTalk 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one that says they don't, but Gavin Lisburn may have one? --Domer48'fenian' 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only have some more information from the 'Potter' book source which I can add when I get some more time. If there is a source to sday the Government do not support the fund, then certainly please publish it. I do not have an issue with that. There are probably many, many charities that are not supported by any Government. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as it is none notable. It says as much in the Lead "Little is known of the make up of the Trustees," "It is not known how the fund is financed at the present moment." The information is already in the UDR Article. --Domer48'fenian' 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: NI charity law is different from GB charity law. Currently, it is not regulated which means that charities do not require to publish 'public' accounts or give details about their trustees. This will change during 2009 with new NI legislation coming into being. May I suggest that we leave be until the first public report is issued and we see what comes out from that information. This would be preferable to being placed into the main UDR article whiuch is subject to a lot of continuous editing etc. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDMApple[edit]

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

Delete Article written about a non-notable company written by a single issue editor who only writes about the company. See WP:SPAM. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--boy, the COI and SPAM is all over the place here. Besides, this thing isn't notable; a search shows nothing but things that are not independent, not objective, not anything (for our purposes). Drmies (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SPAM --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anthony Hogan[edit]

Paul Anthony Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.Schuym1 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sprouse Jr.[edit]

Bill Sprouse Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet any of the criteria for notable musicians (and ensembles) to be listed on Wikipedia. Daniel Musto (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not much there. I don't see a need for separate article for the band and artist. One not great source does not a stand alone article make. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the band's article was deleted... I think the artist and song have some notability based on being recorded by a number of artists nad evidence of influence and tribute beign paid.
  • Delete: nothing of note here. JamesBurns (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was very excited to find this article as I have early memories of Sprouse's song "Since I Met Jesus". I am still trying to find more information about Sprouse and where to buy his recordings. Jdz (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, if anyone would like it userfied in order to improve this, drop me a line. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Kyralia[edit]

Creatures of Kyralia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This trivial list of fictional elements does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. TTN (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge into an article on the fictional universe. We ned to try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail above. Just deleting is not constructive. DGG (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as Jay32183 says, merging will not address the fact that this list staggeringly fails to demonstrate any real-world notability. Including this stuff anywhere would be a gross example of putting undue weight on extremely minor aspects of a fictional work. Reyk YO! 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Real world notability isn't everything, something could be notable within the fictional world and still not be real world notable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both real-world impact and importance within the fictional world are generally necessary. Reyk YO! 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This describes a minor part of a world for which we don't have an article. So it's not a split off of some larger piece that can be merged back. Not verified and unlikely to be verifiable with independent sources (verifying with dependent sources is only acceptable to some degree in context of a larger piece of writing) - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I moved/ "merged" (I don't understand the history merge process very well) the information over to the Age of the Five article. If I acted improperly, please delete, revert, expunge, and slap me with whatever notices, warnings, and penalties appropriate. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep and improve. List like this have potential to be good breakout articles. This one isn't there yet. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cenarium (Talk) 11:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Patterson MD[edit]

Robert D. Patterson MD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable autobiography. Nothing in the article, or the external links, or a quick Google search shows any notability. —G716 <T·C> 04:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Userfy, sure) cause this is pretty blatant, and pretty clearly non-notable--just look at the references. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & do not userify, as I see no indications of other contributions, besides adding spam for himself to another page. DGG (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Commenters have provided several sources that have Pomeroy as the main subject and show him to be notable. The nominator's statement/question is now moot. Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pomeroy[edit]

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

Non-notable? MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. In addition to links provided by JulesH, there is also significant newscoverage[42]. E.g. this newsarticle[43] called "Dave Pomeroy Chooses Reverend Basses" that begins with "Dave Pomeroy, renowned Nashville session bassist and solo artist..." Pretty clearly notable under both WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cenarium (Talk) 11:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaydays(2008)[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. Unable to identify any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 05:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No suggestion of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would've supported merging to the article on the novel, but it doesn't appear to exist. There's not enough verifiable information yet to warrant an article on the film. - Mgm|(talk) 08:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the event this article is kept, the title needs to be reformatted to adhere to MOS. I'd fix it myself but I don't like moving articles that are under AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cenarium (Talk) 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Alliance Future of the Democratic League of Republic of Kosovo[edit]

United Alliance Future of the Democratic League of Republic of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably a hoax, or either extremely non-notable, I suspect the first though as the article does include strong claims of notability. "United Alliance Future of the Democratic League of Republic of Kosovo" (quotes) gets no Google hits. UAFDLK kosovo (no quotes), gets no Google hits. "Ismet Monjument" gets no Google hits.

"Democratic League of Republic of Kosovo" gets three Google hits, all of which are from WP which is suspicious. "United Alliance Future" kosovo gets three Google hits, again, all from WP. Icewedge (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of the additions seem to be made to sound like other parties. The one you describe (AFK, Aleanca për Ardhmërinë e Kosovës) was already on the list before all of the additions (link above) were made. The 25 or so additions all seem to be variations of an ethnic group running a candidate, from "Sunni Muslim Party of Kosova" to "Turk Party for a Better Kosovo". I think that a lot of the redlinks will, like this one, turn out to be unverifiable. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Gods[edit]

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

not notable; obviously promotional Gmatsuda (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 delete Nancy talk 13:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal Ali Lohan album[edit]

Interpersonal Ali Lohan album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. No sources. Ward3001 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actors for Autism[edit]

Actors for Autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor non-profit/charitable organisation. No independent sources, fails notability guidelines. Delete Exxolon (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I searched for reliable sources on this topic and found nothing: just the organization's own web site and press releases. It does not appear to be a notable topic. Eubulides (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much as I sympathize for the cause, the article doesn't meet our notability requirements. It needs improvement before we can retain it. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. for above reasons. A ntv (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - has anyone tried to fix the formatting and look for cites first? Bearian (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to look for reliable sources, and failed. More recently, someone else added poorly-formatted material sourced by Actors for Autism; this material is not worth reformatting if it's poorly sourced. Eubulides (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah; I did help a bit when the article had just been born ... see the talk page. Like Eubulides I was unable to find any info and so I just spruced up the formatting a bit. But in any case, the article now doesn't look the same as it when I left it yesterday. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements don't change the reasons for which I voted for deletion. A ntv (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O'Rourke (activist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joseph O'Rourke (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A possible non-notable person. I tried finding sources for him, but the ones I found were already in the article with a [reliable sources?] tag around them. If those sources are in fact reliable, I could possibly see him as notable, but I'd like to take it here to get a second opinion. Tavix (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those sources appear to be biased against him. Hence the lead sentence. The article itself has a CSD G10 feel to it. - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing any BLP violation. But if the wording is off or there are other sources please fix the article. Seems to be notable based on substantial media coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the further reading section added, there is ample sources to fix the issues I've seen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suppose this passes WP:Verifiability with the sources, and WP:Inclusion as well. I had some vague issue of this being not neutral when I read the article though, though I can't figure out why. Could someone who is more neutral than me on these issues please take a look at it? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic binary tree[edit]

Elastic binary tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be based on original research by article author, W. Tarreau, with citations only to his own web site. Also, no citation of independent, verifiable sources to establish notability. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's true that there are few users of this tree structure right now, but at least one of my open-source projects is relying on it and being used in many hosting sites, so I think the source is verifiable ; code is freely available and is proven to work. I decided to post it here because several people have already asked to me how it worked, and I found it more logical to complete the exhaustive list of trees on Wikipedia than to add this to random places. I could complete the users list later since I already have other projects using this technique with a lot of success.Wtarreau (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly original research. Also, unless its been published somewhere or reported on in the media, it does not meet either notability or verification requirements. Wtarreau may have come up with something very useful, but until it is published or written about, it is not appropriate encyclopedic content. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How isn't this published if widely distributed software already makes use of it ? How is it different from Red-black_tree for instance ? I'm not contesting the rules, I just want to understand.Wtarreau (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be completely different from Red-black trees for encyclopedia purposes, for at least these reasons. Red-Black trees have been written about in academic publications, including a book published by the MIT Press and McGraw Hill, and in articles published by Stanford University and San Diego State University. By way of contrast, the elastic binary trees article appears to be based on your own original research publishsed on your personal web site. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So you are saying that we cannot document on Wikipedia something which has not already been documented in a book ? This sounds strange to me, it would completely defeat the encyclopedia purpose, it sounds more like bookmarks then. Well, if that's really the rule, let's delete it and be done with it. What a waste of time trying to contribute :-( Wtarreau (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an encyclopedia is not the place for original research that has not been published. This is not intended to suggest that your research is not valid or valuable. You can read about Wikipedia's standards for original research here: Wikipedia:No original research. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have already read this link twice and still do not find any issue with this rule (otherwise I would not be here asking you to explain them to me). Perhaps the problem comes from the word "published". From the beginning, I consider this work as "published" since the code is readily available, and is already used in programs shipped with the some of the main Linux distributions. If you it is intended to mean something different, could you please explain how I am supposed to understand "published" then ? And last, what should I do for the article to be acceptable. Wtarreau (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia isn't a free web hosting service. The source offered is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. WillOakland (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK I give up. My intent was not to get free web hosting service, but to place the explanation where people expect to find it. I find it funny that you say the source is unreliable since I documented my work and it can be verified by anyone in publicly available code, and can be seen running in real software. This situation is getting ridiculous. I will put the doc on my site. I'm sorry to have wasted your time trying to do something users have asked me to because it appeared obvious to them and me since Wikipedia is thought to centralize knowledge on everything. It is now clear from all your sayings that it's just an organized collection of bookmarks and copies of already existing documentation, and as such, it makes sense not to add knowledge there, just references. BTW, please note that noone has tried to reply to my simple question : "what should I do for the article to be acceptable". I would have expected a more constructive approach from the moment the article was tagged for deletion. Now I don't care anymore, I have already wasted enough time on this. If someone else decides to document it again later, maybe I'll check his work and complete/fix it, but at least I will not annoy you anymore with this. I'm sorry to have wasted your valuable review time. I understand that moderation is needed to try to maintain quality, and that being mainly focused on deletion helps a lot for that. I still find it more exciting to create and I'm going back to do that. Thanks. Wtarreau (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Wtarreau: I am sorry you have not had a good experience with the AfD process. I have gone through the AfD process with things I've written, and I know that it can appear to be an attack on the value of the work, which it is not. I will try to answer your question. For an article on elastic binary trees to be eligible for inclusion, it needs to be written about/discussed/reported on in verifiable, respected third-party publications. It can't just appear on your own web site or be discussed on a blog. If every theory that someone were to write up on their own web site were to be included in Wikipedia, it would lose credibility as an encyclopedia. We can't just take an editor's word for the fact that his own work is notable and valid. For the content to be encyclopedic, there needs to be something independent and verifiable to establish its notability. Cbl62 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cbl62 for your response. I never took it for a personal attack, just for an obscure and unexplained rule I could not figure out. I really thought that it was appropriate to document it here since people are already seeing the code in programs they use, and occasionally asking for such documentation. I understand that my own judgement cannot be enough to qualify my own work's validity, that's why I tried to be as factual and neutral as possible. Wtarreau (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite, then delete if not citable

Perhaps the author could add citations linking to the source code that allegedly uses EBT's? I would consider that as evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs)

It would not be, because no independent reliable sources would be involved. WillOakland (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_11&oldid=1081103257"