Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 20 December 22 >

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 no consensus. Discussion seems tugged between merge, keep and delete. No real consensus can be divined from this. Default to keep. Protonk (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st Circle[edit]

1st Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about roundabouts. See also 2nd Circle, 3rd Circle,....8th Circle.

Per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Geography, bus stations and county roads aren't notable. I don't think roundabouts are either. -Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All as utterly NN Mayalld (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only 1st Circle and (because I moved it from Proposed Deletion to here) 2nd Circle are under discussion here. The AFD notice has not been applied to the other articles. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: 8th Circle was listed at Proposed Deletion, too, so I've attached that to this discussion. However, the other articles have yet to be nomniated. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment all of them have been on PROD, the ones you didn't mention were unprodded. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - completely non-notable and unreferenced. Also delete th e associated template. - fchd (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least 3 thru 8 Looking at the other articles in this group at least the 3rd through 8 are major streets in the city. Possibly the others are also, but it isn't clear. Please look at ALL the articles--some have major government buildings, and are in fact named squares. Yes, perhaps the city planners should have used distinctive names for them all, but that's not reason for deletion. Compare Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. DGG (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Couple of Options:
    • Keep and improve to the standard of the other Circle articles. This is posiible, as there are a few references out there.
    • Keep and rename to something like '1st Circle, Amman' or the Circle's official name (Abdullah II Municipal Square or something) as well as adding references and improving.
    • Merge and delete I believe it would also serve these articles justice to have one article (Amman Circle System or the like) with a section for each circle.
  • I really believe these articles need saving because at least half of the Amman places articles link to thems, and deleting them would be a huge mistake. Thanks and happy holidays! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 15:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. How about writing the article Zahran Street, Amman and merging all the "Nth Circle" articles there? I'm sure that street is notable enough as it has so many roundabout :) --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the aproach that I was considering, too. There's isn't much source material that I can find on the individual circles. What source material I can find on the circles as a group indicates that treated individually the circles, and indeed individual roads in the city, will be a naming nightmare, because there are a set of official names for everything, that (apparently) no-one uses, and a set of unofficial names that everyone uses, but that aren't officially documented. Best as an article on streets and circles/squares of Amman as a whole, I think. Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all possibly mention their existence at List of roads in Amman. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when all of these are deleted, please remember to delete the template {{Amman Roundabouts}} that interlinks them all. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. "When all of these are deleted" is a bit presumptious. I don't like that attitude, seven six six six one nine five one five nine. At the very least they should be merged as they are notable roundabouts. But definitely not deleted. --Balloholic (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Ballohollic, and I think that Uncle G has really made the point. My opinion: the circles have one article called 'Amman Circle System' that is not a list, that talks about the circles, their locations and, if possible, the history of the circles as a whole. Otherwise, 'List of Roundabouts in Amman' should do. Happy New Year! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and excessive Scapler (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non-notable. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per proposals - I am all for discussions, and the two last delete votes here disregarded the useful discussion towards a merge - which seems like a sensible solution to the notability issues raised (ie DGG's comment). I agree with the merger proposals, and suggest the closing admin gives due weight to useful discussion over votes. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:59, 27 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 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspard Oil[edit]

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

This is a hoax. There is no evidence available for the 'schools of thought' on Gaspard Oil, but a fair amount for a myspace listed band of the same name. Peridon (talk) 23:29, 21 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. Blueboy96 14:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona MacDonald[edit]

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

Member of a notable ensemble, but not notable enough for her own article per WP:MUSICBIO. Few third-party sources. Most of the info in the article is self-promotional and unsourced. Graymornings(talk) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Graymornings

I believe the article fulfils the following criteria from WP:MUSICBIO.

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable - the current draft of the article references the NME and The List websites, both established and independent publications

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability - the subject is one of the foremost proponents of the Shetland fiddle style

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition - The subject won the BBC Young Tradition Award, which is an annual UK wide competition


Stumpfoot (talk) 23:55, 21 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 (A3) by Neutrality. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was deleted under A3, but the deleting admin intended to delete per G3 (pure vandalism). MuZemike (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ginologist[edit]

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

Neologism. Also, the "creator" of the word also created this article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the history. It is only blank because the author took the OR and COI out and now there is nothing left. Sheesh. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just put some content back. Someone is really bored at work. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:07, 21 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 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aseer ali allah[edit]

{hangon} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffsmith1968 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aseer ali allah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims notability but only seven ghits. The NYTimes article referenced is actually on another artist. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. --Tone 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-speedy (claims notability) but both references are trivial. The first mentions him but only in passing; the second is merely a clipping from listing of shows. HeureusementIci (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's not enough here to demonstrate notability. (I wouldn't be opposed to speedy deletion, but I think the article is trying, poorly, to assert notability.) TheFeds 02:43, 22 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace of Marco Polo[edit]

Birthplace of Marco Polo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

To cite a comment on the talkpage: This article is a shame. A group of users is trying to push their nationalistic POV by systematically reverting all edits which they don't agree with and edit-warring until the other users give up. Mainstream history and most historians and primary and secondary sources (including Britannica 1911, current Britannica, Encarta, etc.) still report as Marco Polo's birthplace Venice, but this is actually hidden after a ton of badly sourced mostly Croatian "historians", bad original research, linguistic puns taken as proofs and unverifiable statements. This article deserves recognition: it should be used as an example what an article shouldn't be. It manages to show POV, undue weight, lack of balance and nationalist bias.GhePeU (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) The article is about a dispute about the birthplace but at most one or two sentences at Marco Polo article about the dispute cover the topic perfeclty well. This article is a POV fork and a source of heated debates that lead nowhere and are contraproductive for an encyclopedia and thus, IMO, should be deleted. Tone 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Where Marco Polo was born deserves at most a sentence or two in his own article. This article is always, by definition, going to be POV as there is no proof where he was born, just speculation. A nationalist battleground forever. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But won't deleting it simply move the battleground to the main Marco Polo article? Remember? There is little chance of preventing people from adding (sourced) information on the speculations about his birthplace, this is Wikipedia after all. The other side will then more than likely want to add its own POV which will simply transport us back in time. This article was basically created to keep these pointless debates away from the mainstream article. As you say, this problem will be a nationalist battleground forever, but deleting it won't remove the issue. Why move the battleground into the spotlight and destabilize an important biographical article? (I'm strongly leaning to Oppose, but I'll await your response first.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a POV fork is not a solution. And it is far easier to deal with battles in one article than in several. Noting that there is a dispute is perfectly enough and the encyclopedia is not a place where one would count arguments pro and contra. An academic debate should take care of it, not a WP article. --Tone 23:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article is not the solution, but it appears to be the next best thing. Simply put, if we delete this article, we're bound to destabilize the Marco Polo article in the same way, plus, since the debate will now have to take place on a mainstream article, we're bound to get even more POV-pushers. A decisive academic debate would be great, except there is none. The solution is definitely not to move the battlefield, its the elimination of the issue. Do you guys have any plan to prevent edit-warring on Marco Polo? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be sufficient references to call this a noteworthy fringe theory, so it's probably worth a mention in the article on the locale and the article on Polo using the first three references, but having an entire article on this gives it WP:UNDUE weight. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, or merge with Bosnian pyramids. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MGM's point is irrefutable. An entire credulous article on this dedicated to pushing this wingnut POV is not really on. Admittedly getting rid of it will cause problems at Marco Polo, but we can deal with that in the usual way. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here it starts... "wingnut POV"?! User:Moreschi is apparently suggesting we remove the theory and block anyone who tries to reintroduce it, which is quite unacceptable. Please note everyone: this article is NOT about the "Korčula theory", it is about the unknown birthplace of Marco Polo. All possible alternatives are covered in this article. We will probably never achieve consensus on a summary of the information contained herein. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't agree here. The article is about Korčula theory. It says so in the introduction, then tells lots about the theory and at the end adds some contra-arguments and criticism. An article about unknown birthplace would start somehow like The birthplace of Marco Polo is not agreed on in academic circles. While most historians agree that he was born in Venice, some historians propose that he was born in Korčula... and it would continue in this manner. --Tone 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear that the article emphasizes on the alternative to Venice, but that is simply because Venice is the widely acknowledged birthplace and the article must account for its existence and explain the dilemma. It could be that it is not fully balanced but that is not a cause for deletion. I do not think the article should be deleted before an approach is agreed-upon to avoid an edit-war and introduce an Admin-enforced NPOV version of a birthplace section. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we can agree on noticing the theory in the controversies section in the main article. Admins should take care that it stays brief. For my part, I can watchlist the article and intervene when needed. There is a paragraph in Korčula article, I am fine with it. --Tone 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per undue weight policy. Terse (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I've already put my point above, but in response to other comments, I would say that it is very clear that our role at Wikipedia is to acknowledge that there are two claims as to the birthplace of Marco Polo and guide people towards these by proper referencing. We need do no more than that. So the main article can say something like "traditionally historians have put his birthplace as being Venice, but claims have been raised that he was born in Korčula". And given that neither is apparently 'correct', as there is no conclusive evidence either way, we do the right thing by mentioning the two claims and move on. If people wish to look into it further, then we can facilitate that by referencing both sides. I think a sensible wording of a couple of sentences in the main article should be quite easy to come up with. If people then come along to fight about it, they can be reverted and, if ultimately necessary, blocked or the article semied. This shouldn't be that troublesome. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DIREKTOR, how you can possibly say this article is not about the "Korčula theory" puzzles me. If the heading was changed to "Korčula-birthplace of Marco Polo" the text would be much more relevant. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the emphasis is on the "Korčula theory" because Venice is the widely acknowledged birthplace. Everyone considers Venice to be the home-town of Marco Polo and the wording of the article needs to justify its existence. Also, a slight lack of balance in the lead is an easily-addressed problem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said it -"the emphasis is on the "Korčula theory"". In that case either the title is changed to something like "Korčula-birthplace of Marco Polo", or the article is rewritten to fit the current heading. It doesn't at the moment. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do not think this article is the solution to this problem, but I also do not think we here can come up with anything better. The problem is bound to move to the Marco Polo article. I want to go on record: I believe this is a mistake, the Marco Polo article may well become engulfed in an edit-war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per my comment in the Talk Page. As it stands now this article is unacceptable and after thirteen months of edit-warring and continual reversions to its current state I don't think that it could ever become balanced. GhePeU (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, then how are we supposed to "balance" a far shorter version for the Marco Polo article? I get the feeling some users are supporting this deletion in the hope that the main article summary will reduce the Korčula theory in importance. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Starting "afresh" at Marco Polo would be better than keeping this article in its present form, with its present title. How do we achieve balance? By vested interest editors keeping away from the article for a bit, while uninvolved editors deal to it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I hope you're right. It would appear we shall see in any case... I, for one, am more than happy to keep away from the matter. Truth be told, the main reason I'm concerned with this deletion because it may disturb the status quo and "draw" me back in. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as flagrant POV fork. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 24 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The On da Money show"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"The On da Money show" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Community TV investment show. Appears to have some web presence, but I don't see any secondary sources covering this; questioning notability. The article was previously deleted when it was The_On_da_Money_Show (note capital 'S'.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under references within The On da Money show article, there are three links to Local TV station TV guides, examination of which will reveal the show being listed by each of them as a weekly series. If you have trouble locating the show's listings, please go to http://www.ondamoney.com/programming.php where exact day, channel no etc. is provided. More sources can be provided if necessary but is hoped that the above will be adequate. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondamoney (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Finally, be advised I will be happy, should you see fit to provide more source info if need be. However, I am hoping that my above responses will satisfy you that my article now meets all criteria for inclusion within Wikipedia.Please advise. RegardsOndamoney (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS on the subject of notability The On da Money show researches it show topics thoroughly. Please find attatch photo of recently-apponted US Housing Secretary Secretary,http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/obama-taps-shaun-donovan-city-housing-chief-lead-hud whose opoinions helped form the basis of the On da Money episode "Brooklyn in da House" with the host of the On da Money show Aidan Doyle. We sincerely hope this goes some way towards affirming the notability of the show.PS I will upload picture to article itself: Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondamoney (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just uploaded several images to article, which include photo refered to above. I would also ask your guidance regarding the inclusion of the Staten Island Cable TV Videogramme image. In hindsight, it would appear to be promotional in nature, and therefore obviously contravene your NPOV core ploicy. Please advise me, and of course, if necessary, I will remove image past haste. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondamoney (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least. A show currently aired by [BCAT], my home studio has an approved article on Wikipedia. Hence my original premature (and subsequently deletion) The Show is Amos Tv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmosTV As I'm sure you can clearly see,the article submitted in respect of The On da Moneyshow across the board has more "wiki" than that of Amos.tv as well as more notabilty and source referencing. Perhaps, some time has passed since the Amos.tv original listing and your submission criteria may have changed. Nevertheless, it would seem inequitable approve the former and deny the laterOndamoney (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability as well as being an obvious WP:CoI. XenocideTalk|Contributions 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable public access program which could never earn notability beyond their local cable system. The HUD Secretary-designate has nothing to do with the notability at all also. Nate • (chatter) 06:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised the On da Money article has been further edited with an additional reference along with an additional external link. I notice the comments made above but am not yet familiar enough with the Wikipedia set uo to know where they originated from. I however,would like to address them. The show On da Money far trancends being a "local cable show inasmuchas it is broadcast throughout all five boroughs of New York City,the greatest metropolis in the world. Text of article and references go to great lengths to illustrate this. As far as the authors assertion that the show "could never earn notability beyond their local cable system", I once again refer you to your listed entry showm I would once again refer you to your esisting entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmosTV This show is minor compared to The On da Money show but somehow seems to satisfy your notability requirement. How is this? Finally, I am reminded of the story of Colonel Sanders of KFC fame, who suffered countless rejection before becoming succesful. He was probably told he would never achieve notability also.Please advise me the status of the submission article or any other information you may require of meOndamoney (talk) 21:22, 22 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Lambert[edit]

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

This article cites no third-party reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable person. John254 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Was tagged for A7 by another editor; article creator removed tag. HeureusementIci (talk) 02:28, 22 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. Nomination has been withdrawn and the article will obviously be kept given the trend of comments that note increasing news coverage and apparent total loss of the aircraft. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1404[edit]

Continental Airlines Flight 1404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'd say this one is a case of recentism - something that's going to be forgotten in a few weeks. Article doesn't seem to have any long-term value - everyone on board survived, and it didn't result in any serious effects to the airline industry or society in general. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Graymornings(talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Issues have been addressed - see below. Graymornings(talk) 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is significant as a serious accident and/or incident involving a commercial airliner. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this would be flagged for deletion - it involved 38 injuries including several critical ones, an aircraft brake malfunction on takeoff (aircraft incidents not involving pilot error are distinguishably uncommon), and the total write-off of a commercial aircraft. Considering there are many close calls that didn't even cause accidents documented on Wikipedia, you'll need to make a case for getting rid of all of these before I understand why you'd want this one specific one to be deleted. Generally speaking, anything that occurs in which over 100 human lives narrowly escaped death is worth documenting - and looking at the many aircraft incident lists that have been assembled on Wikipedia (categorized by aircraft, airline, location, date, flight purpose - commercial in this case, etc.), it seems obvious to me that this incident categorically belongs on Wiki. Please consider that the reason this incident is news all over the world is because it's not just some small airplane with a few people on board, but rather a loaded commercial jet.Gameforge (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Air_France_Flight_358 - Similar incident, yet there is a Wikipedia article, and from the photos, this aircraft will likely be written off due to the fire and severe buckling from when it went off the runway. Based on past articles, either this one stays, or the others, including the British Airways and Air France incidents, need to be deleted as well. Photos including clear ones of the aircraft, are available here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/airport_accident --Maqattaq (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Except there's one thing: Significant damage to the aircraft - When an aircraft is a writeoff (the post-crash fire makes this very likely as a writeoff), the accident is notable. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Airways_Flight_BA38 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the info's already on Continental_airlines#Minor_incidents. Graymornings(talk) 22:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: More information will come shortly as the NTSB investigates the accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, though, it's not enough for an article. Future notability doesn't equal present notability (WP:BALL). Graymornings(talk) 01:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future notability IS acceptable if it certain to take place. From WP:Crystal: "ndividual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." - It is almost certain that the NTSB will investigate this incident. Plus the destruction of the aircraft is present notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More information is coming out, and the reason to keep this is to keep the facts straight, in that we should list everything that they have ruled out or are looking at, including the weather, mechanical error, or pilot error. There has already been much discussion and speculation (they are looking at brakes as well as the wind conditions, which so far the FAA has implied to be a major factor -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_re_us/airport_accident). This is hardly a minor incident, as there were several major factors contributing to significant injury and loss of aircraft. These developments further support my speedy keep vote. --Maqattaq (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy WP:NOT#NEWS and essay WP:NOTNEWS. This is neither a newspaper nor a log of every brake failure incident in the world. Edison (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: This rationale is not correct; this is not just a "brake failure." This is "fire consuming half the airplane" - Just like Air France Flight 358. When the airplane is a writeoff or likely a writeoff, the incident is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Edison and User:Graymornings. Nothing to indicate this anything other than a crash landing. In the future if this turns out to have been caused by a significant thing such as a problem with the aircraft or with the runway, then an article can be revisited. NcSchu(Talk) 22:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with NcSchu - if the NTSB finds something major (definition of which to be assigned at a later point) then we can recreate the article. Otherwise, it really is not news. Mononomic (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Conditional Keep I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive. This page should be kept at least until a the NTSB report has been completed and released. If there is nothing found, then that should be noted along with some simple information on Denver International Airport and Continental_airlines#Minor_incidents. If there is viable data or information, then definitely keep this article. Mononomic (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • AF358 had its article created and kept before the TSB had conclusions from it. As it seems it is likely the NTSB will find something with this, as it had fire consuming half the airplane. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have changed my opinion. See above. Mononomic (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update from 9NEWS: "it could be a year before they know exactly what happened" [1]. Just another reason to keep the article around until we learn more. Mononomic (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The chances are decent that the NTSB will draw important conclusions with this, especially if mechanical failure is proven as currently suggested, but until we know such we should stop talking balls. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's already provisions for creating articles about ongoing events; we can use those instead of deleting a page which will inevitably return once the NTSB report is final (which should be fairly quick considering everyone lived).Gameforge (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable per the WP:AVIATION Style guide - Accidents notability, "It involves unusual circumstances". I'd say an accident that results in a fire that burns much of the aircraft without any loss of life is unsuaual. If lives had been lost, this one would have been automatically notable. - BillCJ (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Given the circumstances of the event, its notable enough for inclusion. Umbralcorax (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep This should be kept because not only was it an accident that resulted in a write-off, but also because it could be used as a good example for enacting proper emergency deplaning procedures. It is also the largest aviation accident at the Denver International.TXMexJunkie (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the NTSB finds any major problems this is a minor crash and probably only should have a paragraph on the main Continental page in the minor incidents section. There have been many aircraft write offs that don’t have their own wikipedia page. BA38 has a page because it was the first major problem with the 777 and no one really knows what caused it. Spikydan1 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You said "There have been many aircraft write offs that don’t have their own wikipedia page." - Many of these writeoffs need their Wikipedia pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the rules mentioned by BillCJ, I will take this one to deletion review if necessary. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE; the article is properly sourced, and the circumstances seem unusual enough to warrant an article for the subject. – Alex43223 T | C | E 03:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the Aviation Wikiproject guidelines noted above, the Airlines Wikiproject guidelines consider a write off or severely damaged aircraft to be a sufficient condition for notability. I highly suspect the plane will be written off, and even if it isn't, a notably burned starboard side of the aircraft, broken fuselage, separated #1 engine, and sheared off landing gear seem sufficient to classify the aircraft as severely damaged. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did they get that info? Websites can't write off an aircraft...Continental and their insurance company will likely have a meeting after a full inspection of the arcraft and decide what to do and who has to pay what. Then Continental will have to tell their stockholders the outcome of that meeting and then it will be offical. While it may look like a write off and may have the damage of a write off it is not a write off yet. Spikydan1 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - Well that web site cites the NTSB and Continental as their source. There's quite a bit of information on that page that doesn't seem to have come from the media, including the aircraft's tail number, the manufacturer serial numbers, and well as details about the crash (such as the excursion point on the runway at taxiway WC). This site is cited quite often on Wiki aircraft incident articles, and I see no reason it might have any compromised credibility.Gameforge (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 38 injuries (2 critical), no obvious cause, a 737 written off, and a major airport partially closed... that's clearly a serious accident. If you look at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which I regularly edit, and contributed to its dedicated guideline, this is clearly something for which an article is appropriate. I hate to veer in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if you look at the list, a large number of articles listed there are about accidents or incidents far less serious than this. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE and a glance at the photograph here Melburnian (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MCB's rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the issues that led me to nom this article to begin with have been addressed. Per the aircraft's apparent writeoff and the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the incident (and the fact that the article is now quite a bit longer, more detailed, better-sourced), I say keep it. Graymornings(talk) 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - probably a moot point as the nominator has withdrawn the nomination, but WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE is satisfied and BillCJ's point about the lack of loss of life for an incident of this severty adding to this article's notability is valid in my opinion. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:46, 22 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 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary Students' Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Queen Mary Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's now been more than a year since I tagged this as having serious issues; I think it's reasonable to assume that if it's not been cleared up by now, it's never going to be. I question whether an individual students union is notable enough to warrant its own article, aside from a few that have become major organisations in their own right such as ULU; I really can't see any way to save this. Clear out the staff directory and spammy promotion for the bar, cafe and fitness centre, and all that's left is an infobox.  – iridescent 22:17, 21 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 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpzone Productions[edit]

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

Self-promotional. No third-party sources. Very few Google hits. Only sources I could find on the internet were published by the company itself. Graymornings(talk) 22:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nomination. This appears to be simply promotional in nature. No evidence of notability—they seem to be a company that performs behind-the-scenes work at entertainment events like concerts. TheFeds 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional HeureusementIci (talk) 04:05, 22 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. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brats Without Borders, Inc.[edit]

Brats Without Borders, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A very light rewrite of copyrighted material from [2]; this, as well as the companion page on Donna Musil, were created by User:Wikibratupdates. WP:COI? Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our organization (Brats Without Borders, Inc.) and materials ("BRATS: Our Journey Home") have been cited on other wiki pages incorrectly, or not cited at all, when they should be cited. We were trying to correct these discrepancies. We thought this was the correct way to do that. There is incorrect information on the "military brat" page, as well. Please let us know the correct steps to take. Yes, the information is similar to the website - because it's correct. Would you rather have incorrect information in Wikipedia? The copyright holder of the website and the film are the nonprofit organization, Brats Without Borders, which helps military children and other "third-culture kids." We're not sure what point you're trying to make removing this information.  ??? - wikibratupdates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibratupdates (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do all the validation you like. Please do. The company is an educational non-profit - not a commercial interest - and has been in existence since 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.5.129 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one claimed the company was commercial. It doesn't have to be in order for the article to be promotional. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) Unsalvagable spam. Themfromspace (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is referring to an article as spam considered biting the newcomers, especially when the author has already made other related edits to other articles? MuZemike (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the "unsalvagable" part necessary, though? It's already been noted that it was probably spam, and this isn't a vote. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being unsalvagable is what makes the article a candidate for speedy deletion. If the article contained spam in only a section or two that could be removed but if nothing in the article could be saved as encyclopedic than it qualifies for speedy deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spamming is looked upon negatively in online culture, and the editor probably did not believe that her edits were "unsalvagable spam". Failing to assume good faith on the part of a new editor falls under biting the newcomers. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 23:39, 23 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. — Aitias // discussion 16:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater school (economics)[edit]

Saltwater school (economics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is based on a dated neologism that never took off. The google test of "saltwater school" and "economics" only generates 281 hits [3], and most of these are to Wikipedia and its mirrors. The term basically means "the thought of those economic schools that aren't Chicago," which isn't really an encyclopedic topic. At most, the phrase should be mentioned in the Chicago School article. Bkwillwm (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the risk of being "that guy", I've heard it around the office a fair bit, though I am at a loss to come up with a source which would cover the subject in depth. I'm sure one is out there. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Describes a valid term in use as shorthand by important people in the field, as exemplified by its use by Kling and in Warsh's book. HeureusementIci (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'I've seen it used in some books and articles which do not, for whatever reason, seem to show up in GScholar and GBooks. I recall David Colander saying that there's empirical evidence behind the division. The fact that one of the sources in this article is from 2006 suggests that it's not completely dead. Yes, it could be merged, but there are people who are going to search for this and want just an entry which explains what it is. Merging is a bit inelegant. II | (t - c) 21:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actual uses of the term are pretty sparse, and the few I've found all are in regard to the Chicago School. Considering the term is meaningless outside the context of the Chicago School, I don't see how this warrants it's own article. Right now the article is a stub, and I don't see how it could be much more. Considering "saltwater economics" covers all economics schools of thought in the US besides Chicago, the article would have to cover an unnecessarily broad range of topics that are joined pretty much by the fact that they aren't Chicago. If any unifying distinction can be made, it's that Chicago is strictly rational economics while other schools cover irrational behavior. This fact can be covered in economics rationality related articles (perfect rationality) and the Chicago School article. It really isn't a subject capable of standing on its own. Main point though: The phrase is hardly ever used. As you noted, it doesn't turn up much in Google searches. I searched NBER, and it doesn't turn up at all. In the few references in the article, the terminology isn't even consistent: While there is "saltwater," the opposition is variously termed "sweetwater" or "freshwater."
Aside from the lack of a positive reason to include this article, there are negatives. First, we'd be stuck with a perpetual stub. Also, the term might be confusing to readers who click on the link in a list or category of economic schools of thought and think they are getting an article on an actual, independent school of thought. Really, they are just getting an article for a phrase that encompasses all US schools with the exception of one. I think it would be best if we have a redirect to the Chicago article and discuss the phrase there. This way anybody searching for "saltwater school" would find an appropriate discussion of the phrase, but we wouldn't have to deal with a confusing stub.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of schools that this doesn't encompass. They are called heterodox. There are also a lot of perpetual stubs on Wikipedia. That's fine if the topics are notable. I don't want to see Saltwater school popping up randomly in rationality pages. It wouldn't flow. II | (t - c) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have actually never heard this term used, and prod'd it a little while ago. So I was going to strongly recommend deletion before I reexamined the situation. The two sources—recently added—convince me that this is probably a topic worth keeping. It is noteworthy when we have economists like Paul Krugman and Arnold Kling using the term. Last, Bkwillwm's arguments for deletion don't have me convinced. There are solutions to issues like perpetual stubness that are superior to deletion. Oh, and props to Protonk for being "that guy" :) -FrankTobia (talk) 04:40, 22 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. — Aitias // discussion 03:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Steinbeck[edit]

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

I guess notability skips a generation in the Steinbeck family. Lenerd (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. He has published a book of his own that apparently was featured by Oprah's book club. Article definitely needs to sound less promotional, though. Graymornings(talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think Down To A Soundless Sea actually was an Oprah's Book Club selection. From what I can tell, that profile of the book on Oprah's site is merely a supplement to their information on East of Eden, which was a club selection. But anyway, Thomas Steinbeck is still pretty notable. His book did get a decent number of reviews, and he has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors. He's definitely notable enough for me. Zagalejo^^^ 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Notability: An article in The New York Times says: "Despite his father, or because of his father, or neither, Thomas Steinbeck wrote an acclaimed collection, Down to a Soundless Sea (Ballantine)...Fiction is not purchased because of the writer's pedigree. Even a movie star's daughter can flop at an audition. "--Jmundo (talk) 05:56, 22 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 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feroo[edit]

Feroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SNOW and really not any content in the article.

Monster of Monterey[edit]

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

What's the Monster of Monterey? You wouldn't know if from this article, which was denied a Speedy Delete. A Google search determines that someone named Sharon Novak saw what she said is a Nessie knockoff in the Pacific Ocean. Although this was dramatized in a recent episode of the Animal Planet show "Lost Tapes," Google searches come up with nothing to confirm notability of the monster as part of the cryptozoological lore, nor am I able to find any reliable news sources that give Ms. Novak's claim any attention. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One speculative sentence making an unsourced link between one hardly credible account of an unspecified monster to another hardly more credible monster (but at least one that has had plenty of secondary coverage) does not make for any kind of article, not even a worthy stub. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree wih malleus. One unsourced, uncredited sentence that has little notability. Andy (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = Why was this denied a speedy delete, anyway? The Google search mentioned by the denying admin turns up a whole bunch of garbage. These are the first three hits on Google:[4][5][6] Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability is established, no references, only one sentence. moocowsrule 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong deleteDelete. (I can has snowball?) Per the above, I can't find any reliable sources that would elevate the subject matter beyond junk science or a non-notable hoax, and the article has (almost) no content. TheFeds 03:16, 22 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 (withdrawn by nominator). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Drossopoulou[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as it has no independant, reliable sources and fails to meet the criteria laid out by WP:BIO, specifically that this woman has made no significant concepts or theories. As far as I can tell, this woman is not regarded as innovative or important by her peers. Per WP:ACADEMIC, this article fails points 1 through to 10. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was marked for speedy deletion on the grounds that the importance is not stated. However, the work that she has done on the soundness of the Java programming language was very important and has been acknowledged widely: essentially this consists of a mathematical proof that the constructs in this language are consistent and correct. This is currently only proven for a handful of languages Cngoulimis (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure were you looked to make the statement “…this woman is not regarded as innovative or important by her peers“, but I believe you did not look at Google Scholar, as shown here [8]. In just the first two listings, out of several hundred, she is credited with 300 cites. That, in my thinking, is pretty notable. Not to mention a full professorship at a the 6th ranked universities overall in the world? Thanks .ShoesssS Talk 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per the comments above. I seemed to have missed the fact that full professorship is immediately considered notable when combined with citations. My apologies. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 21 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 Black Watch (disambiguation). MBisanz talk 01:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwatch[edit]

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

The original CSD reason was "seems non-notable (didn't find google hits) and more likely a hidden vanity page of a Michael Thomas", which was contested. Seems to be a case for a discussion. Maxim(talk) 17:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not simply create a redirect straigth away? Then a non-admin could close the afd as well. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwatchstudio (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 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 speedied A1 as lacking context. After a Wikipedia search, I was unable to find what TWG was to Wikilink it. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWG Class Guidance[edit]

TWG Class Guidance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsalvagably unencyclopedic in tone, and Wikipedia is not a 'how to' guide. –Signalhead < T > 17:40, 21 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 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bang[edit]

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

PROD tag removed; only claim of notability is a championship in a nonnotable wrestling organization. Unsourced. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 00:43, 17 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, Blueboy96 17:40, 21 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. — Aitias // discussion 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Arthagia[edit]

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

Book with no independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 17:40, 21 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 withdrawn. JBsupreme (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon[edit]

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

Delete as WP:NOT a dictionary. This is a dictionary article. JBsupreme (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A dictionary is for short explanations of a word. It is not meant to go into a full explanation and connotations of a term or word. That is what encyclopedias are for. This piece goes beyond a simple dictionary piece in that it goes into history - connotations and ramifications. If we use the rational you are proposing to delete this article under, than terms such as Socialism - Nazi - Evil - Height x Width, should also be brought here to AFD. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shoessss. The article isn't mere definition of the word but also its prevalent usage and laws enacted thus in relation with the said behavior and/or person. It needs cleanup and additional citations but not deletion. LeaveSleaves talk 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this easily goes past a plain dictionary definition. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be a misapprehension that WP:DICDEF means Wikipedia may not have articles about words themselves. This is not the case. As long as the article is – or can be expanded to become – more than a mere dictionary definition (in this case, as long as the article says more than "Hoon is an Australian word for 'pimp'", which it does), it is acceptable at Wikipedia. I would point out that we even have a featured article about a word. —Angr 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep passes DICDEF, like others have said, and it at least sourced a little, although some cleanup would be useful. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This goes beyond dicdef -- notability of the subject is clearly stated in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:01, 21 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. — Aitias // discussion 16:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marvin (actor)[edit]

Matthew Marvin (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've just declined this article as a speedy deletion candidate, and am putting it up for AFD here. The rationale was that the person does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep — Large role in a feature film alongside major entertainers such as Meryl Streep. I'd say that just about meets WP:ENTERTAINER but hey, it's anyone's game.
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER, as it fails "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" on possibly two different counts, the actor having played an arguably minor role in one film. I also don't understand why others felt that the CSD criterion "non-notable" person doesn't apply, since an actor is still a person. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The CSD criterion for A7 is not "non-notable". It is: "an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Also from the Wikipedia:CSD - "This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand the intent behind the guideline to be not to allow every person who has ever had a speaking role in even one film to be treated as notable. If this person is treated as notable, then that intent is thwarted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:49, 21 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. per WP:SNOW Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Terrorism[edit]

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

This one appears to be a jumble of original research, not an encyclopedic article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article is author's point of view of the current situation in that part of the world. Calling it "Pakistani Terrorism" is in itself a bias; there are no reliable sources stating that Pakistani government is supporting terrorism in India. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is pure soapboxing, with the single source being an unreliable blog. The worst kind of original research. – Toon(talk) 16:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Full of original research and the name suggests that terrorism is supported by the Pakistani government. Sharveet (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE yes the worst kind of original research there is. JBsupreme (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:SOAP, WP:OR--take your pick. Horribly written as well. Blueboy96 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR personal essay Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a personal essay on Wikipedia - not allowed. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as non-neutral, point-of-view oriented original research. Wiw8 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Pakistani Terrorists" might be appropriate as a list, but the assertion that terrorism is a state policy of Pakistan is unsupported. Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong delete as a POV OR SOAP essay. Is it too early to check if it's snowing yet? -- roleplayer 21:50, 21 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, A1 as an "article" (and in this case, the term is used very loosely) with no context. Blueboy96 17:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No401kMatching[edit]

No401kMatching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This can never be an encyclopedic list because there are possibly thousands or even tens of thousands of such companies, and whether or not a company matches employee contributions from a given year can vary year by year. By its nature this list will always be a small and arbitrary subset and probably unmaintainable. It will always be unreliable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:23, 21 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 ExxonMobil. MBisanz talk 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vistamaxx[edit]

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

Product of non-establish notability Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to ExxonMobil. That's all I can think of right now. Definitely not enough for its own article. MuZemike (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ExxonMobil as above. Far too short and lacking in notability to have its own article. Should be mentioned in company article. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think merging is the best idea when no other product gets a mention. _ Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 22 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 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vapor quality[edit]

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

Notability concerns Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to vapor. I don't think there is a need to discuss its notability as its a physical quantity, not a person or organization; but its too tiny to have its own article. Better to keep all tiny bits of information about vapor in the vapor article itself. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to vapor. I was waiting to find a better article to merge this to in regards with physics or, more specifically, mechanical work, but that will do. Definitely cannot stand alone as its own article. MuZemike (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly exists, and wouldn't fit into another article in a good way. Narayanese (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with vapor. It's probably not suitable for a separate article, but there's no notability concerns as it is clearly an existing physical quantity as a brief google will show. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems more than notable enough given the thousands of google scholar and google books hits for "vapor quality" and "steam quality" (which appears to be a synonym). While the current article is a stub that could be merged into steam, it is best to leave it so it can one day be expanded with information about how this property is measured, what is the typical range, its practical significance, etc. --Itub (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Used by (at least in the old days) the ASME steam tables. Reasonable term for a perma-stub on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 23 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 as the nomination was effectively withdrawn with no outstanding delete opinions. TerriersFan (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architects of Supertall Buildings[edit]

Architects of Supertall Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The user who created this page has recently been making many edits to List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, trying to include all of the information of this article. It serves no purpose, and completely unnecessary. timsdad (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Personally, I see no reason why this information cannot be included in the lists concerned. Can you expand on your reasoning for not wanting this? JulesH (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second JulesH's question. I see no valid reason to call the architects who designed a notable structure in any way unneccesary. This nomination needs further explanation. - Mgm|(talk) 16:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly the topic would be notable. I would point out to the nominator that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that he is not the "owner" of the articles about the buildings. Reverting edits because one feels that they are inappropriate to an existing article might be defended. However, trying to bar the infomation from being mentioned somewhere else seems a bit extreme. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating an article like this for deletion 4 minutes after it was started seems excessively BITYEy. There is obviously the possibility of significant expansion.DGG (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have converted this into a list and cleaned it up. Plainly it needs much work but that is an editorial matter. I see no reason for deleting a potentially useful page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading all of your comments, It's pretty obvious to me that I acted much to quickly and that there is in fact not much reason to delete the article. What annoyed me was that the creator was repeatedly editing the pages I mentioned before, ignoring my reversions and not opening it up to discussion. I do agree that this information is useful, and I have added a link to the article in the 'See also' section of the articles the creator edited, and intend to work on the article in question. --timsdad (talk) 01:49, 22 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 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskild Koffeld[edit]

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

Not a notable footballer. Plays on the second tier in Norway. Not a fully proffessional league. Rettetast (talk) 14:03, 21 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 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus Geohaghon[edit]

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

WP:PROD case contested with no kind of explanation by an IP user with no significant edit history. The subject is a non-league footballer with no experience at all of professional football, he only played for amateur or semi-professional teams in a level no higher than Conference National, which is not fully professional, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All provided sources relate to local papers, and do not actually say what the man is actually notable for. We all know local newspapers usually cover about the results of the team where they are based in, often no matter what level they play. I could technically provide you with sources for each player in the Sicilian regional and amateur leagues down to Promozione at least, and Prima Categoria in some cases as well. However, I doubt these players might actually be agreed to be notable for an encyclopedia article. --Angelo (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your concerns, I can't find anything in the "General notability guideline" of WP:N, which discounts the coverage he has received. Perhaps WP:N is too broad or needs more clarification, perhaps under "independent coverage", but as it stands, I feel Geohaghon passes WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not policy, and please note WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Presumption of notability is different than actual notability, and I think this case fits well with that verb. --Angelo (talk) 15:47, 21 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. — Aitias // discussion 03:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wratten 47B[edit]

Wratten 47B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable? I've put this under science, but it might better be listed under "product" Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should be listed under product as you thought. Anyway, I don't think this is notable enough to have it's own article. If we find this to be notable, then every other plastic used in optics should be notable which I don't think is the case.
  • Keep thanks to Edison's comments below. Some very persuasive arguments for notability, something I should have checked myself. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion, and by a quick Google Scholar search, as shown here[9], it looks like several hundred other people also believe it is notable enough. Nice, short, to the point piece. What more can we ask for out of an article. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 17:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst it is written about by many scholars, that does not immediately imply notability for Wikipedia. It is bound to be featured in loads of articles on Scholar since it's a commonly used plastic in the industry. However, looking at that Scholar search, none of the articles I look at straight off are about the product. Instead, they list it as something simply used experiments. If you can find a source that discusses the product rather than listing it, then I'd probably change my view on this. But as of now, in my opinion, I can't see any notability other than the fact it's commonly used. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree it does not imply notability, my reasoning is that the amount of cites actually bestows notability. If the item was not notable or under a different name, would not those individuals use a different product? Likewise, with regards to a commonly used plastic in the industry, isn't more of a fact that it is used as the standard to calibrate video, as the article points out? With regards to articles discussing the product, isn't the actual use in experiments and noted in the works, as you pointed out, a discussion of the product, in and of itself? notability is not how many words can be written about the subject, my contention is that the shorter more concise a piece is the better, rather is it notable or not. I have not heard any arguments to persuade me differently at this point. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are over a hundred filters in this series, all documented in standard handbooks; most of them have been discussed extensively in photography books and the like, & they for long have been the standard series to which other manufacturers refer. This particular one has major uses. By the way, I think the usual form -- or at least the historically used form -- is gelatin, not plastic. DGG (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's sufficiently notable, and could fairly easily be expanded into a worthwhile article. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not endorse articles for every filter made, but a recent photography book [10] says this and 8 others are "The most popular traditional filters for black and white photography on film." I see this as a strong argument for notability. Other books go beyond some science writeup noting the filter was used in an experiment, and in fact discuss this filter, its manufacture, its properties and uses, however briefly include [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15]. It is used in vision research and in monitor calibration. The article could be improved by including information from Kodak publications. I'm sure there is info in some of the Kodak filter handbooks. Edison (talk) 23:04, 21 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. Evidence surfaced that wasn't available during nomination. Nom. withdrawn Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conal Platt[edit]

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

Fails WP: Athlete and completely unsourced Skitzo (talk) 13:32, 21 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 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Patrón[edit]

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

Non-notable future album. Fails WP:MUSIC עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article asserts notability for a single that will be included in this album, but doesn't give any reason why this album is notable in its own right (especially prior to its release). TheFeds 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Forthcoming album lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:06, 22 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. — Aitias // discussion 03:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comics for Tomorrow Today![edit]

NOTE: THE LAST FIVE ARTICLES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE --Punkmorten (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously nominated cluster of articles about Kablam! episodes which resulted in a delete all decision and a merger decision for some of the episode details in the List of KaBlam! episodes article, they've been recreated and still have the same issues of unconfirmed episode details using TV.com articles, fair-use screencap violations, and an extremely superflous use of the Nicktoons template by an editor who doesn't seem to understand what AfD decisions result in. Nate • (chatter) 07:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional nominations within this AfD;
It's Flavorific! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What the Astronauts Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You've Tried the Rest! Now Try the Best! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Art + Science = Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
E Pluribus KaBlam! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harold's Glow-in-the-Dark Brand Butter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tastes Like Paper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Won't Stick To Most Dental Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More Happiness Than Allowed By Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your Logo Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Great for Paper Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NOTE: THE LAST FIVE ARTICLES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE --Punkmorten (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete db-repost. JuJube (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Recreation of deleted material that does nothing to address the cause of deletion. Graymornings(talk) 08:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per JuJube and Graymornings. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 08:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-notable episodes, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all, that is the five that weren't G4'd. I have reason to believe that they are not any different from those already deleted, so common sense tells us that they probably shouldn't be here, either. Otherwise, these episodes are clearly non-notable as their own articles. Also, very borderline speedy deletion as all copyvios (G12); all the information is almost entirely ripped from tv.com (while not verbatim, but in style and structure). MuZemike (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the remaining five articles for reasons similar to User:TenPoundHammer. HeureusementIci (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the last five, too. Similar to other material; just like the ones we deleted, these articles can't stand on their own. Graymornings(talk) 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - fails WP:EPISODES Mayalld (talk) 07:59, 24 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.  Sandstein  08:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units[edit]

New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this list for deletion as I believe this list is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I do not believe that it meets the Wikipedia:Notability inclusion guideline, as there is a lack of significant independant coverage in reliable sources, and as the article appears to fail the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically relating to directories and use as/duplication of website hosting. Also, in my experience, consensus is that there is not enough reliably sourced material to support articles on cadet units, scout/guide groups, etc.

The article in its current form is merely a listing of cadet units of the New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps. Location and contact information for these cadet units both duplicates and is kept less up to date than the New Zealand Cadet Forces own directory on their website, which encompasses Sea Cadet units. Events, night programmes, and education information is also replicated from the Cadet Forces website. Apart from this, the list is only a repository for personal information related to the groups and its members, which would be better suited for a freely-hosted personal website elsewhere, for example this website for Training Ship Gambia.

Google News search for ["New Zealand" "Sea Cadet Corps"] provides only 48 results, not all of which deal with this organisation. Of these, and of the websites found on Vanilla Google, the results are either Wiki-mirrors, unrelated to the subject, about the organisation as a whole, not independant (i.e. cadet unit website about cadet unit), or are generic promotional articles (which can be summarised "Sea Cadet Corps Training Ship Foo made their regular appearance at Local Event. If you would like to join TS Foo, contact...")

Please note, this discussion is not about the organisation itself. This discussion is about the listing of cadet units. -- saberwyn 07:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as it satisfies WP:NOTE, news articles directly addressing the topic with more than trivial mention: Sea Cadets keen to convert old building, ODT, Unsung heroes: Top officer dedicated to Sea Cadets NZ Herald. The article may need a cleanup/rewrite however. XLerate (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the two sources you provide, I do not believe these articles represent significant coverage. These mentions are not broad or significant enough to provide and justify articles or sections in a list for the individual cadet groups. Both sources are the kind of slow-news, community-interest story you get from time to time, that is only printed because there is nothing else to print or the newspaper wants to give its readers the "warm and fuzzies", and only of minimal interest to the local community. I could find similar newspaper articles from the time my old scout troop had its canoes stolen, or the time the head instructor of the swim teaching program I volunteer for was interviewed for one in a series of articles about community recognition, but there is no way I could justify a Wikipedia article on either organisation, as these organisations, like the individual Sea Cadet Training Ships, would not pass the primary criteria of the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) inclusion guideline
    • The other problem I see is if we ignore the notability inclusion guideline and just limit the article to what can be reliably sourced (as policy demands), we will end up with an incomplete list filled with random, incoherent trivia. Based on these sources (and I personally doubt that there are enough reliable, non-trivial sources out there to provide much more information than this) the list entry for one Training Ship will contain the geograpical location, and how much they paid to renovate their hall, while another contains the location and how long one of the volunteer 'officers' has been with the group and how awesome they are. Using these sources as the sole sources for these sections would provide undue weight to these events in the grand scheme of each cadet group's history (not to mention the undue weight of having some cadet groups listed and not others). -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the parent article New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "List of New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units": Once again, another good nomination Saberwyn, very concise and explanatory. I think if we make this a "list", then it'll just "do what it says on the tin". Some of you have probably seen me on the battleground that is AFD, fighting the scourge of "listcruft". Well I'm more willing to give articles about actual real stuff more leniency. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I try ;) . However, renaming the article does not solve the problems of not passing the notability guidelines, or the policy of only including verifiable information. As per Bduke below, turning this into an 'official' List or merging the information to the main article will either see (1) a bare-bones list of the names (and possibly locations) of the cadet training ships which will be meaningless and an out-of-date mirror of information provided on the the New Zealand Cadet Forces website, or (2) would see the same unsourced original research bloat the article until this is split out (if merged in to the main article) and back here. -- saberwyn 11:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I think that last IP's edit might have helped your cause ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not look at this in isolation. These lists are impossible to maintain. Editors, usually IP ones. come across these and remove, alter or add units from their own knowledge. It is is all original research. This has arisen with many Scouting articles that contained lists of troops and units. We have largely removed them. It comes up with Cadet units in various countries, Boy's Brigate, Scout Groups and so on. They are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Merging to New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps would just shift the problem to there. Some units are notable but most are not, so if we restrict it to those that have been noticed in reliable sources, we have a non-complete list. No, these lists do not work for us. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although some of the content could perhaps be moved to New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps. The Corps are notable, the individual units are not. --Helenalex (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was wavering in the other direction until I saw the recent additions to the article under TS Rangiriri and then realised exactly what Bduke means. The article in its present state is open to spam, listcruft and non-notable information. It would be well nigh impossible to maintain it in encyclopaedic state. Unfortunately, I can't see much to include into the main article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:00, 23 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) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

123mrp.net[edit]

123mrp.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for non-notable software. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:59, 21 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 02:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad To Be Live[edit]

Glad To Be Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, which I had proposed on the basis that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have never understood the purpose of this type of article. It's normally not really about the subject at all; it's about the fact that the inchoate subject will exist. Once the thing exists, everything in article like this has to necessarily be changed from about it coming out, to about the album itself. It's really an entirely separate topic and not normally notable. If it was then the article should be named something like "Glad To Be Live release date announced" and that subject should be able to exist either as a separate article or as a subsection of the article once it comes out. But of course it can't. It makes no sense.71.247.123.9 (talk)06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a non-notable album (as you would expect considering it has yet to be released). —teb728 t c 06:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With the release date uncertain, it's not even certain the CD will actually be released. Violation of crystal as stated above. -- Mgm|(talk) 15:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If It Can Be Improved. The websites announce the album to be release in late 2008. I had labeled it to be released in 2009 because it hasn't been released yet. That doesn't mean the album won't be released. Plus, links are links, just because wikipedia talks about a crystal ball doesn't make it true. Tarysky (talk) 17:37, 23 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 hoax vandalism Nancy talk 07:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Jones[edit]

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

Hoax; author made a change to Oscar_De_La_Hoya to insert "Jonny" to replace another fighter. Another site, [16], confirms that De La Hoya has never fought anyone named this. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:20, 21 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. SoWhy 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrokeNCYDE[edit]

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

No realiable sources asserting notability. Despite searching extensively, I have found none. Dendlai (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are either extremely trivial limited to mentioning the band name, or blogs, or both. I don't see how they meet notability. Dendlai (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but probably not if you are into that genre of music. Punk rock is by definition, not mainstream. Wikipedia has articles on virtually every band performing in the 2009 Warped tour. It seems counter-productive to start deleting them one by one before the concert tour even launches. If a parent is trying to find out, for example, whether it would be appropriate for a child to see a particular band in the Warped tour, it would be helpful to have some objective information about the band. I'm not saying that information is currently in the article, it's just a point to consider. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like Otherstuffexists. The fact is still that there are no reliable secondary sources that I have found or been pointed to. That they *might* get coverage by reliable secondary sources due to a tour they are scheduled to be on next year I don't see how it is an argument to keep now. Dendlai (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone interested in music, I would argue that any band lucky enough to be invited on the Warped tour achieves notability due to that honor. I also think that sometimes we have to take a stand when there are 2 forces at work. One force has been actively creating articles on the list of Warped Tour 2009. If you visit the page, you'll notice the list is almost complete. Another force has tagged this band for deletion. In this particular case, I'm going to side with the inclusionists. I understand this doesn't add to the merits of my argument, but I'm sticking with it. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 06:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the references given above:
Rolling Stone stub profile: [[25]] - trivial mention
Confirmed signed band for Warped Tour 2009[26] - trivial mention
Buzznet articles: tour with Jeffree Star[27] - trivial mention
appearance on DJ Rosstar's radio show[28] - not a reliable source
House of Blues tour[29] - you can buy a ticket for my six year old daughter's school play, it doesn't mean it is notable
House of Blues tour[30] - gig listings are not reliable sources
URB (magazine) article[31] - not a reliable source
Crunk Energy Drink sponsored band[32] - like, so what?
I have no doubt that the band exists, that they are playing on the 2009 Warped Tour, that they are an important, well-respected and soon-to-be-hugely successful name on the punk scene. I have no doubt that all the other bands on the Warped Tour have articles, that we're the real losers here for not understanding underground music movements, or that these guys fucking ROCK, like seriously dude. These references and the article do not meet WP:MUSIC. Delete, unless reliable sources are forthcoming. sparkl!sm hey! 07:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humor is always welcome in these discussions. At least people are spending some time on these arguments, and not just throwing a delete up because they haven't heard of a band. As a side note, I'm not a fan of screamo music and when I was searching for references to use, the audio clips were making dogs howl down the street. However, if you live on the West Coast, it is generally considered common wisdom that any band playing on the Warped Tour are basically gods. If not, it might seem like some random concert tour. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it meets the minimal requirements of notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:OliverTwisted. - Mgm|(talk) 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rolling Stone has featured thousands of bands across decades. That doesn't mean each one is worthy of remembrance. Hooper (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The weak claims of notability fail to meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability by having reliable sources to prove the band meets the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: JD554 and Sparklism put it well. --John (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article fails to establish significant notability, per WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: i still cannot understand why people are saying delete when notability has been established. Wake up people. Redvans (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it's obvious this will go to a third round of AfD discussion. A note I'd like to get on the record, is that despite the overly flippant comments from some of the editors above, URB magazine is NOT a trivial source. The band therefore meets the minimum standards of Notability.
  • 1 ) Non-trivial appearance in a major publication: URB magazine [33].
  • 2) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc: MTV's TRL, song:Under the Radar: [34] and Fearless Music TV on Fox: [35] Non-mainstream music does not mean not notable. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that an article in URB Mag would be a reliable source. However, the link given above is to one of their blogs - is this deemed reliable? Blogs are not classed as reliable sources. In any case, in order to meet WP:MUSIC#1, multiple reliable sources are required. I agree with the point that "Non-mainstream music does not mean not notable", but there are clear notability guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG - this band do not yet meet them. sparkl!sm hey! 11:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second notable source: Washington City Paper: [36] Also, while the general rule about the notability of blogs should be observed, Wikipedia is not a collection of absolutes. This particular blog is written by a member of the editorial staff of URB magazine, not a random blog by a fan. We don't just dismiss sources as trivial because of the way a magazine organizes their website. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every link is shaky. At first glance it appears that "hey this band should be golden they've got Rolling Stone talking about them" but you click on the link and its nothing. Same goes for every single link provided. All useless. Hooper (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Washington City Paper article is another blog entry, discounting it as a reliable source. Hooper has it right - none of these links satisfy WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 20:20, 25 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyeon[edit]

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

non-notable person ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the band is notable then so is the lead singer. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. WP:MUSIC: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Graymornings(talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into band article per wp:music (if the information can be reliably sourced which it currently isn't). Jessi1989 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a merge; sourcing probably should take place in Girls' Generation--there's plenty to do in that article. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--nevermind: there's nothing in the article that's not also in the main article. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 21 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. Per WP:SNOW.  Sandstein  11:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories[edit]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:FRINGE article. About a third of the length of the parent article Barack Obama. It's a coatrack that seems to attack the conspiracy theory, but is really giving it a bit of credence. Sceptre (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so why can't we have one on this. I'd agree that this needs trimming per WP:COATRACK, but that doesn't mean we need to delete it. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "What about article X?" is not a good argument. Whereas the 9/11 truthers have some sort of traction, the "proponents" of this conspiracy theory are mostly disgruntled conservatives and the ilk. Where WAX would apply would be to conspiracy theories about the 2000 election (and there are plenty). Sceptre (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference to 9/11 was just an example. But this article is fairly well sourced and has received attention in the national media. This article requires shortening, not deletion, - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 05:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we could give this due weight with a mention of a sentence or two somewhere near the bottom of another article. Putting a full article on this, complete with details on each variant and each doomed court case, makes it seem far less fringe than it actually is. It's effectively a POV fork where these theories are detailed in far more detail than we should be giving, or would be giving if they were merged in somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, delete later This article was basically created as a dumping ground for the various nonsense theories about Obama's citizenship. If and when all the court cases are finally settled, a small summary (as with the McCain article) would suffice within the Obama article. Until then, I do not recommend deleting it, as it will just go back to edit-warring on the Obama article. Leave it be for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately. Yes, a sordid topic that is certain to attract controversy and possible POV pushing, so would have to be watched closely. However, the subject of the article (conspiracy theories regarding Obama's citizenship) has received very substantial (in fact massive) coverage in mainstream news-sources and it is clear that it will not go away anytime soon. There is too much information here to properly cover in any of the possible parent articles, so a separate article is warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now But open to later redirection or AFD. There are a LOT of sources that need a closer look, and as a shameless fan of the man (never been a secret) I'm inclined to say DELETE, but the stupid idea has gone to the Supreme Court giving it obviously *possible* notability. But the Supremes decline a *LOT* of cases, so that is a worthless metric for notability. I'm concerned the article is a bad coatrack, as these things tend to be. rootology (C)(T) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not hard to file a case with the Supes: it gets about 7500 of them a year, and hears about 150. The Supes deciding not to hear a case, without comment, is not prima facie one whit notable. PhGustaf (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for nowReluctant Keep per above. It's unfortunate to maintain a page as a loon magnet, though. PhGustaf (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and be done with it - I was against this article's creation from the beginning, and only reluctantly dropped in on it in the last few days to confirm how bad I thought it would be going. It is a cesspool of all the tinfoil nuttery that was unfit for the main Barack Obama page, essentially a WP:FORK. Tarc (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject matter is unmistakeably a subject of continuing notoriety in mainstream media, and maintaining this separate article is by far the best way to deal with the subject on Wikipedia. This issue was discussed at considerable length at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Obama_born_in_Kenya and the conclusions there are still valid: the issue isn't going away, it is still getting coverage in mainstream media, it performs a genuine public service for Wikipedia to maintain an unbiased article carefully itemizing the allegations and their refutations, and it provides a place to redirect (and then delete where appropriate) a bunch of material that otherwise keeps mucking up other Obama articles. Moreover, given the subject matter, the article is managing to stay remarkably well-written and direct, thanks in particular to the heroic efforts of certain editors who have invested a lot of time to make this work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that the article is working out just as the guys on that thread planned. Good work; sometimes the best solution to a problem is the least bad one. PhGustaf (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. references are a clear indication of wp:n. Jessi1989 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to something like debates rather than conspiracy theories; certainly in the news now, and with questions also having been raised about John McCain and the canal zone it's notable. JJL (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a difference. There was no dispute about where McCain was born, only over the perfectly fair question of whether he qualified as a natural born citizen. The Obama stuff goes well beyond that, taking on the character of the typical conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although i think its a hoax and Mr Obama is a citizen, it should be kept on the fact that there is a controversy and it is well documented and the article clearly states a number of sources --173.102.179.194 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is certainly notable. I would prefer if the expression "conspiracy theories" was not used. I think "allegations" or "accusations" would be better. However I'm sure that this has been hashed around on the talk page and not something I feel like wasting time on.Redddogg (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yeah, the theories and lawsuits detailed in the article are crackpot, but as a political phenomenon they are more than well enough known to merit an article. There are plenty of other articles that do and should exist about other fringe theories. As long as the article does not endorse the accuracy of the conspiracy folks discussed (and it doesn't now, nor has it since its creation), a discussion about the topic is useful and encyclopedic. LotLE×talk 07:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is utter lunacy, but this is a clearly notable (though stupid) phenomenon. Grandmasterka 07:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided we do not have to resort to editing in blood to improve the article. Otherwise, this is plainly notable as shown above. Otherwise, the sources check out in the article and per above. MuZemike (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep. A widely covered and unquestionably notable topic. The fact that the subject matter is fringey is neither here nor there; we have an entire category of articles on fringe and conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First and foremost I believe that an effort to delete is simply an extension of the often repeated argument "it's all nonsense and nuttery, now shut up about it". Wikipedia should be a presentation of knowledge and facts even if it's something we don't particularly like or agree with... and sweeping a difficult issue under the rug out of partisanship is no way to handle it. Personally I would like to see the issue noted on Obama's main page, but it would appear that efforts to "make it go away" were successful there. Let's not make it go away here too. The subject is legitimate, it's barely even a conspiracy theory and it's as notable as anything else for an encyclopedia of knowledge. Jbarta (talk) 08:59, 21 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 speedily (a speedy close as delete, not a speedy delete) as obvious nonsensical article. Might qualify for CSD G1 but I think that the consensus here is reasonable to just call on the snowball clause. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fugly Goat[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Wikipedia's not for things made up one day. Matt (Talk) 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vandalism and an encyclopedia entry on an insult with a gold mine of swearwords. Chatting tone fits it in to the criteria for speedy deletion.Spencer Divonn'io the glorious (talk) 04:07, 21 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 Power Rangers: Dino Thunder. MBisanz talk 13:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and Found in Translation[edit]

Lost and Found in Translation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A random television episode no different from the typical television episode on television. I feel this article is better off deleted. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article does explain why this episode is notable. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But it explains it without citations and isn't as notable as the other episodes in a Power Rangers season. A format change for one episode of a kid's TV show is non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. yes it does but there are no sources to support this claim. Jessi1989 (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article so if anyone is able to verify it, it can easily be restored. A deviation from a normal tv format is notable and the fact it's a kid's show is irrelevant. Kid's shows are no less notable than adult ones.- Mgm|(talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no valid third party sources to demonstrate real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 22 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 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Yorkshire[edit]

List of people from Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was a sprawling list of hundreds of unsourced people (itself a breach of the incredibly important WP:BLP). I removed the unsourced content to reveal a list of, well, one person. The list was also a breach of WP:PLACE, which dictates this should've been a list broken down by ceremonial county (i.e. we should have a List of people from West Yorkshire, rather than Yorkshire.). Raised on WP:YORKS earlier in the week but no objections were made. I therefore recommend this be deleted and we start from scratch. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplimentary comment: I've been bold and created a List of people from West Yorkshire. It is based on the earlier List of people from London. If we create district level lists we can create spaces for much more managable lists, lists that can also be useful for "see also" type headers in settlement-class articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for a start shouldn't this be "list of notable people from yorkshire"... else you might as well copy out the phone book :) Jessi1989 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No - it already is a list of only notable people (in that all entries have their own article). Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions clearly states Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member (e.g. List of people from the Isle of Wight obviously does not include all people from the island). ... "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article. Mdwh (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy up. Standard WP:LIST-type topic, in fact probably more notable than usual due to the existence of books on the subject. I have restored the content for the time being, because (a) where someone was born isn't usually contentious material per WP:BLP (b) for many WP:BLP doesn't apply anyway as they're dead (c) some are sourced in their articles, which are linked; and (d) it would be ludicrous to remove people like Arthur Scargill, Dickie Bird, Chris Moyles, Jarvis Cocker, the Kaiser Chiefs or Michael Parkinson - people famously known as Yorkshirians - from the list. Although technically in breach of WP:PLACE, the list is consistent with common usage - when asked which county they're from, the vast majority of people will say "Yorkshire", not the constituent part. Black Kite 09:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't restore all the content, it's distruptive to the process. Yes some are dead, but many are not so WP:BLP does apply, and I'm at liberty to protect or even delete the page if you restore it again. Secondly the Kaiser Chiefs are not from Yorkshire, we use WP:PLACE and so they're from West Yorkshire. They appear on the List of people from Leeds anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:BLP - only contentious unsourced material should be removed. In 99% of cases, birthplaces are not contentious. Regardless of WP:PLACE, to say "the Kaiser Chiefs are not from Yorkshire" is simply not true in the real world. Black Kite 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say it is. If somebody wrote an article about me I would not want my place of birth to be wrong. But for example Michael Parkinson is from Yorkshire? Where's the source? You say in his article, well no its not. It also says he's from South Yorkshire. This is basic editorial stuff that we cite our sources - the onus is on you the contributor to cite your sources, not me who removes it (see WP:V). --Jza84 |  Talk  14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say it's equally disruptive to the process to remove every entry, just because some are unsourced. I'd also say it's disruptive to them immediately propose for deletion because all but one of the entries were removed, without allowing anyone else a chance to fix it up. As for Michael Parkinson, why haven't you removed the claims in his article of him being born in Yorkshire, as well as removing him from the category, if you are so worried about BLP and V? Mdwh (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. AfD is for discussiong the deletion of articles, not removing all the content from them and then putting them up for deletion. Black Kite 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed only the unsourced entries, not all of them "because some are unsourced". You have a chance to restore material if you cite your sources. There's no need to panic - WP:TEA applies folks. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not an issue since almost all the entries are to people with wikipedia articles where the notability issues can be discussed. The few red links may need deleting or they may just point to articles that need to be created. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not the reason for deletion, its the fact its an unsourced list that needs changing into four lists for West, North, South and East Yorkshire per WP:PLACE. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of those people were not "from South Yorkshire" or whatever as they were born before the creation of such counties. Indeed, some are from Yorkshire, some are from the various ridings, and a few are from the current counties. As such, any such splitting of the list would be very messy indeed. Black Kite 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It works for London, Manchester and Tyne and Wear. I respect the issue is complex, but a consistent approach will be better for WP in the long run. Afternotes about boundary changes can be added to the modern units. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a disambiguation page under this title linking to the various lists of people from parts of Yorkshire (as it is a plausible title to be searched for). Little to no useful content at present, and if it were properly done, it would be unmanageably long, so lets create list of people from South Yorkshire, etc, now. Warofdreams talk 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only got no useful content because the nominator of this AfD removed it all. Black Kite 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you noticed that most of the entries in those sub-articles, for instance List of people from Manchester are unsourced as well? Were I to assume bad faith, I could stub that article as well... Black Kite 14:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of such lists in Category:Lists_of_English_people_by_location. I do not see that sources are required to be inlined in the article, as in many cases they may be referenced in the person's own article page (although feel free to copy the reference across). To pick a few at random, I see Hilda of Whitby, George Porter, Chris Moyles. Also note that WP:BLP only applies to living people. Sure, I don't doubt that many on that list should be removed, but it is incorrect to remove all of them. I think it's misleading to remove all but one, and then propose for deletion. Furthermore, if there are people who shouldn't be on the list, then why not also remove or challenge the assertion in their own articles? Are you going to completely remove everyone in the category and sub-categories of Category:People from Yorkshire too? Mdwh (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The possible faults of other articles should not influence a decision on how and why to make this article better. If you read Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 18#Wikipedia as a source? you will see that advice as applied here means that references should be included in this article even if they are present in the person's main article on wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that each article should be as self-contained as possible. This is because changes in one article should not affect the status of another (which could happen if there were edits to the other article taht was being relied on to contain the verification for material in this article.)  DDStretch  (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say there were possible faults, I was talking about how best to resolve problems of source. This discussion is not how to make this article better, it's about deleting the article altogether. I can't see where that link shows a consensus that references must be repeated in the List articles too? Mdwh (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come on, its not really that difficult, all you have to do is not take a too rigid interpretation of what I wrote: You wrote that you were talking about problems of source in this and other wikipedia articles, and, to save space, I called them "faults", because that is what they are, especially if the material is about living people, or the article eventually is going to be put forward for GA or FA status: the absence of appropriate citations represent problems, flaws, faults, etc in the articles. It isn't difficult to see that, surely! On the matter of you not seeing any consensus, you will note the following paragraph in the response: "The argument that, as long as a piece of factual information is cited in the main article on X, we do not need to repeat the citation in other articles when we repeat that information, is (to some degree) valid... but it may not be the best practice. It really depends on the information, and whether it is at all contentious. If it is contentious, then best practice would be to repeat the citation (if only to avoid constantly having to say... "but it is cited... see the main article"). In other words... the citation does not have to be repeated, but it probably should be." And that is a close interpretation of the guidelines and the requirements that are often expressed about an article which goes forwards for consideration for GA and FA status. Indeed, the good practice seems to be accepted by Black Kite here, and as far as I know by everyone interested in improving articles up to GA and FA status. Note that the practice I have recommended does not delete the names all together, as they will still be "waiting" on the talk page until they are verified and reinserted back into the article. On the absolutely clear basis that it is always better to insert referencing as new material is added, rather than left for later (a finding which requires no consensus, as it will be common knowledge to anyone who has ever had to write any article anywhere that requires references), I think your call for being shown consensus is not as sensible as you may think it is here. It is just common knowledge that this will be required if an article is not to be delayed in its journey to GA or FA status.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • One editor's opinion on the matter does not constitute a "consensus". (And even he doesn't say that this is a requiremnent, just that it "probably should" be, although "it may not be the best practice".) Mdwh (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the matter of "This discussion is not how to make this article better, it's about deleting the article altogether.", then please see that I was showing how deletion on the basis of the list containing too many unreferenced entries could be thwarted by attending to a better standard for assessing inclusion in the list based on supplying referenced material. It is far better to talk about how to improve matters than take an overly rigid black and white view about delete or retain. However, if you insist that we merely give a keep or delete decision, then I would say on the basis of how it is now 'Delete. If, however, you are interested in taking part in a process that would improve the article, and on the basis of that process actually occurring now, then I would give a tentative "Keep". So, ask yourself what would be a better way of commenting here: black and white, or trying to hep editors render an article better protected against deletion, thus allowing action to be taken prior to the discussion being closed which might well sway the closing editor's decision towards "Keep". Of course, I'm ignoring other criticisms or the problems this article may or may not have.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list (before it was severely shortened) provided information a category can't (what the people in question were known for, WP:CLN) and the entries are verifiable (note the difference from verified). A simple effort to copy references from the listed articles would address the issue at hand. Also, deleting possibly fixable material before nominating is misleading. - Mgm|(talk) 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added the deleted material to the talk page (Talk:List of people from Yorkshire) together with a strategy I and others have successfully begun to use on a variety of articles (as described in the talk page of this nominated article.) I suggest that a useful way forward is to adopt this strategy here; and that those editors in favour of keeping the article, as well as other editors, can easily persuade all round to their position by working on the list in the ways I have suggested. I do not think there is anything useful to be gained by making this AfD into more of a dispute than it is already.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is a suitable method of linking people together by area. The problem of splitting up lists of this type is what time frame do you use for the split. Do you use current boundaries which were not applicable to the people when they were alive or do you use divisions based on the timeframe when the people where alive.
    • It is a problem I agree, but we should be using modern units as (per WP:PLACE) that's what our readers will expect and be most accustomed to. We can always add supplimentary notes about former boundaries in the list itself (indeed that's what's recommended at WP:PLACE). Nevertheless, this is an unsourced list. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the clearing of the list I feel that that is just disruption as 90% of the lists are in the same state, e.g. taking the List of people from Manchester there is only 2 items referenced, List of people from Thanet there are no entries referenced etc.. We have to apply the same to all of these articles not be selective to a particular one being fully referenced and the others ignored. Keith D (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - should not the title be List of notable people from Yorkshire? That I could support. However, under its current name, I would expect to see everyone and anyone who ever was born - lived or died there. That I would oppose. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean, but all these "List of people from X" pages where given standardised titles (I think following a discussion in 2007). Notability is assumed per Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions and WP:NOTABILITY. What I want to do is delete this page to make way for modern, more managable lists, such as List of people from West Yorkshire. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thanks for pointing that out, I learn something new everyday here. In that case, what is the problem? the guideline says “…try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list.” In other words just start a new list under the name you want. It just becomes part of the general list. No deletion necessary - no fuss/no muss! Thanks ShoesssS Talk 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have no objection to more specific lists, but why not then have this page as a redirect, disambiguation page, or move to a "Lists of people ..." article? Why not move the content to these new pages (or the Talk page, if disputed) first? I don't see why this page needs to be deleted in order to "make way" for new lists. There is nothing stopping you creating those new lists. Furthermore, if this page is deleted, then all entries are lost and we can no longer refer to it to transfer entries across! Mdwh (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and reference. The term Yorkshire is in common use and the page provides useful information that a category can't. Replacing the page with ones for North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire would lose information as these do not cover the same area as the pre-1974 Yorkshire county and so people from Yorkshire prior to 1974 but not from the area of the three current counties would no longer be included. --Kaly99 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically people born between 1894 and 1974 were from the three ridings - each counties in their day. Maintaining the current list not only takes it out of line with the rest of England, not only breaches WP:PLACE, not only makes a mamouth task of what could be a managable series of lists, but means someone from Saddleworth will appear in Oldham and Yorkshire lists - despite Yorkshire having been abolished for civil registration long ago. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and split into the correct articles. Yorkshire no longer exists as a political entity, simply historic. Just because some lesser informed people still refer to Yorkshire doesn't mean Wikipedia should reduce itself to this. The list would be much better split into the ceremonial counties. Some serious problems relating to Yorkshire on Wikipedia thanks partly to the now banned User:Yorkshirian, original IP editor of the article has a very similar contribs. A split would be a huge boost for moving forward with Yorkshire related articles on Wiki instead of being stuck in the past, excuse the pun. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Categories perform the function much better than lists. Lists of this kind are only valuable if they contain red links indicating articles that are needed, or provide some useful additional information, but we have none here. I am not a Yorkshireman, but would say the same about my own county. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete However, before deletion takes place, sufficient time should be given to allow the good work that is currently being done on providing verification for the names to be preserved by re-distributing the names amongst the modern administrative entities, either in the appropriate "List of ...." articles, the articles for the relevant authorities/towns/villages/cities, with or without using appropriate categories which reflect the modern authorities. The replacement of "list of ...." articles by categories is not cut and dry: the two have different functions, and the justifications one sees in the "List of ...." articles when they are written well cannot be reproduced in categories.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Yorkshire is the historic name, and that known elsewhere in the world than the UK for the region. A historic region is sufficiently appropriately for such a list if it's sufficiently impt., and this one certainly is. Lists can & should indicate something about the nature of the person's notability and this one does it very well. Id add dates also. The argument that lists are only valuable if the provide red links is not wp policy--in fact, if they do, they tend to get nominated for deletion on the grounds of inadequate sourcing and demonstration of notability for many of the items contained. DGG (talk) 12:33, 23 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 Suspension (vehicle). MBisanz talk 01:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lift kit[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NFT Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:21, 21 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 per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex sneezing syndrome[edit]

Sex sneezing syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. —G716 <T·C> 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided Not sure how I feel. I'll be able to make up my mind better in a month. Consider withdrawing the AfD and redoing it in a month. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the article is a neologism, but the phenomenon has been medically documented, including (as noted in a Straight Dope column on the subject) the Journal of the American Medical Association. Perhaps move to a more suitable title once we find a medically-accepted term, and rewrite to provide more sources and make it more encyclopedic? Graymornings(talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea. Care to be bold on the rewrite and recommend a move target? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! Graymornings(talk) 04:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm in the process of adding sources and info, so I added a "construction" tag. There's actually quite a lot of info on the subject out there. I've also proposed a move to Sexual sneezing. Graymornings(talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If the term was coined over a hundred years ago it is hardly a neologism! Geo Swan (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's still a neologism, just not a new phenomenon. Info wasn't originally in the article when G716 nommed it. Graymornings(talk) 05:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a real phenomenon. May I remind everyone that deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic, not on the current state of the article? Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've revamped the article from its original state quite a bit, and I think it merits keeping now. I say keep but move to Sexual sneezing per naming conventions ("sex sneezing syndrome" is, after all, still a neologism). Graymornings(talk) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable, verifiable, and expandable. Rename to 'sexual sneezing syndrome'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that an article's title is a neologism isn't a reason to delete. Any rename of the article (and there probably should be one, as a neologism isn't a suitable title) can be decided on the article's talk page. JulesH (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly encyclopedic subject, just the kind of info I would expect in an encyclopedia, somewhat baffled at the afd given the impeccable primary sources seconded in the BBC article. As article creator I have been very unsure about the title and would happy to see the name changed. I started it as aone line stub in the hope that others would collaborate in expanding, and this is happening. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above + Seen it in an Irish newspaper yesterday. --Balloholic (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has received a lot of news coverage over the last week, certainly meets WP:N, there are a few good sources in there for WP:V, too. – Toon(talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • *ACHOO!* Er, I mean, keep per the arguments made above, the multiple sources cited within the body of the article suggest a certain academic interest and notability. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not actually a syndrome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shows WP:NOTABILITY and a highly encyclopedic subject. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Wow. When I first saw this AFD and saw the article, i thought "no way this is going to be kept.". Looking at it now, it is a damn sight better than it originally was. Exceptional work by whoever worked on the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:55, 21 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 Marilyn Manson (band). –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black Bus[edit]

Big Black Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced demo. no indication why it is notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Strong Keep: I would say a demo by Marilyn Manson would be notable. [37] --OliverTwisted (Talk) 03:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:NSONGS: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Just being a demo from a notable artist doesn't mean anything. I don't see what makes this demo notable, so Delete. TJ Spyke 04:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a valid point. However, this does not appear on the main Marilyn Manson article, or the Marilyn Manson & The Spooky Kids article, so perhaps it should be merged or worked into both articles instead? This recording would precede the first major recording of Marilyn Manson, currently Portrait of an American Family in 1994, produced by Trent Reznor. This recording is mentioned in: Marilyn Manson [38], with the specific reference here: [39] --OliverTwisted (Talk) 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, NationMaster gets its info from Wikipedia, so I wouldn't use it to prove notability. Somno (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Merger into Manson's band article (changing from my initial Delete vote). TJ Spyke 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Marilyn Manson (band). Early demos, including this one, "revealed that the band, then known as Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids, possessed some real musical ability and plenty of interesting ideas, most involving sound effects and tape loops",[40] but I don't think there are enough sources to justify its own article (if there are, I couldn't find them). Somno (talk) 04:45, 21 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 Dreadstar † 05:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there goes a truck[edit]

Look, there goes a truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this is a hoax. Seems to be a video game. If Hoax, WP:MADEUP Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Looks like a hoax to me. Chasingsol (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Redirect to There Goes a...
  • Delete. Redirect not necessary. Info exists on There Goes a..., and "look" isn't really part of the title. Graymornings(talk) 04:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, there goes a hoax — attempt to vandalize Wikipedia by creating crap (i.e. bollocks) articles. Speedy delete (G3) as pure vandalism. See the "shithead" remark after the nom's signature. MuZemike (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this video is not notable on its own, the title is not a useful redirect and the article has no content worth merging. Somno (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced, probably a hoax anyway. Matt (Talk) 04:53, 21 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 01:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of social enterprises[edit]

List of social enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Topic is too broad. As per Appropriate topics for lists, lists should not be too broad. No country, type of activity, achievement or such category included in article title. There can be charitable or non-profit or for-profit social enterprises. Anybody doing something for the society can be considered as social enterprise. Nomination for PROD contested stating that this is only for notable enterprises. There are thousands of notable Social enterprises around the world. List does not add value. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unmaintainably broad and unnecessary. Graymornings(talk) 01:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above.*Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I could see a value here. We already have an article with regards to social enterprise. Why not have a list starting with the more notable. As for deletion in that the list is to broad, lets take the advice the guidelines give “…try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list.” In fact my reading of the guidelines I’m giving the impression that it mandates that we start such a list. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 02:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What would you consider more notable, that you have mentioned above? In the same line of thinking shall we start List of brand names, List of footballers, List of lakes, etc. A category Social enterprise is more appropriate, as the list does not add value. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you might have missed me saying start with the more notable. If an organization - company - enterprise - charity is considered a social enterprise and it is notable, as to our guideline, yes they should be on the list. I used the term more as just a starting place, not as exclusion or inclusion. notable is notable :-). Regarding the rest of your question, I believe DGG explains it better than me.Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If limited to those with notability in wp, I think it's tenable. A list can always add value if some information (e.e.g. country, dates) are given, and even without, it is no less valuable than a category. I think List of lakes, suitably divided geographically, would be a good idea. A list of brand names with n indication of what the product and the company is & geographic area and time would be extremely valuable--I hope someone does the work. But how are these comparisons--the problem with both is size, and this is a fairly short list. DGG (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the list looks like it just started. If need be when the list gets too large and unmaintainable. It can be split into separate lists from there. Otherwise, this list is doable. MuZemike (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. A list of Social Enterprises is best dealt with by our categorization system. As it currently stands this list is out of keeping with our style guidelines and has already encouraged inappropriate promotion by people using it as a directory to link to their favorite orgs. There's no value added to Wikipedia by this article that can't be better provided through the use of categories. -- SiobhanHansa 15:41, 25 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 02:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Scorpion Island (Series 3)[edit]

Escape from Scorpion Island (Series 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no official confirmation there will be a next season. The supposed reference is dead (I also doubt they'd release supposedly secret games before talking about the contestants) and since the presenters in season 1 were different, there's no guarantee the current ones will stay for a season 3. Also, the number of episodes vary wildly per season, so those are not confirmed either. Basically this is one big bowl of speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Also, season 2 hasn't finished yet... Mgm|(talk) 01:51, 21 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.  Sandstein  11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetísical[edit]

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

Neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Was speedy deleted earlier today and has just been recreated --VS talk 06:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Earlier speedy deleted per A1. Article still fails that criteria. Possibly the same thing again. Chamal talk 07:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The human brain and the English language are so wonderful that anyone can put two or three words together and create something new. However, it has to catch on with other people before WP can take notice. Redddogg (talk) 07:46, 21 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. Pigman☿ 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAC Airways[edit]

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

No g-hits. Possible hoax? Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:23, 21 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 Cigarette. MBisanz talk 01:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full flavor (cigarette type)[edit]

Full flavor (cigarette type) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced. Little more than a definition of a term. Furthermore, I have never heard of cigarettes being officially described as "full flavour" in the UK or elsewhere. It sounds a somewhat euphemistic. If this is a notable and established term, with a well defined meaning, and this can be proved, then that may be fair enough but if it is just a promotional neologism or an informal description then it is not encyclopaedic DanielRigal (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Okay I am from the United States and many American cigarette brands such as Doral or Basic are labeled "Full Flavor". Now some brands like Marlboro and Camel are labeled "Reds" and "Filters" respectively. Heegoop, 21 December 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete. Not a neologism - I've heard it used in advertising (I'm from the US) - but it's still a promotional phrase that has no inherent meaning and doesn't need its own article. Graymornings(talk) 01:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an orphan article with no references, very unlikely to expand into anything significant - just a meaningless marketing term like "farm-fresh tomatoes" or "ranch quality beef". The term is also used in Canada. Maybe, just maybe, it would qualify for Wictionary. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Doesn't even rise to the level of a definition. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tobacco advertising, since "full flavored" is just one of the many gimmicks that cigarette makers used to hype their product, kind of like those "finest ingredients" that all processed foods seem to be made from. If it turns out a keep (not looking that way) take some time to do some sourcing [41] instead of original research. Full flavored cigarettes don't always come in red packages, but that's Kool. Mandsford (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above or to Cigarette. In the US, that seemed to be an industry standard for classifying the tar content of cigarettes, which recently fell out of favor with the Federal Trade Commission. Notable because there's been a lot of litigation on "low tar" cigarettes, which recently went to the Supreme Court. Plenty of references show up that explain the difference between "full flavor", "light", and "low tar"; this is a good one: FTC: Tar testing invalid: Winston-Salem Journal, NC - Nov 26, 2008[42]. More sources:[43] My opinion is, if this wording is good enough for the industry, the Associated Press, and the Supreme Court, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Article should be expanded and merged into an article on cigarettes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I like the idea of merging. Heegoop, 22 December 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Marillion discography. MBisanz talk 01:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marillion discography (Fish era)[edit]

Marillion discography (Fish era) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Marillion discography. This adds nothing that the individual discography, song, and album pages don't. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Hammer. A few bits of trivia do not give this a reason for existence--even if it were better written and organized more clearly it would still be redundant. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already covered in sufficient depth elsewhere; possible to interpret this as a POV-fork anyway (I've heard the POV expressed that after Fish's departure the band wasn't really Marillion anyway -- this is possibly the motivation for creating such an article). Any sourced information about songs not present in the articles of those songs should be merged, but a brief scan doesn't suggest there is any. JulesH (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this isn't a "discography" at all, but an uber-detailed description of individual songs and lyrics that uses the "discography" as a coat-rack. Delete after merging any relevant parts into Marillion discography or the respective album/singles articles. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:22, 21 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 01:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Technics[edit]

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

Neither the article nor Google give any indication that this is a notable organisation of sci-fi fans. There seems to be no substantial independent coverage of it.  Sandstein  19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I was really up in the air about this one. However, after reviewing the guidelines under Notability and the way it applies to organizations like this one, as listed under 3.1 Non-commercial organizations, I came down on the keep side for two reasons. The first is that the requirement for inclusion states that “…The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. “ This can be judged easily by looking at their membership list and can be verified by the coverage in the book Science Fiction Culture, as shown here [44] The second reason is that: “…Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.” This again can be easily proved by this reference. [www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hard_science_fiction]. Tough call, but have to go with Keep. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in the cited book [45], the organisation is mentioned just once in passing as "a group of fans called General Technics who are still around". That's not the substantial coverage required for notability.  Sandstein  06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Online i can find only blogs mentioning this group, and checking print sources of SF finds only one mention in Science fiction culture, which just shows that at the time of print they existed. No mentions in 5 other SF enyclopedias: I can't find anything that makes them notable. All the links above are blogs and one con - being at a convention is not sufficient for notability for a person, and shouldn't be for a group.Yobmod (talk) 12:53, 17 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, Stifle (talk) 23:38, 20 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 01:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no substantial coverage, fails WP:N and WP:V - hopefully the organization can provide reliable 3rd party references, I liked the article. - DustyRain (talk) 16:24, 24 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 02:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Nicole[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with Mr. Vernon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickinicole (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unreferenced and, based on the current text, fails to meet the inclusion criteria. Also seems to be an autobiographic article, which is never a good sign. Sorry Vicki. Please don't sit on me. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Deosn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Matt (Talk) 04:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how all of this works, but why is autobiographical never a good sign? I understand the neutrality point, but all references can be researched for accuracy. Also perhaps the deinition for PORNBIO should be expanded as it's extremely limiting and thus excludes quite a bit of pornographic history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickinicole (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the current restrictions need changing, I'd suggest discussing your concerns at WT:BIO. We're usually quite open to suggestions of additional criteria. JulesH (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • thank you, i have just put my suggestions on that page per your suggestion. Vickinicole
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G6, duplicate of existing information. Mgm|(talk) 01:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zerosmf[edit]

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

There already is a page on Tupac, under his name; why one under "Zerosmf"? Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:54, 21 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. Nice job saving/expanding this one. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog day[edit]

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

No real notability assertion, but brought here rather than CSD because it's possible it could pass WP:V and it's been here a good while. Dweller (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article to remove the copyvio, add references, and make the event's significance more explicit. Please take another look. --bdesham ★ 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep following rewrite, seems like a reasonable, informative article. Stephenb (Talk) 09:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned after reviewing the article and I stand by my original opinion, that there's currently no real notability claim, nor is there evidence of coverage in independent sources. It's a student fundraiser with no apparent profile beyond the environs of the university. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 18 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, Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not normally relist after this level of comment, but the article was rewritten so I would like to get a little more contribution here. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still not enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To Alfred University. Likewise it is already covered there. Not enough notabilityon its own to have an article. But certainly enough, as shown here [50] that a redirect to Alfred University as Bdeshammm pointed to is a more than reasonable request. ShoesssS Talk 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is to be turned into a redirect, it should go to the town's article, since Hot Dog Day is not exclusively within the purview of Alfred University (or that of Alfred State, for that matter). --bdesham ★ 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Shoessss. Already covered on Alfred University; not notable outside the context of the college. Graymornings(talk) 01:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but generalize. I may take a crack at it. Lots of places enjoy hot dog days. Like Santa Claus parades. Could be a fun article. History - rituals - organization hints etc. But not with this very narrow scope. Please hold for a day or two. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Aymatth2 remarks got me thinking, which is always dangerous, and I thought let me expand my search criteria to “National Hot dog day” and got the following results Google News [51] a general Google search got these [52]. I believe there is enough there to get an article going. However, you do realize you will have to start from scratch? Let me know if you need a hand. ShoesssS Talk 03:19, 21 December 2008 (U
      • Expanded! - Not a very serious article, but now a notable topic, I think. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll say no more than to ask any additional opinions take a look at the job Aymatth2 did with this piece. Nice job. ShoesssS Talk 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm still not convinced that this is the basis for an article. Essentially, any day of the year can be "Hot Dog Day" somewhere. I understand that there are communities and schools that have fundraisers, and they happen to rely on hot dogs rather than pancakes or pizza, but I don't see any source that refers to "a hot dog day" as a common event. Were it common, it seems like it would be a natural advertising vehicle for Oscar Mayer or Armour or some other corporation. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article passes the notability test: there are plenty of references and several are about the event in general, not specific events. A light-hearted article will do no harm and will perhaps help people that organize these charitable events to get ideas. I doubt that the hot dog manufacturers would exploit the article for advertising purposes, but suspect (and don't know if this is good or bad) that event organizers will want to put their event into the list - so it could grow into a sizable index. At a more basic level, deleting "Hot dog day" seems to me a bit like deleting Motherhood and Apple pie. Norman Rockwell would roll in his grave. My instinct is to look for ways to improve the article rather than find reasons to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but still looks like a collection of non notable local days, with no really reliable sourcing in it. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sort of agree, and sort of agree with Mandsford, although the sourcing is probably good enough: no reason to doubt its accuracy. See latest minor revision to intro, rephrased to make the article about hot dog days, not Hot Dog Day. There really is no Hot Dog Day, whatever the National Hot Dog & Sausage Council says. But a lot of groups organize hot dog days, and these are what the article describes - a type of social activity similar to Fete or Kermesse. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess I've neglected to actually vote until now… bdesham ★ 17:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep — third time's a charm! MuZemike (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur - switching to Keep (at last) too. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 23 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Baron[edit]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:56, 16 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, Stifle (talk) 00:21, 21 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 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic x[edit]

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

Although google shows that a comic x does exist, it is not the one mentioned in the article. I found no one connected with that website named Liam Glasson and I (witht eh help of google) i don't belive Roast Beef Publishing Ltd. exists. this article is most likely a hoax created by the user who added the article, oblivLIAM1. peace! Ryan shell (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Ryan, I have googled all the key words in this short article and there appears to be nothing findable using google that really corresponds with this. It appears to be a hoax. Invertzoo (talk) 21:36, 21 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_21&oldid=1081103384"