Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtown, Dublin[edit]

Many roads here lack pavements. I'm sure they do but that does not make it notable. A railway passes through the area. Does every square metre in the world that has a railway pass by occasionally get an article? Near a road that goes to Navan indeed you might say of all places. Says it all. There isn't even anything else worth mentioning in the article. The roads are bad, a railway goes through it (probably very quickly) and it goes to Navan. More likely it is notable as being an escape route from Navan. Balloholic (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for its moss and much else besides. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Where exactly is the connection with moss in that link? --Balloholic (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a notable place. It's had its own railway station for more than 100 years. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As railway has been in existence for more than 100 years that is hardly a valid point. Lots of nooks and crannies have had railways for the same period and not much else. If each is notable it would seem to lower the overall notability of railways by suggesting that every single one is worthy of mention never mind the avenue where it is located. --Balloholic (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question it is not clear to me what the jurisdictional status of this & the other two locations might be: In terms of the Local Government Act 2001, is it a "Town: The remaining town authorities, formerly known as urban districts or towns with town commissioners, were all redesignated as towns" that elects a Town council? If it has a Council of it's own, it is a separate jurisdictional unit, and intrinsically notable. Or is it a Local Election Area, which just elects a representative to a council? In that case it probably would not be notable, unless there wa something special. It seems to be more than a mere neighborhood, whose notability varies. Is it a region known historically by the name, or a contemporary artificial construct? It does not necessarily matter how good the roads are, or the other environmental factors; if it is, or is about to be, a separate jurisdiction, it is as notable as if it were a village geographically isolated separate from Dublin. If not, it depends. Not every p[art of a city where there is a railroad station is a separate locality , though most of them are. DGG (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a separate village. The name Ashtown is relatively new as can be told by its components. Old Irish names don't tend to be composed of two English words, they tend to be translations of words like baile or rath. It is clear it is a newly expanded part of the city which thinks it has a bigger place in the world. --Balloholic (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is not a vote. A proper opinion is requested. It sounds like some sort of ganging up against the nominator. Don't follow the leader. --Balloholic (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Balloholic. Please do not strike out other editor's comments. Your feelings on whether or not their argument has validity is irrelevant. Leave it to the closing admin to decide whether or not to ignore them. Trusilver 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Everything I've read about this suggests that it is a non-notable district of a larger, more notable region. I see nothing that warrants it's own article. Trusilver 09:39, 28 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 14:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstown, Dublin[edit]

A plan. States that it is a town yet immediately contradicts itself by saying it yet has to be granted "town status" and may never be. "Development plan" section starts off with "It is intended" which typifies the article really. Littered with phrases such as "plans to expand", "being put in place" "will be" and "no date has been set". Everything is going to be happening here in the future, nothing is definite and certainly nothing is happening right now. This is even worse than the non-notable Dublin alleyway tourist attractions that exist already - it's for the tourists who are planning to come to Dublin at a later date! It's more like religion or a philosophical dream than an encyclopedic entry. On top of this it has the cheek to not even offer a reference to the person who came up with this fantasyland. Balloholic (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is an adequate source which should have been found before nomination per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Source discusses the possibilities of a planned town. Many such plans exist and never come to fruition. Philosophical CRYSTALBALLING I'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are houses built in the area, and it has its own football club and local council. It exists. I believe that it is notable, and that all such suburbs/districts are notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment any area can have houses. I live in a house. My area is not on wikipedia and I don't think it would be notable for what we are trying to achieve on this project. Having some houses does not make it meet the notability criteria I'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any area can have its own football club. I believe these are very popular in the UK and that there are also many in Dublin. There is even one down the road from me. However I would not suggest that my area in notable for having some football clubs. The club in question is amateur - there are barely a dozen semi-pro clubs in Ireland as it is. There is nothing to suggest that it is little more than a schoolboy club either. --Balloholic (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden, Richard Cavell. Edward321 (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Their mythical arguments have been debunked i'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per editors reasoning above. travb (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have very clearly stated the holes in those flawed flawed arguments. You obviously aren't paying attention.--Balloholic (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Even proposed towns or topics can be notable provided there are adequate sources about them. Just because something is proposed doesn't in itself violate WP:CRYSTAL. --Oakshade (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the foundation stone has been laid http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/?c=ireland&jp=kfididkfeysn Scaldi (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think one stone will make a blind bit of difference. Lots of stones will be lain and never built upon. Especially the way the building trade is going with the recession we have to be careful what sort of buildings and towns we're licensing. There is no proof these ever exist. Someone could just as easily dig out one saying the Adamstown has had to be cancelled because of the bankers and a lack of funding for developers. On top of all this there are a lot of ifs and buts and should haves about that article. Very like a CRYSTALBALL. --Balloholic (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Adamstown is not just notable because it as another large housing development in Dublin. It is notable because it was the first scheme to be built as a Special Development Zone (SDZ). This means that (for once in Ireland), the planning is joined up. The schools, shops, and other facilities are being built in tandem with the phases of the housing. A new transport link was also built (direct to Heuston Station), complete with train turntable. There is no crystal balling involved, the first phases of the the houses/apartments are finished and occupied, as are the first primary schools, and the rail link. The development is ongoing. I'm surprised this was even nominated. Snappy (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does anyone else find it uncivil that the nominator makes sarcastic and patronising comments to anyone who votes against the nomination? Every editor has a right to vote whatever way they like, and this vote should be respected. The comments and tone of User:Balloholic certainly leave a lot to be desired, e.g. "Their mythical arguments have been debunked". Because someone disagrees with you, there is no need to be uncivil. Snappy (talk) 08:19, 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 keep. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 14:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phibsboro[edit]

Article gives an indication that it is near one or two notable places. But being near isn't much use. Being there would be better and serve to be proper notable. It is "served by several forms of public transport including several routes of Dublin Bus and by the Dublin Suburban railway system" - what in Dublin or Ireland or the world isn't? Being two kilometres from Croke Park or a river doesn't help much. How about if they were actually there? One or two "traditional pubs" - I'm sure there's many's a village is Ireland that has at least three or four such pubs. There are plans to build a hospital. It is near another hospital. The government has more plans. All plans. It's a bit Crystalballish I'd think especially considering the government are cutting back and there is a recession. A sports team are located here but are soon moving away. Sums it all up really. An area that has nothing going for it. Its neighbours get everything. Balloholic (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as all villages are notable, so is any distinct political region, or a region that is close to that status. For neighborhoods, its worth arguing--I would want to discuss whether this is in fact a recognizedor historic neighborhood. DGG (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per long-established concensus, real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It describes itself as very near a lot of things notable in their own right. Yet it has nothing worth mentioning for itself. If all the nears were removed we would have a line saying it is a place in Dublin. There would be no other way of establishing notability. --Balloholic (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and historical area of Dublin. Snappy (talk) 08:02, 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 keep. John254 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled dragon[edit]

An article over a prank in order to promote a novel. Delete as a hoax. Tavix (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a hoax, it's an article about a hoax. Articles about notable hoaxes are perfectly acceptable, and I believe this one is notable. See: [1], [2], [3] LinguistAtLarge 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep If it is a notable hoax, then there should be an article, but thestories cited above are just very barely enough to convince me of any significant notability. DGG (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the multiple nontrivial mentions of the hoax, and the article's non-hoax status. HeureusementIci (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you are just collaborating with some fraud's self-publicizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronglostboy (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 December 2008
Keep Article deals with the matter in a neutral manner and is not a hoax in itself. Notable enough to me. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 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 G1 speedy by TerriersFan. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooba Shiggly[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictonary. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. Peridon (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Speedy delete Nonsense, should be CSD not AFD. FlyingToaster 21:16, 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 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Waite[edit]

Neologism. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Use in a comic strip can't be regarded as prevalent use. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:44, 26 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 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time is grainy[edit]

Non-notable fringe theory, WP:SOAP might be relevant here. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Space-time#Quantized_spacetime. The single source given in the article might be useful there, even if none of the text is salvageable. I'd hang on to the resulting redirect as it seems like a plausible search term. Reyk _YO! 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 'Space-time#Quantized spacetime'. I don't think this theory is new, or in any way distinct from that old argument. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article as it stands lacks suitable references, and the final sentence practically screams WP:HOAX. Although quantized spacetime is a legitimate theory, "Time is grainy" is not. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even any real information in the article. It only briefly mentions the history of theory with no explanation of it. Not what I would call quality Wikipedia stuff. Swiftek (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. It is not clear that the astrophysicist mentioned, Richard Lieu, actually proposes spacetime graininess in the publication mentioned ("The effect of Planck-scale spacetime fluctuations on Lorentz invariance at extreme speeds". Richard Lieu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Volume 568, issue 2, pages L67–L70, April 2002). What he does is point out an effect that must be manifest if quantum spacetime is real. There is no evidence of the claim in the article that that the concept of quantized spacetime "gained a wider appreciation" by this publication: the title of the publication has 7 Google hits only,[4] and no citations are found using Google scholar so it has not been widely cited. In a later article the same author argues against the existence of such Planck-scale spacetime fluctuations, at least to first order ("The phase coherence of light from extragalactic sources: direct evidence against first-order Planck-scale fluctuations in time and space". Richard Lieu and Lloyd W. Hillman, The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Volume 585, issue 2, pages L77–L80, March 2003). The article title is imho not a plausible search term. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 14:40, 28 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, G3 (obvious hoax). Author warned with {{uw-hoax}}. Blueboy 96 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Keusch[edit]

The sole reference cited, IMDB, does not link to this film, if it exists, because a Google search finds, er, nothing. My guess is that it's a hoax. Rodhull andemu 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I am bordering on speedy delete as an attack on the person named. Agathoclea (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No good refs, nothing on a basic search. Res 2216 firestar 19:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no google references, very questionable notability, uses imdb link to different movie, imdb's page for Michael Worth (II) who is supposedly in this movie shows no reference to a movie called Stefan Keusch from 1978. If it is below the IMDB's threshold of notability, it's probably below ours too. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the link provided goes the 2005 film Dual which has all other detail the same apart from the name of the maincharacter. Agathoclea (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this article looks strangely like a cut & paste copy of that one, with the name changed. WP:SNOW anyone? --Rodhull andemu 20:31, 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 17:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger (Amy Winehouse album)[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already said a million of times, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. ROGER CHOCODILES 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless sourced immediately.--J. F. Mam J. Jason Dee (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came here intending to add "Keep - I've added a source", but I can't find a source so now it's a delete. Astronaut (talk) 14:36, 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 speedy delete. Unverifiable article by known hoaxer. See discussion. Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network and Nicktoons Clash with the humans[edit]

Article does not establish notability or even if the game exists given such a long leadtime. Reads like a hoax to me given the title alone. treelo _radda 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the nom, it looks like a copypaste of Nicktoons: Globs of Doom and its talkpage with a few elements changed. treelo _radda 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me of a very similar hoax (Cartoon Network / Nicktoons crossover game) which showed up here a few weeks ago, but I can't place it. Any case, this sort of thing comes up pretty often and it's pretty obviously a hoax this time around given the lack of sources (and lack of Google-ability). Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this.. I recently deleted Nicktoons: Clash of the Ancients after a conclusive AFD. If all their contributions are hoaxes, I'll drop in a vandalism block. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 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 speedy delete, G11 (blatant advertising), without prejudice to recreation by someone unrelated to the subject. The article's author was HouseofL (talk · contribs), whose username is an exact match to the organization promoting this pageant. Blueboy 96 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Black Virginia USA[edit]

Speedy tag removed by a third party with a grand total of three edits. Competition with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability to meet guidelines. Probably could be speedied. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Miss_Black_USA_Pageant. Miss Black USA is definitely an important topic in the African American community. I'm surprised by the current quality of that article. I could even see each state having its own pageant article but at the moment it doesn't seem necessary or justifiable. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:51, 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 Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lickets[edit]

Non-notable band. Article appears largely promotional. References provided are not enough to prove notability. No major label, no significant airplay or charted songs. Speedy declined merely because the band released two albums. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band has charted on independent and college radio in the top 20 for last two albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalfantsandilands (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof, please. References. It's required. We have to be able to verify what you write. Moreover, the "charts" you have mentioned are merely for individual stations, and not well-known national or regional charts. That is not sufficient. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia: "All Class C and B FM stations in the United States can be included. Class A and D FM stations should generally not have articles, but exceptions may be made if they have a large audience, such as stations for medium to large universities, or are notable for some other reason." All of the stations listed fulfill this criteria, and according to wikipedia's rules are notable. The link to this wikipedia article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(TV_and_radio_stations)Chalfantsandilands (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this has to do with whether or not the stations themselves are notable enough for articles about them. It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the notability of their airplay rotation or charts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All chart positions mentioned with the exception of KVRX, which has no archive, have been referenced with links to the radio stations sites.Chalfantsandilands (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to assemble as much "proof" as possible but independent radio charts are largely compiled through CMJ. A paid service. And these stations are all extremely well known. You really seem to be trying hard on this one. Chalfantsandilands (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible there is a fundamentalist agenda in Realkyhick's nomination of this group for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalfantsandilands (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personal attacks of the nature shown above are specifically prohibited. Moreover, I have no idea how any fundamentalist agenda, mine or anyone else's would have any bearing whatsoever on this matter. The musical group simply does not meet notability requirements, period. It is not signed to a recognized label, it has not had any songs to appear on any noteworthy chart (single-station charts do not qualify), and it has not achieved notability through any other means outside of their performance. I've nominated for deletion many, many bands and musicians of all genres for these very same reasons. Not every musician merits a Wikipedia article, because of policies that have been put in place here for quite some time. I strongly suggest that the original author (who never bothers to sign his/her comments) read the relevant policies before continuing, and to refrain from remarks of a personal nature that may result in him or her being blocked from editing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is immediately apparent from looking at the entry that the band meets criteria 1 from the notability guidelines. Link: notability requirements. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.And according to the guidelines the entry only needs to fulfill this single criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalfantsandilands (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the charts for individual stations are useless as only more notable charts are recognized for Wikipedia. Only the Lost in E Minor and Garden of Earthly Delights links actually have verifiable mentions of the band, and the longer of the two is nothing more than a paragraph. Two of the references link to other Wikipedia article - Wikipedia is not self-referencing. On the whole, the list of references is very insufficient. At the risk of repeating myself, the band is not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references provided do not establish notability. Arguments for notability based on independent radio station charts or one-paragraph [trivial] mentions seem to me to be misguided and outside the intent of the WP:MUSIC guidelines; the band does not satisfy WP:MUSIC or the general notability guideline. HeureusementIci (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire, The Fly, Skyscraper, and the Sound Projector are all significant publications distributed internationally. The band is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.184.112 (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would really depend on the scope of the coverage. Does anyone here have access to any of these issues? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the article links both to the fly article, as well as the text of the review in the wire by Matthew Ingram/ Woebot. This article continues to meet criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. Mentioned on Simon Reynolds blog here: http://blissout.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post.html. He made the term post-rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.184.112 (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary of using a blog as a source. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know just saying...Also just added links to the pdf of h magazine, as well as verifiable contents of the sound projector links. This entry continues to meet criteria 1.

No, it doesn't. The mentions max out at three paragraphs for the longest one, which doesn't qualify as non-trivial. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. (And would you please sign in and sign your posts, Chalfantsandilands?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem to be notable within their niche. I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Also: Scans of Reviews in The Wire, The Sound Projector, and Skyscraper here:

http://img78.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thewireoutsidehq3.jpg
http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thewireinsideql8.jpg
http://img387.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thesoundprojectoroutsidko0.jpg
http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thesoundprojectorinsidemv2.jpg
http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=skyscraperinsideid5.jpg
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalfantsandilands (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would like to see more coverage, but The Wire and The Fly are good sources, and they've been played on national UK radio, and they've obviously got beyond the 'garage band' stage, so let's keep it.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets minimum criteria for independent coverage, more sources would be welcome, and I assume with be added with time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article only needs clean-up/ regular editing; notability and sourcing is fine. -- Banjeboi 12:35, 28 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 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA bdc[edit]

I'm guessing this is some sort of TV program, but there are no links or references, and no pages link to it. Delete Unless someone can tell me what it is. Dengero (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can come up with so far is this news release by the NCAA here, explaining that one "BDC Partners, Inc." registered over 23,000 school-related domain names for marketing purposes. MuZemike (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It lacks context (without any actual prose that is speediable), and it looks like it will be a bunch of statistics that should be incorporated in another article when said episodes have actually run. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A1) — no context. Looking at the creator's userpage, there seems to be more on the way. MuZemike (talk) 03:53, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Codeprofiler[edit]

No reliable third party sources. Product has only been around since Sept 2008 so difficult to believe it's notable. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Product is not notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Product fails notability guidelines. No reliable sources, the only sources cited are its own site. _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally prodded this article a month or so ago, and also did what I could to cleanup obvious COI and advert issues. I see no evidence to suggest this article fulfills the General Notability Guideline by being discussed frequently in independent 3rd party sources, beyond basic release announcements. -Verdatum (talk) 21:02, 26 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 speedily deleted per discussion with author on talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiophilia[edit]

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Not found in OED or Merriam-Webster Unabridged. Even if the construction existed, it would likely be "sophophilia" (as "sopho-" is the combining form), but that doesn't exist either.WP:SYN for the personal reflection on philosophy.

After I proposed deletion for the article, the author posted a link to a website that includes the term along with several others. That page itself notes that all the terms are neologisms coined by one person. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Largoplazo stated is verifiably correct. I join his request to delete my article. --Sophieophil (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- On my talk page I replied to the author's inquiry about this with info on speedy deletion by author per WP:CSD G7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article creator Creator asks for deletion consistent with guidelines on the article's talk page, although they say neologisms should be included and the policy changed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:54, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IChase[edit]

Delete Sounds suspiciously like nonsense. Can't find anything on this subject that doesn't lead back to the Wikipedia article. And even if it does actually exist, I'm not sure it would be notable enough to be worth having an article on... AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If there's anything notable it could probably be merged with EMI. It looks like the article was created to promote the product and affirm who created it (see last sentence). Deletion is okay with me unless someone wants to find references and wants to merge it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything that isn't the Wikipedia article on Google. Fails notability guidelines. Quite possibly a hoax. _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:40, 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 keep. John254 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to entropy[edit]

Not for Wikipedia, for Wikiversity instead Ipatrol (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The nom needs to supply a much more detailed rationale before I would even consider delete. Occuli (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Introduction articles are quite common and have been discussed numerous times. No rationale has been provided. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with entropy. If the entropy article is at too high of level, then it should be edited to make it more accessable. Also per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. --rogerd (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're trading links, you should read Wikipedia:Many things to many people. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is both a scholarly and popular encyclopaedia, and needs to act on all levels. In some cases, such basic articles. We can't be a comprehensive encyclopaedia by setting everything at a single level. Other "difficult" concepts have employed this same device to great success. Wily D 17:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. "Introduction to..." articles are a good way of giving a simplified overview of a subject and acting as an introduction to more specific and technical articles. This has been discussed many times, most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per rogerd's thoughts. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not ruin two good articles. At least delete would be arguing to ruin just one. Wily D 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps this is best merged with chemical thermodynamics or moved to thermodynamic entropy. LinguistAtLarge 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having the introductory article at Thermodynamic entropy and the detailed article at Entropy would seem to me to be a recipe for confusion. Why not just keep the introduction at the most descriptive title? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge with Entropy and use this to create an "Introduction" section at the top. LinguistAtLarge 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with entropy. I agree with rogerd that it is the entropy article's job to explain what entropy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have other "introduction ..." articles, and they have been successfully defended against challenges. In practice they are very good ways of dealing with subjects like this. WP is used by a very wide range of people; I would suspect that about 100 times as many readers could understand this as compared to our other articles. I wish more could, but the intent is for our content to be accessible to the usual level of high school students as well as educated adults. Their presence is an exception to the general rule about forking. Paper encyclopedias can more easily deal with long multi-level articles than can we. DGG (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Entropy. Each article should provide a satisfactory introduction to its topic directly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an introduction to viruses can become a featured article, then the fact it's an introduction is not sufficient reason to delete it. We should use a certain level of of writing in regular articles if we are to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Introductions are a good way to simplify even further without making WP completely useless to experts. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is directly contrary to policy which states "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.". Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way contradictory to have, in addition to a well-written and accessible lead, a broader and more general introduction that both sets a specialised article in its broader context and provides a greatly-simplified view of the topic. In these introductions you omit unavoidably-technical aspects that still need to be covered in the main article for the main article to be comprehensive. For example, the level of detail used in Introduction to genetics would not be acceptable in gene, DNA or genetics (all articles that this Intro usefully augments) since too much is omitted. I see these articles as sub-articles that expand on a well-written introduction, just as other sub-articles expand on the other sections of the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, in Category talk:Introductions, without a satisfactory conclusion. I think we need to start an RfC to open up this discussion and gain consensus if introductory articles are or are not a good idea. --rogerd (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the AfDs have closed as Keep, I think a reasonable consensus does exist. No need for what some might see as forum shopping. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Entropy. If we need also to have a more technical article, it should be something like Entropy (technical). Alternatively merge, so that the article starts with a non-techncial introduction and only later gets into the technical thermodynamics. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AS IS and do not merge. There's intro to relativity, intro to virus, intro to etc... The point is to have a simpler article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have several Introduction to... articles - it is a valid article format. No good reason given for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've discussed this too many times already (for other "introduction to ..." articles) and the articles have always been kept. --Itub (talk) 16:22, 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 speedy keep per withdrawal by nominator. Bongo matic 23:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redemptorists of Australia and New Zealand[edit]

Google search (not perfect, I know) generated fifteen unique (non-redundant) hits. Of these, there was not a single one that was independent other than the Wikipedia entry and clones. And even the Wikipedia ones cannot be said to be independent as the article was penned by User:RedemptoristAus. Bongo matic 15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I admit there are problems, but I suspect that there will also be problems if we merge this and replace it with a small section in an article on a worldwide order. There is currently a "COI" tag at the foot of the page. I would suggest that we keep it and tag it also for lack of independent sources and any other concerns, and see if the creator will address them. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming that the claim that this is a province of the Redemptorists is true, it should have its own article, however this article is not good - stubbify or better, rescue. Springnuts (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the notability criterion you are using here? The main problem with this article is the total lack of any independent coverage, not the COI/POV. Bongo matic 19:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Common sense basically - in the same way that all royalty are notable, so, imo, is a Redemptorist province - assuming it does actually exist of course. Therefore, imo, the least it deserves is a stubby article. I have flagged it for rescue. It being Christmas day I am not going now to look for sources, but I suggest that lack of google-hits is not the end of the matter here :) Springnuts (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The laundry list of activities is nonencylopedic and the fact that there are no third party sources referring to the group (province or not) indicate that it is non-notable. Not all chapters, subdivisions, subgroups, etc. of something notable are automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. Bongo matic 04:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response It took five minutes to find and source the first Rector of the North Perth monastery. Try some more google searches: "St Gerard’s" Monastery "New Zealand"; Redemptorists "New Zealand" etc ... I guarantee there is more to find. Springnuts (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a 200 page book published on the subject: Boland, S. J. CSSR (1982). Faith of Our Fathers: The Redemptorists in Australia 1882 - 1982. Australia: H. H. Stephenson. ISBN 0949847070. There are also several online sources - I've added a couple. -- Avenue (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a similar book about the NZ side, cited here: Kearney, P. B. (1997). Plentiful redemption: The Redemptorists in New Zealand, 1883 - 1983. New Zealand.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) -- Avenue (talk) 07:43, 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 keep. John254 00:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philly Improv Theater (PHIT)[edit]

Non-notable theater group. References are not substantial, information provided is not encyclopedic. Bongo matic 15:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Philadelphia Inquirer, the largest paper in Philly, is notable enough. Meets Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline travb (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sourcing isn't great, I think the article needs to be trimmed and made encyclopedic with referenced verifiable information, but I'm not sure about deleting it all together. It's pretty marginal whether it's notable enough to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There seems to be enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If the Philadelphia Inquirer thinks it's worthwile to write an article about them, it's likely to be notable. I suggest it to be userfied to User:Maughangl (only significant contributor) with a message on the concerns to give them a chance to fix it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm adding a few more sources that I found via Google. After looking around, ~~I'm not sure if this improv group is incredibly notable~~, but I'd think that I would agree with MacGyverMagic that it would be a bit drastic to delete the article instead of giving a good-faith effort to bring it up to standards. SMSpivey (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I'm going to say Keep, The group appears to meet the notable standard, although the article seems to be trying its hardest to hide that. It needs to be cleaned up, pared down, and made into an encyclopedic entry instead of a play-by-play, but, from the coverage by major newspapers and local magazines, should be here. It should be kept in mind that notability is different for comedy troupes, compared to musical acts or even straight theater groups. There are no hit charts and often arts pages aren't eager to cover them. Honestly, it would be helpful to see if any notable alumni have been produced by the group, as that is often a reliable measure of notability for a comedy troupe within the comedy world. SMSpivey (talk) 08:46, 26 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. (WP:NAC) flaming lawye r^c 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Weekly PPV[edit]

Being nominated for deletion as indiscriminate information. Weekly wrestling program results would seem to fall under the category of news reports, not encyclopedic content. Dsreyn (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was TNA Wrestling's main source of income. It is a valuable and important part of the company's history. They have released DVDs talking about these events. This is how TNA became a major wrestling company thanks to these events. This was not a weekly tv show. These ran live and were bought for 10 dollars each week.--WillC 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say it wasn't a weekly show, but then in the next sentence you say it ran every week. So in other words, it wasn't a special once-per-year event like Wrestlemania, etc. - just a weekly event like Raw or Nitro, except you had to pay to watch it. And of course it was a major source of income. So should Wikipedia document every $10 sale at Wal-mart? After all, that's how Wal-mart makes their money. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will, your comment at WT:PW can be seen as canvassing. Please don't leave any more messages for anybody else, thanks! aye matthew ✡ 03:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was informing people of the delete discussion. I was not incenuating which way the vote should go. It was related to the wrestling project. All I said was it can be improved, which it can by the multiple sources at PWTorch and at Pro Wrestling History.com--WillC 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From WP:Canvassing, in the section about halfway down the page titled Votestacking: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. You alerted people to the AfD discussion on the pro wrestling project page; what effect on the discussion do you reasonably expect that to have? People who read the project page are obviously going to be hardcore pro wrestling enthusiasts, are they not? Are these individuals more likely to vote "keep" or "delete" when it comes to a wrestling-related page? And I don't think it's an accident that most of the people who have weighed in on the discussion since your alert was posted seem to contribute mostly to pro wrestling articles. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most or if not all delete dicussions that have to do with the Professional wrestling project are mentioned on that page. I in no way was going "hey we need to keep this page so everyone go vote keep". All I said was in can be improved. Which is not trying to turn the vote. A wrestling article being deleted should be known by the wrestling project which it belongs too.--WillC 10:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In an encyclopedia, I don't find this page notable. Think about it this way...if you were reading a book encyclopedia, do you think you would find this in one of it's pages. No, I don't. aye matthew ✡ 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - per ~~nom~~ GaryColemanFan, he provides a great reason to keep it, which I agree with. If effort is put into the article to reformat it to articles like the other TV shows instead of a list of results, than the article will be of good use.--S R X 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Change format to one similar to the iMPACT, RAW, ECW etc shows. PXK ^T /_C 23:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense since technically it was Impact before iMPACT was established.--S R X 00:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. These shows had a basic formatting like Impact but was not free. These shows made TNA money. They had no house shows or DVDs until late 2004 and early 2005; house shows did not begin until 2006. They sold shirts on TNA Wrestling.com was the only other money coming in. These shows where the entire beginning of TNA. They cost 10 dollars a week and had the most memorable moments in TNA. With the beginning of titles and title changes. Based on if they are notable, it is damn sure. They fall under the same format that Television episodes of prime time tv shows do. They can't even be bought anymore or downloaded. Plus there is enough sources for all of them. Even if individual articles aren't notable, an article about the series of them sure is. This was TNA's only means of television. They had no other shows besides these. TNA continues to talk about them today and release dvds about the first ones. These are very important to history of TNA.--WillC 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So they are notable because people paid money for it? These were basically like ROH events, except they were taped. These PPV's led to the creation of Impact after they began airing on local cable television markets, a small prose in the Impact article or in the TNA article will do good because this list is just WP:LISTCRUFT and it is not notable like WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results.--S R X 03:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about about that results article. This was two years of history in TNA. What makes them less important than any other PPV article? They are carded just like these are. I don't see notablity in lets say Cyber Sunday. An interactive ppv which is not really choosen by the fans. That is trival as well. The only notbility in those articles are buyrates and title changes. TNA held Bound for Glory and Slammiversary before the monthly events were created. They named the aniversary weekly ppvs that aired Slammiversary and one in October by those titles, seeing from weekly PPV reviews from PWTorch.--WillC 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But change to describe how they ran, where they were held &c rather than just a list of cards. We don't keep Impact, Raw or Nitro results and these don't qualify as supercards. Tony2Times (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So if they weren't supercards, why are they notable? Just because the audience needed to pay for it? Maybe the reason they ran as PPV events was simply because they didn't get enough customers paying to see it live and needed to raise extra revenue. I don't see anything suggesting that these events were any more notable than weekly episodes of Monday Night Raw. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these events were supercards. Each week were highlighted by major title defences. These events were a contracted obligation between TNA and In Demand to run a certain amount of events. Spanning over two years before Fox Sports.net let them create Impact. The only reason they were stopped was to run monthly ppvs instead. Being a major part in the company's history is notable enough.--WillC 01:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Tony2Times. Almost all other wrestling programs (most notably Monday Night Raw, SmackDown, Impact, etc., but right down to WWF Jakked/Metal and WWE Confidential) have articles. Although this is not, in itself, a reason to keep the article, it certainly provides a template for reformatting this article. Simply put, the article should be kept because it was a major program run for an extended length of time by a major wrestling company. It has received coverage in both reliable web and print sources. I do think it should be moved to TNA Weekly Pay Per View (or perhaps with hyphens, as in Pay-Per-View), and I definitely think it needs to describe the show, the creation of the idea and reason for weekly shows, notable occurrences, and the reason for ending the weekly events (see http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/08/19/589855.html). A list of results for 111 weekly show results doesn't belong, but a revamped version of this article definitely does. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I agree with, but if no work is put into the article, it will end up here again.--S R X 16:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. But right now, the article is just a list of results - no introduction or explanation, or any assertion of notability (sorry, I just don't see how being a PPV automatically makes it notable; people pay to see house shows too, but weekly house show results don't seem notable either). A revamped article may indeed belong, but that's no reason to keep the current article; deleting the current one would not prevent someone from starting a completely new article. Note also that articles on other weekly shows like Raw and Nitro do not contain match results at all - except maybe mentioning specific, highly notable matches. Following the example set by articles on Raw and Nitro, a revised article should clearly consist almost entirely of text, without match by match results - so GaryColemanFan's argument seems like more of a reason to delete the current article and start fresh, rather than keep it. 71.233.6.118 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just seems worthwhile to include. I don't have a great argument for it. How to reformat it or trim it, or rewrite it is another issue. But I think it's useful information that people are interested in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of the 100-Acre Wood[edit]

The creator contested the prod that I put on it. The reason that I gave was fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article says, "The Tale of the 100-Acre Wood is an upcoming Winnie the Pooh animation (hand-drawn) with an unknown time of release. No casting members are yet present for this production, although these characters featuring in the film:". I can't find any sources for this and it also fails WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V along with WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. My searches can't either the film or its supposed director. This film has no release date, no cast, and no verifiable facts. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per crystal. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not yet established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no verifiable facts in there. (Also remove mention in sentence fragment in Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Honey_Tree. The sentence isn't properly formatted and doesn't make it clear what is meant) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coincidence of the author's username (User:08ellisd) and the name of the impressively multitasking director-producer-writer-musician-creator ("D. Ellis") is a bit much. I suspect strongly that WP:NFT applies here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a careful search using several different parameters make me suspect the article is WP:MADEUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Above. Seems like a made-up movie, plus there are no sources available for this movie.--Pookeo9 (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Danny Daniel-esque hoax. JuJube (talk) 01:21, 26 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 : Already speedily deleted (by me). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travelland[edit]

Not notable. This is a non-English article about a company that returns no GHIT's. Most of the hits were for an RV manufacturer in Canada. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I see no article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:02, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan British[edit]

Nothing in the article establishes that this is a notable intersection as required by WP:DIRECTORY. I quote: "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon". Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin American Britons. It is unnotable. ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable ethnic group. Improve, don't delete (and keep proposing deletion for dozens of ethnic groups articles, seriously depleting our encyclopedia). Our energies should be focused on improving our content, not insisting on depleting it. Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would improve it if I could find sources that prove that this group is notable, as I did with Cypriot British, but I can't so I've nominated it for deletion. Please provide a reason why you think this intersection is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one nationality which is British. Nationality is not ethnicity. Archivey (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A search for sources that would establish notability turns up nothing. Reyk _YO! 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for any other group of any significance--this is about 4,000 people. The above comment would appear to me to be an expression of inappropriate political feelings. It doesn't even apply--the article includes those immigrants who are not yet UK nationals. The example in NOT is ""People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" which is usually a very much more over-detailed cross-classification than this one. DGG (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to my comment? Reyk _YO! 22:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry--apparent edit conflict, the comment by Archivey just above yours. DGG (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if Archivey would explain what they meant by their comment more fully, I think. I'm not sure it was meant in the way that it might have been interpreted. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significance is not determined by numbers. 4,000 people is not particularly big for a migrant group --- in my experience writing and saving these articles, that number is right around/below the usual threshold at which groups tend to get enough published about them by journalists, scholars, etc. to meet the general notability guideline. Certainly, groups smaller than this have been proven notable, but that's by virtue of people actually finding the sources about them and putting them in the article. cab (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are clearly people who have links to both Venezuala and Britain but I don't see there being any evidence of "Venezuelan British" being a noted or accepted term for such a group - or any coverage detailing the group (its history, culture, etc.). Barring any evidence of reliable sources covering the group (that amount to more than a numerical statistic in a survey) I do not see how an article is possible. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original work, if no one else has written about the group we cannot cobble together a piece that identifies them as one. Guest9999 (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a somewhat related discussion referring to numerically smaller groups (around 300 - 900 individuals) can be found here. Guest9999 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of what name you want to call this group of people by, the usual barrage of searches—"venezuelans * in (london|britain|the united kingdom|the uk)" or in Spanish, "venezolan(a/o/os) * en (londres/inglaterra/reino unido)"—does not reveal any reliable sources about them, just blogs, yahoo groups, trivial mentions, a bunch of junk about the embassy, and one community association [5]. cab (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small group with no shown impact. Punkmorten (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'Keep' would make sense for a group of any significance--except that none whatsoever has been shown or even suggested. Cobbling together an adjective and a noun version of a nationality doesn't automatically signify anything particular. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:36, 26 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 (G12) by MacGyverMagic. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie_Archangel[edit]

non-notable, text is cut and paste from sole reference Markb (talk) 10:07, 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 keep. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 14:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktyavesha Avatar[edit]

Should incarnations be included into wikipedia? I am not very sure about this article. Dengero (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lord Krishna is an important deity in Hinduism AFAIK, and this information should be included here. Such incarnations usually have a lot of information about them, enough to make a good article by itself. The article needs some cleaning up and improvement, but I think it should stay. Chamal ^talk 12:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but shouldn't these incarnations be discussed in context in the article on Krishna? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be mentioned in that article of course. But I think there are many such incarnations that have a lot of individual qualities/characteristics. Discussing all of these in the main article would not be practical since it would take a lot of space, and all that could be included there is a kind of overview and not the full details. If I'm wrong please correct me; I'm not an expert in the subject matter, I'm just commenting on what I seem to remember about these incarnations. If I'm wrong on this matter, then I think adding the necessary info to the main article will suffice. Chamal ^talk 15:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a joke, right? Wily D 17:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Jesus is a Shaktyavesha Avatar, and He's very notable. Pulsaro (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is a mess, and so are some of the arguments made above (i.e. Jesus is a Shaktyavesha Avatar, and he is notable. Notability is not inherited. Not all atributes of Jesus are notable, just because Jesus is notable). However, this seems to be a very important aspect of Hinduism, and is notable as such. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:03, 26 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. John254 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCN Week[edit]

WP:N, only reliable external source listed is a deleted WordPress blog. StonerDude420 (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established news organization. A merge might be reasonable if a good target is found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fairly notable to me. LinguistAtLarge 21:32, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiscope[edit]

Unremarkable Gadget? Seems pretty promo to me. Dengero (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unashamedly promotional text for a thoroughly nn product. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined speedy deletion, it's not purely promotional. So Why 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In C:CSD, "about a product or company" and "purely promotional" are nearly synonyms. Don't worry about it. Wily D 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easy to find sources to establish notability [6]. WilyD 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the results appear to be either republications of press releases, or simple identification of the publishing company by their products. No independent reviews or descriptions. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — Notable or not, this is blatant advertisement. MuZemike (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a suggestion has already been rejected as the article in no way resembles a blatant advertisement. Wily D 05:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a non-notable software product. The sources from Wily's Google News search all seem to be press releases. Note that after a speedy has been declined, or anyone argues to keep any article, an article is no longer eligible for speedy deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:17, 26 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. John254 00:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Söderlund[edit]

Somehow I mistakenly thought this was an internet phenomenon of some kind... I was wrong. I cannot find anything in the way of non-trivial third party publications about this musician, sorry. Delete. JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Considering the nature of his performances, it is hard to imagine him in "non-trivial third party publications". Should we erase anyone who didn't make it to The New Yorker? The guy does have over 8 million views in YouTube alone! Do not delete. Vasilken 12:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to Swedish newspapers. If there are any sources, that's where they'd be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Ding Dong Song" hit #1 in Sweden.[7] Here's a Billboard blurb on his then-upcoming album. [8] Teemu08 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that billboard you refer to looks like something straight out of WP:BADCHARTS and hardly serves to demonstrate sufficient notability of this artist. Furthermore, this artist still lacks reliable NON-TRIVIAL coverage from multiple third party publications. And has for years now! JBsupreme (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. The billboard article says the album is coming to the US. That was years ago and we're still waiting for the big splash. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep :) Best I can do. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything currently on the article page is reliable and verifiable. The album has been available in the US for a long time now. He has not reached mainstream popularity in the US, but is popular amoung college students. There were many college newspapers used as sources on the page before they were removed. Furthermore, anyone who's ever competed at Melodifestivalen (the biggest music competition in Sweden), should be well known enough amoung the European community. Furthmore, there are many articles in swedish and finnish available through their repsctive wikipedias. (Justinsane15 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep--Peak number 1 in the Swedish charts in 2004 and popular among the U.S college crowd. [WP:Bad hairdo] is not a proper argument to delete an article. --Jmundo (talk) 05:46, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Rotman[edit]

Little known entertainment reporter. I found this interview with Leonardo DiCaprio and a few video interviews with celebrities, but I'm not sure if it's enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Nudve (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, unencyclopedic, non-notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --Shuki (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is an Associated Press television news producer and has authored/contributed to at least seven articles. But still fails WP:CREATIVE. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Lil) Eco Racer[edit]

Non-notable Facebook app. Unsourced. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Graymornings_(talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like (Lil) Green Patch and thousands of other applications, (Lil) Eco Racer is notable. (Lil) Eco Racer is created by the same person as (Lil) Green Patch. (Lil) Eco Racer is still a super new application but it will expand just like (Lil) Green Patch. No website other than the application's lander page talk about the application and so this new Wikipedia page does not have any outside reference yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhnhatx (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable. Dengero (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable. Probably CSD#a7 (web) applies. Delete (Lil) Green Patch as well. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand. Why was (Lil) Green Patch approved in the first place? And now you're asking to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhnhatx (talk • contribs) 08:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are never "approved". We try to tag new articles for deletion if they don't satisfy the criteria for inclusion. If an article stays un-noticed for a long time, it does not mean it has got a permanent place at Wikipedia or that it has been approved. Notability of an article can be challenged at any time.--Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have added references and descriptions of significant--Minhnhatx (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW you haven't actually added any references, just linked to the application itself on Facebook -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't know that was voting. I'm learning. =D. One of the links is from a user. --Minhnhatx (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this. Chamal ^talk 11:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Delete. I just wanted a guide for the 350,000 active monthly users. I was planning to advertise the page for the users to update the page themselves but I didn't know Wikipedia. I will go elsewhere where it's more appropriate. Sorry and thank you everyone for your time. --Minhnhatx (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Gravity[edit]

Incoherent, unscientific. Strong delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research/hoax/pseudoscience/neutrality issues/not notable/written in first person/etc. Someone's definitely bored at work. Graymornings_(talk) 08:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- That guy's work is 100% original research but the page might serve as a redirect to Molecular attraction. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless a better target for redirect is found. Molecular attraction might be something completely different. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - pure OR with no other value as I mentioned in the prod. I'm not really all that sure if the redirect is really appropriate. I am trying to figure out the specific meaning that this phrase has in RS's, but so far, I am not entirely able to ascertain if it is germane to Molecular attraction. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Creating a redirect to intermolecular forces would suggest a link between IMFs and gravity, which simply doesn't exist. A few sources seem to refer to "molecular gravity" as a (completely unrelated) physical property of substances akin to specific gravity, but I can't find any clear definition to work from. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Consists completely of OR, as the page itself says that it is the writer's own theory. No reason whatsoever to keep this misleading page, delete ASAP. Chamal ^talk 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, unredeemable. Wily D 17:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blog/original research/essay, even if this was the place to publish theories there is nothing of scientific merit in this theory. --Wadeperson (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - original research as edit history clearly proves. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's gonna be a whiiiiiiite Christmas... Graymornings_(talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-scientific, No accurate information, This guy was definitely bored while editing this.--Pookeo9 (talk) 17:13, 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 keep. John254 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refused discography[edit]

Delete unecessary fork from main article on band Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is standard practice to split off long discographys from the main article. There are plenty of FL-Class Discography articles that are shorter. It needs tidying not deleting. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Creating an article to spin off material that would take up too much space in another article is perfectly acceptable. Whether that is required or whether the material should be put back where it came from is up for discussion, but deletion would result in the removal of valid material. _ Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refused's notability is established in the main article. They've released enough material to justify a new article for the discography. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moves Me E.P[edit]

Delete non notable musical composition that has had no physical release. Mayalld (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demi Lovato. Nothing notable about this release, fails WP:NALBUMS. --JD554 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of release not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nina Concerts and Gigs[edit]

Listcruft and fancruft. What is "notable"? Very vague and pointless list. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, needs to go. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia isn't a directory ~~and because it's out of date anyway~~. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nina Girado. Just because it becomes outdated doesn't mean an event loses notability. Since there's enough information in there (venues and dates) it's possible part of this entry could be helpful in the main article. Also, a merge discussion was started today and it would be a good idea to have it run its course before considering outright deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: listcruft, WP:DIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 28 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Crufty, should be merged to Dungeons & Dragons or deleted outright. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Prodego ^talk 06:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly this is an unimportant fictional artifact as it could be interechanged with just about any prop. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't about an artifact; it is about an entire category of items in the game. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Indeed, this is more of a concept that goes back to the very roots of the game. I've seen Gary Gygax mentioning in interviews of how in the days before the game even saw print, players were looking to recover magical treasure from fallen enemies. This concept is neither a singular artifact nor a prop: "Magic item" is to Excalibur as "Basketball player" is to Michael Jordan. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This article is not about a prop, under any definition of that term. To assert such, let alone to think it refers to a single object, shows a profound failure to understand the subject of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If it is not a prop per se, then are you saying that is not used in the game? Are you saying it is a category applicable to only the Dungeons and Dragons game, a type of fictional category that is not actually used by a player of Dungeons and Dragons, but used to describe the fictional artifacts that are? What chances are there of ever establishing notability for fictional category that has no real-world application? --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a real lack of reliable secondary sources in order to demonstrate how much of the content is notable. I first considered a redirect, but haven't found a suitable redirect target myself. Ideally, I'd suggest a redirect to something like a Gameplay/Mechanics D&D article, or a wider Items RPG/gaming article. Gazi moff 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the result of a many-article merge of less-notable articles. The article certainly needs work, although it will never be improved if it is deleted. Were sources searched for before the nomination? WP:N states that "If appropriate sources cannot be found..." before explaining merging/deletion. Also, my interpretation of WP:GAMEGUIDE is that things such as attack bonuses and hit points should not be included, and righftully so. Now, some of the content in the article is gameguidy. However, enough of it isn't that we'd still have a decent article even if it was removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Drilnoth. The article needs improvement, but deletion doesn't seem to be an appropriate step at this point at all.Shemeska (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article in part, as a place to merge less notable articles into as Drilnoth states, but primarily to increase coverage on this important aspect of the D&D game. One of the main goals for players of the game is to have their characters accumulate treasure by defeating their enemies, and magical treasure is often paramount. Undoubtedly, this concept is likely to be featured in any secondary sources which discuss the game in depth. The D&D project has been a mess for a long time regarding sourcing, but I think we are finally coming around, and have just started to gather up information on reliable secondary sources that we may all make use of. I am confident that a search through those sources, or other ones not yet listed, will yield positive results for the concept of magic items in the Dungeons & Dragons game. If merge winds up being the preferred result, much of this content was moved from Magic of Dungeons & Dragons (which now focuses largely on magic spells rather than items) in the first place, so we could always move it back there. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, "crufty" is not a reason to delete, it is a reason for cleanup. And I would like to mention that the nominator did not alert me to this deletion discussion on my talk page. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up, but there is nothing here that can't be saved with some edits. There are refs and I can find more. "Crufty" is not a reason to delete. This is not a game guide either. So with both reasons failing there is no reason to delete this article. Web Warlock (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics — I disagree with the above. Nearly the entire article is game guide material; however, it is still salvageable, so outright deletion may not be the best route here. Trim all that down and merge it into the game mechanics article. IMO it complements well with the material there. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that if the article was merged, Game Mechanics wouldn't be the right place. Additionally, WP:GAMEGUIDE says that "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos." Although the article does contain some things which should probably be removed because they fail this, I think that the vast majority of the article just needs a bit of a rewrite. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Magic items in D&D are both a setting element and a game mechanics element. I feel that it would be unprofessional to neglect the game mechanics aspects, and both unprofessional and silly to actively avoid using examples in the coverage of the game mechanics aspects when using examples would be clearer and more concise than the alternatives. If it does get merged, I feel that it would be more appropriate to divide the content between Magic of Dungeons & Dragons and Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics rather than merging everything into one of the two articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or light merge per above. Hooper (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons outlined above by myself and others. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic seems fairly generic and could be expanded to included RPGs in general or magic items of all sorts. Deletion is not appropriate as the article is already in better shape than the main article on Magic items. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2008
Keep and expand. This article suffers from a bad case of recentism--You'd think, from reading it, that 3, 3.5, and 4 were the influential editions of D&D. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources independent of the subject (only sources are published by the game's current/former publishers), so no evidence of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although the article does not currently have independent sources, I don't think that that means the topic is not notable... a topic is not notable once people have tried and failed to find independent sources. I think that the use of primary sources or unreliable sources is separate from notability, but correct me if I'm wrong. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and similar objective criteria (which can only rely on coverage to hand, not speculation of what coverage might be out there), there's little but personal opinions (excluded as WP:ATA#Personal point of view) & subjective views (WP:LOCALFAME) -- neither of which is a good basis for collective decision making. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states that quote "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:..." My take on that is that an article's current sources should not be used on their own in discussions about notability, but other sources not yet added to the article should be considered before deleting/merging. I agree completely that the article needs better sources, but I believe that that is a question of WP:V and WP:RS, not WP:N.
Additionally, Wikipedia's deletion policy says that reasons for deletion include: "Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" At this point, I do not believe that all attempts have been made to find reliable sources or that sources cannot possibly be found, nor do I believe that the subject is not notable... a subject fails to meet a notability guideline if sources to meet the guidelines have not been found after they are searched for, regardless of what is actually in the article at the time. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airy assertions that 'there are sources out there somewhere ' are easy to make and impossible to disprove -- so are simply so much hot air. WP:NOTE requires that sources are reliable, independent and provide significant coverage -- issues that can only be evaluated for specific sources. Therefore specific sources are needed -- not airy assertions and WP:GOOGLEHITS. "To hand" does not necessarily mean 'already in the article', but it does mean that it can be specifically identified, so that it can be evaluated (and put into the article if it merits it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I completely agree with Colonel Warden -- the literary concept of a magic item is certainly notable, and it's a huge part of not only fantasy gaming, but the entire fantasy genre. However, I don't think an in-depth explanation of the categories of 4th edition magic item equipment slots is necessary to explain that concept. I appreciate that this is a consolidation, but it should be trimmed further, keeping the notable concepts and items, then merged to magic item. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References #1, #2, #5, and #6 are all reliable verifiable sources. I still say it needs a healthy trimming, but it does seem to meet the notability requirements in its current state. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly needs improving, but it's a legitmate spinout article to keep the main D&D article from growing too big. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Col Warden.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I added two secondary refs. to demonstrate notability.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 28 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. John254 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hjalmar Peterson[edit]

Notability, I can't find anything on this guy (and the page title doesn't match the subject), but I am not sure, particularly due to the interwiki. More of a inquisitive AfD then anything else, wasn't sure enough to speedy. Prodego ^talk 05:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems acceptably referenced, largely to books easily verifiable at gbooks, and searches e.g. [9] shows clear notability. See e.g. [10] about a play about him, "the king of Swedish-American vaudeville during the '20s and '30s", better known under the stage name Olle i Skratthult.John Z (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced and suitably notable. AfD isn't really a place to inquire after notability; do your research and then nom for deletion. There is no "inquisitive AfD." Graymornings_(talk) 10:21, 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 no consensus. StarM 01:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Morgan[edit]

Goes against WP:1E in that the article subject is only associated with an alleged haunting and not notable for anything else under notability guidelines. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:1E is a section of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. I'm not sure if being a ghost really qualifies... :) Totnesmartin (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the above, there's not really enough to support an article here. Kate Morgan's suicide is no more notable than anyone else's, and she achieved nothing noteworthy in life. For the haunting, the only source given is a book commissioned and only sold by the relevant hotel - a clear conflict of interest (ghost stories are always good for business). Until a noted paranormal author/investigator writes a book or chapter on this, there's nothing to go on. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have anything to say about this nomination, but if deleted, it could be a redirect to Katie Morgan.SPNic (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hotel del Coronado. The life isn't notable, but a few lines of her haunting of the hotel is. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article once contained a lot more information that sourced another book but that information was added by the author of the book, going against WP:OR. The talk page contains a lot of extraneous information about Kate Morgan but that info deals a lot with her spouse, straying from the topic of the article. Another contributor has offered to include additional factual information about Morgan, but it is also a WP:OR issue that I'm not sure can be readily cited. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable ghost story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is the subject of at least three books. A news search indicates multiple mentions of the said myth, with some sources also mentioning the books. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A3 by It Is Me Here. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon Can Blow Me[edit]

Potential hoax. I'm no expert on show tunes, but I'm highly skeptical. Also, no luck on initial 8 pages of g-hits on The Moon Can Blow Me by Astaire or Shatner. No hits at all on That Was No Lady, by either Gershwin. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As possible hoax, and definetely as non-notable (hell, the text disclaims notability!). Please see here for possible origin. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt the term blow me existed in the 1920's. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention the shudder factor of William Shatner singing those lyrics... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. "Lost forever" kinda tipped me off. Well, at least it sounds plausible that Shatner would sing (talk?) a song like this... Graymornings_(talk) 08:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as originally proposed, after the originator described it as a test page and disclaimed notability. Subsequent addition of nonsense did not alter its status. JNW (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems made-up because even the phrase "blow me" I think it fairly modern and was not used in the 1920s. Also the text itself proves it is non-notable if it is genuine. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as blatant misinformation. So tagged. In the alternative, delete as nonnotable. HeureusementIci (talk) 05:18, 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 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythkiwi[edit]

unsourced, non-notable website. dramatic (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a really useful site, and it should be listed on all appropriate web directories. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so delete.-gadfium 08:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - SimonLyall (talk) 18:47, 26 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 Transwiki to Wikiquote. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident[edit]

Primary source accounts and quotations of witnesses. Essentially, UFO-cruft. Certainly not encyclopedic. Consider trans-wiki to wikiquotes or wikisource but it certainly doesn't belong as an encyclopedia article. I mean, really. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource, if possible. Seems like too much detail to belong here. Ben Standeven (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The witness accounts of the Roswell incident are an intricate part of the whole UFO phenomenon. A search in Google Scholar and Google Books verifies the notability of the witness accounts. Maybe "UFO-cruft" ~~but part of the American culture.~~ Change to delete. --Jmundo (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No justification for the deletion stemming from any WP policy. Ungtss (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a repository of people making unanswered claims. An encyclopedia article would be "Roswell UFO incident" with a section on claims, or perhaps a citation saying "there are X many claims". Not this. This is just an assault of primary sources (in typical conspiracy theory fashion). Also, where are the lists of people who didn't see anything? I could be compelled to say keep if someone made a convincing argument that this article could and would be turned into a NPOV, concise and verifiable summary of the reports and discussion of their importance to the mythology as a whole. We don't need another page pretending the LGM are real. Protonk (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki although the Roswell status as the most well-known case in ufology makes these statements notable, this page doesn't really work as an encyclopedia article. WikiQuote would be more appropriate really. Oh my god I just agreed with Science Apologist... Totnesmartin (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote. The Roswell UFO incident is arguably what set the whole UFO craze and associated conspiracy theories in motion. The witness accounts are an intricate part of that, but since they're entire first-hand not really suitable for Wikipedia. Wikiquote (or second choice wikisource) are a better place (don't forget to link in the main article) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was one of the main contributors to the page, and felt it was needed. But as time went on, I realized that this is no longer a useful page. That's because most if not all claims on this page are open to dispute. Even by pro-Roswell researchers. And while the numbers of witnesses found here may seem impressive, the number of first-hand witnesses is quite small. On the main Roswell page (which needs to be cut down, I agree), most of the broad themes mentioned here are spelled out. I'm not sure we really need to know a raft of intricate details about all these witnesses. And we certainly don't need a page which has something like 70 accounts. Many of which (such as the alien ones) are contradictory and can't be referring to the same incident. Canada Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete, this unencyclopedic quotefarm per WP:NOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki relevant content to WikiQuote. Per WP:NOT:

Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne's longest cake[edit]

Non-notable fundraising event. A worthy cause no doubt, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a promotional tool for charities Mattinbgn\^talk 03:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the article is completely unencyclopedic in tone and content. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this local event. JJL (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is lacking, but more worrying is using wikipedia as a media center. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be non-notable, but the reasons provided here are less than convincing. Tone can be edited and you obviously can't promote a past event. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an annual event, therefore it seems obvious to me at least that publicising last years event is promoting next years, no? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:49, 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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneers of Prosperity[edit]

The article does not meet any of the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Most of the references provided are from "Pioneers of Prosperity" or its affiliates. Was proposed for deletion by another user on early November for the same reasons, the template was removed without any subsequent improvement. I also suspect a WP:COI because the main (only) contributors for the page Special:Contributions/MNITMi, Special:Contributions/Mbrennan10 and Special:Contributions/Elizabeth.alton have all contributed exclusively to this article. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone read the allafrica citations? WillOakland (talk) 07:12, 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, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:44, 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--The article is not very good, sure, but there are a few references out there to establish at least some notability: here and here. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the text reads like a press release, it also makes a fairly strong and apparently sourced case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Quartz[edit]

Contested prod. Hack with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly speedy. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, no sources, not notable hack even if it does exist. TJ Spyke 03:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references provided, speedy delete. Newport Beach (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The haxxors are invading! Tavix (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and probably not a hoax as it probably exists. Definitely not notable and not worthy of an article here for apparent reasons. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scrape it against a porcelain plate until it is no-more.--Koji† 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete (A7)~~ Strong Delete - I don't see an assertion of notability here... VX!^~~~ 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Looks like a NN hack to me. Never asserts notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - completely unencyclopedic Jason Quinn (talk) 21:55, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guacimal[edit]

I created this article, and even I believe that it should be deleted. It provides little to no context, and has barely been edited at all. Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a possible miss-spelling of Guasimal, Cuba?--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've got the right idea, but the wrong Guasimal. See my entry below. TheFeds 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this location exists. Simply because the author wants it deleted doesn't mean that it necessarily should be deleted. As WP:OWN says, no author owns any article. travb (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it exists, prove it. Surely you can find a reference that it exists in the next seven days. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hourglass is half empty, and you've made no attempt. --Golbez (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline LinguistAtLarge 22:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:AFDs end after seven days. --Golbez (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cuba Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verification is found that this place exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Guasimal, Pinar del Río the same place? [11][12][13] (This seems to be in Pinar del Río, instead of Camagüey, like Oakshade's link.) If so, then move to an article on Guasimal, Pinar del Río, Cuba and redirect if evidence exists that Guacimal is a valid alternative name. (If kept on this basis, I presume that notability will be established independently—whatever the standard is for places.) TheFeds 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Delete: The only evidence that the place exists are from wiki sites. I have found a Guacimal in Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Haiti... but no Cuba. --Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancy seeing you here, Sallicio. :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not certain, but it seems to exist. There may be something I'm missing... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~Your link gives information to a city in Honduras, not Cuba. Malinaccier (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete as per everyone else. One big misunderstanding here, it seems. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say keep, but nothing can be found to verify that the place exists. Malinaccier (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, no Cuban city by that name appears to be on the map. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the hurricanes wiped the city off the map? Tavix (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence has been provided by the keep crowd. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--From a news source from Cuba we can establish that: Guasinal has a population of 5,000; The foundation of the town dates to 1864; Che Guevara established his first guerrilla camp near the town.--Jmundo (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NGL, every geographic location or entity that has a name and a verified location is suitable for inclusion as a topic for an article in Wikipedia. As noted, and thanks to Jmundo, that the piece is sourced and referenced makes this one an easy Keep. Nice job ShoesssS ^Talk 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is still the small matter that this article is about Guacimal, and the sources are about Guasimal. Do we have any evidence that any of the information in this article applies to Guasimal? This looks more to me as if we should delete this and start an article on Guasimal from scratch. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully. Delete Gua'''c'''imal and start new article on the Guasimal, in the Sancti Spíritus Province where Che Guevara setup camp, using Jmundo's source from the reliable source Escambray. I have modified my entry for delete to reflect this. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start new article on Guasimal, Sancti Spíritus Jmundo's source seems to be for a different place: Guasimal, in the Sancti Spíritus Province. The place identified as being affected by a hurricane in the article in question (and hence the article name) is a Guacimal in the Pinar del Río Province. The difference was already noted by others in this AfD, including the possibility of one Guasimal/Guacimal in the Camagüey Province. While it is not unusual for reliable sources to misspell name places, nor it is unusual for the same name for a place to happen in different areas of the same country (even with slightly different spellings), until we have more reliable sources for verification of which of the many Guasimal/Guacimal this article refers to am afraid we have to delete. We must not add to the confussion in the googletubes. However, if new sources emerge that clearly disambiguate the situation, and establish that a Guacimal in the Pinar del Río exists and was affected by a hurricane, then I am all for keep, as per WP:NGL. All I am saying is that we should pay more attention to spellings and other geo-identification before taking whatever the googletubes say at face value. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created Guasimal, Sancti Spíritus with Jmundo's source. Regardless of the result of this AfD, that's a new article. I used the province name in the title as there are obvious disambiguation issues with this town name as per MoS. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is yet another Guasimal in the Matanzas Province as per this [14]. This is clearly a disambiguation issue. Furthermore, the article for Sancti Spíritus (the city, not province) already mentioned Guasimal as part of the municipality. I wiki-linked it to the new article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --The mysterious case of Guacimal...Looking back to my "googletube", the only reference I can find about Guacimal, Cuba is a french book published in 1842, "The Natural History of Cuba", says that Guacimal is a lagoon. I'm trying to verify this information in another source.--Jmundo (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTIt's really too bad no one's getting paid for all the research going into this!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, we all wish! Seriously, this is what AfDs should be about... figuring it out! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Even if it's a lagoon it's notable I'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lagoon according to a single reference from 1842. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 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 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P2pr[edit]

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms - The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia --smurdah (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Tavix (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. The article describes an emerging approach related to viral marketing that may well become big and does not seem to be covered elsewhere. Not sure that this is the most common name for it. A quick search showed a couple of other uses for P2pr. If the authors improved the description and came up with a few unbiased references, and maybe changed to a more meaningful name (Social Web Marketing?) I would be inclined to change to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:29, 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. Mr.Z-man 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLYT[edit]

Neologism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sole source is Urban Dictionary, which is in no way reliable. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:45, 19 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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force[edit]

A list of fictional spells that consists entirely of plot details. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, garbage. Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever the source for this is can be used as external link in the main article. If there is no source, it's original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 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 all. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day 2006[edit]

Article is an unencyclopedic list of assorted jokes made by the media on April Fools' Day in 2006. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of what Homestar runner and various news networks did for April 1. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete an indiscriminate list of non-notable jokes made by notable people. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A unified approach to April Fools' lists / group nomination might be in order:

April 1, 1999, redirects to April 1999. One single real event listed for April 1
April 1, 2000 a short year page only listing hoaxes.
April 1, 2001 ???
April 1, 2002 a longer year page only listing hoaxes.
April 1, 2003, redirected to April 2003. Events listed for April 1 are a mix of actual news and hoaxes
April 1, 2004, redirected to April 2004#April 1, 2004, only actual news are listed with a mention that it was April Fools day. 2004 hoaxes are currently hidden in a previous version
April 1, 2005 a year page with actual news and hoaxes
April 1, 2006, redirects to this list (you have to look at April 2006 for actual events)
April 1, 2007, redirects to April Fools Day 2007, which is actually a shorter list of hoaxes than this one
April 1, 2008, redirects to April Fools Day 2008 is massive, and actually spawned a child article even.

MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to every April Fools Day. Whats next, "Christmas 2008"?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've raised the issue on Talk:April Fools' Day anyway, see this talk page section (permalink) MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Those voting delete obviously have no sense of humor. Articles like this help set Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias. And I despise mass nominations in general.SPNic (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a dislike of bundled AFD nominations is not a valid reason to keep. Oh, and also, I have a great sense of humor. Wanna hear a joke? Knock! Knock! MuZemike (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which most of the delete votes, reek of, is not a valid reason to delete. The articles are sourced. I hope MickMacNee can do something (I wish I had some ideas, but thoughtlessly deleting this stuff is not the answer.SPNic (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who said we don't like April Fools? I personally think it's a laugh riot with the hoax newspaper articles and the Rickrolling and what-not. Maybe you should assume good faith and not try to paint everything with such a broad brush. MuZemike (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's hard to assume good faith when somebody's reason for deleete is because it's "a depressing precedent".SPNic (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the reason for my deletion vote, as stated, is that I believe the article is not notable. The precedent that it sets, of creating indiscriminate lists of information that will most likely never be searched for, was an afterthought... but probably should not have been posted. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that this was an attack. I certainly didn't intend it that way. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Transwikiiing isn't a bad idea.SPNic (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm sorry if I got out of line.75.105.224.214 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Well, sorry, but you got to try to. We're all trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia in one way or another. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe I'm humorless as well, but I don't find long lists of corny jokes funny, and I certainly don't find long lists of trivia funny. Wikipedia is different for lots of reasons, and one of the reasons we don't always get a lot of respect is 'fun stuff' like this. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot. Not notable, ~~and quite frankly a depressing precedent~~. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I remember right, I was the one that moved the article from April 1, 2006 to April Fools day. All it does is list a bunch of jokes, deletable under WP:IINFO. Tavix (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:IINFO StonerDude420 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — after looking at a couple, this is nothing but indiscriminate information. MuZemike (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikinews. The majority of the entries here are newsitems (or faked newsitems) so it would be suitable for WikiNews to keep them on record. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another thing I should note is that Wikipedia itself does April Fool's Day jokes.SPNic (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to transwiki all as MacGyverMagic recommended. This does fit better in Wikinews. I probably should've thought of that before. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My initial thought was that these should all be kept, although edited down to include only the sourced entries. There is some significance in a reputable organization departing from its usual practice in order to play a prank. After reading the article April Fools' Day, however, it appears to have more than adequate coverage of the most noteworthy of these events. I don't consider myself humorless (I am humourless, but that's because of Anglophobia). However, these lists are so sprawling that they are like an unbearably long joke, too detailed to be informative or entertaining. Ultimately, it is of no significance whether a prank was conducted in 2006, 2007 or 2008. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 26 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. copyvio Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaywant Guitar[edit]

Original research, and possible spam. The only editor is Jaywantguitar (talk · contribs). Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:One big cut-and-paste copyvio of http://www.jaywantguitar.com/guitar.html and spam as well. ^Law_shoot! 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So tagged, then. Thanks for the heads up. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Hitzges[edit]

Delete nn local radio sports personality; so nn, we don't even know when or where he was born or what he's done other than his current gig. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 was already declined by another admin, but I see no particular reason to keep this article in its current state--Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Hitzges is a notable Dallas sportscaster. He used to do Texas Ranger color commentary (and please, don't AFD simply because he worked for the Rangers), and has been on Dallas radio for 20-30 years. He's also written several books about Dallas sports teams. Give his article time to become fleshed out. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~I cant say "rewrite" here because this article hasn't even been written, it's not even of stub quality yet. It's a single sentence.~~ The subject is notable however with significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Some referenced biographical info has been added along with a list of books he's written.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as subject easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds, author of editor of several sports books, host of various television shows over the years, and is himself the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the improvement to the article it now demonstrates the subjects notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article now easily demonstrates notability. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If you have been honored by the Radio Hall of Fame, Dallas Hall of Sports Association, and the Texas Baseball Hall of Fame, he must have done some notable things. Yet I still think biographies need more notability than is usually required for inclusion in Wikipedia and he doesn't seem that highly notable. However, as his credentials are as good if not better than many other biographies on Wikipedia, I vote weak keep. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:03, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opera accompanists[edit]

Was CSD'd three times. I was hesitant to delete it again as the community hasn't weighed in on this yet. So go forth, community, and weigh in. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No need for this list - yet - when there are more notable accompanists with articles then maybe. ukexpat (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uh, the list consists of one person? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the Google cache and the log contents, there doesn't seem to have been much improvement. Relevant discussion here. Nevard (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Should not have been brought here. There are articles speedied that have been deleted many, many more than 3 times before. There is no context, and it is nonsense (looks like a resume) UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. It seems that the (dare I claim same) user keeps spamming the same person over and over again. Time to pull the plug on this act and salt the Earth of its remains. MuZemike (talk) 07:56, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankstaking[edit]

Only one reference, probably not notable. --smurdah (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as Neologism or hoax. The article which is referenced asks a rhetorical question in the title, and does not announce or formalize any new holiday. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, POV pushing, weasel words, you name it. Basically, this article is trash, and it doesn't look salvageable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, possibly POV pushing. Malinaccier (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source uses the expression in a different way. No evidence of the topic's existance at all. Redddogg (talk) 07:00, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles B. "Chuck" Greene[edit]

Delete. This article was deleted in 2006 under the name 'Chuck Greene' due to lack of notability. Nothing seems to have changed on this issue. The username of the creator indicates possible vanity entry. I PRODded it, but this was removed by the creator without giving a reason. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note this is a different AFD discussion and not part of the discussion regarding Bill Scott (author). As of my timestamp some formatting appears to be missing which is causing this AFD to appear as part of the Scott AFD. (If it's been fixed, please disregard this). 23skidoo (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Fixed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if gold medal at Maccabiah Games can be sourced. This seems to be a fairly major sporting event, and while, technically speaking, it doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, I would certainly expect there to be enough dead tree sources to meet WP:BIO, especially in the light of the other college medals.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant to type "better sourced". Something a little more substantial than just a results listing. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone can improve this article so it meets the requirements, please go ahead. It failed WP:BIO last time, but I don't know how well-written it was last time. I am concerned about the possible conflict of interests from the creator but my main objection is the lack of proof of notability. If anyone has heard of this person and thinks they are truly noteable, then please improve this article. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I haven't been able to find any cite about Greene winning a gold medal at the Maccabiah Games. For myself, this makes the difference between meeting the notability bar. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:16, 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 Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Upstairs & Nana Downstairs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nana Upstairs & Nana Downstairs

Consists of a plot summary only, contains no information on the notability of the book. --smurdah (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote this article and included 2 claims of notability: 1) 30+ citations in other books related to the topic, 2) award-winning author. OK, make that 1 claim, as notability is generally not inherited. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep. davidwr has done good work on this article. Can an admin close this AfD? I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks. --smurdah (talk) 03:15, 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 no consensus. and I don't think re-listing again will bring closer to one. StarM 01:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperable PDK Libraries[edit]

Non-notable. i think this can be speedied, but there could be problems, so AFD. It seems to be promoting some sort of technology. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not sure whether this is promoting a non-notable trade group or meant to promote a new technology; whatever it is, it seems not to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not appear to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Two articles on the subject done by Reuters: [15], [16]. Also a few other articles from other websites that establish notability: [17], [18]. Definitely notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look notable. Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malinaccier. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 29 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 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha Yoga[edit]

No indication of notability at this day and time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor yoga school-cum-franchise. If it takes off it can be recreated, or perhaps just mentioned in a list of Yoga schools. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a cut and paste job to me. Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game Design Brief[edit]

This is completely original research. The "literature" section does not suppport the article as third-party sources, other than perhaps as citations for an essay. Again, this would fall under original research. I can't imagine this could be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, as whatever could be saved is already covered in Game design freshacconci talktalk 12:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - For now. I think the article is just kind of poorly-written for an encyclopedia (POV). I'm not a big gamer person, I'd suggest consulting some admin who knows that stuff. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like original research wrapped in a how to guide. Burzmali (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely looks like original research and somewhat of a fork of Game Design. Edward321 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - It's too wordy for me to discern if there is anything worth keeping. If there is any salvageable content that's not redundant it should be inline referenced and merged with the Game design article in simple factual statements, without the instructions or suggestions. I don't see any reason to have a separate article for subject matter that clearly falls under that category.
Keep or merge to Game Design. Needs cleanup, but the basic content of the article is less a POV fork of Game Design than a superior (at least from a scholar standpoint) collection of information on the subject. Sources cited are legitimate. Claims made (while obscured to someone outside the industry) are valid. Definitely needs some love, though. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it original research? Wikipedia doesn't require footnote or in text citations for all articles (And only recently required them for FAs). there are a half dozen sources cited that verify the claims made in the article. It isn't original research. Protonk (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, WP:OR is pretty clear on this, especially in the first paragraph on what original research is. And as for sources, WP:V is again pretty clear on sources. Both of these are WIkipedia policy. The sources provided only provide support as an original essay, not verification for a teriary source of information, such as Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. I am telling you that the sources listed in that article verify the material in the article. This is explicitly allowed. This article isn't OR just because it is poorly written or poorly formatted. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those references listed specifically refer to the concept of "Game Design Brief"? If not, then this article is an essay, and therefore original research. If the references listed do specifically mention this concept, and no online versions are available, then the article would need to be extensively rewritten with excerpts from those texts. At this point the references merely support this as an essay. And if this is something that's already covered in Game design, I fail to see the point for a seperate article at this point. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Abstract from the title. Pretend that the title doesn't exist. Read the content and then read the references. The references support the claims made in the article, namely the interplay between conceptual and instrumental design, the explanation of the scope of "game design" and the discussion of "state space" in the last section (and others). Like I said in my original keep 'vote', we could move this content to Game design and the game design article would be improved. This is verifiable, sourced content and we should be editing to improve it rather than deleting it. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Software design document is what this article means to talk about. If it gets merged, it should be merged there, as a smerge would be an unambiguous improvement. Protonk (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article is mistitled - it means that it is a brief upon Game Design. Software design document is not appropriate because it is talking about games, not software. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article means to be titled "Game Design Brief" quite literally, describing the document that outlines a game's design from the outset. In this case Software design document would be a possible broad parent, as would game design. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Game design. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure WP:OR, lacking any sources to indicate WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Protonk. Looks like it has all the elements to be a valid standalone article, just needs referencing and copyediting. Flagged for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 28 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. I realize that this close is not consistent with some similar AFD's that have been closed (some by me?) in the past week or so. Please do not badger me about that. This closing only takes into account the contributions to this discussion, and not some ultimate goal of being globally consistent. Perhaps discuss the issue with the participants on their talk pages if you want to understand any reason for the difference in the outcome. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Street, Dublin[edit]

Delete Non-notable street Balloholic (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would think any major street in the center of Dublin would be notable and is bound to have many sources (probably from books) describing its history. Even one of Dublin's major train stations is named after it, Tara Street railway station. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That cannot be verified Oakshade. They are even on different streets nowhere near one another. --Balloholic (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no inherent notability for streets. A street can, potentially, demonstrate enough notability to merit its own separate page, but the fame of a city isn't inherited by its individual thoroughfares. Until some significant content can be added, maybe this and the other articles can be merged into someting called "Streets of Dublin". Mandsford (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stations tend to be named after the most important roads in a city. With a notable newspaper located there, the article presents more than just map information and a major road in a big city is bound to have paper sources. Deletion would not help that process. (WP:DEADLINE) Send this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland or Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads (or move to project space) for improvement and renominate in a month if no improvement occurred. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As above station not on this street at all. A quick check will show that. Newspaper claims to have moved here two years ago and before that was elsewhere.If this newspaper changed address every few years would we give all fifty addresses their own article? Surely a list would be better. OR better still just include the most historic streets like where it was during the easter rising or civil war. What has happened on this street this past few years to make it notable more than all its othere addresses in its 150+ year existence?

Comment - Do they? I don't think so. Just because John Street Florists is located in Tralee doesn't mean the street is notable. As for the newspaper, no, this does not make a street notable. The paper may be notable, the railway station may be but it certainly does not make the street notable. --Balloholic (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about florists, I'm talking about subway and railway stations. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:/ I really don't think Subway outlets are more notable than florists. It doesn't matter how many flowers or sandwiches that are sold, such things rarely make a street notable. You can buy a sandwich in John's Megastore down the road or Hammyland across the street. These aren't notable. --Balloholic (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By subway, he's referring to the railway station nearby, not the sandwich chain. It also has the headquarters of a major newspaper there - I think Talbot Street is where Independent Newspapers has theirs. Autarch (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin has a subway??? When was the last time you people were in Dublin? Those subway signs are for the sandwich chain not an underground train system! I smell fiction makers. --Balloholic (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably I'm talking about subway and railway stations refers to the DART. Please do not make comments like I smell fiction makers as it can create ill feeling. Autarch (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DART is a relic. Surely we cannot have every single small stop on wikipedia? Never mind a street that happens to have a stop. By that theory every single street that has a rail or bus station in every little nook and cranny in Ireland should have an article. Even if there is nothing else to say. Again this is not a travel guide. I remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia and appeal to the COMMONSENSE of those non-Dubliners and possibly even non-Irish who aren't protecting their own personal creations. --Balloholic (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems notable enough to my view... weak keep. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. Tara Street railway station is clearly notable, but it has its own article. I am not in a position to judge this one in advance of its being expanded. I am inclined to agree with Mgm. I do not think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads would be able to handle this, as it needs local knowledge, from a Dubliner. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the following -WP:50k. --Balloholic (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Tara Street railway station has its own article. We don't need the street. Case dismissed. I expect to see this deleted. --Balloholic (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stubbish, to be sure, but the article seems to be about a notable street. Lots of source material is available.[19] Wily D 17:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google books reveal source material including a major part in the Irish Rebellion, a noteworthy firestation, and a noteworthy bathhouse. Pulsaro (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A noteworthy firestation?????!!!!!! How on earth can a firestation be noteworthy? A bathhouse? Surely one mention in a book does not make such a thing notable! I could write a book tomorrow about John's Megastore. Would that be notable then? --Balloholic (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't know how a firestation can be noteworthy maybe this is the wrong place for you. Pulsaro (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on who published it. If Cambridge University Press did, then yes. If John's Vanity Publishing House and Pizzaria did, then no. I don't have a complete list. WilyD 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. So if Cambridge University Press (which very conveniently and coincidentally has its own article) mentions Tara Street in some sort of case study about an non-notable pregnant teenager in 1742 it automatically gets its own article."Tara Street is a Dublin street where the 15 year old human Beyoncé Aguilera became pregnant in 1742." Oh please spare me the crap. --Balloholic (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course, if you didn't insist on misrepresenting the reality of the situation, your explanation might make more sense. Wily D 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The reality of the situation is that all of you want to keep something very obviously not notable because it was once mentioned in a Cambridge book. The book might have been published by a university in a different country but the writer may have irish interests or may have lived in Tara Street while she was a young child. The prestige of the brand doesnt make it notable. Thank you. --Balloholic (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not true at all. There are a huge stack of books here, from many different publishers. I picked one at random as an example of notable publisher, it's not sacrosanct. The street is transparently notable in our jargon. It would behoove you to acquaint yourself with the facts before commenting on the situation. The link I gave listed 627 books which discuss Tara Street to some extent or another. Some are trivial mentions, some are not. But there are still dozens or hundreds of nontrivial discussions of it. Wily D 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to this webpage on the Dublin Fire Brigade website, the station in question was headquarters of said fire brigade from 1907. Also, this street was where artillery that bombarded Liberty Hall during the Easter Rising fired from. Autarch (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work I'm afraid and I think people need to realise that that part of the easter rising (which was a massive event) is insignificant. Every street in Dublin was affected by and streets in other towns. They would not get articles so why should this? --Balloholic (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Link does not work. Tut tut. --Balloholic (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link should work now. Autarch (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOh please... Not every street is notable just because someone, somewhere once mentioned it in a publication. Trusilver 17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep More pointy disruption without the slightest effort per WP:BEFORE - there isn't even a discussion page for this topic yet. A simple search of Google Scholar shows that there are numerous sources for this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please delete. This page was created by a user who has a habit of creating Dublin streets and then doing his best to ensure every one of them, even ones that happen to connect two more notable ones and have no other purpose. Again we are not a source for tourists to plan their treks to the Dáil or Guinness brewery. --Balloholic (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at this article on the merits, it does seem that many streets in a major historic capital city which has been a focus for literature for centuries will be significant. It is not the width of the pavement that makes a street notable (usually), but the things that happen there, the places there, and the amount that ha been written about it. I'm glad someone is writing the articles, and I wish the same were done form any similarly important cities. The main thing this article needs is further expansion. DGG (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for railroad stations and the like, there are two possibilities: usually a station is located in a place of considerable notability and named accordingly, or sometimes a notable neighborhood grows up or a street becomes important primarily because a station happens to have been built there with commerce and local transportation developing around it. Either way, the name of the station is usually a good indication about the street. DGG (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following makes no sense to me (and it's about one third of the entire article): "The station gives its' name to Tara Street railway station, though the station is on Georges Quay, near the northern end of Tara Street." This particular station mentioned three times in that sentence is never mentioned before and never mentioned again. The keep side of this debate seems tohinge on this and I have to say it is a very dubious statement. According to itself this mystery station which gives its name to another station isn't even located on this street! Neither is the station it gives its name to. We have two stations that don't even have any relevance to the subject being used as an argument for keeps. --Balloholic (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved it from Tara Street to Tara Street, Dublin. There are many streets with this name. Sheesh. Jack Merridew 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And are you not prepared to comment any further on the reliability of these sources or reply to what I have said above? As I have said before on many occasions sources are all well and good but they have to say something meaningful rather than be a weather report or an invesigation into the murder of a baby seal for example. You have as much as only voted and that contradicts policy. --Balloholic (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Snappy (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if that is not a vote I'll eat my hat. I really don't need to say anymore. I actually mistook it as "Keep per Snappy" and was looking about searching for this Snappy before I realised. Definite crossing out here. --Balloholic (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. John254 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dgg's point relates to the station which is one of two stations which aren't even on this street and cannot be verified to be named after it. Tara is a fairly popular name by my estimation, eg. Tara Television, Hill of Tara and there is another Tara Hill in Wexford to give some examples which just spring to mind because I know lots of Taras. Why would the station automatically be named after the street? Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 01:41, 28 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 Llanon with no prejudice to restoring if new sources are found or there is a strong consensus to do so (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plas morfa[edit]

Non-notable location. If the hotel itself passes notability requirements then that should have an article, but notability is not inherited; the rest of of the place is, well, a beach. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Llanon - I've already added the meat of the article there. Beaches are rarely notable on their own, even if they do have a nice hotel. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly the nominator is not taking into account factors such as the fishing pools mentioned which can be expanded and have historical significance. No need to focus on one hotel. --Balloholic (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Llanon. The beach, currently part of the village, can easily be included there, including the information on said ancient fishing pools. Although I did not find any sources about these fishing pools. Merger should consider that. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think many beaches will be notable on their own--they are essentially parks, and all state parks at least are considered notable --there being inevitably sufficient documentation. But I am not quite sure this beach is prominent enough for that. I am surprised that anyone should have written an article of this sort without giving sources, especially since at least part of the article is clearly asked on them. I added what English sources I could find quickly on google (there are also some in Welsh, but I was forced to ignore them) . The BBC source has information of the pools. DGG (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh yes beaches can be notable on their own (at least I hope so, I wrote an article about one!), but as with anything else, there has to be enough citable material to make it worth having an article. nature reserve beaches, major tourist and historic beaches are all notable. The thing is, is this beach worth an article, or can it be combined with Llanon? The BBC page you mention is about Llanon, which seems to undermine the case for notability (nice find though). Totnesmartin (talk) 23:30, 26 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. John254 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Ranks[edit]

Non-notable artist, per WP:MUSIC. This page has been deleted at least twice, along with the article for his only album. Please add salt. SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this over on Google News, but my Spanish isn't up to par relevant? Burzmali (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a useful third-party review. I'm not sure if it's enough to save the article, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's relevant. Primera Hora is roughly like the New York Post for Puerto Rico, not the newspaper of record, but a top seller and clearly reliable. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: recreated article, non-notable as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album, for which he gets co-billing with Luny Tunes, Mas Flow 2, was reviewed in The New York Times, was one of the top charting Latin albums of the year, and a single from it won him a Billboard Latin Music Award. I suspect those things were not noted on the previous version of the article, but I've now reliably sourced them. All of the sources I added confirm that Baby Ranks has co-billing. It's a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He is notable as per WP:MUSIC - if winning in the Billboard Latin Music Awards doesn't meet #8, what does? That said, he meets other notability criteria for Puerto Rico, a distinct musical market than the USA regardless of the political relationship. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C2 as well [20]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:13, 26 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 04:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive decision making[edit]

Just as with Responsible decision making, which I just nominated for deletion, I believe this is not a notable term in any academic field; though this one additionally also looks like a neologism. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three of these articles as apparently one man's theory and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant usage and is an oxymoron. Decision making is so much simpler when you follow WP:BEFORE and examine the sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 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 02:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible decision making[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a notable term in any field. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three of these articles as original research and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten the article as a stub with a source. There are thousands of other sources. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why have multiple articles when you can have just one? This is original research at its worse. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive decision making[edit]

This is the third in a trifecta of articles, which also includes responsible decision making and inactive decision making, all created by the same user, which I think are pointless and non-notable terms. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of things that individual editors subjectively consider to be pointless and non-notable, and Wikipedia's concept of notability is not subjective. You are not making an argument for notability here, and your rationale is a poor one.
And even if you were applying Wikipedia's criteria for notability, your opinion would be ill-founded, given that their are plenty of sources on business management that discuss types of decision making such as this, and the reasons that one is used over the other. One such is ISBN 9780787976361 (an entire book on the subject of decision making) which discusses reactive decision making and the problems that it engenders for a business, in detail on pages 16–17 in a section entitled "Reacting Versus Responding". Another such is ISBN 9780803955110 which has a section explicitly entitled "reactive decision making" on pages 355–356. A third is ISBN 9780805847154, which has a section entitled "Proactive and Reactive Decisions" on pages 5–6. There are even papers dealing with these and related subjects on-line on the World Wide Web, such as this one.
By policy, we are supposed to look for sources ourselves before nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability. Had you done so here, you would have turned up the above and many others. Your nomination was an exceedingly poor one.
I've restored Proactive decision making, previously deleted via Proposed Deletion, on the grounds that it actually covers the obverse of this coin, and contains useful content that can be built upon. Both of these subjects, the one being the obverse of the other, satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. They might be better dealt with together (as on-line and off-line are), but that doesn't require deletion in any way. (Even if Wikipedia's treatment of the subjects is merged, these original titles are sensible redirect titles.) Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. John254 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial content. The articles don't attempt to be more than a paragraph appropriate to a very elementary textbook, making superficial unsourced value judgments and not giving sources. I don't see them as plausible bases for an article. DGG (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't see Wikipedia discussing proactive and reactive decision making despite the existence of sources explicitly discussing those very things, some of which are cited above? Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, and leave Proactive decision making deleted too. No one disputes the fact that such decision making modes exist and are discussed in the literature, but having an article dedicated to the phrase "Responsible decision making" makes as much sense as having one for the term "Driving with your eyes open". Uncle G: If you want to add a section in Decision making to discuss these terms, it may make more sense. It currently has a poorly-written section called "Styles and methods of decision making" which definitely needs some serious editing. Owen× ☎ 17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. I would also remind Uncle G to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also find OwenX's argument persuasive: even if the content would prove to be notable, they would be better in Decision making as a subsection, or even unified in a sourced Decision making concepts if Decision making becomes to large (as per WP:SUMMARY). Uncle G is being WP:OWNy and not seeing that while this content might have value, it doesn't have value as single articles, and that the community already has had successful experiences, such as WP:SUMMARY, to deal with related concepts with an article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three No notability is claimed, in fact, no sources are used at all. It is true notability is not subjective, but it is not established by expert opinion, either. Specific, verifiable, claims of notability have to be made by notable reliable sources in the field. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR 'Delete the three. Sounds like someone vomited up a management textbook. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're going to vote delete, at least explain why you think adding Uncle G's references wouldn't help. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three of these articles as original research and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it can't BOTH be Original Research and a regurgitated management textbook. Uncle has shown potential for expansion, and even if it could be merged somewhere, that's no reason to delete a topic which passes the GNG by itself. Furthermore it's not just a random phrase, many google book hits show it as a topic or subtopic in its own right. For example Quantitative Geography. Weak keep because the article itself is weak right now and not much would be lost by deletion. Pulsaro (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of scholarly references to this. It is therefore a sensible search term and so deletion is quite inappropriate. If the current content is poor then we improve in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 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 Redirect to EPM. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epm[edit]

Non-notable file format, created this December. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be notable given that it was created this month. Redirect to EPM. --Itub (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EPM. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EPM: How notable can a format created this month be? There are no references demonstrating notability, and the edit history shows this to be a vanity page in that the page was created by the creator of the format. In addition, the Internet Media Type asserted for this format is not registered at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ leading to doubts about the accuracy of the contents of this document at the most basic level. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:55, 28 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 Centralia,_Pennsylvania#Mine_fire. where the content is already discussed. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to add more. If he's "soley responsible" for why Centralia is notable, then it's all the more reason for him to be merged -- since census designated places will be kept. It's a case of BLP1E that doesn't require being kept to discuss a merge elsewhere when there's consensus here (with the first keep becoming a merge) to merge it. StarM 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Domboski[edit]

Person is notable for only one event and per WP:1E this is insufficient to warrant an entire article. Nouse4aname (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is solely responsible for why Centralia, PA is notable. He is not responsible for only one event (falling into sinkhole), as WP:1E states, but was the springboard and catalyst for everything surrounding Centralia and the media attention given to such. If the references in his article are read, it clearly identifies Domboski for his initial incident and subsequent media attention garnered after the prior attention. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That makes no sense. This person is only referred to in the context of falling into a hole in Centralia. This is one event, and can be covered in the main Centralia article. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting to merge it? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Put info back into Centralia, PA main article if Domboski fails to meet notability requirements. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seconded, as per WP:BLP1E, individual is only associated with a single event, and therefore fails notability requirement. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is this being merged or what? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merging should be discussed elsewhere. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:00, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frarority[edit]

An unnotable WP:NEOLOGISM. It "has not established widespread use in established media to describe coeducational fraternal and cooperative living groups and organizations" Tavix (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable WP:NEO due to lack of significant worldwide usage as a term as well as zero gNews hits. The 1st hit also comes up as an UrbanDictionary entry, which is never a good sign. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or~~ Merge I added the one source. There seemed to be other evidence of its usage. I think a merge somewhere would be reasonable, but a deletion would be unfortunate. It's not just a word, but also part of cultural change. Fraternities are historic institutions that have been very controversial. How to, and whether to, integrate social instutions will continue to be an issue. This term reflects that and there's some substance and sourcing to be had to reflect that. Again, it's not STRONG, but I think it's worth including at least as part of a merger to Fraternity or somewhere else. It's possible that someone would look up this term and want to know what it's about. That's what an encyclopedia is all about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a web search and a google news search [21] indicates the term is fairly well established and has a significant cultural and historical meaning that goes beyond a dicdef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism and original research. The only reference provided is a college publication, which cannot be considered significant enough for inclusion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-"Frarority" is merely a colloquial term for a Co-ed professional or service fraternity and it is covered well in both of those articles.Joeycfc (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article actually provides reasoning for me claiming the word has not established widespread use in established media. That was an easy one. ^Law_shoot! 01:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a neologism. Malinaccier (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to found something like this when I was in college, but I was going to call it "saturnity." Nice, huh? This "frarority" is at best a neologism, and needs no article in WP. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable neologism VX!^~~~ 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable neologism. article itself seems to assert non-notability. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:05, 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.